• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Trolley Moral Dilemma

G

Ginkgo

Guest
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?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read this only AFTER you have made your decision.



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.



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?
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
I would switch the tracks, the single person isn't tied up and he's got legs for a reason! :D
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
Never said he wouldn't! The choice is easy to me, save 5 helpless lives at the cost of 1 who at the very least could value his enough to stay off the tracks. I wouldn't feel responsible for his death, just as I don't feel responsible for circumstances I face in life that are not of my creation.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Never said he wouldn't! The choice is easy to me, save 5 helpless lives at the cost of 1 who at the very least could value his enough to stay off the tracks. I wouldn't feel responsible for his death, just as I don't feel responsible for circumstances I face in life that are not of my creation.

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?
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
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?

I can't, and I can't know either of these things right? Have to make the best decision based on what I know and accept the consequences, because hesitation has its own set of consequences and sometimes they are far worse.
 
P

Phantonym

Guest
In the first scenario, I'd kill that one person. The second scenario...ooh...tough one. I can't see myself really pushing that person over but I know I'd feel guilty either way. Simply walking away would be just as bad. This is kind of weird because in the first scenario 1<5, but in the second it feels like 1=5. Maybe it's about the body contact when I'd actually have to touch the person to push them over while in the first I'd still be driving the trolley but it sort of acts as a buffer between me and the person.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
In the first scenario, I'd kill that one person. The second scenario...ooh...tough one. I can't see myself really pushing that person over but I know I'd feel guilty either way. Simply walking away would be just as bad. This is kind of weird because in the first scenario 1<5, but in the second it feels like 1=5. Maybe it's about the body contact when I'd actually have to touch the person to push them over while in the first I'd still be driving the trolley but it sort of acts as a buffer between me and the person.

Does not making the decision to actively kill someone detract from your accountability as a murderer?
 
P

Phantonym

Guest
Does not making the decision to actively kill someone detract from your accountability as a murderer?
No, it doesn't. Indecision would still kill the others. Either way, people will die. And that's why they call it the dilemma.
 

nomadic

mountain surfing
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,709
MBTI Type
enfp
Does not making the decision to actively kill someone detract from your accountability as a murderer?

somewhat.

it does remove you one degree from the actual death.

Me, i'd just try to put on the emergency brakes. I think all trains have emergency brakes.

:D
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As much as I'd hate to do it, I would let them all die. To save them would be to cause, rather than allow a death. For that I would suffer the most guilt, and I might even end up in jail. My choice would also prevent a tremendous burden on the prisoners; were they to survive, they would hold themselves partly responsible for the one person's death.

EDIT: That's also how I would respond to the second situation. There's no difference between them for me; the wording changes nothing.
 

Shimmy

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,867
MBTI Type
SEXY
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.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
So how exactly are you going to explain pushing someone in front of a trolley? "well, seriously, they looked wide enough to stop it!!! I didn't murder them" Second scenario is just dumb.

How often is one person on the track, let alone 6? I would send out the bat signal or go into hovercraft mode.

I think a more interesting question is why do people like questions like this? Why do people feel it is a "challenge to their morals" to make up questions that are so far fetched and deliberate on them?

Incidentally I think there is a thread on this exact question already. Also, I think they threw in "if someone is a business man" in a bizarre manner.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I would switch the track mechanism only half way and then derail the trolley to die as a hero of Engineering, who knew in difficult times what difficult sacrifices there have to be made :D
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
In the first scenario, I'd kill the one person.

In the second scenario, I'd try to help as many of the five as possible without killing anyone else.

In the first scenario, someone is going to die no matter what due to someone else's actions. In the second scenario five people are bound against their will, and then there's a another guy minding his own business. I think the difference is that in the first one, you're forced to kill someone, whereas in the second one, you're an outside observer, you don't have to participate one way or another, but you have the choice of becoming a murderer in order to be a savior.

It really is a moral dilemma, but I guess it just comes down to whether a person thinks the ends justify the means.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Maybe it's the wording, maybe I'm dumb, but I don't understand the second scenario.


And Elaur...much like math or programming, ethics also require some training from time to time, lest we become rusty. It's the reasoning that is important. Why we do the things we do. Going with the flow and not having a clear idea about what is morally "more correct" to do in a certain situation, is something that troubles me a whole lot, personally.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
I don't think these hypothetical situations tell anyone anything about their morals or influence their choices.

I've never taken an ethics course, maybe I've missed them being used in an appropriate fashion. I doubt it, though.
 

Atomic Fiend

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
7,275
I would change the tracks and attempt to make a mad dash to the last person to try to untie him, then even though I'd probably fail, you couldn't fault me for trying to get the guy out.

Chase two birds catch two birds.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
I don't think these hypothetical situations tell anyone anything about their morals or influence their choices.

Asking what you value more 5 lives VS 1 live...is it not a moral question?

And 5 prisoners VS 1 angel?




Regardless of how well this particular dilemma was presented to us, are you saying the extra data doesn't influence people's choices?
 
Top