Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[vulcanlogician]

Hey folks!

I was recently musing over two different thought experiments whose purpose is to test the value of ethical consequentialism. For those who aren't familiar, consequentialism is a type of normative ethical theory which emphasizes the results (or consequences) of a given action.

In this paper, Judith Thompson analyzes the famous trolley problem alongside another thought experiment: the transplant problem.

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the trolley problem can find a description of it by clicking below:

---

You find yourself standing next to a trolley track when, to your horror, you notice a runaway trolley which is set to hit five hapless individuals who are in the trolleys path. But there is hope! A few feet away from you stands a lever that, if pulled, will divert the trolley from its default course, thus saving the lives of five people. There is only one problem. If you pull the lever, and switch it off its track, it will be on course to hit one person who is on the other track.

So what do you do? Do you kill one person to save five? Or do you do nothing? (I should add that, even though the picture has people tied to the tracks, the original example uses railway workers who are unaware of the oncoming trolley.)

---

The transplant problem is a different variation on the same ethical dilemma. In this example you are a world class surgeon whose area of expertise is organ transplants. You currently have five patients under your care who will die by the end of the day if they don't receive organ transplants. The window for any last-minute organ donations to show up has closed, and you are basically watching the clock waiting for them to die.

A patient shows up to your office complaining of mild gastric discomfort. This gives you an idea   .

If you were to subdue this patient and harvest her organs, you could save the lives of all five of your patients. But if you do this, there is no chance that the "donor" will survive. So what do you do? Do you kill one person to save five? Or do you do nothing?



The question here is: are you a consistent consequentialist? If you saved five lives at the cost of one in the trolley example, did you do so in the doctor example? If there is inconsistency, how do you justify it? Keep in mind, both examples are essentially the same: you can either ACT and save five lives (at the cost of one) or NOT ACT and let five people die. I'd like to hear people's reasoning for deciding differently or remaining consistent concerning both thought experiments.

(Even if you don't reply, please answer the attached poll. I'd like to get some raw numbers. I set it up to be anonymous.)