The trolley problem, the thought experiment I introduced today, was originally formulated by the philosopher Philippa Foot. It has undergone many variations over the years, including the simplified version I showed today, as well as more complex, morally challenging scenarios (and even a humorous one).Your HW tonight: follow this link to the BBC News Magazine feature on philosophical thought experiments. Read the two variations of the trolley problem presented there (vote if you like!), AS WELL AS the comments left by other site visitors. Choose the comment you find most compelling, and in your own comment on my post here, copy-and-paste that comment, AND explain why you find it compelling, PLUS what you would do in the scenario. This latter part will be important, as you will see on tomorrow's quiz.
I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man.
ReplyDeleteRobin, Edinburgh
well, that is one way to save everyone
You can only flick switches if you have a perfect understanding of the future, otherwise you might save a serial killer or kill a Nobel peace prize winner. It is an infinitely unpredictable world and philosophical conundrums cannot take account of this. As for Big Jack, he's history, primal instincts would take over from philosophy, the only decision to make is where to put the dynamite.
Julian, Shrewsbury
poor big jack, at least it isnt as painfully and slow as drowning. The only problem i have with these thought experiments is that you may say you kill big jack, but can you bring yourself to actually do it?
Depends on the violinist, if Meri Tadic or someone else I can appreciate were the violinist, theres no doubt I'd stay hooked, but if its some arrogant orchestra violinist was hooked up, I'd get the hell out.
Iwould leave it alone, its not bad to loose 5 people, theres too many around anyway(and for X5 Points!!)
I'd leave the guy alone, thats man s[laughter] on my behalf were as the 5 people, it would be considered accident. I could always try to convince tubby there to jump if i felt like it.
Id blast big jack, i dont want to die. Better yet, i wouldnt let him out first
Surely the answer to the runaway trolley depends on the people involved. If it were the choice between five 90-year-olds and a single 20 year old, it would be right to save the 20 year old who, in probability, had longer to live than the others put together? Or what if those five were criminals and the other was a volunteer worker?
ReplyDeleteJoanthan Kelk, Dalry, Scotland
I agree completely with this person. Although many people will disagree with this, I think that human lives can be valued. For this reason, I would save one 20 year old even if it meant 5 90 year olds would die. Without better knowledge of the situation, I would assume that each person was equal. I would flip the switch and push the fat man in front of the trolley.
I was going to pick the one Greg put untill i saw he already did so...
ReplyDeleteThomson's violinist is not the same principle as abortion. If you choose to disconnect yourself you are in essence withdrawing treatment, that is refusing to intervene to save the life of someone who would otherwise die. In an abortion you're choosing to deliberately end the life of someone who would otherwise live.
Kate
I somewhat agree with the way Kate put this together because when i forst read the story about the violinist i almost agreed with it being like abortion untill i saw it put this way. When disconnecting yourself from the violionist you are ending alife that woyld eventually end anyways but with a baby you are ending a life that had no chance to live.
In the Trolly situation i think it would depend on certain things like age because an old 90 year old will die in a few years any ways but someone younger like in their 20s still has their whole lfe to live. Therefore I would switch it tothe elder person.
I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man.
ReplyDeleteRobin, Edinburgh
I agree with that comment.
In the examples given we must assume that all involved people are equal. However, would it be right, good or efficent to kill one superior person to save four lesser people? I do not of course mean by race or any such thing but by worth to the whole. If the one person was a brilliant doctor developing a cure for cancer, would you divert the trolley towards him to save four? What about ten? Fifty? A thousand people crammed onto a train car packed with explosives?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this comment to a certain extent. You never know what the future is going to be, so how can you possibly decide who to kill. And do you know this people? Would you know anything about these people? And is it right to kill four people just because that one other person might do something amazing. As much as I would never like to think about killing anyone if I had to choose whether to veer the train towards one person or towards four people I would definatley choose the one person no matter who he was.
Surely the answer to the runaway trolley depends on the people involved. If it were the choice between five 90-year-olds and a single 20 year old, it would be right to save the 20 year old who, in probability, had longer to live than the others put together? Or what if those five were criminals and the other was a volunteer worker?
ReplyDeleteI find this statement compelling because I believe that we should value peoples' future. Five ninety year olds have for the most part run their course, while the twenty year old may have an epiphany from my life altering decision and go on to bring world peace. With the time to distinguish between the two groups of people on the tracks, I would switch away from the group who most deserved to live. However, if I could not distinguish between the group of five and the single person, I would switch to the track with one person on it. I would also push the fat man onto the tracks only if I had a good reason for saving the people.
"Surely the answer to the runaway trolley depends on the people involved. If it were the choice between five 90-year-olds and a single 20 year old, it would be right to save the 20 year old who, in probability, had longer to live than the others put together? Or what if those five were criminals and the other was a volunteer worker?", Joanthan Kelk, Dalry, Scotland. I really dont know if you would have the time to figure out if the person was a good berson and the other 4 or 5 were criminal, but i do know that my choice would probabally depend on this, age would too because if the person was really old they have enjoyed there life unlike a younger person in this situation. If they all had a role in life and werent bums this is where i really wouldnt know what to do i wouldnt pull the switch i would call for another person on my trolly and switch it or dont switch it for me! Like with kelseys comment its a different scenario beacuse what idf you had 50 people on one side and one in the other and you knew that one guy was a doctor and he was trying to find a cure for cancer. But the thing we dont know are who ar eoall these other people do they have a state of fame? do they have potencial to be the same person as the doctor, this is where my vote would go toward saving the 50 people instead of that doctor. I feel like someone could take his place, and there could be youger people in that group that might grow up and become bigger and better then that guy.
ReplyDeleteYou can only flick switches if you have a perfect understanding of the future, otherwise you might save a serial killer or kill a Nobel peace prize winner. It is an infinitely unpredictable world and philosophical conundrums cannot take account of this. As for Big Jack, he's history, primal instincts would take over from philosophy, the only decision to make is where to put the dynamite.
ReplyDeleteJulian, Shrewsbury
Several comments say this, but this one says it the best. The numbers of people involved is only one factor in these situations, so if the experiment only includes numerical factors, then it does not accuretly depict the kinds of decisions people would be making in either Trolly situation. For example, what if the fat man was your best friend, and the five people on the track were all scientists working togeather to cure cancer (and nearly there, and some how you know this)? In the first Trolley car situation, I would probably start, make assumptions about peoples worth, i.e. that everyone involved is more-or-less equal, and so I would pull the lever and save the five people.
"In the examples given we must assume that all involved people are equal. However, would it be right, good or efficent to kill one superior person to save four lesser people? I do not of course mean by race or any such thing but by worth to the whole. If the one person was a brilliant doctor developing a cure for cancer, would you divert the trolley towards him to save four? What about ten? Fifty? A thousand people crammed onto a train car packed with explosives?
ReplyDeleteChris Fox, Derby"
I find this compelling because it gets into the idea of a person's value. How do we start making judgments about who is worth more. It is certainly clear in the case of murderers vs. life-saving doctors, but what if the two people are very similair, but one happens to agree with your politics. Where does it become OK to draw the line about a life's value? In the second trolly car scenario, I think that I would not push the man, even though in the first scenario, I would flip the switch. There is something visceral in me that balks from the second scenario, it's not logical, I just can't help it.
If the violinist were my son or daughter I would not hesitate to stay connected. (Maybe when they recover they will keep their rooms tidy to show their gratitude!)
ReplyDeleteJack, Coventry
I think they kind of missed the point of the experiment being about getting hooked up to a random person and having been kidnapped against your will, but it brings up an interesting point of how people are more inclined to do nice things for the people they care most about. People seem to need incentive to do nice things, which makes me wonder if people's "moral" decisions aren't based in morals as much as they are personal gain.
Personally, I would probably stay hooked up to the violinist. I really don't have anything better to do with nine months of my life. After the Music Appreciation Society took the time to kidnap me and hook me up to the violinist guy, I might as well stay and help the guy out.