dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
I finally have a comfortable answer to the trolley problem, and I wanted people’s opinion. Only been working on it for about a year! For those that don’t know, the basic trolley problem goes as follows. In the first case, a runaway trolley is going down a track where 5 people are tied down. There is a side track where one person is tied down. You are standing by a lever that can turn the trolley from the main track to the side track. There are no other people around, you know with certainty that the trolley will not stop before killing someone. Therefore, you have three choices. Flip the switch to let the trolley kill the one person and not the five, leave the switch alone and let trolley kill the five people and not the one, or turn around and do nothing which results in the trolley killing the five people and not the one. In the second case, there is again an out of control trolley traveling down a track where 5 people are tied down. You are standing next to the track with another person. You know with certainty that this person is large enough that if you pushed him in front of the trolley that it would stop the trolley. You know with certainty that the trolley will not stop otherwise. The common idea is that for you there are only three options. Push the person on the track (the trolley will kill the man and not the five), do not push the person on the track (the trolley will kill the five people and not the one man), or turn around and walk away (presumably the trolley will kill the five people and not the one man).
According to the study Hauser et al, 2007, 85% of people surveyed think it is right to flip the switch in case one. However, for case two only 12% of people think it is right to push the man on the tracks. The question is why. As a philosopher, there are generally two models in ethics. Utilitarianism or deontology. A utilitarian view would say that whatever action results in the greatest good for all involved is the morally correct action. Therefore, because it would be greater good (most likely given available information) to let one person die to save five others, a true utilitarian would both switch the lever and push the man in the way. The deontological view is that there are certain fundamental truths that must be respected for a person to act morally. One example of a fundamental truth is a person’s right to live. Because by flipping the lever you would be condemning a man to die that would not otherwise have died, you are breaking that fundamental truth and therefore are acting immorally.
My view on this is a combination of the both. The final goal should be to maximize the good for all involved, but I also think there are certain fundamentals that should be respected first. These fundamentals are themselves necessary for maximizing the good for all involved. I argue that these fundamentals are what help define us as humans that naturally have a sense of good and bad. And to then break one of these fundamentals is to give up something that makes us human. I can probably explain this part better another time, but this idea of fundamentals that should be respected first and then with a pursuit of the greatest good answers the trolley problem that aggress with the intuition of most people. I would answer that for case one, it would be morally permissible (given available information and assumptions) to flip the lever because not only does the one person have a fundamental right to live, but so do the five people on the other track. Because we should be working towards the greatest good for all involved it would be better to flip the switch. However, for case two there’s an important difference. Instead of all six people being tied to the track, one is now free and standing next to you. I argue that in this situation, the large person is now a new variable to consider because of that freedom. Because of their agency, you should take into account their choice and freedom of choice. In the first case they are tied down. I argue that they don’t have the same kind of agency (thing) that they do when they are not tied down further along the track.
In the first case, it is asking about the moral action of stopping the trolley (or not) to save the people tied to the track. In the second case, the moral action falls to the large person. He has the power to act directly to save the five people. Assume the man does not want to kill himself to save the five. Now we can ask what you should do. If you were to then push the man, you are murdering him to save five people. In the first case, you are killing the one man to save five. I suggest that the type of killing and the type of murder here are very different. In the first case you are either killing one person or killing five people. In the second case you are either murdering one person or killing five people. The ideal moral result of the second case is that the person chooses to sacrifice himself to save the five people. The worst moral case would be him choosing to sacrifice himself and you stopping him from saving the five people (given known information being all information) because not only are the five people being lost when one could have been lost, but also you are breaking a person’s right to themselves and the choices that they make. Now let’s consider the case that the person chooses not to jump. This raises the question of is it morally permissible to force him to jump or to let him make his choice. Notice that my reasoning for why one should not break a person’s agency was because to do so would be to give up a fundamental part(s) of what makes us human. Therefore, in so far as the second case, it would not be morally ok to push the man off of the bridge against his will. To do so would be to take away a fundamental of his humanity, and yours.
Furthermore, is it ever permissible to force this man to jump (more people will be killed, important people will be killed, etc.). I think there are cases where this would be ok. What if acting forces us (the actors) to give up what makes us human, but not acting where to destroy humanity? For example, assume that some number of people are tied to the track that it would damage society irrevocably. Perhaps the total society in the situation is twelve people and the five that are tied down are all male or female. Therefore you would destroy society to not act. Perhaps that is where it is morally ok to break those fundamentals? When the survival of morality and society and humanity depends on the survival of agents involved, then it is morally right to protect that survival.
According to the study Hauser et al, 2007, 85% of people surveyed think it is right to flip the switch in case one. However, for case two only 12% of people think it is right to push the man on the tracks. The question is why. As a philosopher, there are generally two models in ethics. Utilitarianism or deontology. A utilitarian view would say that whatever action results in the greatest good for all involved is the morally correct action. Therefore, because it would be greater good (most likely given available information) to let one person die to save five others, a true utilitarian would both switch the lever and push the man in the way. The deontological view is that there are certain fundamental truths that must be respected for a person to act morally. One example of a fundamental truth is a person’s right to live. Because by flipping the lever you would be condemning a man to die that would not otherwise have died, you are breaking that fundamental truth and therefore are acting immorally.
My view on this is a combination of the both. The final goal should be to maximize the good for all involved, but I also think there are certain fundamentals that should be respected first. These fundamentals are themselves necessary for maximizing the good for all involved. I argue that these fundamentals are what help define us as humans that naturally have a sense of good and bad. And to then break one of these fundamentals is to give up something that makes us human. I can probably explain this part better another time, but this idea of fundamentals that should be respected first and then with a pursuit of the greatest good answers the trolley problem that aggress with the intuition of most people. I would answer that for case one, it would be morally permissible (given available information and assumptions) to flip the lever because not only does the one person have a fundamental right to live, but so do the five people on the other track. Because we should be working towards the greatest good for all involved it would be better to flip the switch. However, for case two there’s an important difference. Instead of all six people being tied to the track, one is now free and standing next to you. I argue that in this situation, the large person is now a new variable to consider because of that freedom. Because of their agency, you should take into account their choice and freedom of choice. In the first case they are tied down. I argue that they don’t have the same kind of agency (thing) that they do when they are not tied down further along the track.
In the first case, it is asking about the moral action of stopping the trolley (or not) to save the people tied to the track. In the second case, the moral action falls to the large person. He has the power to act directly to save the five people. Assume the man does not want to kill himself to save the five. Now we can ask what you should do. If you were to then push the man, you are murdering him to save five people. In the first case, you are killing the one man to save five. I suggest that the type of killing and the type of murder here are very different. In the first case you are either killing one person or killing five people. In the second case you are either murdering one person or killing five people. The ideal moral result of the second case is that the person chooses to sacrifice himself to save the five people. The worst moral case would be him choosing to sacrifice himself and you stopping him from saving the five people (given known information being all information) because not only are the five people being lost when one could have been lost, but also you are breaking a person’s right to themselves and the choices that they make. Now let’s consider the case that the person chooses not to jump. This raises the question of is it morally permissible to force him to jump or to let him make his choice. Notice that my reasoning for why one should not break a person’s agency was because to do so would be to give up a fundamental part(s) of what makes us human. Therefore, in so far as the second case, it would not be morally ok to push the man off of the bridge against his will. To do so would be to take away a fundamental of his humanity, and yours.
Furthermore, is it ever permissible to force this man to jump (more people will be killed, important people will be killed, etc.). I think there are cases where this would be ok. What if acting forces us (the actors) to give up what makes us human, but not acting where to destroy humanity? For example, assume that some number of people are tied to the track that it would damage society irrevocably. Perhaps the total society in the situation is twelve people and the five that are tied down are all male or female. Therefore you would destroy society to not act. Perhaps that is where it is morally ok to break those fundamentals? When the survival of morality and society and humanity depends on the survival of agents involved, then it is morally right to protect that survival.
Last edited:
