Why Is This A Problem???

[durangodawood]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1.Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

2.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

 

[Chesterton]

Only a jerk wouldnt.

A jerk, a Buddhist, or some thoughtful atheists.

The problem is why I, a civilian, am able to stand next to the track-switching lever? That sounds ripe for evil sabotage, like letting any ol' person into an airport's air traffic control tower.

 

[HTacianas]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

If you pull the lever you are actively killing a person. If you do not pull the lever you are not.

 

[public hermit]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

Agreed. Minimize damage.

I think some people hesitate because they think pulling the lever involves them in way not pulling it doesn't. But I would think not pulling it does not absolve one of culpability, since they could have pulled it (the principle of double effect might apply here). So, it comes down to minimizing damage, I think.

Discussions of the Trolley Problem and the relevance of the principle of double effect to explaining our intuitions about it can be divided into three groups. First, there are consequentialists who view the widespread reluctance people feel to push someone in the path of the trolley in order to stop it and save the five as irrational (Joshua Greene, 2013). Second, there are those who take the paired intuitions in the Trolley Problem as proof of the fundamental role of Double Effect as an implicit principle guiding moral judgment (Philippa Foot, 1985), John Mikhail, 2011). Third, some argue that it would be wrong for a bystander to switch the trolley (Judith Jarvis Thomson, 2008) and suggest that people’s willingness to view it as permissible is a result of inadequate reflection or insufficient emotional engagement. This group would include those who uphold the principle of double effect but deny that it provides a permission to swerve the trolley (Elizabeth Anscombe, 1982) and those who reject the principle of double effect while conceding that the standard intuitive judgments about the Trolley Problem comport with the principle as it ordinarily interpreted

Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Tigger45]

What’s the chances of one of the five being my ex-wife

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

The real question is: Where is the actual application for the so-called "Trolley Propaganda Machine" dilemma, at all of it's implied sticking points? An argument or a dilemma doesn't actually become a real talking point until it applies to our real flesh-and-blood bleeding lives.

Or how many people haven't seen it's representation on the t.v. series: The Good Place?

Yeah... I don't buy the actual utiliarian equation in the Trolley Facade for more than.... Oh, I don't know.......

...... 5 seconds?

 

[durangodawood]

If you pull the lever you are actively killing a person. If you do not pull the lever you are not.

No you arent actively killing anyone. The death(s) are entirely built into the trolleys course.

So basically the question is: is it OK to steer danger toward less populated areas?

Or even: is it reprehensible not to?

The answer to both is YES, obviously. (Assuming we value people generally. If not then just steal the level handle.)

 

[durangodawood]

The real question is: Where is the actual application for the so-called "Trolley Propaganda Machine" dilemma, at all of it's implied sticking points? An argument or a dilemma doesn't actually become a real talking point until it applies to our real flesh-and-blood bleeding lives......

You can easily imagine realistic scenarios where you have the option to divert danger to less populated areas. Rare maybe, but completely plausible.

 

[durangodawood]

A jerk, a Buddhist, or some thoughtful atheists.

The problem is why I, a civilian, am able to stand next to the track-switching lever? That sounds ripe for evil sabotage, like letting any ol' person into an airport's air traffic control tower.

Why would a Buddhist do nothing when the prevention of suffering is easily at hand?

 

[Occams Barber]

I suspect that the trolley problem crops up in real life more often than we realise.

A decision about vaccination is an example. The odds of a negative outcome are greater if you don't vaccinate than if you do. Not vaccinating is the equivalent of inaction - allowing the trolley to kill the group tied up on the rails. Vaccinating is the equivalent of pulling the lever and redirecting the trolley killing the single person. It may be that even for someone who understands the probabilities, the sense of potentially causing harm by vaccinating (pulling the lever) overcomes the sense of potentially causing harm through inaction.

Assisted dying brings up similar problem. Given someone with an incurable, painful and severely debilitating disease most people will accept the idea of non-interference - taking no action to prolong life and allowing someone to die naturally but potentially prolonging suffering. The other option is actually assisting the person to die by providing and/or administering a means of causing death. The difference, like the trolley problem, is between passively allowing death but prolonging suffering (not redirecting the trolley) and actively causing death and minimising suffering (redirecting the trolley).

While not the only factor, I suspect that the potential to actively cause harm (redirect the trolley) vs passively doing nothing is psychologically weighted towards the passive role.

OB

 

[RDKirk]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

Depends on one's actual ethical system (provided one has developed or accepted a particular ethical system).

As a deontologist, my first question is: To whom do I owe a duty in my actions? Do I know any of these people? Do I owe a duty to one group and not the other? Let's say I was a soldier and the five were enemy troops and the one was a comrade. Decision made.

Or if I were that same soldier under the Law of Armed Conflict (the Geneva Conventions) and the one was an enemy soldier but the five were enemy civilians. Or it could be the other way around. Decision made.

Or if I were a utilitarian...which choice is better for the greater number of people? Decision made.

If I already have a concept of the end good toward which I point every action, the decision becomes easier...and actually rational.

 

[durangodawood]

I suspect that the trolley problem crops up in real life more often than we realise.

A decision about vaccination is an example. The odds of a negative outcome are greater if you don't vaccinate than if you do. Not vaccinating is the equivalent of inaction - allowing the trolley to kill the group tied up on the rails. Vaccinating is the equivalent of pulling the lever and redirecting the trolley killing the single person. It may be that even for someone who understands the probabilities, the sense of potentially causing harm by vaccinating (pulling the lever) overcomes the sense of potentially causing harm through inaction......

Like a seatbelt law. In oddball circumstances the use of the seatbelt will cause death.

So yes, I can see how this non-problem crops up here and there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You can easily imagine realistic scenarios where you have the option to divert danger to less populated areas. Rare maybe, but completely plausible.

So, how rare is it when it's your own mother who is the singular person on ... the other track?

Now pull the level, and do so quite easily? (???...???...???)

I mean, no one said we get to customize the Trolley Problem and fill it with our favored preference for completely anonymous entities ....... because in real life, it could be that our Trolley choices involve people we know and love rather than merely strangers.

 

[durangodawood]

Depends on one's actual ethical system (provided one has developed or accepted a particular ethical system).

As a deontologist, my first question is: To whom do I owe a duty in my actions? Do I know any of these people? Do I owe a duty to one group and not the other? Let's say I was a soldier and the five were enemy troops and the one was a comrade. Decision made.

Or if I were that same soldier under the Law of Armed Conflict (the Geneva Conventions) and the one was an enemy soldier but the five were enemy civilians. Or it could be the other way around. Decision made.

Or if I were a utilitarian...which choice is better for the greater number of people? Decision made.

If I already have a concept of the end good toward which I point every action, the decision becomes easier...and actually rational.

Your deontologist example is making a different problem than the one presented to us. Like what if one is your wife (or ex wife as mentioned above)?

But I'm asking about the problem as presented and failing to grasp why thats a problem for anyone.

 

[Occams Barber]

So, how rare is it when it's your own mother who is the singular person on ... the other track?

Now pull the level, and do so quite easily? (???...???...???)

I've had both my father and my sister 'on the other track' where the problem was increasing the chances of a quick death to minimise suffering or taking a passive role of non-interference and potentially prolonging suffering. In both case death was inevitable.


I chose to pull the lever within the bounds of what was legally possible.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

Remember this OP thread I posted a little ways back ?

Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

 

[durangodawood]

...no one said we get to customize the Trolley Problem and fill it with our favored preference for completely anonymous entities...

If one was a beloved that would have been important enough to mention in laying out the problem. The problem as presented outlines the things you notice.

Could be interesting to explore other problems tho.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've had both my father and my sister 'on the other track' where the problem was increasing the chances of a quick death to minimise suffering or taking a passive role of non-interference and potentially prolonging suffering. In both case death was inevitable.


I chose to pull the lever within the bounds of what was legally possible.

OB

I'm truly sorry for your losses in those instances, OB. I'm sure that was difficult to deal with, just as it was for me to watch my mother hooked up to life-support and then have the doctor ask us if we wished to continue with the measures he was taking to maintain her heartbeat. We said "no."

But whatever our respective personal instances of family tragedy, these don't constitute the kinds of choices that are manifest in the Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem is a different kind of problem ...

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm truly sorry for your losses in those instances, OB. I'm sure that was difficult to deal with, just as it was for me to watch my mother hooked up to life-support and then have the doctor ask us if we wished to continue with the measures he was taking to maintain her heartbeat. We said "no."

But whatever our respective personal instances of family tragedy, these don't constitute the kinds of choices that are manifest in the Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem is a different kind of problem ...

Thank you for your empathy. I'm sorry about your mother. I mentioned my situation only as a means of pointing out that it can be a real life problem.

I don't agree with you. I think its exactly the same problem as the trolley. In this case 'degree of suffering' is a substitute for 'number of people killed'. 'Pulling the lever' is analogous to actively causing death and minimising suffering while not pulling the lever amounts to passively allowing prolonged suffering.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your empathy. I'm sorry about your mother. I mentioned my situation only as a means of pointing out that it can be a real life problem.

I don't agree with you. I think its exactly the same problem as the trolley. In this case 'degree of suffering' is a substitute for 'number of people killed'. 'Pulling the lever' is analogous to actively causing death and minimising suffering while not pulling the lever amounts to passively allowing prolonged suffering.

OB

I don't agree, but I'll just leave it at that out of respect for what you had to deal with.