The Trolley Problem

maquiscat said:

You forgot the chewing gum, McGuyver. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Just needed a rubber band. Kept chewing the gum because it charms the ladies...

Fritz said:

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???

Click to expand...

I do not like the question because doing nothing still lets people live. So, it allows that option. I rather they all be on the same track, and you only have time to save a few...or maybe just one. Who do you pick?


Or do you go smoke a cigarette and start singing, "I'm Free" by the Who.

I always liked the Everly's. Bye Bye Love.

Angel said:

In both scenarios five persons die unless I interfere.

Click to expand...

The decision not to throw the switch / push the fat man is still a decision. It's still a choice.

I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.

Click to expand...

That's not an option.

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.

I'd cut the power to the trolley and save them all.


Failing that...my one true love (right now) is me, so that side will be empty.

So I will save what is left of my family.

Visbek said:

The decision not to throw the switch / push the fat man is still a decision. It's still a choice.

I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.

Click to expand...

That's not an option.

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.

Click to expand...

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.
The scenario forces my initial moral choice of interference/non-interference.
Morally speaking, killing someone with a switch and killing someone with a shove are indistinguishable.
The scenario makes a point about psychology, not morality.
I mistook this as a thought experiment on morality.

Angel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 makes a point about psychology, not morality.
I mistook this as a thought experiment on morality.

Click to expand...

It is useful for psychology researchers, who later adopted it. Separating morality and psychology is not always neat and easy.

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.

Visbek said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm a deontologist.

Fritz said:

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???

Click to expand...

Ah the trolley problem.

Stop the lever half way between and cause it to derail. If that does nothing and you have to make a choice, then it will be completely personal and spur of the moment. Your so called true love could be cheating on you or your parents abusive etc. the decision might not be a moral one, it might be one of convenience. Traditionally the trolley problem was a numbers game, save one life or a group. Which comes with a lot less baggage, if you dont know those that are going to die.

This is from Wikipedia (but in this case its a reliable source) "In 2001, Joshua Greene and colleagues published the results of the first significant empirical investigation of people's responses to trolley problems.[16] Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, they demonstrated that "personal" dilemmas (like pushing a man off a footbridge) preferentially engage brain regions associated with emotion, whereas "impersonal" dilemmas (like diverting the trolley by flipping a switch) preferentially engaged regions associated with controlled reasoning. On these grounds, they advocate for the dual-process account of moral decision-making. Since then, numerous other studies have employed trolley problems to study moral judgment, investigating topics like the role and influence of stress,[17] emotional state,[18] different types of brain damage,[19] physiological arousal,[20] different neurotransmitters,[21] and genetic factors[22] on responses to trolley dilemmas."

Turn around go back in the bar and finish my drink.

I'd switch it as it was crossing the switcher path so it went into the middle and no one dies.