#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[ApeNotKillApe]

I'll strangle the fat guy while the trolley runs down the others. That's obviously the most efficient method barring I don't have a pipe wrench or something to exterminate the fat dude more quickly.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Actually if I had a machine gun I could take out the people on the tracks before the trolley even reached them, not to mention the bystanders, oh yeah that'd be really convenient. Oh oh! Wait! What if I had a grenade launcher? I could blast them to cinders before they even knew what hit them! Can I have a grenade launcher? No no no, a flamethrower! That'd really rain some hell down on them! Imagine the screams! The carnage! Imagine the torrent of fire, spitting melted death onto the innocent, flesh melting off their--hey, who are you!? What are you doing kicking down my door!? Get out of my house, this is private property! I'm not under arrest, YOU'RE under arrest! No I won't stop typing as I talk! Get those handcuffs away from--AGGGHHH!

[ReptilianPeon]

Can't the people move out of the way? Why are there people on the tracks in the first place? Did they all just happen to fall onto the tracks? Derailing the train, as has been said, seems like the best option - assuming the people cannot get out of the way (why wouldn't they be able to?).

[Athene]

My answer in regards to the "Trolley Dilemma" has always remained the same; I would choose to do nothing.

I find it much more difficult to grapple with the idea of having a direct hand in an innocent person's death, than coping with the deaths of others through my 'inaction'. 

Come to whatever conclusion you like about my morality.

In the TV show, Law & Order, it is noted in a couple of their episodes in some locales but not all, 'depraved indifference' is a punishable offense.  As for the trolley example, Idunno.

L&O does tend to illuminate fine points of law, but even watching the show doesn't imbue this viewer with knowledge of what's best to do in a situation.


I was unaware of my own passivity in the early years of the AIDS crisis being something I would later find odious, but it did happen, and it happened after I read of Bill Kraus and his efforts early on, and unfortunately, even his early reaction wasn't enough to save himself.  Would my sum of 40 friends and acquaintances lost to HIV be any different if I had been more like Kraus and less like myself ??  

Idunno, but I do know it would be easier living with it if I had.

I wouldn't consider my response to be depraved indifference when the ONLY solution afforded to me would be to murder an innocent individual. I would hardly consider the decision to NOT kill a person who is of no threat to anyone, a failure to take 'reasonable' action.

Unless of course, offering human sacrifices is considered a reasonable action.

[Athene]

The situation seems pretty clear to me, it's a thought experiment and doesn't allow for any other conditions than those mentioned, so you couldn't "fuck it up" by always flipping the switch. The only reasonable thing to do is to save the five people, not be a coward and pretend like you wouldn't be killing them if you didn't do anything. And I'm not calling Thena a coward, I'm just answering the question in the OP, but I will admit I read the other replies first and it influenced my own.

Good thing you're not calling me a coward, because I certainly would be willing to do most things in order to save them.
I just wouldn't be willing to do anything.

In other presentations of this scenario there is no switch, and the decider is in the position of actually having to kill the fat man by shoving him with his/her own hands, making it more personal. I've read that the switch offers a level of detachment that seems to affect some people's answers to a degree.

[The Grand Nudger]

Strange, isn't it, that the addition or removal of a lever might alter our decision making?  OFC, in reality..you'd need a lever either way.....the guys supposed to be huge.  

[LadyForCamus]

I don't think it says anything negative about your morality.  Consider the effect of having a species made up, entirely, of gung ho switch-throwers.  They're going to misread the situation enough times to counteract whatever good they might have intended.  Some may die because of one gropups inactivity, sure..but will it be larger than the number of people offed by dumbasses who think they have a clue?  Seems to me that the latter account for more deaths than the former.  

We -need- you to balance out the weight of our hasty decisions! 

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing.  I'd probably just cover my eyes and scream, lol.  I don't want to be making any decisions in that kind of scenario. The train was already headed on a particular course.  I'd just choose not to intervene.  May be they'll see the trolly and jump out of the way!  Then no one has to die !

[The Grand Nudger]

Hell, you probably wouldn't even choose not to intervene.  People just freeze.  This is going to sound horrible, but I've -been- the trolley, and from the trolley's perspective...we look like deer in front of a van.  There don't seem to be alot of complicated moral decision-making processes going on.  Those that don't freeze - just get out of the way...sometimes they grab the people next to them..sometimes they run right under the arc to grab someone...but mostly, they freeze, and stare. Saw more than a few eye covering screamers too, I guess. Not half as unnerving as the bug eyed screamers.

Long story short, I don't know that thought experiments like this are really informative as to our moralities, or our actions under duress -unattached- to any moral value judgements.

[Excited Penguin]

In the TV show, Law & Order, it is noted in a couple of their episodes in some locales but not all, 'depraved indifference' is a punishable offense.  As for the trolley example, Idunno.

L&O does tend to illuminate fine points of law, but even watching the show doesn't imbue this viewer with knowledge of what's best to do in a situation.


I was unaware of my own passivity in the early years of the AIDS crisis being something I would later find odious, but it did happen, and it happened after I read of Bill Kraus and his efforts early on, and unfortunately, even his early reaction wasn't enough to save himself.  Would my sum of 40 friends and acquaintances lost to HIV be any different if I had been more like Kraus and less like myself ??  

Idunno, but I do know it would be easier living with it if I had.

I wouldn't consider my response to be depraved indifference when the ONLY solution afforded to me would be to murder an innocent individual. I would hardly consider the decision to NOT kill a person who is of no threat to anyone, a failure to take 'reasonable' action.

Unless of course, offering human sacrifices is considered a reasonable action.

What if it was between your family and an innocent person?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oooo..ooo. can I?  You can -all- kiss all of your asses goodbye, if I have to choose between anyone and my offspring.  Innocence, is an irrelevance, in that choice.   All that's important, is that they're okay. I'd set an entire city on fire, fuck a bunch of trolleys.