- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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???
I think they mean trams.
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???
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 should have added: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
Unfortunately, since you are not McGyver and are not on the train, that's not an option.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...
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.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.
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.)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.
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???
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)?
I go with Jay here, Visbek.In any of these situations if sacrificing yourself is not an option, the only morally permissible act is to do nothing.
In this scenario, "doing nothing" means "five people will die."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.
You do know that this is not the normal formulation of the Trolley Problem, right?
The decision not to push the fat man is still a choice. And yes, it's part of the scenario.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?)
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.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 scenario doesn't force you to be irrational or inconsistent. It forces you to become aware of the irrationality and inconsistency.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.
In both scenarios five persons die unless I interfere.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.
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...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?