Trolley Problem and You.

[Frosty]

So, probably lots of people have heard of this. I had before today so, yeah.


If not,


Heres both parts of what I want to include---


"Imagine you've got a train and it's hurtling down a track. In its path, five people are trapped on the line and cannot escape. Fortunately, you can flick a switch, which diverts the train down a fork in that track, away from those five people, but at a price. There is another person trapped down that fork and the train will kill them instead. Question: Should you flick the switch?
(...)
But now let me give you a variation. You've got a train speeding out of control down a track and it's gonna plow into five people on the line. But this time you are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above that track. The only way to save the people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death, but his considerable bulk will block the train, saving five lives."

But yeah. According to research, it has been found- that MOST people would choose to flick the switch in the first problem- but that MOST people WOULD NOT choose to push the man.

And it was found, that those people- in observation, who DID choose to push the man- were lacking any sort of revulsion that would be expected- and that was shown in the people who DIDNT choose to flip the switch.

I looked for a thread on this- found one on the trolley problem--- but not what it MEANS- not what the choice says about a person- if it says anything at all. So yeah.

But, and Im just curious more than anything- any validity? I dont want to say too much initially of my own thoughts... But IS, COULD, this be a reasonably accurate 'test' to identify those with antisocial traits? Or no?

Answer if you want, or dont if you dont want- my wording might have been a bit confusing. And yeah.

Article attached.

YOU CAN SKIP HERE IF WANTED

Am I A Psychopath? Lack Of Empathy and Other Traits Determine Whether You'll Save A Life

I know Im not a sociopath. Just gunna say that too so its not that Im like... Its not really about me of anything. Just curious, because... This was interesting

 

[Yama]

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.

 

[Hawthorne]

I can see arguments either way.

"Only a cold-blooded person would stand by in the face of disaster and not seek to minimize pain, loss, or suffering"

"Only an egocentric would assume themselves deserving to make the decision on who gets to live and who gets to die."

Really depends on the justification. I'm assuming any sociopath with a moderate amount of intelligence won't admit to choosing the most catastrophic option because all the extra death gets them excited. Otherwise, the range of justifications seems too broad to draw reliable conclusions.

Edit: And as you already know, I never push and never flip.

 

[Frosty]

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.

Exactly. Thats the main thing- In my opinion, you cannot claim to be morally consistant... If you are willing to flip a switch- if you are unwilling to make the exact same choice if it somehow requires more out of you to make it.

I dont know. It feels like if you arent willing to push the man, then your first choice to flip the switch could and perhaps should- be considsered invalid.

Anyways. Yeah, to what Hawthorne is saying- there are a shit ton of aspects- RELEVENT aspects... (Tons of irrelevent individual moral additions too- like whether or not these people are young or pretty or nice or deserving in some subjective way)

But yeah, I also find the 'How do you measure a life- how do you decide that you are justified to make the choice that one persons life is less important- that one person, in all that he is, has to die- HAS to involuntarily be the sacrifice.

Anyways. Yeah. Thats just some quick stuff from me- maybe more later? This, and stuff like this- has always been interesting.

And because, its got to be done--- Im speaking for Hawthorne as well, [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] needs to tear my heart to shreds here with her crushingness. Oh god Im not making much sense ahhh. Buf yeah, no- hi coriolis if you actually come. You dont have to post FYI but its the TROLLEY PROBLEM.

 

[Lexicon]

For the first part, as the operator - Assuming it were a freight train/non passenger - I'd do everything I could to derail or destroy the fucking train... somehow.

For the second where I'm not operating the train, I'd try to reach those five people & help dislodge them, asking the large guy to assist. I'd work until the last possible second, but, I imagine instinctual self-preservation would kick in, & I'd jump out of harm's way without even thinking about it, when the moment arrived. Beyond trying to assist, I can't say with certainty what would happen.

I realize the question is "supposed to be" either/or, but our choices in life are rarely just that.

 

[Tater]

 

[Yama]

It would be interesting to see if/how people's answers change if you add in extra detail like "The 5 passengers are all 90+ years old and the person tied on the tracks is a 5 year old kid."

 

[Hawthorne]

latent antisocial tendencies

 

[magpie]

I would not pull the switch. I would not push the man.

Edit: Here's my reasoning. I could either be a murderer who interferes with the natural order of things or a murderer who doesn't interfere. In both cases I'm a murderer. That five lives are worth more than one is a fallacy. A life doesn't equal a life. So who am I to decide who deserves to die and who deserves to be saved?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Exactly. Thats the main thing- In my opinion, you cannot claim to be morally consistant... If you are willing to flip a switch- if you are unwilling to make the exact same choice if it somehow requires more out of you to make it.

I dont know. It feels like if you arent willing to push the man, then your first choice to flip the switch could and perhaps should- be considsered invalid.

Anyways. Yeah, to what Hawthorne is saying- there are a shit ton of aspects- RELEVENT aspects... (Tons of irrelevent individual moral additions too- like whether or not these people are young or pretty or nice or deserving in some subjective way)

But yeah, I also find the 'How do you measure a life- how do you decide that you are justified to make the choice that one persons life is less important- that one person, in all that he is, has to die- HAS to involuntarily be the sacrifice.

Anyways. Yeah. Thats just some quick stuff from me- maybe more later? This, and stuff like this- has always been interesting.

And because, its got to be done--- Im speaking for Hawthorne as well, [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] needs to tear my heart to shreds here with her crushingness. Oh god Im not making much sense ahhh. Buf yeah, no- hi coriolis if you actually come. You dont have to post FYI but its the TROLLEY PROBLEM.

Moral consistency is a fallacy. We strive to live up to these high ideals and that is great. But those ideals, in testing conditions tell us who we really are. When comfort has eroded, character is hard to find. Self-preservation takes precedence.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

This debate stresses me out for some reason.

 

[Dreamer]

surprisingly (to myself) the first thought that jumped to mind when reading that first sentence, is whythe five people are stuck on the track in the first place? And since there are five stuck on the track, it is unlikely that one person got stuck for whatever reason then four others followed suit. I would guess they were all in a car and the car stopped on the tracks. At that point, why don't they leave the car? Second, I thought, ok, now why is there ANOTHER person stuck on the track down the other path? There must be a flaw in the track design or the railing, or lack thereof, to prevent people from entering the area. If this is a residential or highly trafficked area, then it's on the jurisdiction not to impose safer crossings/area of travel around the tracks.

And with the fat man, no, I would not push him. How would I be certain that his death would trip the train up? Has anyone ever seen a train moving at any speed fast enough to potentially kill someone on the tracks before they could react and leave? Nothing is going to stop that train except perhaps another train in the opposite direction. Let alone, a man of all things.

And as for morality, in my mind, when you start reducing problems such as this into a numbers game (killing fewer to save more) then you might as well give up on humanity, in my eyes. Unfortunate things will happen, people will die, but to be the one to make that decision for yourself, is a very slippery slope. There are still debates (depending where you stand) on whether the US atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right moves to make. It did cause Japan to exit the arena but at what cost?

...I'm feeling like a thinker tonight...I just got home and that environment is awash with Te. Must be why

 

[Yama]

when you start reducing problems such as this into a numbers game (killing fewer to save more) then you might as well give up on humanity, in my eyes.

While I agree that it's much more complicated than simply numbers, and who are we to judge the worth of an individual?, I don't think it's inhumane. Just utilitarianism.

That being said, none of us know what we would actually do in reality. We can say "I'd push him!" or "I wouldn't push him!" but until we're actually in that situation, none of us really know. Knowing myself, I'd most likely be completely confused and not even realize there is a way for me to affect anything that's happening in the first place. However, assuming that I do know, and that this is a dichotomy (as in, I HAVE to pull or not pull the lever, I can't run after the train or do some other thing that goes against the point of the exercise) then I would pull it.

Because in the end, no I can't judge the worth of a person. Nor would I even know who they are anyway. But I'm a utilitarian at heart. The greatest good for the greatest number. Of course it isn't ideal. But I wouldn't consider it inhumane. Terrible, yes. Unfortunate, yes. But not inhumane.

 

[Dreamer]

While I agree that it's much more complicated than simply numbers, and who are we to judge the worth of an individual?, I don't think it's inhumane. Just utilitarianism.

That being said, none of us know what we would actually do in reality. We can say "I'd push him!" or "I wouldn't push him!" but until we're actually in that situation, none of us really know. Knowing myself, I'd most likely be completely confused and not even realize there is a way for me to affect anything that's happening in the first place. However, assuming that I do know, and that this is a dichotomy (as in, I HAVE to pull or not pull the lever, I can't run after the train or do some other thing that goes against the point of the exercise) then I would pull it.

Because in the end, no I can't judge the worth of a person. Nor would I even know who they are anyway. But I'm a utilitarian at heart. The greatest good for the greatest number. Of course it isn't ideal. But I wouldn't consider it inhumane. Terrible, yes. Unfortunate, yes. But not inhumane.

I will just get my bias out there right now, but "utilitarian" and human life just do not go together at all. I do know what you mean though, and when faced with particular situations, you have to make the judgement call somewhere. Some determining factor has to step in for you to make that choice. (That's actually something I would be personally interested in investigating further, is what in particular, makes that "judgement call" for this person or that? And where does that come from?) And while true, most would never know what they would do exactly in these types of situations unless we lived similar situations before or know ourselves completely. I know in the least, I tend to make decisions and think best on my feet. It's when I'm given the time to explore other options that I am actually immobile because there is no fire under my feet to make a decision. Why I think procrastinating actually works to my advantage. I can see myself freezing in place from the shock of the scenario, but if I absolutely had to make a decision, right here and right now, without further details to this story, then I would choose to do nothing, then fight to rectify things after the fact. Push for new laws, safety precautions, and the such. In the least, I would not let those people die without cause. In a way, that sounds utilitarian in itself, and I suppose you can look at it that way, but that's also the sad truth of it and how life works. Safety laws come about because of incidents. Without them, people see no need to prepare for the "possible", they would prefer to prepare for the probable.

In any situation though, there is always another option. There is always a way out. It's hard to make such morality-based decisions without being there for yourself and only seeing through this narrow scope of a story.

Interesting thoughts posed though, regardless of whatever people decide on this scenario.

 

[Galena]

I have an educated guess as to what I'd do in reality (based on less mortal but similar situations), which is involuntarily freeze as the five people got run over. But I won't say I know 100%.

 

[Totenkindly]

One problem with the scenario is that it assumes the decision is simply a philosophical one. It is not.

So the beauty of the lever scenario is that it remains a purely philosophical choice; you can make a detached decision, and your physical response is also detached. Push a button? Throw a lever? No big deal.

With pushing folks onto a track actively, it's now personal even though the question and decision-making process is initially philosophical.

I mentioned the story on the forum about the kitten with necrosis that I drowned because it was in pain and was going to die. The philosophical decision was fairy easy; what I did not anticipate was the emotional reality of implementing the philosophical decision. That part still resonates with me a few decades later. And it can resonate with people in other scenarios as well -- whether you're a leader who makes decisions that leads to the death of others, or even whether you're the guy who throws the switch to execute a convicted criminal, and so on. We're not purely philosophical creatures, so trying to evaluate something because of a purely philosophical response is not going to capture everything about the decision.

People are getting squeamish on the "pushing someone on the tracks" even when they believe it's the best thing to do, because we're human beings. I wouldn't necessarily think a general was a psychopath because he can make a decision to send thousands of men to their deaths, nor a person inconsistent because they could do that but have trouble killing the people himself personally. And so on. There are other angles besides the philosophical decision making.

Plus, word problems are decidedly philosophical. It would be interesting to see how many have no qualms about pushing someone onto the tracks in an online word problem, but what if they had to look in a person's eyes as they pushed them down onto the tracks to certain death? Different situation.

 

[Kanra Jest]

To the first I'd pull the lever to have it run over one person instead of the whole five of course.

With the second, I'm unsure. Why does his considerable bulk protect them? ...It's a train and they don't discriminate fat people. I wouldn't think it would make a difference normally. He'd go splat like anyone else. Let alone the time it might take to heave him over in the first place and if you fail then well... he died and so did all of them. Got your hands dirty for nothing.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I highly doubt people would have the time or mental fortitude to ponder the philosophical implications the actions in the moment. Such a scenario would put everyone on the train in an adrenaline-filled state and many would even panic. I think at this point most people would act on instinct and that instinct would put self-preservation above all else. Chances are you're going to act in a way that's going to increase your greatest chance of survival in the moment. Only people trained to deal with life or death scenarios would have a calmer and measured reaction.

Thus whatever we say we'd do here doesn't actually mean that's what we'd do. Honestly I think most people would be paralyzed in fear because that's just how humans operate.

Given all that I'd debilitate the man in front of me (low blow if needed) to reroute the train assuming I know what flipping a switch would accomplish. Then I'd wake up and be like what a crazy dream since the likelihood of such a scenario happening is almost zero. I'd then proceed to have my morning coffee.

 

[Lark]

That gave me a laugh alright and I thought it was pretty predictable.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Flip & Push.