6 ms·

That trolley problem has always seemed fundamentally dishonest to me. It sets out to present two scenarios that are somehow morally equivalent, but they're only

by fenomas 10y ago

That trolley problem has always seemed fundamentally dishonest to me. It sets out to present two scenarios that are somehow morally equivalent, but they're only equivalent for for people who magically know the outcomes of their actions. That is, "would you push a fat guy in front of a trolley if you knew it would save five lives?" isn't a question that's relevant to human ethics. It would need to be "would you push a fat in front of a trolley because you thought it would save five lives" - and, implicitly, then bear the responsibility for your action if you were wrong?

mjburgess 10y ago
That's a perfectly reasonable response within the Trolly-Problem debate. It isn't dishonest because it is there to analyse precisely these kinds of concerns.
- jnordwick 10y ago
  It's highly problematic like many other questions and studies like these since it is so open to interpretation (who are the people, how old are they, how do I know the train will switch tracks, etc...), but more of a problem it is too likely for study participants to give the answer they thing the researcher wants. How many psych studies have gone down in flames lately from reproducibility attempts from this same thing? There have been almost entire sections of psych taken down and beaten lately.
lettergram 10y ago
My response to the trolley problem always thrown off my philosophy friends/professors. I always asked why this was a question at all? To me, all ethics and morals are broken down to how we live with ourselves and perceive ourselves. Because Everyone made a choice to be in the given position and assuming no one I care about is on the trolley I have no reason to effect the system. Sure, saving five people's lives may help some people sleep at night, but killing another also won't help. For me, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I killed someone. Not taking action ensures I have done nothing. Meaning, it would be as if I'm not there, thus everyone is going to die by their own choices not mine. I am not inflicting my will on others, therefore I am not killing anyone, and I cannot make a wrong decision. As you pointed out, you can't know what your actions will do. For some reason this always makes everyone call me immoral though...
- Ressuder 10y ago
  I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that the Chinese Room argument holds no water because nobody could be that good at translating something that way. I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. Let's say that you're standing on a pier with a lifebuoy in your hands and you see someone about to drown. Surely you can not believe that you've done nothing wrong if you do nothing in this case?
  - lettergram 10y ago
    > I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. I find in terrifying that people feel it's okay to pull the lever and kill someone, even if it saves five people. That one person is just walking along, doing exactly what they should be, then some philosopher comes along, manages to (almost godlike) interpret five people in a trolley are about to smash into a wall and only one person is on the other track - so he pulls the lever saving the five strangers, but killing the person who was just walking along. Who is he to choose that man deserves to die over the others? The philosopher chose to impose his will and opinions on the others has done something to actually kill someone. Inaction is not the same as action. Those five people (we assume) chose to get on that trolley, they were doomed by the fate of the trolley. The guy walking along was doomed by the opinion of a philosopher. In your case of a lifebuoy I would feel inclined to toss the bouy because I wouldn't be killing someone to save another I would be saving someone at the expense of some physical effort. Regardless, that's my choice, it shouldn't horrify you because I didn't make the guy drown - I did nothing to harm them. If I am to blame for walking away, what does that say about you? Are you going to punish me? If so, you must feel it's your duty to impose your opinion on others because you somehow feel more correct, but does that really make you moral? I am sure there are many times people feel it's moral to do X, yet others thought it was sacrilege. This is the point. If we all are going to get along in a society, we have to accept that peoples choices don't matter, as long as they don't inflict their will upon you. That doesn't mean they wont help, that doesn't mean people wont donate to charity. It's a choice to offer charity, it's a choice to accept charity - in the case of the trolley it's a choice to walk along the tracks and to get on the trolley. However, when the philosopher pulls the lever he has changed the game, he has made a choice for someone else - that's what I find immoral. > I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. I find it quite annoying that this entire scenario has some sort of moral high ground. In this case, we are given the choice under the impression it is a choice. I disagree entirely. We (1) cannot know what we are doing is the best option and (2) if we impose our opinions on others we are morally in the wrong. The basis of society is that we can all get along, that means I shouldn't hurt/inconvenience you really at all unless I need to to survive. I don't claim to be judge and executioner, yet pretty much everyone who ever answers this question believes they have the moral high-ground to execute someone/anyone - I don't, so I don't play the game. Edit: The trolley scenario is always presented as an argument to justify or way to explain Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics, Deontological ethics, etc. the basis of which is a justification to inflict your views on life on everyone else. Personally, I side more with the objectivist philosophy and I believe that morals are based more on what you can live with. I can personally not live with myself if I kill someone, I can live with myself if I decide not to take action. Similarly, I would find it hard to live with myself if I didn't toss that lifebouy, because there is no harm in not doing it.
stale2002 10y ago
The Fat man problem is just one variation of the trolley problem. It can be done with levers, instead. "Pull the lever, it goes this way".
- fenomas 10y ago
  I know. I normally see it presented as: "here's the lever version, and here's the fat guy variation, and isn't it surprising that people tend to answer them differently even though they have the same outcome?" This is what I find absurd - just because the questioner stipulates that two actions would have the same results doesn't make them morally equivalent (from the perspective of a person who can't see the future).
  - Noxchi 10y ago
    Exactly. In the switch varitation both the 1 man and 5 man group are tied to the tracks. For whatever reason we can assume fate has brought them there and it is our role to simply make the logical choice. But to ask one to push a man right beside you, in the same situation you are in, is quite different. Not even morally related.
  - SerLava 10y ago
    The whole problem with the trolley problem is that it lies to you. The difference between the train track and the fat man is that the train track is obviously binary. Then the fat man problem contains words like "and pushing him is the only way." But that's not at all convincing. You can't just say it's the only way. You'd have to rig up a situation where evil people set up a Saw the Movie type of hostage situation. In that case it would be just as bad for the acting hostage to kill 5 people in either scenario.

by fenomas 10y ago

mjburgess 10y ago

That's a perfectly reasonable response within the Trolly-Problem debate. It isn't dishonest because it is there to analyse precisely these kinds of concerns.

jnordwick 10y ago
It's highly problematic like many other questions and studies like these since it is so open to interpretation (who are the people, how old are they, how do I know the train will switch tracks, etc...), but more of a problem it is too likely for study participants to give the answer they thing the researcher wants. How many psych studies have gone down in flames lately from reproducibility attempts from this same thing? There have been almost entire sections of psych taken down and beaten lately.

lettergram 10y ago

My response to the trolley problem always thrown off my philosophy friends/professors. I always asked why this was a question at all? To me, all ethics and morals are broken down to how we live with ourselves and perceive ourselves. Because Everyone made a choice to be in the given position and assuming no one I care about is on the trolley I have no reason to effect the system. Sure, saving five people's lives may help some people sleep at night, but killing another also won't help. For me, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I killed someone. Not taking action ensures I have done nothing. Meaning, it would be as if I'm not there, thus everyone is going to die by their own choices not mine. I am not inflicting my will on others, therefore I am not killing anyone, and I cannot make a wrong decision. As you pointed out, you can't know what your actions will do. For some reason this always makes everyone call me immoral though...

Ressuder 10y ago
I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that the Chinese Room argument holds no water because nobody could be that good at translating something that way. I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. Let's say that you're standing on a pier with a lifebuoy in your hands and you see someone about to drown. Surely you can not believe that you've done nothing wrong if you do nothing in this case?
- lettergram 10y ago
  > I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. I find in terrifying that people feel it's okay to pull the lever and kill someone, even if it saves five people. That one person is just walking along, doing exactly what they should be, then some philosopher comes along, manages to (almost godlike) interpret five people in a trolley are about to smash into a wall and only one person is on the other track - so he pulls the lever saving the five strangers, but killing the person who was just walking along. Who is he to choose that man deserves to die over the others? The philosopher chose to impose his will and opinions on the others has done something to actually kill someone. Inaction is not the same as action. Those five people (we assume) chose to get on that trolley, they were doomed by the fate of the trolley. The guy walking along was doomed by the opinion of a philosopher. In your case of a lifebuoy I would feel inclined to toss the bouy because I wouldn't be killing someone to save another I would be saving someone at the expense of some physical effort. Regardless, that's my choice, it shouldn't horrify you because I didn't make the guy drown - I did nothing to harm them. If I am to blame for walking away, what does that say about you? Are you going to punish me? If so, you must feel it's your duty to impose your opinion on others because you somehow feel more correct, but does that really make you moral? I am sure there are many times people feel it's moral to do X, yet others thought it was sacrilege. This is the point. If we all are going to get along in a society, we have to accept that peoples choices don't matter, as long as they don't inflict their will upon you. That doesn't mean they wont help, that doesn't mean people wont donate to charity. It's a choice to offer charity, it's a choice to accept charity - in the case of the trolley it's a choice to walk along the tracks and to get on the trolley. However, when the philosopher pulls the lever he has changed the game, he has made a choice for someone else - that's what I find immoral. > I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. I find it quite annoying that this entire scenario has some sort of moral high ground. In this case, we are given the choice under the impression it is a choice. I disagree entirely. We (1) cannot know what we are doing is the best option and (2) if we impose our opinions on others we are morally in the wrong. The basis of society is that we can all get along, that means I shouldn't hurt/inconvenience you really at all unless I need to to survive. I don't claim to be judge and executioner, yet pretty much everyone who ever answers this question believes they have the moral high-ground to execute someone/anyone - I don't, so I don't play the game. Edit: The trolley scenario is always presented as an argument to justify or way to explain Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics, Deontological ethics, etc. the basis of which is a justification to inflict your views on life on everyone else. Personally, I side more with the objectivist philosophy and I believe that morals are based more on what you can live with. I can personally not live with myself if I kill someone, I can live with myself if I decide not to take action. Similarly, I would find it hard to live with myself if I didn't toss that lifebouy, because there is no harm in not doing it.

stale2002 10y ago

The Fat man problem is just one variation of the trolley problem. It can be done with levers, instead. "Pull the lever, it goes this way".

fenomas 10y ago
I know. I normally see it presented as: "here's the lever version, and here's the fat guy variation, and isn't it surprising that people tend to answer them differently even though they have the same outcome?" This is what I find absurd - just because the questioner stipulates that two actions would have the same results doesn't make them morally equivalent (from the perspective of a person who can't see the future).
- Noxchi 10y ago
  Exactly. In the switch varitation both the 1 man and 5 man group are tied to the tracks. For whatever reason we can assume fate has brought them there and it is our role to simply make the logical choice. But to ask one to push a man right beside you, in the same situation you are in, is quite different. Not even morally related.
- SerLava 10y ago
  The whole problem with the trolley problem is that it lies to you. The difference between the train track and the fat man is that the train track is obviously binary. Then the fat man problem contains words like "and pushing him is the only way." But that's not at all convincing. You can't just say it's the only way. You'd have to rig up a situation where evil people set up a Saw the Movie type of hostage situation. In that case it would be just as bad for the acting hostage to kill 5 people in either scenario.