The Trolley Problem, What Would You Do? 🚂
The Trolley Problem
There is a runaway trolley chugging down some rail tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five individuals tied up and unable to move. The trolley is set on a path straight towards them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, by a lever. In the event that you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks.
Unfortunately, you see that there is one individual on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for instance, you cannot put the lever in a middle, so the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).
You have two options: ( (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the right decision, and why?
A Couple Of Thoughts
You should take choice 1) Doing nothing (not taking an interest) as many see it as the only sensible alternative. If you pull the lever, you are committing murder. If you let the five individuals die, you are not. If the five people do die, their death was caused by the individual who tied them up, not you.
Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." As such, you are seeing an intellectual end ("how about we spare lives") and utilising those ends to rationalise killing ("I should slaughter that individual since it will be better for everybody").
That thought process is imperfect and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist moral beliefs. It isn't shrewd to endow your intellect with the ability to rationalise harming others to fulfil your own beliefs, regardless of the possibility that your actions are for the sake of "others."
If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch a fantastic film named "Tempest of the Century." Stephen King wrote this movie, and it hooks you on from the very first minute and does not let you go.
Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat, and despite the fact that it's three hours in length it feels like thirty minutes since it's so damn good. Towards the end, they have a variant of the trolley issue, and they do a great job with it. I figure you will comprehend my point of view better once you see it.
Tempest of the Century ? Perfect ! Needed a good film for tonight, thanks ! I think whatever we say most of us would just panick and not do anything . Interesting though, followed !
It is a really good watch.
I hope you enjoy it
This is a trick question... it all depends where the wall street broker is standing!
lol that is one great joke
When we boil down the nature of our existence, the only thing we can really do is make choices. Through this lens, we come to see that life resembles something like a game of plinko: every moment contains a choice that affects our future position. Thinking how this looks across time, our lives are vines which twist and turn at different junctures. Thus, the trolly question is not self-contained in the moment of pulling the lever. You, the agent with the choice, are the universe's decider: do we head to this future or that one? In this, there is no passive option. You are not choosing to save anyone: you are responsible for killing either one or five people and all the consequences thereof. Which future do you choose?
Intrigued, I look forward to watching.
Nice read :)
When time allows I look forward to watching it. Great post and thanks for giving us your own perspective. It helps me in my thinking and I'm not sure I can deny the logic you provided but I have to give it a bit more thought to reach my own personal, satisfactory opinion.
I'll get back to you! :)
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by numpty from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
In intellectual discussions I pick 1, or it's variant (flip a coin). The reality is I flip the switch because pulling the lever is not much effort on my part compared to the outcome and in a situation truly this dire then I think utilitarianism is more informative. I don't think that gives a warrant for utilitarianism in all cases though; particularly because we don't have the foresight or a clear timescale to evaluate the consequences upon.
To illustrate this: put baby Hitler as one of the five people. Then increasingly advance the year of Hitler's age: at what point does the utilitarian run over Hitler and kill four innocents?
Interesting and challenging question. My initial reaction is a lot like @thoughtfool's - I see your logic. I find myself wondering how the legal and moral arguments would compare in different jurisdictions around the world.
Great post . Thank you for sharing!