• 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.

Having to choose between killing one or five people: am I missing something?

StonedPhilosopher

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
280
MBTI Type
IDFC
Today was my first day of Senior year, and in "Ethics in the Modern World" there was a question on the board--mentioned in the thread title--that was something along these lines:

There's a runaway train, and further down the tracks there are five people tied up who can't free themselves. You can pull a lever which will make the train take an alternate path, but there is someone on the alternate path. Do you pull the lever or not?

This is what I jotted down in my notebook:

Pull the lever; without further info, one death is objectively less tragic than five deaths.

The teacher tallied up everyone's answers and found that >80% of the ~20 kids made the same choice. We didn't have any discussion on what each choice would entail besides what was on the board (each class on the first day is 15 minutes long to just sort of get acquainted with it, so it was kind of justified).

Anyway, why would anyone choose the other option? Because by pulling the lever, you'd be sort of committing murder by willingly killing someone who would've originally lived? But if you didn't pull the lever, you'd be willingly killing five people by not intervening.

Thoughts?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This is an old question, not a new one.

The deal is that when you are working on a word problem, of course it's easy to say you would actively pull a level to kill one person to save five.

But look at the problem: You actually have to pull the damn lever. This is not quite the same as "killing five people" willingly, because you don't have to pull any lever for the five to die. IRL, when you're standing there with your hand on the lever, with a few seconds to act, and you're looking at the people you will kill, it wouldn't be a surprise to see some people freeze because they just can't decide -- because now the problem has an emotional component, and you have to actively kill one person versus passively letting five die. You are directly involved if you touch that lever; otherwise you're just a passive observer.

I usually see additional questions being asked. Like, what if the one person is someone you know? (Especially bad would be a friend or relative.) So now you have to actively kill someone you care about to save five strangers, versus passively letting five strangers die to save a person you care about. And you have a few seconds to decide.

I think there are personalities that can manage to make this kind of decision efficiently and quantitatively and worry about picking up the pieces later. But there's a lot of people for whom this would be difficult, if they are empathizing with either group.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, let me start by saying that I think there is a right answer question to this question, and it is to pull the lever.

Now, why wouldn't someone pull the lever? In real life there's a pretty straightforward answer, which is that it's easier to do nothing than something, and it can be psychologically difficult to be proactive in a high stress situation. I honestly there's also more self-consciousness in this scenarios than people care to admit. Are people watching? Will it look like you did something wrong? I think this plays a big part in the bystander effect, too. The more people are around, the more you don't want to be some jackass who tries to intervene and screws it all up.

But, that of course is not the point of the question. The people who answered to not pull the lever were not in a high stress situation, they were comfortably entertaining a hypothetical scenario. So why? The answer always seems to rest in a person's concept of agency, will, and responsibility. Some people seem to think that they are somehow more responsible for killing the one person if they pull the lever than killing the five people if they don't pull the lever. There is a notion that because they have to do something rather than nothing, they have willed the death of the person who dies after the lever has been pulled, and that makes them more guilty than "letting" five people die by not pulling the lever. The trolley running its course and killing five people is the way things were already going to be, it's just the default. The one other person dying only results from your intervention into the scenario. So some people basically take an "act of god" view of the trolley killing five people and find it more acceptable.

Basically, human beings have very flawed ways of thinking by default. Weird heuristics come into play that sometimes mess up decision making in important scenarios. This is one of them. Because all of those ideas of will and being more responsible and stuff don't really make a lot of sense under scrutiny. For one thing, you could take Sartre's basic point that you cannot choose to not make a choice. That is a choice, too. With the hypothetical scenario framed as it is, if you didn't pull the lever, you chose to kill those five people, it really is on your hands. Anyway, I could go on about this for a long time, but you weren't asking me to explain what you already think to you, you were asking me to explain why anyone would pick the alternative.
 

burningranger

Ambience seeker
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
248
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As a Fi-er I stick with my lonesome homie and let the group die a horrible death. It's their fucking karma. I won't make it mine.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As a side note, you could just let them all die somehow so that you didn't feel like you were unfair to anyone. :smile:

---

hey, let's add a "bystander effect" element just for kicks.

Now in addition to the lever and two groups of people in threat of imminent death, throw in three people standing there at the lever. Will any of the three pull it? Or do they expect each other to pull it, until it's too late?
 

StonedPhilosopher

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
280
MBTI Type
IDFC
[just look above] [first reply]
[just look above]

why would anyone choose the other option? Because by pulling the lever, you'd be sort of committing murder by willingly killing someone who would've originally lived? But if you didn't pull the lever, you'd be willingly killing five people by not intervening.

Huh, so I guess my hunch was right, and I additionally already gave a good counter-argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Today was my first day of Senior year, and in "Ethics in the Modern World" there was a question on the board--mentioned in the thread title--that was something along these lines:



This is what I jotted down in my notebook:



The teacher tallied up everyone's answers and found that >80% of the ~20 kids made the same choice. We didn't have any discussion on what each choice would entail besides what was on the board (each class on the first day is 15 minutes long to just sort of get acquainted with it, so it was kind of justified).

Anyway, why would anyone choose the other option? Because by pulling the lever, you'd be sort of committing murder by willingly killing someone who would've originally lived? But if you didn't pull the lever, you'd be willingly killing five people by not intervening.

Thoughts?

because...If you do nothing it cant be your fault...right...:doh:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Today was my first day of Senior year, and in "Ethics in the Modern World" there was a question on the board--mentioned in the thread title--that was something along these lines:



This is what I jotted down in my notebook:



The teacher tallied up everyone's answers and found that >80% of the ~20 kids made the same choice. We didn't have any discussion on what each choice would entail besides what was on the board (each class on the first day is 15 minutes long to just sort of get acquainted with it, so it was kind of justified).

Anyway, why would anyone choose the other option? Because by pulling the lever, you'd be sort of committing murder by willingly killing someone who would've originally lived? But if you didn't pull the lever, you'd be willingly killing five people by not intervening.

Thoughts?

It might seem like a simple dilemma but peoples thinking runs contrary to that ALL THE TIME and especially when you introduce some politically correct or liberal criteria into it, like the five guys are rich bankers while the one guy is a ethnic minority pre-op transgendered homosexual.

It might sound ridiculous and bigotted (waiting for all the posters on this forum to leap on that one as evidence that Lark has been a hater all this time) but change the dilemma a little.

You got a social institution, its works for the majority of human beings, for the majority of human history, ie the five people on the track, but there is a group who feel its not working for them, ie the one person on the track, they're being socially excluded unless that is the social institution can be transformed, make it inclusive, HOWEVER, in the process you are dumping what it meant former, dumping it as it existed formerly, ie the train coming down the track.

So what you got with marriage is running the train over the five people. Every. Time.

And before anyone does the typical saying that the marriage question is done and why does Lark always mention it, it does not stop there, if you honestly believe that social institutions are just whimsy, fables agreed upon, as easily changed without consequences as they are recognised by sociologists then why wouldnt you think you could tear up any institution.

Tradition, that's institutions which have emerged spontaneously, an existence matching a human essence, has served mankind, easily, as well as innovation has and innovation should be handled carefully, like applying the trolly problem to the issue, for those that any innovation is aimed at assisting as much as anyone else or any abstract principle of goodness, rightness etc. The idea isnt to be in favour of change for change's sake, that's a lot of bullshit and what's lead to the discreditable and sobering history of some of the greater reform, revolution, ie change, orientated movements in human history.

There's other examples, the train running over the one versus the five is an analogy after all, john rawl's theory of justice, comparing the society in which inequality results in the least well off being better off than those in the egalitarian alternative, for instance, the treatment of disability is a very good one too, if some people need aids to walk I would believe its just to provide them with aids, it wouldnt be right to give the rest of the population injuries in the name of social inclusiveness rendering everyone similarly impaired, ie the same.

(you may all commence the routine stupidity of accusing me of being a bigot and hater now if you like)
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
OP: I think your answer glosses over the difference between active and passive, and some people will get hung up on that.

After all, that's what you asked, right? Why some people would get hung up?


(you may all commence the routine stupidity of accusing me of being a bigot and hater now if you like)

Since you're going to dredge this into your pet issue:
Everyone can get married. No one has to die.
Marriage for everyone is a win-win.
Happy ending for the train scenario.

What's your status as a bigot/hater have anything to do with this thread anyway?
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Rich people and homosexuals just had to be injected into the conversation.
 

burningranger

Ambience seeker
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
248
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As a side note, you could just let them all die somehow so that you didn't feel like you were unfair to anyone. :smile:

Haha! I was being kind of funny...but the question is a real silly one in the end. There's like a zillion different perspectives you can take. Like if it's to measure the value of a life vs that of five lives.....let's just say that if the one guy was Martin Luther King or Buddha and the other 5 were regular human losers....it would serve the greater whole to save the one guy. All things being equal, I could stil look at the glass half empty and say humanity are a cancer upon this Earth anyway and 4 less of them alive with be a gift to the world.

It's one of those silly questions...if you are going to try and acess something about a person...just ask a fucking direct question...not a stupid scenario that doesn't account for all the different worldviews a person can have.


There's a big factor in these scenarios though, in real life. Much of what we do when it comes to right or wrong...is out of fear of what others might think of us, even when alone. So I would figure the fight or flight response that would kick in when a person would be in such a situation, for most people would be mostly pressured by how THE REST OF THE WORLD would view their choice...not so much what their internal barometer feels is right or wrong.

In actuality though...these are instances that, in my worldview, trigger...universal intellgence within the individual.....and would never come to be (these situations i mean, in real life) if not for a definete purposeful reason for all of those involved.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No obviously there is a right answer and no one has ever thought of this:

Pull the lever half way and hold it. The train will go outside of the tracks and the traction will slow it down and everybody who's riding it will be stuck.

No one will die.

Use your mind. Thank you! Have a nice day.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
As a side note, you could just let them all die somehow so that you didn't feel like you were unfair to anyone. :smile:

---

hey, let's add a "bystander effect" element just for kicks.

Now in addition to the lever and two groups of people in threat of imminent death, throw in three people standing there at the lever. Will any of the three pull it? Or do they expect each other to pull it, until it's too late?

Oh I think that in that scenario its fair to say that you would attempt to save the one person but choose to put them in jeopardy rather than the five, like Arnie in Commando, he choose not to assist the coup, ie the five people, jeopardising his hostage daughter, ie the one person, but he went and kicked ass, ie the train, and saved the one person.

Although I can think of bystander scenarios in which refusing to intervene IS warranted, if a vital lesson is not being learned, often lessons are repeated until they are learned and the intervening bystander to make themselves feel better are doing another a disservice by trapping them in a repetition cycle, a debilitating thing, there are mitigating factors to that, learning does not necessarily follow from incidents, at least not the same or often the best learning but anyway.

I complicated that all a bit but the point was dont be a co-dependent enabler.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Huh, so I guess my hunch was right, and I additionally already gave a good counter-argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, I thought you wanted to understand. Even if someone is wrong about something you can still understand why they came to the conclusion they did.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
On a side note: this problem was introduced by Sartre. Sartre'a motive was to get to thinking about how everyone is responsible for their own morality and there is a correct way for everyone but not a correct way objectively for everyone.

I took several philosophy classes in college and read several books. So this is quite elementary among our pretentious fuckwit Circle.

If it was easy to decide, I just don't think you're putting too much thought in the question. Overthinkers this is the time to overthink.
 

StonedPhilosopher

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
280
MBTI Type
IDFC
It might seem like a simple dilemma but peoples thinking runs contrary to that ALL THE TIME and especially when you introduce some politically correct or liberal criteria into it, like the five guys are rich bankers while the one guy is a ethnic minority pre-op transgendered homosexual.

It might sound ridiculous and bigotted (waiting for all the posters on this forum to leap on that one as evidence that Lark has been a hater all this time) but change the dilemma a little.

You got a social institution, its works for the majority of human beings, for the majority of human history, ie the five people on the track, but there is a group who feel its not working for them, ie the one person on the track, they're being socially excluded unless that is the social institution can be transformed, make it inclusive, HOWEVER, in the process you are dumping what it meant former, dumping it as it existed formerly, ie the train coming down the track.

So what you got with marriage is running the train over the five people. Every. Time.

And before anyone does the typical saying that the marriage question is done and why does Lark always mention it, it does not stop there, if you honestly believe that social institutions are just whimsy, fables agreed upon, as easily changed without consequences as they are recognised by sociologists then why wouldnt you think you could tear up any institution.

Tradition, that's institutions which have emerged spontaneously, an existence matching a human essence, has served mankind, easily, as well as innovation has and innovation should be handled carefully, like applying the trolly problem to the issue, for those that any innovation is aimed at assisting as much as anyone else or any abstract principle of goodness, rightness etc. The idea isnt to be in favour of change for change's sake, that's a lot of bullshit and what's lead to the discreditable and sobering history of some of the greater reform, revolution, ie change, orientated movements in human history.

There's other examples, the train running over the one versus the five is an analogy after all, john rawl's theory of justice, comparing the society in which inequality results in the least well off being better off than those in the egalitarian alternative, for instance, the treatment of disability is a very good one too, if some people need aids to walk I would believe its just to provide them with aids, it wouldnt be right to give the rest of the population injuries in the name of social inclusiveness rendering everyone similarly impaired, ie the same.

(you may all commence the routine stupidity of accusing me of being a bigot and hater now if you like)

First off, as I wrote in my notebook, I clarified that my reasoning only applies to cases where the people are ambiguous; if I knew any details about the people, I wouldn't simply go with "1 death vs. 5" reasoning. Giving any info about the people would completely change the question; it's not what I'm asking.

And while I understand the rest of what you're saying regarding metaphors and societal sacrifices (though some of it has flawed reasoning IMO), I want to ask you another question: how is any of that relevant to the question at hand? It's an ethics class, not a philosophy class.
 

burningranger

Ambience seeker
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
248
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
On a side note: this problem was introduced by Sartre. Sartre'a motive was to get to thinking about how everyone is responsible for their own morality and there is a correct way for everyone but not a correct way objectively for everyone.

I took several philosophy classes in college and read several books. So this is quite elementary among our pretentious fuckwit Circle.

If it was easy to decide, I just don't think you're putting too much thought in the question. Overthinkers this is the time to overthink.

I see. Makes more sense, if that was the intent. Stilll....philosophy *shivers* :sick:
 

Sacrophagus

Mastermind Fieldmarshal
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,702
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
854
The classic Sacrificing the few for the majority.

Not doing anything: 5 people die accidentally.
Pulling the lever : 1 person is murdered.

Morally, being a passive observer never lead to optimal outcomes from an utilitarian point of view. I pondered this question in the past when a person was being robbed, and everyone around didn't raise a finger. Most of them want to help, but they don't for they are submerged by data and feelings they can't deal with immediately. This is particularly known as the bystander effect, Totenkindly is refering to.

These are extreme situations where most people can't handle the situation emotionally (screaming, overwhelmed, afraid to help and meet certain death...etc), or intellectually ( gathering data, calculating risks, the probability to turn the situation upside down... etc).

IRL repercussions aside, with adherence to my moral principles, in a survival environment, I'd certainly pull the lever. The group has better odds of survival than a single individual.


A friend of mine had another answer:
Earth is overcrowded. Kill the maximum you can while you can.


We should be thankful the problem doesn't mention going to jail.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
OP: I think your answer glosses over the difference between active and passive, and some people will get hung up on that.

After all, that's what you asked, right? Why some people would get hung up?




Since you're going to dredge this into your pet issue:
Everyone can get married. No one has to die.
Marriage for everyone is a win-win.
Happy ending for the train scenario.

What's your status as a bigot/hater have anything to do with this thread anyway?

Heteronormative society for the win. That is all.

- - - Updated - - -

Rich people and homosexuals just had to be injected into the conversation.

Also Jaguar is a buttmunch.

Infraction was worth it ;)
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
First off, as I wrote in my notebook, I clarified that my reasoning only applies to cases where the people are ambiguous; if I knew any details about the people, I wouldn't simply go with "1 death vs. 5" reasoning. Giving any info about the people would completely change the question; it's not what I'm asking.

And while I understand the rest of what you're saying regarding metaphors and societal sacrifices (though some of it has flawed reasoning IMO), I want to ask you another question: how is any of that relevant to the question at hand? It's an ethics class, not a philosophy class.

Ethics or philosophy the trolly problem is a sharp piece of reasoning which I think deserves to be applied to the ill conceived normative struggles of the day.

Its not.

It would be better if it were understood and it were applied.
 
Top