• 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.

Trolley Problem and You.

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
To begin with I'd just like to say WTF is with the social significance or popularity of psychopathy or sociopathy? Seriously? I see psychopathy and sociopathy as wrongly romanticised and glorified, similar to vampires being revamped (pun intended) from what they were originally with Stoker's story and earlier legends to sparkling X-Men, its not a recent thing Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lector and a lot of other roles like it are not recent but I think there's definitely something going on.

No one really takes hystrionic, obsessive-compulsive (though there was that one movie), paranoic or other neurotic types or schizoid or psychotic types as examples to emulate or hope to conform to and they certainly dont look to autism, aspergers or learning disabled or learning difficulties types as a social norm.

Knowing what I do about social character from Erich Fromm I think it's pretty concerning, there's versions of the trolley question which do not involve sacrificing lives and I never hear them talked of, like questions of whether or not you could sacrifice social prospects to provide someone with life saving medicine that they can not afford, then further asking the question of whether or not what you can do has value or does nothing to effect the underlying structural inequalities which resulted in them not being able to afford life saving medicine in the first place. Those questions deal with empathy and sacrifice without involving loss of life, perhaps loss of life is more sacred and hence its use in the thought experiment but anyway. I even think that, properly understood, the trolly question is what ought to underpin A LOT of the questions which are fought over when it comes to minorities and social change, as opposed to strongly feelings about resisting oppression of one sort of another.

I'm not sure that the trolley question is a good test for anti-social behaviour, its pretty academic and remote, a lot of people do not often live their values these days, I'm happy to say that of myself too because I think there's a lot of structural, cultural and other reasons for that, the age of confusion and distraction are real things. As a result its easy to give answers which are remote from reality. There are a lot of other reasons too, age and stage of life, experience etc. etc. too many variables involved to conclude that its an indicator for being anti-social in choices.

That said I understand why that train of thought extists (pun again) because these scenarios can please people who lack empathy, its kind of like the jokes I've seen in pop culture, I think The Boys In The Hall did a great version of it, about someone starting out saying that there was nothing in life like clean sheets, then escalating up to saying there was nothing like "killing a man in self-defence" and the love of the idea of "justifiable homicide" or harsh natural consequences for unpopular types. It could be an opportunity to rationalise awful behaviour and valorise it. Taxi Driver was a movie about that too, there was nothing about that guy who made him a hero, he had some sort of a problem understanding others but his actions were taken up by the media while he was in hospital in their aftermath and they made him a hero.

I'm not sure that there are anti-social types looking for opportunities to channel those motives in socially acceptable ways, I think there is such a thing as authoritarian types and they do do that, but I think anti-social types, true types, the same as true psychopaths, are less likely to be able to exhibit enough control of themselves to get to that point. Its why I think that those criminals who do go undetected, who maybe do carve out a niche as cops, informers or whatever, are a mix of narcissism or something else.
 

CitizenErased

Clean Slate
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
552
Wouldn't pull the lever, wouldn't push the man. In a case scenario in which there are more people with me, if no one pulls the lever or pushes the man, why should I and how does that make me "worse" than others? If I'm the only person available to do those things, in real life, I'd simply walk away. I'd probably be curious about what happened to the bodies, because being run over by a train is pretty much one in a lifetime chance, though I'd probably be grossed out by it so wouldn't dare to look.

It reminds me of a chat I had with a friend over that movie I, Robot, because the robot "decides" to save an adult instead of a child (my friend agreed with the robot, I was too busy thinking drowning is my least favourite way to die) and why "years to live" should outweight "experience". It's not like the adult is too old (hence useless for society), and it's going to die soon anyway (which reminds me of Bill Hicks proposing to use terminal patients for movie stunts to add excitement).

I think sociopathy/psychopathy comes in the pleasure of knowing the train is going to kill someone and be excited about it.

As I see it, people are going to feel guilty both ways, either by letting 5 people get killed, or by actively deciding to murder one person. I choose the easiest, which is walking away, I probably have other things to do.
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Let's spruce it up a bit and make it more interesting. Bear with me as I bend space & time.

On the trolley you have Hitler, Ghandi, Stalin, Einstein, and a young baby (still ripe for socializing either which way and hasn't had time to let its personality shine through yet). On the tracks you have your average Jane/Joe. No one famous but not any less valuable, right?

Would you pull the switch and kill the average person to save these great minds--but also these terrible people? Or would you kill the villains and brilliant minds alike to save the average person?

It's all in the spirit of the exercise. No runarounds.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This is just one perspective of many through which I see this. But the one that comes most readily is this:

You're further removed from the death when you flip a switch, versus actively pushing a guy to his death. It's just easier.

Additionally, in the first case, the one guy is part of the system (he's on the track); in the second, you're the one thrusting him into it.

I could see myself doing the former and not the latter.

It's also easier to be okay with the end result, from a psychological standpoint, if you know what the situation is but you can't see the train and tracks yourself. That is, if you're behind a wall or in a control room or something with the switch in front of you.
 

Flâneuse

don't ask me
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
947
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
A while back I read an article that pointed out that in the second scenario, the man being pushed to his death to block the train is being used as a means to an end, while the single person on one side of the forked track in the first scenario is not. In the first scenario, the person's death seems like an unavoidable consequence of saving five lives, so the utilitarian principle of sacrificing a smaller number of lives for a greater number holds for most people. In the second, however, you're using someone as a tool by actively pushing them in front of the others, so then you're getting into "ends justify the means" territory. It seems like for most people, the principle of not using people as tools takes precedence over the utilitarian principle of saving as many lives as possible. (Or maybe most people don't consider this at all, even subconsciously, and the reason why they flip the switch but not push the man is simply because it's easy to flip the switch but difficult and much more violent to actually push someone off a bridge.)

I would definitely flip the switch, but I probably wouldn't push the man. To be honest, my latter choice is as much about selfish reasons (I would be too hesitant and afraid to directly murder somebody using physical force) as it is about my principles. However, I'm arguing with myself about it -- there is a coldly utilitarian part of me that says "fuck principles, fuck the means, look at the outcome...it's five lives or one" but then I also consider just how ugly and brutal the means are and I consider similar thought experiments that better demonstrate how problematic it is to use a previously uninvolved person as a tool (like the one where five people are guaranteed to die if they don't get an organ transplant ASAP (each needs a different organ), there are no donor organs available, and the only way to get them soon enough is to murder a healthy person and harvest their organs). The five dying people didn't deserve to be screwed over by fate, but it's not justifiable to actively choose to screw over some poor random soul to save them.

Another reason why I'm against the "ends justify the means" rationale is that the means aren't guaranteed to actually work in most real-life situations. (Torture is the first thing to comes to mind regarding this.) Real situations are far more complicated than thought experiment situations - in real life you usually can't predict with complete certainty how a situation will unfold and what the consequences of an action will be, so it's possible that harming someone for the greater good won't actually end up helping anyway and/or wasn't necessary in the first place.

To actually answer the OP's question, I don't think these thought experiments would make a reliable test for sociopathy/antisocial traits like lack of empathy. Sometimes how a person answers a question about a hypothetical moral dilemma has nothing to do with how they would react to a similar real-life situation. It's possible they could remain very emotionally detached from the hypothetical problem and have no problem with coldly sacrificing a hypothetical person for a utilitarian purpose, but wouldn't be able to do the same in real-life or would have serious emotional struggles with it.
 
Last edited:

mystik_INFJ

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
174
I wouldn't do one or the other in any case. This is a false "morality" problem. There is no good choice. The 5 people can be terrorists. If you flip the switch to kill one true patriot at the expense of 5 terrorists, that means that... TERRORISTS WIN! :D

The second one is just the same. I won't sacrifice one for the sake of others. It makes me a murderer. It's unfair to punish someone for a chain of events that is not in the control of the person that's used as some kind of sacrifice for arbitrary morals. I would refuse to make any changes to something if it isn't affecting me directly or if I'm not directly implicated in this (aka it is not my fault).

I won't play god. I just want to play hero. A hero does not kill someone. God can get away with it. If I want to play god I can load up Spore or some shit and satisfy any vanity cravings like that.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
What if one track has a bomb that would destroy the entire planet if the train collides with it?
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Definitely would not push someone over because that'd be murder. Assuming I'm in charge, I'd do it by the book and if my training did not address this scenario, I wouldn't press the lever. Who am I to say that 1 life is less precious than 5 lives? It all depends on the person. Now, if I knew who the people were, that'd be different. I'd save the libertarians first.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What if one track has a bomb that would destroy the entire planet if the train collides with it?
Well, if you went with that option, you'd be preventing anyone from ever having to face this ethical dilemma ever again..
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I would act on instinct in those scenarios.


But the real question for me is who designed such system/situation ? That is what would really interest me.
 

Luke O

Super Ape
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
1,729
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
954
Surely the answer is turn around and run away?

If you stay and let the train kill the five people, you're responsible for five deaths. If you divert the train, you're still responsible for killing someone. Back away and nobody can tie you to the scene of the crime, you didn't get yourself involved. Neither of the families of the five or the one can take action against you because it wasn't your decision to make.

Similar situation for the guy on the bridge, but the fundamental difference is that prior to shoving him off it, the guy's life was not threatened by a moving train.

Besides, what if the five men on the track were child molesters and the guy on the bridge was the vigilante who caught them all. You don't know the motive for why they were tied to the track in the first place or whether you were where you were at that point in time. It may be all some guy's game to see how you react, you never know. And now you've got blood on your hands
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
To me, there is no real solution to this problem - the life one person is not worth less than the life of five others - so whatever you do, you're responsible for someone's death.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
393
MBTI Type
ISIS
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'll be completely honest, I'd kill the one. It would be nice to assume that we have a choice between good and evil, but a lot of times there is just a choice between lesser and greater evils or lesser and greater goods. The only time I would make an exception is if the one person who I was going to kill was vital for the greater good of humanity, or more vital than the other five.

Lets assume that the coventry story is true, I would have made the same decision as Churchill.

Also, the second example is bullshit, I would not push the man, because it simply would not be enough stop the train.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You kill one person directly or five people indirectly. Those who say they wouldn't pull it because it would be murderer aren't guilt-free. Neither scenario is bloodless. You're no more free from guilt from refusing to flick the switch than a bystander who watches a kid get bullied and does nothing.

Pull it. Save the five.

Edit: Actually read the whole OP and noticed you included the "fat man" scenario too. I used to say no, that I wouldn't push him, but after looking at that one thing [MENTION=23915]Hawthorne[/MENTION] linked me to about moral consistency, I change my mind. It's no different than the first scenario, except that it's slightly more "personal" in that you're actually pushing him, not simply pulling a switch.

I'll push him.

But if he has so much mass that he can block the people would you fail to move him and then man would in turn throw you off the side in retaliation. killing six people in all. Atleast your death keeps you from feeling like a failure and couldn't save 5 people.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I've got to say that this dilemma is a little bit like the whole glass half empty vs glass half full idea, that never seemed as important a question as what was in the glass, when it comes to trolley problems in the main I think everyone would answer the same, try and minimise casualties, me, I'm going to be asking who is it that's on the line, if that one person is a friend of mine and the five others are strangers, my friend is living to see another day, if I have some way of determining worth or worthiness then I'm going to save the worthy, so if the one person is a John Doe but the five are a bunch of nazis or women hating conspiracy nuts sure they're lack of luck with the ladies is a sign of a raging totalitarian misandry gynocracy then they're getting run over. In fact I'd be in the train's cabin and leaning out the window doing choo-choo motions and waving.

Laughing all the way.
 

lexiphanic

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
56
MBTI Type
intp
I'd just walk away from that type of dilemma. I wasn't put on Earth to decide people's fates or lives.
 

lexiphanic

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
56
MBTI Type
intp
However, in this scenario, the loop de loop would totally be worth it.

Trolley problem.jpg
 

Abjection

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
17
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In terms of death, Direct vs Indirect.

Most people find Indirect actions to be a more comfortable way in the long run.
Avoidance/escapism. Its not about morality anymore. Its about how/what they want to feel.

What are those people doing on the tracks in the first place?
 
Top