Thread: Trolley Problem

I'm a firm believer in the law of fives. Therefore I would not do anything. If the law of fives comes though, the one person I saved will endow me with incredible knowledge or wealth.

Originally Posted by Tavasion

i dont know if this has been discussed here or not, seeing as i have been absent for some time, but we talked about this extensively in my ethics class, and i was wondering what some of you would do if given the option.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

given the circumstances in the question, without knowing anything else about the people, i would flip the switch. what about you?

I would flip it, knowing nothing of the people. Saves four additional lives.

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?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

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?

It doesn't matter if you take action or do not take action, given the conditions of this situation you are forced to make a decision of who lives and who dies. Your idea of who has the "right" to decide who lives and who dies is irrelevant because someone is deciding who lives and who dies regardless of any concepts and morals that call for the individual to opt out of making such decisions.

That said, if you don't flip the switch then five out of the six people die. If you flip the switch, five out of the six people live. My morals dictate that whatever is good for the greatest number of people is just. There is a low chance that the five people on the current tracks are all serial killers and the one person on the other tracks is the savior of all humanity, so I'd have to go with flipping the switch.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I wouldn't. If I flipped it I murder somebody, if I don't it's a freak accident.

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.)

Why do numbers matter?

I am going to posit that, while a human death is no less or more tragic for individuals, overall more human death is "worse" than less human death.

Why do you decide to flip the switch?

Trolley Switch Flipper Union.

Is it just an unexplained feeling that you'd decide to do so or are there actual known principles behind it?

Again, but re-worded:

I would suggest that the principles behind such a decision to flip the switch or not are based on value-judgments. One such value-judgment is that a single human death is not as tragic as five human deaths.

Collateral damage is fine; the one casualty in this case would be collateral damage from saving the 5.

I would flip the switch, and I would argue that standing by and not doing anything is ethically wrong, since by doing nothing you cause the deaths for 4 extra people. By doing nothing, you are still responsible for the outcome.


The key to solving the various trolley dilemas I find it

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.

Or to use a medical example, killing someone to take his organs without his permission to save 5 people would be wrong.

For the collateral damage to be ethical, is must occur within the situation itself, or the person who was not involved must give his permission.

Yeah, I pretty much knew all the answers to those questions, which were more or less rhetorical in nature. It's just that I don't see myself making a decision in that [x] amount of time needed to save/kill those people. A silly thought perhaps, but think it's rather important. I don't like being put in such hypothetical situations.

Hell, I've had an [x] amount of time and money to save at least somebody, but haven't done so. So, I guess I and most others are murderers, it's just that we replaced the five people we'd save with something else money can buy. (Reminded me of the "Would you rather buy an I-pod or save a starving child" thread; probably the same place that makes me doubt the utilitarian way of solving this problem, I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now would I?) Otherwise, yes of course flip the switch and stuff... so how similar is this to the "help starving people" or "don't give a shit" problem? I see them as the same. Which is why claiming I'd help anyone would make me a hypocrite. I don't see myself making this decision. I'd rather jump in front of the trolley.

All the things you told me, is what I already know. I think it's pretty unrealistic that so many would flip the switch. I guess I'm a freak of nature, or just a freak.

Would you flip the switch if that was your daughter? - the one person "designated" to be collateral damage.

I don't believe that quantity determines anything. A life of one person is just as valuable as five others. Just imagine that this one person is you and you know I'm right.

I wouldn't do anything. What happened, happened. I can't be the one who decides who lives and who dies.

But if I knew any of those people, then it would influence emotions and would make me save those who're dear.

A life of one person is just as valuable as five others

Did you even learn the basics of logic? Or mathematics?

You're saying all lives are equally valuable, whilst at the same time holding one person's life to be worth that of 5 others. Wow.

Just imagine that this one person is you and you know I'm right.

Not really, because we value our own lives more than those of others. This is also not part of the original dilema which stated "without knowing anything else about the people", and it did not say you yourself were part of the situation.

Bonsay raises an interesting point. But in the context of the situation and being forced to make one of only two decisions, what I said in my previous post still stands.

I don't believe that quantity determines anything. A life of one person is just as valuable as five others. Just imagine that this one person is you and you know I'm right.

I wouldn't do anything. What happened, happened. I can't be the one who decides who lives and who dies.

But if I knew any of those people, then it would influence emotions and would make me save those who're dear.

What if there were 1,000 people on the tracks before you and there was still only one on the tracks that required the switch-flip? What about 5,000? 50,000? By your logic, the entire human race could perish and it would be all right.

You said that one life is just as valuable as five. That means five lives must be as valuable as twenty-five. That's ridiculous. One life carries the value of one life. Five lives carries the value of five lives.

Again: In the context of the situation you are the one who decides who lives and who dies regardless if you don't want to be. If you choose to close your eyes, curl up in a ball and cover your ears with your hands, you have effectively chosen to sacrifice five lives for the one.

I'm not sure what I would choose...but may I put up another question?

What if the 5 people on the first track are your family/best friends?

Then on the other track is your dream bf/gf. Not your real bf/gf, but the one that you'd love to have and fantasize about.

Which would you choose?

How about: 5 young children on one track whom you've never met and your adult child on the other?

In any circumstance, I would rather throw myself in front of the trolley as well.
I wouldn't be able to decide who was "worth" saving because all life is precious. I don't think I would even think, I'd just react and try to save everyone.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Did you even learn the basics of logic? Or mathematics?

You're saying all lives are equally valuable, whilst at the same time holding one person's life to be worth that of 5 others. Wow.

If each person's life were infinitely valuable, then 5(infinity)=infinity and it all checks out.

If each person's life were infinitely valuable, then 5(infinity)=infinity and it all checks out.

Only mathematics could try and justify killing 5 people instead of 1!

Thankfully human life is not infinitely valuable in any case, even if it is generally a large but undefined number!

This trolley problem is hard because none of us really know exactly what we'd do if we were ACTUALLY put in this situation. We can discuss it all we want, but it's quite possible that most of us would panic and try to stop it causing an unpredictable outcome.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

This trolley problem is hard because none of us really know exactly what we'd do if we were ACTUALLY put in this situation. We can discuss it all we want, but it's quite possible that most of us would panic and try to stop it causing an unpredictable outcome.

bomb the tracks in front of the trolley?

Jam the wheels with your femur.

Depends on the people.

The legal system being the way it is, I'd pretend I didn't see anything. You'd get you ass sued off no matter what you did.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

What if there were 1,000 people on the tracks before you and there was still only one on the tracks that required the switch-flip? What about 5,000? 50,000? By your logic, the entire human race could perish and it would be all right.

If 1000 then I'd choose to save them, although I'd have feelings of guilt after killing that one person for the rest of my life.

But 5 and 1? No I'd do nothing.

So there must be some kind of critical mass that you'd try to save by killing one person. I thought about it. 10? Not enough. 50? No. 100? Not so sure already, so perhaps it's about 100.

You said that one life is just as valuable as five. That means five lives must be as valuable as twenty-five. That's ridiculous. One life carries the value of one life. Five lives carries the value of five lives.

It's not about math, would you actually think in that situation? I know I wouldn't. But conclusions are interesting, yes

Really, I'd let it continue for the five. Not a big fan of friends.

Originally Posted by Arutad

If 1000 then I'd choose to save them, although I'd have feelings of guilt after killing that one person for the rest of my life.

But 5 and 1? No I'd do nothing.

So there must be some kind of critical mass that you'd try to save by killing one person. I thought about it. 10? Not enough. 50? No. 100? Not so sure already, so perhaps it's about 100.


It's not about math, would you actually think in that situation? I know I wouldn't. But conclusions are interesting, yes

But if you're setting the critical mass at 100, then you ARE making it about math. The only way to not make it about math is to stay on the current tracks and not flip the switch regardless of how many people are on them. Therefore, if you do not want to make it about math, you would kill 1,000 to save one. In fact, you would kill 6,000,000,000 to save 1.

No, I don't think any of us would be able to keep our heads screwed on long enough to consider the circumstances. Though we can't know for sure until we are put into the situation ourselves. But then, this hypothetical question is about what we would do considering our own morals, logic, and irrational feelings. It's almost more of a question about who we are as people.

OK then let it be about math. Then for me one life of a random person is worth 99 lives of random people. After 99 math kicks in.

Zhaylin's answer about jumping in front of the trolley was most interesting.

Originally Posted by Arutad

OK then let it be about math. Then for me one life of a random person is worth 99 lives of random people. After 99 math kicks in.

You see, that doesn't make sense. What about the five random equally random people who will die? Aren't each of their lives worth 99 lives each?