HowItIs Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I've been reading a lot of philosophy lately. It's really fascinating stuff and makes me do some deep thinking. I read about this one tonight and thought I'd share... The trolley dilemma is summed in two parts as follows: QUOTE Suppose that a trolley is running down a hill at a fast speed, heading towards five people at the bottom of the street. When it reaches them it will surely kill all of them. You notice that there is a switch next to you that could direct the trolley to a side path where there is one man standing and once you do, it will be the one man that dies. Would you do it? This is usually a thought experiment comparing Utilitarianism and Deontology. In Utilitarianism, the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society (for you other Trekkers, "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few... or the one"). An act is viewed through the lens of what will benefit the greatest number of people. In this case, pulling the switch so that only one person dies. Jeremy Bentham is considered to be the Father of Utilitarianism. Deontology, OTOH, is influenced by the writings of Immanuel Kant (who's a real piss-ant, I hear). In this philosophy, the act itself is the only criteria - is it against the rules. Even if you are saving 5 other lives, the deontologist's view is that your action will kill another and killing is wrong so you do nothing. Deontology says that one must judge the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. So where do you fall in this debate? What would you do and why? And no cheating. You cannot stop the trolley or move the people. This ain't the Kobiyashi Maru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) Isn't this from that Harvard prof Michael Sandel? It's a tough question (which makes it a good one). If I have absolutely no connection with any of those 6 people, I'd probably go the utilitarian route and afterwards deal with the guilt of actively killing that sole person. One reason [and probably the most common reason for others] I chose that is for the sheer difference in numbers: 5>1. Also, if I didn't make a choice and the 5 died, I'm not sure that I would be able to deal with that guilt vs. the 1 person dying. So, in a sense, my choice is somewhat [if not strongly] connected to my own ability/inability to deal with levels of guilt. And just for added measure, I'd go and find Kirk then kill him for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru. Edited September 3, 2011 by JohnnyBlaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 Prof. Sandel may have written about it and/or used it. But it was first introduced by Philippa Foot. Here's the Wiki entry And thanks for responding. I was curious as to whether anyone would want to tackle this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babycat Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I'm not sure if I could handle the guilt either, whether one person got killed or all of them... I wish I could come up with a better answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USB Connector Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Aside from the fact that it's also entirely possible to flip the switch of a track half way and watch the trolley get derailed, which would preclude the possibility of neither party getting hit; I would probably just try to warn the five people who are going to get it. My reasoning behind this is that in today's society, the ACT is punishable. In order to avoid prison I could easily feign ignorance of the switch out of sheer panic for the people about to get hit and simply try to save them. Since death would be on my conscience one way or another, at least I could avoid going to prison for murder*. *The Oxford English Dictionary defines murder as "the action or act of killing. Subsequently, killing is defined as "to deprive of life". Therefore by flipping the switch, I would have KNOWINGLY deprived someone of life; evidence which is provable in a court of law. Not seeing the switch in the heat of panic is something that can neither be proven nor disproven in court and thus must be taken at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 The original problem says nothing about alternatives or consequences to the act, so I've chosen to ignore them. Since I am not a radical environmentalist or Malthusian, I would save the five (unless they were members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is also not explicitly included in the problem). A horrible choice, to be sure, but I believe this is the better alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good,bad,andrush Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 This silly human race is overpopulated Nah honestly I would save the five, and I'd explain but Johnny Blaze already did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyndseyG Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 QUOTE (Babycat @ Sep 3 2011, 12:45 PM) I'm not sure if I could handle the guilt either, whether one person got killed or all of them... I wish I could come up with a better answer. I know exactly how you feel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Without knowing anything about any of the people, I would let the 5 people die. Who am I, and who is anybody, to make the judgment that one person's life, or five people's lives, are more important than another life in a situation like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostworks Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 ^ this entire thread (to date) illustrates the problem with the jury system based on the responses, most of you certainly aren't my 'peers' - how could I ever be judged fairly, regardless of what I was accused of? depressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 QUOTE (ghostworks @ Sep 4 2011, 06:56 AM) ^ this entire thread (to date) illustrates the problem with the jury system based on the responses, most of you certainly aren't my 'peers' - how could I ever be judged fairly, regardless of what I was accused of? depressing You are judged every day [by someone in some form] I'd bet. And you do the same I'd also bet. Whether or not you are judged fairly doesn't mean you can't make a choice or that you haven't already. Yeah, it may be depressing but that's how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 First of all, AWESOME Star Trek reference! My first honest reaction is, I doubt I'd never be in that situation to begin with. Beyond that, I would have to say that even while switching it so the one person got killed, it's really not technically killing someone as if I did nothing, I'd be responsible for 5 people being killed. It would be horrible regardless, and especially for the people who cared about that 1 person, but more horrible with the other option. I would look at it as saving five people's lives as opposed to saving one person's life. Of course you can't simplify the importance of life into simple arithmetic, but there's no easy solution. KHAANNNNNNN!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Acting according to the strict parameters of the Experiment, I would turn the switch and scream at the one man to move.....and hope for the best. These "Experiments" are usually flawed. In this Experiment, one flaw is assuming that there are only two possible outcomes. It ignores the reality of Life - that there are often several alternatives in a dire situation. Limiting the parameters of a real life event makes the event unreal.....which makes the Experiment a fraud. It is not a real test of a person's decision-making, so all philosophical debates over a person's moral choices in this event are meaningless. That's how I see it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good,bad,andrush Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Sep 4 2011, 09:31 PM) Acting according to the strict parameters of the Experiment, I would turn the switch and scream at the one man to move.....and hope for the best. These "Experiments" are usually flawed. In this Experiment, one flaw is assuming that there are only two possible outcomes. It ignores the reality of Life - that there are often several alternatives in a dire situation. Limiting the parameters of a real life event makes the event unreal.....which makes the Experiment a fraud. It is not a real test of a person's decision-making, so all philosophical debates over a person's moral choices in this event are meaningless. That's how I see it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Can-Utility Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Nothing. I have no moral obligation to stop the event from happening, and if I do intervene I will be directly responsible for at least one death; I'm positive there are people other than myself with a different moral compass that would intervene in this situation anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 QUOTE (Good @ bad,andrush,Sep 4 2011, 09:36 PM)QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Sep 4 2011, 09:31 PM) Acting according to the strict parameters of the Experiment, I would turn the switch and scream at the one man to move.....and hope for the best. These "Experiments" are usually flawed. In this Experiment, one flaw is assuming that there are only two possible outcomes. It ignores the reality of Life - that there are often several alternatives in a dire situation. Limiting the parameters of a real life event makes the event unreal.....which makes the Experiment a fraud. It is not a real test of a person's decision-making, so all philosophical debates over a person's moral choices in this event are meaningless. That's how I see it.... Didn't mean to be such a party-pooper, GBR.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I reject the premise on the basis that it is unrealistic and therefore unanswerable. Also, that unless one is actually in such a scenario, one cannot accurately predict how one would respond to it. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Enemy Without Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 QUOTE (-Ender- @ Sep 3 2011, 04:17 PM) Without knowing anything about any of the people, I would let the 5 people die. Who am I, and who is anybody, to make the judgment that one person's life, or five people's lives, are more important than another life in a situation like that? Your first and second statements contradict each other. By saying you would let the five people die, you are inherently placing both the life of one person and your own emotional/moral stability over the lives of five people. To say that you would let five people die to preserve your own innocence is inherently selfish. We would all do best to remember: "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunter Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Depends on who the one or the five are. Gang bangers let 'em fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 QUOTE (hunter @ Sep 5 2011, 12:38 AM) Depends on who the one or the five are. Gang bangers let 'em fry. Agreed. But I think the point of the experiment is that you don't know at all who anyone is. You can't place any value judgment on any of them. Five will die if you do nothing, one will die if you throw the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Sep 4 2011, 10:31 PM) Acting according to the strict parameters of the Experiment, I would turn the switch and scream at the one man to move.....and hope for the best. These "Experiments" are usually flawed. In this Experiment, one flaw is assuming that there are only two possible outcomes. It ignores the reality of Life - that there are often several alternatives in a dire situation. Limiting the parameters of a real life event makes the event unreal.....which makes the Experiment a fraud. It is not a real test of a person's decision-making, so all philosophical debates over a person's moral choices in this event are meaningless. That's how I see it.... The purpose is not to beat the parameters of the situation. The purpose is to provide a framework to ask a moral question. Would you do something that would kill one person in order to save five other people who would die if you did nothing? Forget about the scenario and its flaws. Are five lives more important than one life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go2wrk@95974 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) I would try to save the 5 people..basically try and save as many as you can, then yell at the one man, to get out of the way. Here's another scenario..what if you were a pilot of a jet-liner, and you were flyin' along,and everything was cool, and your co-pilot was talkin' to the flight engineer and goofin' off..not payin' attention, and suddenly you run into a small plane, because your co-pilot didn't see it.. and now your faced with an extremely difficult decision. You have 13 second's, to choose one of two option's. 1) Fly the plane straight into the ground, at 300 mph, and kill everyone on board,including yourself... or 2) Crash-land the plane into the neighborhood, and maybe save a few passenger's on board, and possibly yourself and the crew...but..completely destroy the neighborhood in the process, and end up killing 100's ,if not thousands of innocent people on the ground... ...What would you do,if you were the pilot??? ..and yeah..this is a true story..it did actually happen. The pilot made the right decision..that's why he's a total HERO, imo. Edited September 6, 2011 by go2wrk@95974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 QUOTE (go2wrk@95974 @ Sep 6 2011, 02:00 PM) I would try to save the 5 people..basically try and save as many as you can, then yell at the one man, to get out of the way. Here's another scenario..what if you were a pilot of a jet-liner, and you were flyin' along,and everything was cool, and your co-pilot was talkin' to the flight engineer and goofin' off..not payin' attention, and suddenly you run into a small plane, because your co-pilot didn't see it.. and now your faced with an extremely difficult decision. You have 13 second's, to choose one of two option's. 1) Fly the plane straight into the ground, at 300 mph, and kill everyone on board,including yourself... or 2) Crash-land the plane into the neighborhood, and maybe save a few passenger's on board, and possibly yourself and the crew...but..completely destroy the neighborhood in the process, and end up killing 100's ,if not thousands of innocent people on the ground... ...What would you do,if you were the pilot??? ..and yeah..this is a true story..it did actually happen. The pilot made the right decision..that's why he's a total HERO, imo. I think you slightly missed the point of the 5 vs. 1 scenario. There is no chance at saving anyone except the 5 OR the 1. There is no screaming and hoping that the other can be saved too. As for the hero story...based on the way you've written your post, I guess that he chose the 1st option, i.e. self-sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Take no action. No one dies. Everything is an illusion. At least in a Buddhist belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your_Lion Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I think, given the situation and the speed in which it is probably happening, I would be too much in shock to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now