Thread: Trolley Problem

Hmm, I wish those posts hadn't been deleted. It makes the responses much harder to follow.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Right, having thought too much about all this, im no longer sure of my original arguments (so have deleted those posts)

Just remember that all I was trying to illustrate was that even in the light of moral high ground, the possible causal factors of the situation create a number of plausible negative outcomes.

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

My gut reaction, of course, is that it would be wrong to kill the traveler, even if done to save five other people. I'll be thinking about this.

And try not to delete your posts next time. No one is going to attack you for changing your mind or taking back a decision to give it more consideration.

I found a cool, brief video that I thought fitting for this thread. It doesn't cover the exact same topic as the trolley problems, but it's not entirely unrelated either.

The paper referred to at the end of the video can be found here. Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out there for more quasi-relevant brain food -- enjoy .

Originally Posted by DuB

For all those who said they would flip the switch (well, okay, for everyone):

The Footbridge Problem
As before, a trolley threatens to kill five people. You are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge that spans the tracks, in between the oncoming trolley and the five people. In this scenario, the only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge, onto the tracks below. He will die if you do this, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Ought you to save the five others by pushing this stranger to his death?

I'd like to point out that this scenario also leaves the option of jumping to your own death to stop the trolley.

Presumably the "large stranger" is heavy enough to stop the trolley while the actor is not. But either way, that's kind of missing the point, isn't it.

Originally Posted by DuB

Presumably the "large stranger" is heavy enough to stop the trolley while the actor is not. But either way, that's kind of missing the point, isn't it.

My point was that though many will at least consider killing a stranger to save 5, the question itself doesn't even consider killing oneself to save 5 strangers. I think this is the only real moral lesson that any of this teaches.

Interesting. If the case is that I know none of the people, I don't actually know which one I would prefer. I prolly would throw a dice. But if I knew the lone person I would let those five to die. Vice versa.

But if they all are strangers to me and leaving them alive won't give me any benefits, I am pretty indifferent.

There used to be a thread on this but the last post was in June so I'm bringing it back up.

You are on a train. There are five people tied to the tracks ahead of the train's path. If the train continues, it will kill the five people.
However. If you pull a lever the train will turn and head on a different path. On this path there is one person tied to the tracks. The train will kill them if you pull the lever.

Do you pull the lever??

Merged into the pre-existing thread.
-Xaqaria

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

There used to be a thread on this but the last post was in June so I'm bringing it back up.

You are on a train. There are five people tied to the tracks ahead of the train's path. If the train continues, it will kill the five people.
However. If you pull a lever the train will turn and head on a different path. On this path there is one person tied to the tracks. The train will kill them if you pull the lever.

Do you pull the lever??

Merged into the pre-existing thread.
-Xaqaria

I thought we weren't supposed to revive threads that old.

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

I thought we weren't supposed to revive threads that old.

If you have something to contribute, then this would be the best way to do it. Remaking the exact same thread is not any better than adding to the original.

Hmm...pull the switch and kill one person, or sit back and watch the mayhem?

I'll go with the first one, I think. But then again, conditions come into play. What if the one person is a genius and the others are serial killers?

Just on a random basis, where everyone is more or less equal, the one dude dies.

Unless...would it be possible to stop the gate halfway and derail the train/trolley? I'm going with that option. I think I'll just go halfway and save the lot of them. Gee, ain't I swell?

Missing the point. :l

The traditional follow up question is now: five people desparately need spare organs and will die without them but live full and healthy lives if they get them. Is it moral to kill one healthy person in order to harvest all of his organs and distribute them to the five people?

No. Screw the sick people...they just ran out of luck.

The people on the rails just ran out of luck.

As Bonsay said:

I wouldn't. If I flipped it I murder somebody, if I don't it's a freak accident. Personally, without any pressure or regard for norms or morals, I don't think I have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Why do numbers matter? Why do you decide to flip the switch? Is it just an unexplained feeling that you'd decide to do so or are there actual known principles behind it?

To which Denver responded:

Well, how is it murder if you flip the switch, but not murder if you do not?

If my not doing something has an equivocal - yet greater in scale - effect as when I do actually do something, how is one distinguishable from the other?
(If I flip a switch I get an apple; if I don't flip a switch I get five apples. By choosing to not flip the switch, it is no "freak accident" that apples keep appearing by the handful in my lap - I could have, instead, chosen to have just one apple.)

...and to which Photolysis added on:

A) The intent. Deliberately trying to kill that one person would be wrong. However diverting it with the intention of saving the 5, and therefore unfortunately resulting in the death of that one person isn't wrong, and is arguably the most moral decision.


B) The nature of the collateral damage. In this case, the person was involved in the situation anyway and there's nothing you could have done. But if you took a bystander not involved and used them, that would be wrong. An example would be dragging a bystander off the street against their will and using them to stop the trolley; that would be ethically wrong.

The dudes on the track were dragged into the situation against their will, and are already there. You can do nothing about this...all you can do is flip a switch. Whereas, if you were to actively take a dude off the street and harvest his organs, you would be bringing him into the situation against his will. At this point, you are no better than whoever tied the folks to the track to get squished by the trolley.

That is a pretty weak semantic argument. You could just as well say that by flipping the switch in the original trolley problem, you "brought into the situation" the bystander that was frolicking on the sidetrack, who otherwise would have had nothing to do with the trolley.

From a utilitarian perspective, the organ harvesting scenario is equivalent to the trolley problem. This completely violates our moral intuitions, though. Some take this fact as the ultimate demonstration that utilitarianism is flawed. I am open to this argument--however, the argument is incomplete without explaining why our moral intuitions should have privileged status in determining what is and is not moral. You could argue at least as easily that it is not utilitarianism which is flawed, but rather our moral intuitions. I lean towards this latter view, although not with terrible conviction.

Given that at least one of these two propositions must be flawed, where do you all stand? Is it more ethical to be utilitarian or to heed our moral intuitions?

Originally Posted by DuB

That is a pretty weak semantic argument. You could just as well say that by flipping the switch in the original trolley problem, you "brought into the situation" the bystander that was frolicking on the sidetrack, who otherwise would have had nothing to do with the trolley.

From a utilitarian perspective, the organ harvesting scenario is equivalent to the trolley problem. This completely violates our moral intuitions, though. Some take this fact as the ultimate demonstration that utilitarianism is flawed. I am open to this argument--however, the argument is incomplete without explaining why our moral intuitions should have privileged status in determining what is and is not moral. You could argue at least as easily that it is not utilitarianism which is flawed, but rather our moral intuitions. I lean towards this latter view, although not with terrible conviction.

Given that at least one of these two propositions must be flawed, where do you all stand? Is it more ethical to be utilitarian or to heed our moral intuitions?

Well, consider that all humans act in their own self-interests. Now, you have a trolley speeding down a track, about to flatten five innocent people, but here you are, with a switch in your hand. Flip it, and you save the five, but unfortunately, one is killed. Now consider that this event will make national news, no doubt. People will see you as a hero if you flip the switch, and a villain if you don't. Would you rather live a life of infamy, or be treated like a martyr who made the tough, but ultimately right, call? If not for society, I would flatten the five myself, but seeing as how this is rather frowned upon, I'd probably smoosh just the one.

How does this relate to organ harvesting? Well, first you have the crime of murder, which so far parallels the first scenario in terms of morality. Where this gets a bit dodgier is that you're robbing the person not only of life, but also of his internal organs. Also consider that the first option is one freak scenario/accident that is highly unlikely to repeat itself. If, however, it is determined that organ harvesting is more moral than letting the sick die of natural causes (another difference between this scenario and the smooshing one), then it opens the floodgates, chaos descends on the healthy, and society ultimately sucks if you're not in dire need of a kidney.