• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Trolley Problem

You Will Your Save?

  • Save your relatives

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Save your true love

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Total voters
    11
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???

Unfare question in my case as I would actively watch and cheer after making sure about my parents getting it. Well, maybe not....
 
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???

As soon as the front wheels of the trolley cross the switch, you throw the switch causing the trolley to derail and saving everyone.
 
OK, I realize we're now talking about a video game, but... ;)

For those interested, this is the ACTUAL "Trolley Problem" as utilized by contemporary philosophy.

Scenario 1: A train is heading down the tracks into the maintenance yard, at full speed. For whatever reason, you are the only person in control of the tracks, and you know you can't stop the train. You have two choices: Send it on the left track, where it will strike and kill FIVE workers; or send it on the right track, where it will strike and kill ONE worker. What do you do?

Scenario 2: A train is heading down the tracks into the maintenance yard, at full speed. There is only one track. You and an overweight man are standing on a platform above the train track. You can either do nothing, in which case the train will strike and kill FIVE workers; or, you can push the fat man onto the tracks, which will kill ONE person, and will stop the train in time. What do you do?

There are numerous variations on this theme, designed to elicit particular aspects of morality and choice, lots of papers, lots of discussion etc.

I would grab some copper wiring... a conduit... run some diagnostics... realize I also needed some nano tubes and a rubber band and short out the tracks stopping the hulking beast...
 
1. Choose to kill one instead of five persons
2. Don't choose at all, and let the train (or tracks, or fate, or chance) take its own course

1. Leave the five workers, who have assumed the risk, to their fate
2. Sacrifice myself
I should have added:

In this scenario, suicide is not an option. Your only option is either let the five track workers die, or shove the fat man onto the tracks.
 
I would grab some copper wiring... a conduit... run some diagnostics... realize I also needed some nano tubes and a rubber band and short out the tracks stopping the hulking beast...
Unfortunately, since you are not McGyver and are not on the train, that's not an option.

Either you throw the switch, or you push the fat man. That's it.
 
I should have added:

In this scenario, suicide is not an option. Your only option is either let the five track workers die, or shove the fat man onto the tracks.
Well, I could split hairs here and say -- instead of "sacrifice myself" -- try to stop the train myself using all my strength and will, but that's not in the spirit of the thought experiment.

But I can't see myself choosing the fat man to die. That choice shifts all the moral weight of the scenario to me personally.

If I choose to do nothing, is the moral weight shifted to me anyway?

Hmm.
 
Well, I could split hairs here and say -- instead of "sacrifice myself" -- try to stop the train myself using all my strength and will, but that's not in the spirit of the thought experiment.

But I can't see myself choosing the fat man to die. That choice shifts all the moral weight of the scenario to me personally.
In both cases, your decision results in either one person dying, or five people dying. Through no fault of their own. (The train is out of control; they are just doing their jobs.)

So, what is the difference between throwing a switch where one person dies or five people die, and pushing the fat man (one person dies) or not pushing him (five people die)?

And yes, the artificiality of the scenario is to push these kinds of considerations. ;)
 
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???

Move the switch halfway and derail the trolley.
 
In any of these situations if sacrificing yourself is not an option, the only morally permissible act is to do nothing.

Actually the first one listed in this thread isn't even particularly useful as a moral problem and is not part of its usual presentation. Presumably if you do nothing the trolley will go to hit one set of folks regardless. So don't pull the lever at all.
 
Last edited:
In both cases, your decision results in either one person dying, or five people dying. Through no fault of their own. (The train is out of control; they are just doing their jobs.)

So, what is the difference between throwing a switch where one person dies or five people die, and pushing the fat man (one person dies) or not pushing him (five people die)?

In any of these situations if sacrificing yourself is not an option, the only morally permissible act is to do nothing.
I go with Jay here, Visbek.
Whether or not I have a moral obligation to save anyone's life requires an argument, and off the top of my head I can't intuit that argument. Absent that argument, I'd have to say that inaction leaves me morally neutral. Or perhaps it's the other way around -- being morally neutral in this scenario, I remain morally neutral through inaction.

I wouldn't touch switch or fat man. ;)
 
Relatives, it would save more lives that way. "True love" can fade, family more so is forever. Imagine having allowed your family to die then having that same person divorce you later.
 
I go with Jay here, Visbek.
Whether or not I have a moral obligation to save anyone's life requires an argument, and off the top of my head I can't intuit that argument. Absent that argument, I'd have to say that inaction leaves me morally neutral. Or perhaps it's the other way around -- being morally neutral in this scenario, I remain morally neutral through inaction.

I wouldn't touch switch or fat man. ;)
In this scenario, "doing nothing" means "five people will die."

If you choose to throw the switch, or push the fat man, one person dies. If you choose not to throw the switch, or push the fat man, five people die.

You cannot "not choose." Inaction is still a choice.

Again, it's an artificial scenario, specifically designed to limit your choices. A refusal to accept the scenario is not an answer to the question(s) it poses.
 
In this scenario, "doing nothing" means "five people will die."

If you choose to throw the switch, or push the fat man, one person dies. If you choose not to throw the switch, or push the fat man, five people die.

You cannot "not choose." Inaction is still a choice.

Again, it's an artificial scenario, specifically designed to limit your choices. A refusal to accept the scenario is not an answer to the question(s) it poses.

No, no, I accept the scenario. I just didn't see inaction as a rejection of the scenario.

In the first scenario, if I must act, I would throw the switch to kill one instead of five.
In the second I would not push the fat man and let the five die. (Isn't this inaction, and yet a permissible option within the scenario?)

My choices seem contradictory. Hmm. I'll have to try to distinguish them. :)
 
Deliberate inaction because it is the only moral action is a choice, not a dismissal of the scenario.

Only by severely altering the parameters to the point of moral uselessness can you arrive at a situation where I think pulling the lever is OK.

Want an example of such an alteration?

1) Do nothing, 2 people die. Pull the lever, no one dies. It is morally permissible to pull the lever or not pull the lever.

2) Do nothing, 1 person dies. Pull the lever, you die. It is morally permissible to pull the lever or not pull the lever.

3) Do nothing, one person dies. Pull the lever, and the madman tying people to tracks to kill them dies. It is morally permissible to pull the lever or not pull the lever.


You're never morally obliged to play hero as in these three examples, but it is the laudable or "right" thing to do.

In the default scenario though, if you pull the lever you're just deliberately killing innocents, and that makes you just as guilty as the one who tied them to the tracks in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it changes when you alter the numbers involved, either.

Say the scenario is such that if you deliberately murder one innocent, a million other innocents are not killed.

There is still only one moral answer: you cannot choose to kill the one and still be a moral or worthy human being.


It doesn't change if it's 10 million. 100 million. 1 billion.
 
No, no, I accept the scenario. I just didn't see inaction as a rejection of the scenario.

In the first scenario, if I must act, I would throw the switch to kill one instead of five.
In the second I would not push the fat man and let the five die. (Isn't this inaction, and yet a permissible option within the scenario?)
The decision not to push the fat man is still a choice. And yes, it's part of the scenario.

So, here's the thing. In this case, you are willing to pull a switch, and thus kill one person to save five. However, you are not willing to physically touch one man to kill him, in order to save five.

Seems a tad irrational, no?
 
The decision not to push the fat man is still a choice. And yes, it's part of the scenario.

So, here's the thing. In this case, you are willing to pull a switch, and thus kill one person to save five. However, you are not willing to physically touch one man to kill him, in order to save five.

Seems a tad irrational, no?
Yes, but irrationality is forced upon me by the rules of the thought experiment. In the first scenario (with switch) I am not allowed to choose inaction. In the second scenario (fat man) I am allowed to choose inaction.
I would choose inaction in both cases, but I'm not allowed to. So my inconsistency (irrationality) is forced upon me. :)
 
Yes, but irrationality is forced upon me by the rules of the thought experiment. In the first scenario (with switch) I am not allowed to choose inaction. In the second scenario (fat man) I am allowed to choose inaction.
I would choose inaction in both cases, but I'm not allowed to. So my inconsistency (irrationality) is forced upon me. :)
The scenario doesn't force you to be irrational or inconsistent. It forces you to become aware of the irrationality and inconsistency.

So you should be asking yourself:

The outcomes are identical. In both scenarios, either one person dies, or five people die. The only difference is that in the first scenario, you are pulling a switch; in the second, you're pushing someone. Why do you treat them differently?
 
The outcomes are identical. In both scenarios, either one person dies, or five people die. The only difference is that in the first scenario, you are pulling a switch; in the second, you're pushing someone. Why do you treat them differently?
In both scenarios five persons die unless I interfere.
I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.
But in the first scenario I must interfere as per the strictures of the scenario. So one person dies instead of five, and I am responsible for that death,
In the second scenario I'm allowed non-interference and I am not responsible for anyone's death.
I am not more willing to throw a switch than push a body. I would do neither. But the rules of the thought experiment force the issue.
:)
 
In both scenarios five persons die unless I interfere.
I would prefer not to interfere at all and avoid any and all responsibility for anyone's death.
But in the first scenario I must interfere as per the strictures of the scenario. So one person dies instead of five, and I am responsible for that death,
In the second scenario I'm allowed non-interference and I am not responsible for anyone's death.
I am not more willing to throw a switch than push a body. I would do neither. But the rules of the thought experiment force the issue.
:)

You're allowed non-interference in the first one too.

Free will is not eliminated in these scenarios ever, or they are worthless.
 
I would grab some copper wiring... a conduit... run some diagnostics... realize I also needed some nano tubes and a rubber band and short out the tracks stopping the hulking beast...

You forgot the chewing gum, McGuyver. :2razz:
 
Relatives, it would save more lives that way. "True love" can fade, family more so is forever. Imagine having allowed your family to die then having that same person divorce you later.

Given the abuse that some people take from their families, a risk for "true love" can be pretty good odds.
 
Back
Top Bottom