Thread: Moral Dilemmas

The Trolley: No
The Bridge: No
The Patients: No

My answer would not change, no matter the number. Lives are not quantifiable, in that manner.

A great book to read is:


It discusses moral dilemmas such as this, in the context of the universe of Batman, the Joker, and others. It talks about things like Batman's 'one rule' about not killing, and whether or not he is responsible for the deaths that follow his inability to eliminate the threat of villains like the Joker. It also specifically presents the trolley problem and others like it. Good stuff.

I don't see what that has to do with lives being "quantifiable" or not. It's to do with action and inaction.

Forgive the crude analogy but here's a different set-up.

You are... Batman. And... the Joker... has locked you in an inescapable room. The floor is divided into two pressure plates. Stepping on a pressure plate completes a circuit to another room. The room for the first pressure plate has 1 person in it. The room for the second pressure plate has 100 people in it. In a minute's time, the circuits will be electrified, so that standing on a room's pressure plate causes all of the people in that room to die. There is no way of not standing on at least one pressure plate, or of deactivating the pressure plates. What do you do?

Trolley: Yes

I think this is a yes for me because assuming that I innocently found myself in that trolley, the deaths are not my fault, so I would want to cause the least amount of trauma as possible.

Bridge: No

This is where someone's death is put solely into my hands. The people who are going to get hit by the trolley is not my fault, but the person who gets pushed off the bridge is my responsibility.

Doctor: No

Same as the bridge, just a more extreme version.

Batman: I think it is obvious that you would choose one, I don't get what point you are trying to make?

A more complex moral issue occurs when pain and suffering are brought into the equation.

Say for example you are a small town ambulance driver who has just pulled up to a car crash incident. There were three people involved in this car crash. One person is awake and conscious, but has been crushed by the car and is pinned down, and in extreme pain. You estimate that this person would take roughly five minutes to rescue or they will die due to blood loss and while in agony. The other two people have been knocked unconscious, but are still alive. However, the fuel tank of the car has been ruptured and will most likely catch fire within the next four to six minutes, resulting in the two unconscious people been burnt to death if they are not moved. You estimate that due to their weight it would take five minutes to drag them both to safety. You estimate that all the victims have an equal chance of surviving after been rescued. The fire station is at least twenty minutes away. The road is rarely travelled on. Who do you save? Also, who would you save if it was a family of three that was unconscious, one being a young kid?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see what that has to do with lives being "quantifiable" or not. It's to do with action and inaction.

Forgive the crude analogy but here's a different set-up.

You are... Batman. And... the Joker... has locked you in an inescapable room. The floor is divided into two pressure plates. Stepping on a pressure plate completes a circuit to another room. The room for the first pressure plate has 1 person in it. The room for the second pressure plate has 100 people in it. In a minute's time, the circuits will be electrified, so that standing on a room's pressure plate causes all of the people in that room to die. There is no way of not standing on at least one pressure plate, or of deactivating the pressure plates. What do you do?

This, and you're initially placed by the Joker onto the pressure plate that will electrify 100 people. And maybe it isn't as simple as stepping onto the other side. Maybe you're tied up and have to roll to the other pressure plate.

It's obvious what most people will do, but how does someone justify that decision while they probably chose oppositely for the trolly scenario? Couldn't you just say... "it's not murder because the hundred people would have died anyway since that's where you were placed, but moving to kill the one person would be murder." ??????

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see what that has to do with lives being "quantifiable" or not.

It does, in the sense that you're saying "it's better for you to choose for one innocent person to die, by deciding that their one life isn't worth the 100 lives that were already about to die." I don't think that, in such a scenario, the numbers really justify the decision to throw the switch.

Originally Posted by Xei

Forgive the crude analogy but here's a different set-up.

You are... Batman. And... the Joker... has locked you in an inescapable room. The floor is divided into two pressure plates. Stepping on a pressure plate completes a circuit to another room. The room for the first pressure plate has 1 person in it. The room for the second pressure plate has 100 people in it. In a minute's time, the circuits will be electrified, so that standing on a room's pressure plate causes all of the people in that room to die. There is no way of not standing on at least one pressure plate, or of deactivating the pressure plates. What do you do?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

This, and you're initially placed by the Joker onto the pressure plate that will electrify 100 people. And maybe it isn't as simple as stepping onto the other side. Maybe you're tied up and have to roll to the other pressure plate.

It's obvious what most people will do, but how does someone justify that decision while they probably chose oppositely for the trolly scenario? Couldn't you just say... "it's not murder because the hundred people would have died anyway since that's where you were placed, but moving to kill the one person would be murder." ??????

Logically, I would want to fall back on the idea that it would be better to kill the 1 than the 100, but morality, again, has less to do with numbers than it does with principles. Had I been placed into that situation by the Joker (and especially having been placed on the 100-person switch), I just don't think I could see myself choosing to kill the 1 over the 100. This is where the muddy subjectivity of 'morality' comes into play, and it all comes down to the idea that I just don't see myself deciding that 1 life is inherently worth less than 100 lives. (Who are these people? Is it 100 death-row inmates vs 1 5-year-old girl, or vice-versa? Is it 100 terrorists vs a neurosurgeon?) Without having further knowledge of those people, I would, in all likely-hood, stay exactly where I had been placed.

Of course, the guilt would eat me alive, no matter which way I chose.

[Edit: Also, knowing the Joker, he would probably place 100 terrorists on the 100-person switch, simply because he figured that Batman would choose the (probably most-common) 'kill 1 to save 100' paradigm. Nothing would please him more than to see Batman's face when he realizes he decided to kill one little girl and let 100 terrorists live. ]

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see what that has to do with lives being "quantifiable" or not. It's to do with action and inaction.

Forgive the crude analogy but here's a different set-up.

You are... Batman. And... the Joker... has locked you in an inescapable room. The floor is divided into two pressure plates. Stepping on a pressure plate completes a circuit to another room. The room for the first pressure plate has 1 person in it. The room for the second pressure plate has 100 people in it. In a minute's time, the circuits will be electrified, so that standing on a room's pressure plate causes all of the people in that room to die. There is no way of not standing on at least one pressure plate, or of deactivating the pressure plates. What do you do?

Oh man, a terrorists mind? Now you've complicated everything! A lot of nations have a policy to never negotiate with a terrorist for a reason. The joker represents that terrorist and the batman always unconditionally represents that policy.

Why would an unstable mind like the joker even set up a situation like this? Why didn't the joker just kill the 101 people himself? It would be his satisfaction to see a person emotionally tormented by the decision. Its this emotional torment that's the end game, not the death of 101 people.

Of course, the most logically moral decision is to decide to sacrifice that 1 person to save the 100. But can you really trust the joker or terrorist? What if after deciding to kill that 1 person for the 100, the joker-terrorist laughs maniacally and dances on the other switch anyways? Making your decision to sacrifice that one person a moot point because the 100 people died anyways? Its a legitimate fear concerning a hostage situation.

But, its also the joker. What if its a 100 bombs that the joker scribbled faces and names and now you activated them by 'saving' them? I know thats not exactly your set up, but in the comics the joker would really lie about what the set up actually is.

Anyways, do nothing. That's what I'd honestly do regardless. I'd do nothing, sit where I am, I don't want to play his sick game. I'd hope for outside help before the time runs out. And as far as I am concerned, this is a situation of 102 hostages.

Originally Posted by juroara

What if after deciding to kill that 1 person for the 100, the joker-terrorist laughs maniacally and dances on the other switch anyways?

Not the Joker's style - he'd use a flamethrower or something to drive you inexorably onto the other platform. Or just open a window so you can see that theone person is the love of your life.

Ok, then do numbers become more important in certain situations?

What if the one person is a 101 year old man, dying of incurable disease that's already claimed his wife, and he has no family or loved ones, he's depressed and wants to die? Ad the other switch destroys the world, all except for your city.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

What if the one person is a 101 year old man, dying of incurable disease that's already claimed his wife, and he has no family or loved ones, he's depressed and wants to die? Ad the other switch destroys the world, all except for your city.

Well that one's easy. I would kill the 101 year old man, had I been given that context. That's much less about the numbers (though it's a factor), than it is about the fact that it's the man's wish to die. It's the only action that would make sense, IMO.

Ok, same situation, but he doesn't want to die.

Are the same rules applying (with my having been placed on the 100-person pressure plate), or what's the rest of the situation?

I had actually said the second plate destroys the world except for your city, but we can return to the 100 person plate, since obviously a lone city with no world can't survive long, so that throws in too many other factors.

Scenario 1 - you're placed on the plate that will kill 100 people.

Scenario 2 - you're placed on the plate that will kill the 1 old man.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Scenario 1 - you're placed on the plate that will kill 100 people.

Scenario 2 - you're placed on the plate that will kill the 1 old man.

Scenario 1: Same as my above answer about the Joker trap.
Scenatio 2: Same as my above answer about the Joker trap.

Having been placed in either situation, I don't think I would be able to bring myself to decide that 1 life was worth more than the others or vice versa - for the reasons state previously. I don't believe it would be my call to make, and the person (or persons) that died would be on the head of my captor, not mine.

Ok, here's your answer from the Joker trap above:

Logically, I would want to fall back on the idea that it would be better to kill the 1 than the 100, but morality, again, has less to do with numbers than it does with principles. Had I been placed into that situation by the Joker (and especially having been placed on the 100-person switch), I just don't think I could see myself choosing to kill the 1 over the 100. This is where the muddy subjectivity of 'morality' comes into play, and it all comes down to the idea that I just don't see myself deciding that 1 life is inherently worth less than 100 lives. (Who are these people? Is it 100 death-row inmates vs 1 5-year-old girl, or vice-versa? Is it 100 terrorists vs a neurosurgeon?) Without having further knowledge of those people, I would, in all likely-hood, stay exactly where I had been placed.

So, you're saying you're just not going to move no matter which switchplate you're placed on?

This implies that somehow physical action is what's important, when it seems to me the decision is the action that matters. I can understand not moving if you're just panicked and can't make a decision (which is why I said I'd probably freeze in the quick-reaction choices in the OP) but once you understand exactly what each switch does, then who dies and who lives is entirely your decision. Of course we're dealing with the added problem that the Joker might have lied or be tricking you somehow. Let's say it's set up in such a way that you can clearly see all the rooms involved and you can also clearly see the explosive devices and the wires that trigger them, and it's obvious there's no trick involved - so the decision is entirely on your shoulders.

If it's me I think I'g going to make sure I only kill the 1 old man rather than 100 random people, whether it means taking a step or not.

What if that 1 person was your only, 12-year-old daughter?
What if it was another Superhero, who has saved (and is further capable of saving) countless lives, his/herself?

Well of course nobody is going to sacrifice their own daughter (or son.. ), unless maybe it's to save the rest of the world or something.

As for another superhero, it depends which one. Are they... invulnerable? I would totally blow up Superman!

No, but seriously, a firefighter or doctor who might save lots of lives - I think he's still going down. If asked he'd probably want it that way.

If we're going to bring in Batman's kids (didn't realize he had any, but it's hypothetical, right? Besides, we all know he's tappin' cat woman, right? Probably a few litters of cat-bat-babies running around by now) then it's only fair to keep it all in the family - his firstborn in one room, his 6 other brats in the other one.

I think making it personal changes the dynamics of the question too much though, it's no longer really about the value of a single human life balanced against multiples, now it's about something else entirely.

Spoiler for Not as important:

Different modifications keep being brought up, which make sense if you're trying to clarify the issue, but it's getting to the point where the issues themselves are being ignored and replaced with kind of pointless 'would you rather' scenarios. Of course the decision will get harder or easier depending on who is in the rooms.

Let's say all 101 people are of the same sex, attractiveness, age, or any other other characteristic that might give you a bias. They're all strangers and are the same in every way that might influence your decision. I'm not bringing this up for people to answer since I'm pretty sure that was all implied in the original scenario, which a few people have already answered. I'm just saying this is what the original scenario was. That's sort of a general unspoken rule with hypothetical scenarios that way too many people seem not to understand. If something isn't stated you're supposed to assume it's false (like that there are differences between people or the joker is lying). I don't know what's so hard about that. I'm not pointing out specific people, as I honestly don't remember who said what in this thread except recently, but I've noticed this throughout the entire thread. An inability to grasp a hypothetical scenario. I used to think everyone was making excuses since the questions were so hard, but I'm starting to wonder if perhaps some people literally lack the ability to comprehend hypothetical scenarios.

I'm surprised that two of the people (who have responded) would choose to stay where they were placed. That seems completely wrong to me. And I'd also choose to kill the one person in the trolley scenario (but not in the other two in the OP). For me it's just moral intuition, but I think it may actually make sense somewhat objectively too.

I haven't put much thought into it yet but two factors come to mind in any situation which comes down to "someone is going to die if you do nothing, but you can choose to kill less people by taking some action."

1) How much you have to go out of your way to do it / how easy it is.
2) Whether or not the people you may be about to kill are putting trust in you not to.

And I think these two factors may be relevant, both intuitively and objectively. (I don't mean objectively like 'objective morality from god', just that it helps create a functional society in which more people are happy). If either of these factors are too high, it would create an unhealthy society if everyone chose to take action But when both are low enough, it would create an unhealthy society if everyone didn't do it. For example, with the doctor's scenario in the OP, both are high. If every doctor operated under the moral guidelines that he can kill off healthy patients to save more lives, everyone would be afraid to go to the doctor. Therefore, it makes sense that if (2) is high enough we're morally obligated not to do it.

And what if someone just has to go far out of their way to save more lives? I'm not sure about this one, but I'm considering that it may be wrong because some of our most important methods of survival would fail. This would be more obvious if we were some other type of animal. For example (another scenario I forgot about) imagine there are two people stranded somewhere, about to die, and you're the only one who knows about them and the only one who can save them. On your way there, you see a person who's also about to die on the side of the road, screaming for your help. You could help him/her right now and save his/her life, but if you do that, you know you won't have time to save the other two people. In this case, I believe it would be immoral to continue to save the two people. And this may make sense because our survival instincts would be useless otherwise. You need to save that person who's calling for your help, because if you were in that person's situation, calling for help and hoping someone would walk by would be your only chance for survival.

And if both are low enough, you're morally obligated to change your mind for simple quantitative reasons. With no issues of trust or social convenience, that's all it comes down to. Yes, every human life is extremely valuable, but no matter how valuable it is, killing two is better than killing one. That's obvious if you imagine that there are two buttons, one which kills 100 people and another which kills 1 person, and you have to push one in a minute or else everyone will die. Then obviously you'd choose to kill the one person, which proves quantity does matter to you. Having to make a very minor 'choice' which takes little effort and which no one is trusting you not to make, seems equivalent to me to choosing between two buttons. The fact that you have to push a lever, or step onto another pressure plate, is trivial. It's pretty much the same as if you weren't on a particular pressure plate to begin with. It's like taking that button scenario, and saying that since your hand is closer to one of the buttons you're going to press it, or something. I mean that's an extreme version to show how ridiculous it is, but that's about how ridiculous the decision not to step onto another pressure plate seems to me.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

It does, in the sense that you're saying "it's better for you to choose for one innocent person to die, by deciding that their one life isn't worth the 100 lives that were already about to die." I don't think that, in such a scenario, the numbers really justify the decision to throw the switch.

My point was that you were (I think) making your decision based on principles of action and inaction - your principle was that it's actively choosing to kill which is unacceptable. So whether life can be "quantified" or not didn't actually enter into your decision - that is to say, you would have made the same decision regardless of your stance on quantification. The point of the new analogy was to eliminate the ability to not actively choose to kill and reduce it purely to a decision about numbers. For the sake of argument, you are able to verify that the Joker is telling the truth, you know nothing at all about the inhabitants of the rooms, and you are initially stood on both switches.

On my phone so I can't read through all the pages and answer all the questions like I want to. But in response to the op:

Trolley: Yes. One is less than five, even though I like hikers and think standing on tracks is stupid. But yes.
Bridge: gut reaction is to shove the person. Upon thinking about it more, I'd still say probably but only because I'd be worried about someone questioning why exactly I shoved someone in front of a speeding vehicle.
Doctor: No. But it's not so much about moral qualms or fear of getting accused of murder (though there is obviously some of that), it's because I would be killing a healthy person to save sick people. I don't save the sick people and they don't pass on their genes.

Rather callous but that's my gut response. Naturally I would be inclined to save whoever I felt the best about, but I get what you meant with the questions and won't be all "but you can never really know!" about it.

Originally Posted by NewArtemis

Doctor: No. But it's not so much about moral qualms or fear of getting accused of murder (though there is obviously some of that), it's because I would be killing a healthy person to save sick people. I don't save the sick people and they don't pass on their genes.

It's not like the healthy person is healthy because he is genetically superior or something. Besides, what if the sick people already had kids?

I get that these are your gut reactions, but still....

Well, organ failure is often caused by chronic problems like diabetes or heart disease, and the risks go up or down based on genetic factors. Obviously not the entire reason for getting the disease, but a definite link.

And there's a what-if. How I immediately viewed the problem was a bunch of people about y age in a hospital room, so no kids. If there were kids I'd be inclined to save those people, not just because it invalidates my previous reason but also because it would really suck growing up without a parent.

Any little thing could tip the scales in someone's favor or not, depending on what it is and how I take in information and associate it with my own memories and feelings. There are so many factors we could be playing the what-if game for a million years. As such, my answers are all based on the idea that everyone in the dilemmas is almost identical.