An old moral dilemma - The Trolley problem

kickiluxxx · 2011-12-28T05:31:46-01:00

Just assume that the drawing represents your true love and relatives. Â¤ That trolley car weighs 7000 kilograms (not including everything inside), which basically means if you jump to save both of them, you just kill yourself and the trolley car still goes on like nothing happened. Â¤ Those ropes that you see are the toughest of the toughest and are nailed to the ground. So, No, you can't run and cut the ropes or drag them out of the way. A runaway trolley is headed down a track toward five of your relatives - none of whom are immediate family members. They can’t be warned in time to get out of the way. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but your true love is standing there and can’t also be warned in time. The question is, could you throw the switch, killing one precious person to save five less precious ones? (Assume that jumping onto the tracks yourself is not an option.) EDIT: I made it as simple as possible but since a lot of people think there is no answer or that both are morally evil, or that between A and B, they can choose C (which is to jump) I'll add more detail. No, this is not a random question that came from my mind, hence, the an old moral dilemma title. This is a thought experiment in ethics, mostly on the Utilitarian and Consequentialism chapter. This is an example always used in discussions concerning criticisms of utilitarianism, which is the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest number of people. Meaning, if you believe in happiness for the greater number, you have to really think about this question. In a utilitarian perspective, killing your love one (one person) would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all.)You have to understand, the purpose of the question is to see if "Happiness for the greater number" is really the best thing, not to see who has the greatest talent in poking details. Dodging the question is one of the things that should always be avoided in philosophy. Many professors or teachers even just directly say "Answer the question" while not giving many details. Rather than choosing to flip the switch, or remain passive, many people will reject the question outright. They will attack the improbability of the premise, attempt to invent third options, or appeal to their emotional state in the provided scenario ("I would be too panicked to do anything",) or some combination of the above, in order to opt out of answering the question on its own terms. Those who appealed to the unlikelihood of the scenario might appear to have the stronger objection; after all, the trolley dilemma is extremely improbable, and more inconvenient permutations of the problem might appear even less probable. However, trolley-like dilemmas are actually quite common in real life, when you take the scenario not as a case where only two options are available, but as a metaphor for any situation where all the available choices have negative repercussions, and attempting to optimize the outcome demands increased complicity in the dilemma. This method of framing the problem also tends not to cause people to reverse their rejections. Ultimately, when provided with optimally inconvenient and general forms of the dilemma, most of those who rejected the question will continue to make excuses to avoid answering the question on its own terms. They will insist that there must be superior alternatives, that external circumstances will absolve them from having to make a choice, or simply that they have no responsibility to address an artificial moral dilemma. All in all, this means you have to answer the question as it is, not how you want it to be like. Also, since a lot of people are criticizing the image that I first used, which has a purpose of showing what it looks like, not what the details are, I replaced it.

Pages 1 2 34

Will you do nothing and let five less important people die or will you hit the switch and let your true love die to save five people at the cost of one?

BigLundi

12 years ago

PumpJack McGee wrote...

I'd stick some hefty rocks on the track and derail the thing, which results in:

-Hypothetical "True Love" and relatives being safe.

-Death/injury of a few dozen of complete strangers whom I couldn't give less of a shit about.

...Wait, so you would do an action that would result in the death and injury of MORE people than either of the other options? Yeesh.

Still, it's kind of annoying when people miss the point of thought experiments like this. When it's a dilemma, it means...anything short of touching that switch? Those 5 people die. Real answers are more entertaining than people trying to 'beat' the question.

PumpJack McGee

12 years ago

BigLundi wrote...

PumpJack McGee wrote...

Nevertheless, it provides insight towards the subjects' thought processes, which is the primary goal of such questions.

Thusly; Yes. The shield of anonymity and unfamiliarity would persuade me to destroy the many, in favour of saving the few.

The Capturing God

12 years ago

I wouldn't flip the switch unless they were immediate family members.

6515556

12 years ago

I would save my true love, but I'm a selfish person. I am always an advocate of utilitarianism in all matters except those that affect myself.

twitchforanime

12 years ago

I would say, from a personal standpoint, where I do not exactly get a long with my family etc etc etc. That I would save my true love. However this would be besides the points and not exactly what you are looking for in the question provided.

On the one hand, I could save five people for the life of one, however I am only one person, one man, and there being my 'true love' (assuming of course by that you mean 'the love of loves') then I would have to say that, from an emotional standpoint, I would easily kill five others for the one I know, both because I love her, and would have a duty and obligation to her as her lover, but also because I am not selfless, I am not unkind, however I am also nowhere near altruistic. I find what I can in life, and what I can find that I enjoy, I try to hold on with a vigor only found in the lay of the lifeless.
Now, if we were to say, kill one person to save five, I would be able to do so, if I was able to hold my emotions off and come to an understanding with myself in time. What I say here is, also, inconclusive, seeing as I am not actually in the situation, and may not truly know what I would do until I was at that point. Also, fun fact, even if the one person was a parent I'd kill them. Fun fact number two, if the five were completely unknown to me, and I had no idea who was alone on the one track, I would judge who was youngest. If the one alone was younger than the others overall, then I would kill them. As, in comparison to the deaths worldwide, these five would be incomparable. So, saving the life of one younger person, as opposed to those who have had ample time to live then, I would have to say, die.
If, however, amongst the five, (or alone) was a child, regardless of the others, I would kill the corresponding person(s) in order to save the child, as, in my way, I believe that the only innocence(I use this in terms of inexperience and lack of wisdom of the age) is that of youth.

Take from this what you will, any response should be interesting.
Have a good day/night, everyone.

epsylontallgeese

12 years ago

Never ending morale dilemma.Hmmm guess of the the possible answers has been given. I'll probably save my family or those 5 strangers. I for the most logical reason that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Post Reply

Pages 1 2 34