#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[Aroura]

Likely I would freeze up. I might wish to save to 5 people. I might even be willing to kill one person to save 5 others, but the time factor involved in this particular scenario would likely not be enough time for me to process it all and feel certain enough to take that action.

Is the fat guy a scientist who has the cure for cancer and is on his way to publish it? Are the 5 people on the tracks all pedophiles and rapists? I don't know. The scenario just doesn't have enough info for me to take action, so I'd like take none as a form of indecision.

Also, even if I did want to push the fat guy, I'm 5' nothing and just over 100lbs. He probably wouldn't even notice me pushing, let alone actually fall down onto the tracks.

[Excited Penguin]

Depending on the variant, and we'll go with the fat man scenario we're supposed to opine on anyway, there are only a set amount of possible choices, so other options are out of the question, that's the whole point of the thing. You either let five people die and rationalise it however you want or you kill one person. But if you choose to save the the one man you'll still have sentenced 5 people to death by inaction. If this were a one vs one situation, that would be an impossible choice to make(actually it would just have to be either random or preferential), but in this scenario, the two choices are not equal. So either you're willing to have 5 people's deaths on your conscience and rationalize it however you want or you're prepared to do something horrible in order to save 4 lives more than you would otherwise. Not stepping up because you don't want to dirty your hands is morally indefensible.

If this happened in real life, I'm assumming there would be certain legal realities at work that would have to be considered, but the thought experiment itself mentions no such parameters, so we'd better ignore laws completely on this and go with our moral gut - in answering the question, ofc.

I can more effectively demonstrate that the only good option here is to kill one person by again, stressing out the fact that this is a completely isolated event we're considering, one imagined precisely in order to test and train our moral intuition and reasoning, not one meant to present itself as a possible or probable event that you're going to experience in real life, and by talking numbers - if you would kill one person in order to save all other humans on the planet then we can agree that numbers do matter. And all things being equal, two lives should matter more than one, by that same logic. Five lives even more so.

I think more people would "choose" to push the fat man if the question was not whether we would do the deed, but rather whether it would be good to do so, or not. It is definitely better to save five lives instead of one. Whether we would be capable to, I think none of us really know, but should we do it? Yes, definitely.

EP

[Excited Penguin]

Likely I would freeze up. I might wish to save to 5 people. I might even be willing to kill one person to save 5 others, but the time factor involved in this particular scenario would likely not be enough time for me to process it all and feel certain enough to take that action.

Is the fat guy a scientist who has the cure for cancer and is on his way to publish it? Are the 5 people on the tracks all pedophiles and rapists? I don't know. The scenario just doesn't have enough info for me to take action, so I'd like take none as a form of indecision.

Also, even if I did want to push the fat guy, I'm 5' nothing and just over 100lbs. He probably wouldn't even notice me pushing, let alone actually fall down onto the tracks.

I get your point, but the chances that the fat guy would be extremely good and the five people extremely bad is extremely improbable. Knowing nothing in that situation, you should simply go with the numbers.

EP

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see the "should", the moral compulsion, in the scenario.  Just a "would". Save one, save five, save none....what moral compulsion is there in heroism? What moral condemnation is there in failure to choose one life over another, or many over one, one over many?

[Excited Penguin]

I don't see the "should", the moral compulsion, in the scenario.  Just a "would".  Save one, save five, save none....what moral compulsion is there in heroism?

Do you see a "should" anywhere in life, or should we just get rid of the word entirely?

[bennyboy]

Seems to me that the latter account for more deaths than the former.  

You think so?  I know that in a lot of emergencies, dozens of people will stand around with their thumbs up their asses assuming that if nobody else is doing anything, they probably don't need to either.  Meanwhile, women are getting raped, babies are getting burned up in fires, stabbed people are bleeding to death on the street.

[LadyForCamus]

LOL, leave it to EP to invite forum members to open up about their feelings and ideas on a moral thought experiment, and then promptly tell everyone who offers an opinion which differs from the one HE thinks is "correct" that they are undeniably wrong and morally bankrupt. I thought this was a "what would you do, and why?" poll, not a "you're wrong and a bad person if would do differently then I would." poll.

This is exactly how one spoils his own thread...

[bennyboy]

@OP

Given full insight at the moment, I'd fuck the individual, either time, for the greater good: unless the group were kids, or black, or muslim, liked Trump, or owned Apple products. . . you know, those unsavory types.


Seriously, though-- in my opinion being passive when you can clearly see that your inaction will cause great harm is selfish and wrong. You gotta make the call that seems best, and if you end up bearing a burden of guilt, that's the cost of being a member of a civilized society.

[Excited Penguin]

LOL, leave it to EP to invite forum members to open up about their feelings and ideas on a moral thought experiment, and then promptly tell everyone who offers an opinion which differs from the one HE thinks is "correct" that they are undeniably wrong and morally bankrupt.  I thought this was a "what would you do, and why?" poll, not a "you're wrong and a bad person if would do differently then I would." poll.

This is exactly how one spoils his own thread...

Not my thread, never got personal, never pressured anyone into agreeing with me, just giving my honest opinion on the matter, it's inevitable that you take offense with it if you're determined to read too much into it, and this outburst is totally misplaced.

EP

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, sorry. Sometimes I have trouble differentiating between you and Pool...[emoji53]