The Trolley Moral Dilemma

[Moiety]

What extra data are you talking about?

Quantity and quality. How many people, and what kind of people.

 

[Lateralus]

But who is to value 1 life over 5 lives? Human life is intangible, and thus immeasurable.

I mean, let's say - hypothetically speaking - that the single person was a complete angel who would have gone on to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and the 5 people were actually serial killers. At that point, how can you measure the quality of a life over the quantity?

You're looking at this the wrong way. You have to look out for your own interests. Which scenario is least likely to get you in trouble? That's the one you choose.

 

[Lateralus]

Riiiiight. I'm gonna go into INTP mode here. In the first scenario I would switch tracks, unless I have some sort of logical reason to do otherwise at the moment. In the second scenario I would most likely not realize the fat person could stop the trolley simply because fat people usually can't stop trolleys. Even if this person could effectively stop the trolley, the thought wouldn't occur to me because due to past experiences and reasoning it would be very unlikely that this person could do it.

What if you pushed the fat person and that didn't stop the trolley? I think the certainty of the outcome has a major effect on peoples' feelings on this.

 

[Oaky]

For the first one I'd kill the 5 and save the 1.

For the second one I wouldn't push the fat person for the possibility that the fat person would realise he could do it himself to save these people.

 

[Athenian200]

Scenario 1: You are a trolley conductor. As your trolley rounds a quick corner you see the unthinkable, 5 people have been tied on the tracks and you now find the breaks have been cut. However, you see that you can switch tracks... only to kill one person who otherwise would have been unharmed, but is also tied down. What do you do?

I wouldn't like that decision. Is this assuming they're all strangers? Well, I hate to say it, but if the one person was someone I cared about... I'd leave the train on course and claim I was shocked and had no time to react. Otherwise, I'd switch tracks.

Scenario 2: You are a trolley conductor... again... who is now walking across a low lying bridge on which trolley tracks are running underneath. There are 5 people tied to the tracks as a trolley moves to end them! But wait, you see a particularly *wide* individual on the bridge.... one who could easily stop the trolley. Do you push that person over, stopping the trolley, or walk away saying the situation isn't your responsibility?

I'd definitely want to save the 5 people, but I'd be worried about being branded as prejudiced against fat people if I did that. But I would push the fat person over... although I'd be afraid of the impending lawsuit. >.<

 

[Feops]

The first scenario seems to hinge on an assumption that in letting the 5 people die, the conductor is not responsible.

However I disagree with this logic. Choosing not to act is also a choice. The decision is not "do I let 5 people die or do I murder 1?", the choice is "as a conductor do I like the train kill 5 people or 1?".


The second scenario is less clear because the conductor is not solely responsible for the outcome. The large man also has a choice. Granted the end result is still the death of 1 versus the death of 5, and the conductor can apparantly force the option, but he is then forcing a sacrifice that could have otherwise been freely made.

 

[sunshinebrighter]

Did you "save" those five people? or did you kill one? the wording is incredibly important as you will soon see in the 100% identical Scenario 2.

I saved five and killed one. I'm going to word it how it is. Turning a blind eye to either the positive or the negative results of my actions is not healthy.

Scenario 2: You are a trolley conductor... again... who is now walking across a low lying bridge on which trolley tracks are running underneath. There are 5 people tied to the tracks as a trolley moves to end them! But wait, you see a particularly *wide* individual on the bridge.... one who could easily stop the trolley. Do you push that person over, stopping the trolley, or walk away saying the situation isn't your responsibility?

I would not push the fatso because that would be killing a person with intent. The police can arrest me and put me in jail for that. There was no choice of not killing in Scenario 1.

 

[BlackCat]

Kill the one person in the first situation.

Push over the fat person in second situation.

That's the best way to preserve life.

That is, assuming that there are no real world consequences. In reality, if you pushed someone, you would get prosecuted for doing so. In reality I would walk away from the second situation, and report it.

 

[Litvyak]

In the 1st case, I'll trust my instincts and save 5 people with hitting one.
Rationalization: in your example, there's a higher chance that ONE person is actually a serial killer than that FIVE people are all serial killers. The consequence might be surprising, but you still made the right decision, because the "you've just hit an angel for five serial killers" is the least likely scenario, and you don't know the circumstances.

That said, there's no room for pondering in this case, you have to make a quick decision. 5 people or one miserable fool who happened to be in the wrong time at the wrong place. If you do everyting to prevent the catastrophe, nobody can blame you, including yourself.

The 2nd case (where I'm only a passive observer) is practically impossible, since we're talking about seconds here. I wouldn't have time to consider if that particular individual is *wide* enough to stop the trolley, I'd be catatonic just like everybody else - thus I can't be blamed.

There IS a psychological difference between being in the center of happenings and feeling responsible, while "pushing a button" will clearly save 5 people - and being an observer who couldn't push a stranger in front of a trolley even IF he had time to measure the situation. These human conditions can't be helped, and I wouldn't believe anybody if they held me responsible in either case.

 

[Oaky]

In the 1st case, I'll trust my instincts and save 5 people with hitting one.
Rationalization: in your example, there's a higher chance that ONE person is actually a serial killer than that FIVE people are all serial killers. The consequence might be surprising, but you still made the right decision, because the "you've just hit an angel for five serial killers" is the least likely scenario, and you don't know the circumstances.

I disagree. Knowing the serial killer he would hide himself in the 5 to avoid you killing him and thus the one person you killed would just be an innocent victim.
Kill the five and avoid more deaths in the future.

 

[sunshinebrighter]

I disagree. Knowing the serial killer he would hide himself in the 5 to avoid you killing him and thus the one person you killed would just be an innocent victim.
Kill the five and avoid more deaths in the future.

So a serial killer would randomly tie himself up on a train track along with 4 people? The killer had a choice to be in danger?

 

[Litvyak]

Why would a serial killer tie himself in the first place? I'm only a driver, he/she could easily escape. He/she just happens to be one of those endangered people.

 

[Oaky]

So a serial killer would random tie himself up on a train track along with 4 people?

Assuming that if there was a chance that a serial killer was tied on the tracks it would be with the five. Unless of course someone else tied the serial killer. I assumed the serial killer made the whole situation and that he was one on the tracks.

 

[Oaky]

@Litvyak: you said there was a higher likely chance that the serial killer was the 'one' person.

 

[Oaky]

Oh wait.... no forget it. I also assumed the one guy was tied up...

 

[Litvyak]

Assuming that if there was a chance that a serial killer was tied on the tracks it would be with the five.

This does not correspond with my comment. There are six people, they are just as likely to be harmless bunnies as serial killers. IF one of them is a serial killer however, there's a bigger chance that he/she is in the group of 5 than being the lone individual.

 

[Oaky]

^ Then I misunderstood your comment. Apologies. I was contemplating on why there are five people on the tracks in the first place. Perhaps it would have been better to let them get killed depending on the situation.

 

[Blank]

The content of the peoples' character isn't what's being questioned. We just have to assume they're all innocent bystanders or murderers for this to be an ethical dilemma.

 

[Unique]

Either scenario is not my responsibility, people die all the time it's not my place to choose who lives and who dies

I'd let things play out exactly how they are aka doing nothing

 

[Kalach]

Maybe it's just the Te coming out, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would try to avoid hitting 5 people, whether it sacrificed 1 or not.

But it would presumably become an actual moral dilemma if you recognised the sixth person.

Squish five unknowns or plow down your neighbour?

Or perhaps it's an ex-lover? Maybe just a guy you had one date with? A teacher from high school? Your son? Who do you choose? Which "one" is worth more than "the trolley track five"?




Actually, maybe the real moral issue lies in your choice having to be made in a split second. Can you be counted as not responsible if the decision was made without reflection? And presumably depended on your reaction speed at least as much as your instinct for humanity. If you fail to react fast enough, did you actually kill them, or did they die by accident?