- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,795
- Reaction score
- 28,039
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You forgot the chewing gum, McGuyver. :2razz:
Just needed a rubber band. Kept chewing the gum because it charms the ladies...
You forgot the chewing gum, McGuyver. :2razz:
Simple, you see a speeding trolley and the tracks split into two.
On one track, your true love is trapped.
On the other, your relatives are trapped (your mom, dad, etc)
You have a lever that changes the track that the trolley moves into.
What do you do???
The decision not to throw the switch / push the fat man is still a decision. It's still a choice.In both scenarios five persons die unless I interfere.
That's not an option.I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.
The scenario tries to illustrate that human beings are more comfortable killing impersonally than personally. There. You see. I recognize the issue.The decision not to throw the switch / push the fat man is still a decision. It's still a choice.
That's not an option.I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.
While you did not construct the situation, you had the ability to have a causal effect -- the same causal effect -- in both scenarios. The only difference is the mechanism by which someone is killed. Either you pull a switch, or you physically push a person.
All you're doing is fighting the scenario, instead of recognizing what it's trying to illustrate.
The artificiality is deliberate. No matter how you modify it, for 99.9% of the population it's an unrealistic and unlikely situation. The scenario is forcing the issue, to make you think about how people are more comfortable killing with a switch than a shove.The scenario tries to illustrate that human beings are more comfortable killing impersonally than personally. There. You see. I recognize the issue.
However, if non-interference is not an option, then the scenario is forcing the issue.
It is useful for psychology researchers, who later adopted it. Separating morality and psychology is not always neat and easy.The scenario makes a point about psychology, not morality.
I mistook this as a thought experiment on morality.
I'm a deontologist.That said: It's about morality, in part because emotions are tied into morality. It's also a launching pad for discussions of consequentialism, which asserts that we should think primarily about outcomes; and yet, people consider far more than just outcomes when making moral choices.
Ah the trolley problem.Simple, you see a speeding trolley and the tracks split into two.
On one track, your true love is trapped.
On the other, your relatives are trapped (your mom, dad, etc)
You have a lever that changes the track that the trolley moves into.
What do you do???