Trolley Problem

[ruminator]

I was talking to someone about the trolley problem, and they have a very strange view. I would like to know what you think about it.

They would pull the lever to kill one rather than five. But, they would not push the fat man.

Their reasoning is as follows:

Not pulling the lever and pulling the lever are morally equivalent. So, not pulling the lever and letting the train go down track A is just the same as if you had actually pulled the lever to send it to track A. Therefore, the degree of "killing" you are doing by sending the train to track B is equal to the degree of "killing" you are doing by just letting it continue to track A. Since both options have an equal culpability of killing, it is better to go with the one that kills less.

In the fat man scenario, however, the degree of killing by pushing the fat man is greater than the degree of killing by allowing the train to continue. So here, allowing the train to continue is better than actually committing a murder. This scenario is simply a question of doing nothing vs. killing, whereas the former scenario is a question of letting die vs. letting die.

I see a flaw in this, which I am having a hard time putting into words. I will try to do so, and let me know if you understand what I'm getting at:

I think that the degree of killing would be the same in the former scenario if an hour before the train reaches the junction, someone tells you the situation and that you will have to decide whether to send it down track A or B - you cannot choose to do nothing, you MUST pull the lever and send it to one of the tracks. If that were the case, you are actively sending the train to A vs. actively sending the train to B.

But here, it is different. Here, the train has already begun to traverse track A. So, the choice of track A has already been made by nature (not like above, where you are actively choosing it). So, doing nothing would be letting nature take its course, while actively moving the train from A to B would be interfering and choosing B. So I see it as doing nothing vs. choosing B.

So, two questions:
1. Do you get the distinction I am trying to make? How would you explain that?
2. What would your response be to the above person's position?

 

[TheManBeyond]

what's the trolley problem about? too lazy to try to get it by reading ur long Ti post

 

[Grayman]

To the person who chose to do nothing:
Humans like to put blame on something other than themselves. Nature didn't kill the people you just chose to be selfish and put the blame on nature so that you didn't have to make hard decision of who should die. You had a choice and you chose to kill those people just so you could convince yourself that you were innocent.

 

[Grayman]

what's the trolley problem about? too lazy to try to get it by reading ur long Ti post

He/she didn't say. It is expected that you have already heard of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

[ruminator]

what's the trolley problem about? too lazy to try to get it by reading ur long Ti post

Oops, the trolley problem is:

Scenario 1
If a train is going down track A and is about to run over five people, but you have the option to pull a lever to divert the train onto track B and kill one person instead, would you do it?

Scenario 2
Here, you cannot pull a lever, but instead, you can push a fat man onto track A. This will kill him, and stop it from moving onto the five people ahead.

 

[Sinny91]

Yea, I'd pull the lever or push the fatman.

Spose.

Wouldn't be in any moral tangle myself.

 

[TheManBeyond]

This remInds me of that cool movie, final destination where if u try to stop death in her business then it gets worse. AKA karma.
I think i wouldnt interfere, its not my business, one people is still a life, who am I to decide over the course of life. Fatman why is he fat?

 

[Reluctantly]

To me they are both undesirable outcomes. If I chose either one, I'd feel uneasy, that I went for two bad options instead of trying for a third. Therefore, I would feel better trying for a third and failing, having both the fat man and five people die for example, then to sacrifice one for the other.

I guess that's how I solve that dilemma for myself.

 

[Cognisant]

Scenario 1
If a train is going down track A and is about to run over five people, but you have the option to pull a lever to divert the train onto track B and kill one person instead, would you do it?

Morality is arbitrary, the real question here is which action (or inaction) will be least harmful to me or my reputation? Generally that would be inaction.

Scenario 2
Here, you cannot pull a lever, but instead, you can push a fat man onto track A. This will kill him, and stop it from moving onto the five people ahead.

How do I know the fat man will stop the train, will this be evident to others?

Insofar as I'm not personally invested in the outcome it's best not to involve myself.

If I saw a single person on the tracks and I had the option of putting myself at risk to save them I would take a moment to evaluate the risk, heroism is pointless if I die, but if I'm merely at risk of being maimed saving another's life would be worthwhile.

 

[Urakro]

Oops, the trolley problem is:

Scenario 1
If a train is going down track A and is about to run over five people, but you have the option to pull a lever to divert the train onto track B and kill one person instead, would you do it?

Scenario 2
Here, you cannot pull a lever, but instead, you can push a fat man onto track A. This will kill him, and stop it from moving onto the five people ahead.

I'd pull the lever then take my grappling hook gun, aim it at the nearby cliff at lightning speed and woosh over to the one person and save them in the knick of time. Take that, Joker!

I've heard this problem analyzed before. In this hypothetical situation where the fat person would actually stop the train, it's been noted that the majority of people have no problem pulling the switch to save 5 lives, but will not push the fat person to save the many on the train.

I've heard it reasoned that people will want to distance themselves from the act, so pulling the lever is a lot easier than directly pushing a person to their death with their bare hands. Which is the heart of the interesting part of the problem, that it may have less to do with how many people are saved, but how responsible the person feels when doing it.

They never did state in the hypothetical whether the fat person would be willing to make a sacrifice, or whether I'd have the option of asking.

 

[redbaron]

A fat guy isn't going to stop a 500+ tonne train.

I used to enjoy absurd thought experiments but at some point one has to realise they have very little to do with our everyday morality.

 

[Tannhauser]

I was talking to someone about the trolley problem, and they have a very strange view. I would like to know what you think about it.

They would pull the lever to kill one rather than five. But, they would not push the fat man.

Their reasoning is as follows:

Not pulling the lever and pulling the lever are morally equivalent. So, not pulling the lever and letting the train go down track A is just the same as if you had actually pulled the lever to send it to track A. Therefore, the degree of "killing" you are doing by sending the train to track B is equal to the degree of "killing" you are doing by just letting it continue to track A. Since both options have an equal culpability of killing, it is better to go with the one that kills less.

In the fat man scenario, however, the degree of killing by pushing the fat man is greater than the degree of killing by allowing the train to continue. So here, allowing the train to continue is better than actually committing a murder. This scenario is simply a question of doing nothing vs. killing, whereas the former scenario is a question of letting die vs. letting die.

I see a flaw in this, which I am having a hard time putting into words. I will try to do so, and let me know if you understand what I'm getting at:

I think that the degree of killing would be the same in the former scenario if an hour before the train reaches the junction, someone tells you the situation and that you will have to decide whether to send it down track A or B - you cannot choose to do nothing, you MUST pull the lever and send it to one of the tracks. If that were the case, you are actively sending the train to A vs. actively sending the train to B.

But here, it is different. Here, the train has already begun to traverse track A. So, the choice of track A has already been made by nature (not like above, where you are actively choosing it). So, doing nothing would be letting nature take its course, while actively moving the train from A to B would be interfering and choosing B. So I see it as doing nothing vs. choosing B.

So, two questions:
1. Do you get the distinction I am trying to make? How would you explain that?
2. What would your response be to the above person's position?

1. When one considers that pulling a lever doesn't really cost you anything (other than 1/1000 of a calorie, maybe), the distinction between taking a passive stance and not pulling the lever when you have the opportunity to, and choosing to pull the lever to B when you are forced to make a choice, is not really a valid distinction. When you don't pull the lever when the train is already on track A, although your physical actions are in a sense passive, you are making an active choice to remain passive.
2. The difference between the two cases is that in the lever-case, there is a mechanical device between you and the effect of your actions. If one supposes that is actually a real difference, then you might say that the people who dropped the Hiroshima bomb didn't do anything wrong because they didn't actually kill every person down there with their own hands.

In the end, it is intentions that matter.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

To me they are both undesirable outcomes. If I chose either one, I'd feel uneasy, that I went for two bad options instead of trying for a third. Therefore, I would feel better trying for a third and failing, having both the fat man and five people die for example, then to sacrifice one for the other.

I guess that's how I solve that dilemma for myself.

one people is still a life

Same for me. If the fat person does not voluntarily decide to sacrifice their life, it's not my place to put them in that position.

 

[TheManBeyond]

To the person who chose to do nothing:
Humans like to put blame on something other than themselves. Nature didn't kill the people you just chose to be selfish and put the blame on nature so that you didn't have to make hard decision of who should die. You had a choice and you chose to kill those people just so you could convince yourself that you were innocent.

It was written man, there's no one to blame.

 

[Rook]

I remember this problem from philosophy class, with this person's first choice being that of an unyielding utilitarian.

They diverge from that school of thought in example 2 however, where the portly person's death would be beneficial to the whole and all that.

My position to all this is simply anything goes, pushing the fat man or choosing whether to kill many by inaction or one by action are all the course of nature, seeing as we spewed from it and all. I would choose any one of the options based simply on impulse.


The answer is ultimately dependent on the choice maker's moral outlook and value placed on individual lives, much like abortion, legalized murder(war) or whether humans should be forcibly neutered.

 

[Analyzer]

There is no solution, it will be dependent on the individual. Utilitarianism is based on several assumptions and has been used to justify bombings and genocide.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

legalized murder(war)

That's the first thing that springs to mind when I come across thought experiments like this one. scale up the parameters and we end up with BS vindications for "humanitarian intervention" that does nothing but leave new or bigger rubble/catastrophe than the one it claims to prevent

 

[Grayman]

It was written man, there's no one to blame.

Do you believe in the tooth fair too?

 

[TheManBeyond]

Do you believe in the tooth fair too?

I'm not anyone to decide that a guy who's not even in the scene of death has to die because he's less than the sum of the merchandise in track A.

 

[Tannhauser]

Same for me. If the fat person does not voluntarily decide to sacrifice their life, it's not my place to put them in that position.

What if someone uses a particular reasoning to indeed sacrifice people for some purpose. Do you simply passively observe that as well?

 

[Grayman]

I'm not anyone to decide that a guy who's not even in the scene of death has to die because he's less than the sum of the merchandise in track A.

Merchandise? Are you referring to 5 soon to be dead people as merchandise?

 

[TheManBeyond]

Merchandise? Are you referring to 5 soon to be dead people as merchandise?

Some seem to refer to them as merchandise, seems some are able to weight their value and just cause 5 is more than 1 some would save the most as if there was some kind of human shaped form made out of all humans and if this character loses his righ arm it's ok.
I think not doing anything is the right thing to do.

but hey explain me why it would be better to do something

 

[Grayman]

Some seem to refer to them as merchandise, seems some are able to weight their value and just cause 5 is more than 1 some would save the most as if there was some kind of human shaped form made out of all humans and if this character loses his righ arm it's ok.
I think not doing anything is the right thing to do.

but hey explain me why it would be better to do something

Every death has spherical influence in that people connected to that individual are effected by his death. When multiple people die there are several spheres that expand out causing damage. When many people die this sphere can expand to the point that the community might be altered by it.

One person is rarely so influential as to deserve to live while many others die.

 

[Tannhauser]

Some seem to refer to them as merchandise, seems some are able to weight their value and just cause 5 is more than 1 some would save the most as if there was some kind of human shaped form made out of all humans and if this character loses his righ arm it's ok.
I think not doing anything is the right thing to do.

but hey explain me why it would be better to do something

Clearly, if you could save the 5 people without sacrificing anyone, the choice to remain passive would be stupid. If you could save them by sacrificing a rat, it would also be stupid to remain passive. So you need a good argument for remainig passive. It is not necessarily the default option.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the fatman is poorly thought out, because you can't take the word of the maniac that put you in this situation at his word that one chubby gentleman will stop a train.

Rather, I'd remove the lever and have the train's path directly linked to the life value of an innocent person in front of you. You have a gun. You know that the bunch of wires leading between the person and where the lever used to be will work as intended, because you're the madman that put them there. Tyler Durden style.

Either way, you're going to jail for life (@Coggles). Because you set this up (to remove all doubt, you also killed a bus full of children earlier that day, and strangled the last remaining panda). Actually no, you're dying. Capital punishment is legal in this state and your crimes are undoubtedly above the threshold for warranting it.

Also you're surrounded by police. Not so close that they can interfere with your immediate actions, but they're numerous and there's no doubt as to whether you'll escape. Also the train is full of police so there's no sanctuary there.

Yes this is a joke kinda, the question is 'what is right?', but sometimes limiting people options enough to actually force the decision is tricky :P

What's the "right" thing to do assuming your self-interest is no longer in question. Which universe would you prefer to leave behind?

Assuming I didn't have to live with the guilt and PTSD, I'd kill the person no question (damn you Tyler!).

Once you answer this, you jiggle the numbers a little. If you'd kill the person, would you kill two? Would you kill four people to save five? If you wouldn't kill the person, would you kill them to save your mother and father? Your four children? Ten people? Twenty? One hundred?

Find the spot at which you can no longer adhere to an extreme (consequentialism or deontology). Then be picked apart by both sides! DD

Also, the Machiavellian answer is that you would not kill them. Say "I know it's probably wrong not to kill them, but I couldn't do it". People trust you more when you pay lip service to a flawed principle in an overdoctored hypothetical in which they would imaginarily die.

A fat guy isn't going to stop a 500+ tonne train.

I used to enjoy absurd thought experiments but at some point one has to realise they have very little to do with our everyday morality.

There's always a third option:

Spoiler

But the point of thought experiments is to force the hard choice and measure your reasoning.

Spoiler

They're not practical and they are fanciful, which makes them easy to dismiss. But I think the very want to dismiss them is because they don't benefit the answerer while potentially making them feel really uncomfortable. I think of them more as a demonstration than an experiment. A proof illustrating the flaws in morality no matter what side you take.

Spoiler

https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13263772_276035266078739_1711503597957710078_n.jpg?oh=f8e45da9dae465ef50e14c7668891e51&oe=57E3DC0E

(None of this is OC).

TLDR: If you come out from this problem with a feeling that it was easy or even with a sense of moral superiority, you've not explored it enough. Given enough effort, you will make your sense of right feel wrong. Hurray!

 

[Grayman]

What do you mean this thought experiment isn't something you would have to face in real life? We face lesser decisions like this all the time. People in military and government may have to make decisions like this in regards to peoples lives.

 

[Hadoblado]

Spoiler

I was talking to someone about the trolley problem, and they have a very strange view. I would like to know what you think about it.

They would pull the lever to kill one rather than five. But, they would not push the fat man.

Their reasoning is as follows:

Not pulling the lever and pulling the lever are morally equivalent. So, not pulling the lever and letting the train go down track A is just the same as if you had actually pulled the lever to send it to track A. Therefore, the degree of "killing" you are doing by sending the train to track B is equal to the degree of "killing" you are doing by just letting it continue to track A. Since both options have an equal culpability of killing, it is better to go with the one that kills less.

In the fat man scenario, however, the degree of killing by pushing the fat man is greater than the degree of killing by allowing the train to continue. So here, allowing the train to continue is better than actually committing a murder. This scenario is simply a question of doing nothing vs. killing, whereas the former scenario is a question of letting die vs. letting die.

I see a flaw in this, which I am having a hard time putting into words. I will try to do so, and let me know if you understand what I'm getting at:

I think that the degree of killing would be the same in the former scenario if an hour before the train reaches the junction, someone tells you the situation and that you will have to decide whether to send it down track A or B - you cannot choose to do nothing, you MUST pull the lever and send it to one of the tracks. If that were the case, you are actively sending the train to A vs. actively sending the train to B.

But here, it is different. Here, the train has already begun to traverse track A. So, the choice of track A has already been made by nature (not like above, where you are actively choosing it). So, doing nothing would be letting nature take its course, while actively moving the train from A to B would be interfering and choosing B. So I see it as doing nothing vs. choosing B.

So, two questions:
1. Do you get the distinction I am trying to make? How would you explain that?
2. What would your response be to the above person's position?

Their view isn't strange. The fatman is a deliberate extension of the original problem designed to be more difficult to consequentialism.

Your friend's position sounds like this:
1) don't kill
2) if you're not killing, then maximise utility.

Of course it's more complex than that, but for the purpose of the trolley problem that's besically what they're saying.

I don't think your scenario is fair. In a thought experiment you need to concoct a fanciful scenario to force someone's choice. You've just said 'you must choose'. People always have a choice, you need to make it so their other choices are less viable than the choices you're trying to measure.

By saying 'you must choose', you're turning them into a killer and measuring the mindset of an alternate timeline killer friend rather than their actual position given the scenario. Essentially, the rule is, you can create any set of circumstances to force them into a choice, but the choice still must be theirs to make. If there is literally no possibly circumstance in which their current position can be forced into making a decision given the god-like power of the hypothetical's creator, then the results are not generalisable to reality because the scenario can't happen in reality.

So 'everybody dies unless you choose' is valid. But then again, they're choosing who dies not whether someone dies. ATM it feels like you don't respect the distinction between active and passive killing, but you're clumsy about proving it an irrelevant distinction.

Personally I'd make the fatman scenario more difficult to navigate if I were you. I would try to force them to kill the fat man. 'If you don't kill the fatman, five people will die: Your mother, your father, your best friend, your brother, and your partner'. Name them so it's personal if you can. Force them to actually choose between being a killer and the people they love most.

Hypothetically of course

If they crack and value their friends and fam over their status as a non-killer, you've won. Or... They've lost. Or something. What was the question again?

If they hold firm, and let their loved ones die, you get to accuse them of being selfish. "It's alright for everyone around you to die so long as you feel okay". Then precede to tell everyone on their list that your friend would prefer some chubby anon to live than to dirty their hands saving them.

...

Profit?!

The alternative is to prove that choosing who dies is the same as killing in order to save lives. But that's a lot harder to do, and the trolley problem is actually kind of the argument you'd use to push such a position. If their answer is consistent within the trolley problem, I can't see a way to prove it to them without an essay length argument.

And TBH, I agree. It's very different. As an absolute moral force maybe I'd think it's the same, but I can't expect other people to see it this way, and since morality is derived from and for the average person, I can't really believe that they are the same.

 

[Hadoblado]

What do you mean this thought experiment isn't something you would have to face in real life? We face lesser decisions like this all the time. People in military and government may have to make decisions like this in regards to peoples lives.

Most people aren't in military or government. And of those people that are, most aren't working from an ethical perspective. Go ask a general or politician what their answer to this question is and they'll shrug you off. The people making these decisions aren't going off what they think is ethical, they're going off what will maintain the power structure.

Even a priest who's in the business of morality will rarely genuinely interact with such a question, instead opting to just refer you to whatever book he follows. Genuinely questioning this kinda stuff is interesting but ultimately irrelevant 99.99% of the time. It's for introspection only IMO.

 

[Cipher]

I'm not anyone to decide that a guy who's not even in the scene of death has to die because he's less than the sum of the merchandise in track A.

It's entirely your choice who dies. Aren't both groups of people equally close to death before you make your decision? If not, why?

 

[Grayman]

Most people aren't in military or government. And of those people that are, most aren't working from an ethical perspective. Go ask a general or politician what their answer to this question is and they'll shrug you off. The people making these decisions aren't going off what they think is ethical, they're going off what will maintain the power structure.

Even a priest who's in the business of morality will rarely genuinely interact with such a question, instead opting to just refer you to whatever book he follows. Genuinely questioning this kinda stuff is interesting but ultimately irrelevant 99.99% of the time. It's for introspection only IMO.

A more literal compirson of the delima is not something a person would face but something of it feels similar to the many decisions I make on a daily basis. While the actual scenario is unrealistic the pain of the moral delima is all too real.

 

[QuickTwist]

Honestly, it really depends on what I think of the 5 people compared to the 1. One could argue that the 5 are friends and since I'd be kinda jealous of that I might just let them die other than killing the 1 that is prolly a lot more like me in that they are alone by themselves by some railroad tracks. That's really what it comes down to for me. Who I like is the only motivating factor me me in this.

 

[redbaron]

A more literal compirson of the delima is not something a person would face but something of it feels similar to the many decisions I make on a daily basis. While the actual scenario is unrealistic the pain of the moral delima is all too real.

Lol no it's not.

 

[Grayman]

Lol no it's not.

Well, you would have to have morals and ethics to recognize it. Also, it is an intuitive comparison. You don't strike me as very intuitive.

EDIT: Trolling is more fun but whatever ... here... Talks about your concerns and then says what I am trying to say.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/death-t...e-end-everyones-favorite-moral-dilemma-291392

There are real-world parallels to the basic structure of the trolley dilemma.

This article sums it up better than I can. I suck at formulating thoughts into words.

 

[redbaron]

There are real-world parallels to the basic structure of the trolley dilemma.

How does the trolley problem help us solve any of these real world parallels?

It's just an amusing thing.

 

[ruminator]

How does the trolley problem help us solve any of these real world parallels?

It's just an amusing thing.

Because it explores the whole notion of sacrificing one to save others. This happens a lot in the real world.

 

[redbaron]

Because it explores the whole notion of sacrificing one to save others. This happens a lot in the real world.

You regularly come across situations where five people are about to die, and the only way you can save them is to either kill someone or pull a lever that will kill someone?

I'm genuinely amazed because in 25 years I've never come across this situation once. I must be doing something wrong.

 

[ruminator]

You regularly come across situations where five people are about to die, and the only way you can save them is to either kill someone or pull a lever that will kill someone?

I'm genuinely amazed because in 25 years I've never come across this situation once. I must be doing something wrong.

No but I regularly come across situations where some people are going to be harmed, and a decision needs to be made to avert the harm by causing less harm somewhere else.

 

[Hadoblado]

Please don't make this a type thing.

I think you're over-generalising Grayman. The trolley dilemma pits competing beliefs against each other forcing dissonance. Very specific beliefs: 'the greater good' vs. 'don't kill pplokplz?'

Not many people make those kinds of decisions in their day to day life. If we want to study specifically these values/beliefs, we likely need thought experiments.

But sure, you can study day-to-day decision making no problem. I fail to see why it's one or the other.

It feels like you're arguing the philosophical equivalent of experimental (control of variables) vs. naturalistic (realistic representation). In science where such an argument is relevant, both are considered mandatory. You need to take your evidence from lots of different methods (convergent validity).

edit: Hmm actually now I'm confused about who's saying what. Don't mind me. I just walk in swinging.

 

[Grayman]

How does the trolley problem help us solve any of these real world parallels?

It's just an amusing thing.

It brings awareness. First, we often make decisions without being fully aware of what we are doing or why we came to certain conclusions about things. Awareness of ourselves and how it relates to the world outside allows us to grow and change and make new decisions.

Second, I think learning how other people tackle different moral dilemmas can help understand how they would react in different situations. Of course this is combined with understanding their morals themselves.

It is a small thing in the great understanding of what a human being is but it is something.

 

[Grayman]

I think you're over-generalising Grayman. The trolley dilemma pits competing beliefs against each other forcing dissonance. Very specific beliefs: 'the greater good' vs. 'don't kill pplokplz?'

I suppose it can be reduced to that, but I am more interested in how those beliefs are formulated and defended. I think this varies between each person and makes the discussion interesting. I think it gives an opportunity to give reason to our beliefs and understand what experiences sustain them.

There are other dilemmas and questions.
I find the question of whether or not 'doing nothing' is morally pure an interesting question. It is almost a product of a deterministic point of view. If it is fate then you don't have to take the burden of choice.
...But then to me if your choice was fate as well then any choice you made was not your own anyways.

 

[QuickTwist]

People make decisions all the time. That's really what this conundrum boils down to -chosing one thing over the other. People do that all the time. Where there is no "optimal" choice you are put in between a rock and a hard place and have to choose. People don't always behave the same and I think that's the part that makes it complicated. Its not complicated. People have been programed to choose one thing over the other, and that's really all this philosophical conundrum proves.

 

[Hadoblado]

But QT decision making is predictable. Morality/ethics are both descriptive and prescriptive. These thought experiments illustrate counterexamples to established descriptors.

Utilitarianism for example explains an enormous chunk of behaviour.

One you can break something, it's a lot easier to wrangle around with its insides.

 

[QuickTwist]

But QT decision making is predictable. Morality/ethics are both descriptive and prescriptive. These thought experiments illustrate counterexamples to established descriptors.

Utilitarianism for example explains an enormous chunk of behaviour.

One you can break something, it's a lot easier to wrangle around with its insides.

Morals/Ethics are dynamic rather than fluid, meaning they don't stay the same. Go back even 200 years and you can see this.

Decision making is only as predictable as the person's personality allows.

Like one thing I don't like about the train lever example is because it leaves things out like which party of people(s) you are closest to in distance. If the single person is further away, someone might not want to kill the 5 people because it would be shown to be more of a gory mess.

And I think far fewer people are Utilitarian than might appear. I mean yeah, logically it makes the most sense to do an action to save more people, but people don't always behave logically. The main thing is that people are selfish by nature and they do what's in their own self interest first.

 

[Cipher]

Remaining passive is the most norm-compliant and the least psychologically burdening choice.
Killing/saving the people is the most ethical choice.
Isn't it as simple as that?

 

[redbaron]

No but I regularly come across situations where some people are going to be harmed, and a decision needs to be made to avert the harm by causing less harm somewhere else.

Example?

It brings awareness. First, we often make decisions without being fully aware of what we are doing or why we came to certain conclusions about things. Awareness of ourselves and how it relates to the world outside allows us to grow and change and make new decisions.

Yeah. Let's use a never-actually-occurring-completely-hypothetical situation to help us relate to the, "world outside."

...

u fkn wot m8?

Second, I think learning how other people tackle different moral dilemmas can help understand how they would react in different situations. Of course this is combined with understanding their morals themselves.

This is like when I started work at a company and they made us draw a pig. Then based on the way the pig was drawn and where it was located on the page, they predicted how we'd suit their company environment. Dumb.

It's just an amusing thing, not an actual predictor of behaviour.

It is a small thing in the great understanding of what a human being is but it is something.

INTPforum: where understanding people is done via hypothetical ethics dilemmas.

~

Disclaimer: I'm in no way invalidating anyone who enjoys pondering these things. It's not that I don't, I just don't pretend like it's some broadly applicable behaviour predictor or anything of actual significance.

 

[Grayman]

Yeah. Let's use a never-actually-occurring-completely-hypothetical situation to help us relate to the, "world outside."

...

u fkn wot m8?

This isn't science. It is philosophy. The purpose is not in answering the question it is learning from the process of answering the question. It is an excersise of thought. If your focus is on the question and what is to be learned from it then you are missing out on what can be learned from the discussion that the question provokes.

 

[TheManBeyond]

i used the paper for cleaning my ass and made an elephant shape with my poo in it, they turn me into their CEO

 

[green acid]

Pulling the lever or pushing the fat man are both acts of murder.

 

[QuickTwist]

Pulling the lever or pushing the fat man are both acts of murder.

LOL. Oddly enough this bring up a good point: how would the court of law view this exactly?

 

[green acid]

I don't know. They probably cover something like this in law school, but what would the juris doctors recommend? There would be some great ethical debates, even if the trial didn't receive wide coverage.