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.)

[Athene]

Consistent, yes.

[vorlon13]

Regarding the trolley problem, trip the switch after the first truck passes thru the switch, but before the rear truck goes thru and the trolley will derail and save everybody.

[vulcanlogician]

Regarding the trolley problem, trip the switch after the first truck passes thru the switch, but before the rear truck goes thru and the trolley will derail and save everybody.

That's cheating! Unless people die, thought experiments are no fun.

[Longhorn]

Well... The two examples aren’t really the same.

In the trolley problem, someone must die. So it makes sense to choose saving five people over one. In the transplant problem, you aren’t choosing between one inevitable outcome and the other, you’re consciously killing a person that did not HAVE to die at all, picked by you at random. Why them instead of any number of other patients? They were going to live, they were not doomed like the person on the tracks. You become the trolley in this scenario, not the powerless person making a decision between bad and worse. You choose to do it without being forced and it involves going out of your way to harm them. Therefore it’s not the same. I don’t think it’s accurate to put those two together.

[vulcanlogician]

Well... The two examples aren’t really the same.

In the trolley problem, someone must die. So it makes sense to choose saving five people over one. In the transplant problem, you aren’t choosing between one inevitable outcome and the other, you’re consciously and immorally killing a person that did not HAVE to die.

You are mistaken.

In the trolley experiment, the one person on the other track does not HAVE TO DIE either. The only way they die is if you ACT by pulling the switch. Otherwise they survive. Think about it. 

For sake of the doctor example, assume no other people are available to be donors. This way (at least from a consequentialist standpoint) both examples are the same.

[paulpablo]

The two don't seem to be on completely even footing.

In the trolley one it seems like an evil act has been done to 6 people, your job is to minimize the causalities, in a practical situation like that you'd be calling the police or at least thinking of how to save that one persons life on the track after the lever has been pulled, you'd pull the lever to save the 5 people, then your goal, no matter how futile, would be to save the 1 person on their own.

In the surgery scenario you're actively killing someone and harvesting their organs, that seems to eliminate any chance of their possibly being intentions to save everyone's life.  

There's practical differences in the scenario, the degree of involvement in the killing, the timing of the deaths, the probability of the single person surviving.  I know this is a hypothetical situation in which you're supposed to know the man on the track will die if you pull the lever, but if that situation were real there'd still be things you can do to at least try and save that person that you would try to do.  Unlike removing someone's organs, in which case you are the person who is killing that single person with your own hands directly and with full knowledge that they're going to die.

Also the statistical difference in how likely it is the 5 will survive.  If the train is not running them over they will not die.  On the other hand in the surgical scenario you're relying on the fact that this person has organs that are in good condition, that the procedure will go perfectly, that no one will die during these 5 procedures and so on.

If I was put in these practical situations it seems instinctive/logical to say I would pull the lever in the trolley situation but not perform the surgery in the surgical scenario.
In the pretend world of hypothetical questions, where I know who will survive, who will die and exactly what will happen, it wouldn't really make a difference I suppose, I might have to think it through more but both situations seem fairly equal in a pretend hypothetical world.

[Longhorn]

You are mistaken.

In the trolley experiment, the one person on the other track does not HAVE TO DIE either. The only way they die is if you ACT by pulling the switch. Otherwise they survive. Think about it.

But the person is not ingrained in this scenario. They come along as an unrelated addition. You choose to involve them and you choose to kill them - it’s not an unstoppable trolley or death, it’s you consciously killing another person. Not in defense of the others, like if they were going to shoot them (unstoppable force).

I still don’t see it as the same even if there aren’t other donors.

It’s not the question of “do I direct this force this way or that way”, it’s “do I let this force go its way or do I act as another force to kill someone else and then stop that force”. If that makes sense.

[Athene]

I actually had the trolley experiment involving shoving the "fat man" in mind, though I suppose the addition of a switch doesn't really change the matter of requiring a direct hand in killing (i.e. murdering?) one person in order to save the lives of others in any fundamental way. Just a manner of making the choice seem or feel more ethical, in an effort to make the dilemma more challenging.

Interesting stuff.

[Aegon]