Morality and Ethics - The Trolley Problem

[Skwrl 56]

There's another thread going that led me to thinking about the Trolley Problem, a pretty fantastic thought experiment that deals with ethics and morality.  I wanted to break out a discussion on it, since it would otherwise get lost in that thread. 

I'm curious not just how you'd answer it, and the reasons for your answer.

Here's the problem: 

There is a run-away trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

The question: Are you morally obligated to do one or the other?  If you're not morally obligated to do one or the other, are you morally permitted to do one or the other?  Does the answer change between whether it's you doing the lever-pulling, or a friend or loved one who is asking you "what should I do?"

Obviously, we don't deal with trolleys hurtling down the tracks in the real world, but it's a metaphor for fundamental moral questions about our actions.  

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, Skwrl said:

There's another thread going that led me to thinking about the Trolley Problem, a pretty fantastic thought experiment that deals with ethics and morality.  I wanted to break out a discussion on it, since it would otherwise get lost in that thread. 

I'm curious not just how you'd answer it, and the reasons for your answer.

Here's the problem: 

There is a run-away trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

The question: Are you morally obligated to do one or the other?  If you're not morally obligated to do one or the other, are you morally permitted to do one or the other?  Does the answer change between whether it's you doing the lever-pulling, or a friend or loved one who is asking you "what should I do?"

Obviously, we don't deal with trolleys hurtling down the tracks in the real world, but it's a metaphor for fundamental moral questions about our actions.  

Hi Skwrl,

Something similar that I have often thought of:  You are a police officer writing a traffic ticket.  Suddenly, someone with a gun starts shooting.  Do you keep writing the ticket or do you go after the shooter?

IMO it is a matter of priorities; I'd pull the lever.  Not all warriors survive the battle.

Jerry Baumchen

[Skwrl 56]

15 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Skwrl,

Something similar that I have often thought of:  You are a police officer writing a traffic ticket.  Suddenly, someone with a gun starts shooting.  Do you keep writing the ticket or do you go after the shooter?

IMO it is a matter of priorities; I'd pull the lever.  Not all warriors survive the battle.

Jerry Baumchen

That's fair - do you mind if I ask a follow three follow up questions? 

Imagine it's not you pulling the lever, but instead as friend asking for advice about what he should do.  Does that change your answer?  

Imagine instead someone else didn't pull the lever.  Is that person morally "wrong"? 

Imagine instead of the example, there's no lever, but there's a fat man standing on a bridge over the tracks.  You're standing on the bridge next to the fat man.  If you do nothing, the five people die.  But if you push the fat man, he'd fall to his death but it would derail the trolley.  Given that you'd pull the lever, would you push him?  

[airdvr 197]

No question.  1 dead vs. 5 dead?  I'm morally obligated to do anything within my means to change the outcome.  Where it gets interesting is "what if my child is the 1 person scenario?".  I have to think my gut reaction would be to save my child's life regardless of the fact that 5 people have to die to do that.  

This is a tough one for sure.

[Rick 67]

The first thing that comes to mind is, if I pull the lever I am actually responsible for causing an event that I did not initiate to change and I am directly responsible for the 1 man's killing. 

But I think I would pull the lever and try to reduce terrible outcome.

As far as a friend asking me. I would tell them it is not my decision and they have to do what they think is right.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

1 hour ago, Skwrl said:

There's another thread going that led me to thinking about the Trolley Problem, a pretty fantastic thought experiment that deals with ethics and morality.  I wanted to break out a discussion on it, since it would otherwise get lost in that thread. 

I'm curious not just how you'd answer it, and the reasons for your answer.

Here's the problem: 

There is a run-away trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

The question: Are you morally obligated to do one or the other?  If you're not morally obligated to do one or the other, are you morally permitted to do one or the other?  Does the answer change between whether it's you doing the lever-pulling, or a friend or loved one who is asking you "what should I do?"

Obviously, we don't deal with trolleys hurtling down the tracks in the real world, but it's a metaphor for fundamental moral questions about our actions.  

I don't think anybody is morally obligated to make a split second decision in a high pressure situation.

[yoink 321]

I saw a YouTube video several years ago where they actually set this up so the test subjects thought it was a real thing.

I’ll try and find it. It might have been a VSauce one. It’s definitely worth a watch if you’re remotely interested in human behavior - how people WANT to act bs how they actually do.

 

edit: here it is

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by yoink

[Skwrl 56]

42 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I don't think anybody is morally obligated to make a split second decision in a high pressure situation.

That's a fair point, too!  It's sort of a flaw in the thought experiment.  I wonder if there's a plausible one that would eliminate that part about it and still get to the same idea.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Skwrl

[timski 80]

I just picked this book up last week at the firehouse. Thought provoking for sure. 

I'm taking out the five, because the planet is already suffering from too many fleas. 

That response isn't the "norm" and certainly will raise eye brows.  But when given only two

choices, you must pick and defend your option.   

[SethInMI 145]

2 hours ago, Skwrl said:

The question: Are you morally obligated to do one or the other?  If you're not morally obligated to do one or the other, are you morally permitted to do one or the other?  Does the answer change between whether it's you doing the lever-pulling, or a friend or loved one who is asking you "what should I do?"

I am sure I could google "trolley problem" and find some well reasoned arguments for one or the other.

My thoughts:

there is a tipping point somewhere, where doing something that causes some death and also prevents more death would be a moral obligation (more extreme example: you can stop a bomb from blowing up a building full of people but it would require killing an innocent person strapped to the bomb, so not 5:1 trade but 5000:1 trade). 

I think most people realize that it is a terrible position to be in, regardless of how much time you have to consider it, and calling it an obligation requires a high threshold, probably higher than 5:1. but morally permitted, yes. 

what would I do? I think I would pull the lever, but I would hope to god the lives those 5 were living were not worse than the 1 I took.

Similar questions pop up about self driving cars, which will someday be faced with similar dilemmas, does the car run over the person who just walked in front of it, or swerve into the next lane and smash into another car, which may hurt both occupants but probably not kill them? (there are a bunch of scenarios that one could come up with, but the point is who decides the rules?)

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I don't think anybody is morally obligated to make a split second decision in a high pressure situation.

Indeed. Added to which there are vanishingly few real world situations in which the outcomes are so definite, so cut and dried. Everyone who so far has given an ‘I’d definitely do this’ answer has to consider that they may be plagued with the guilt and doubt of ‘I killed this guy but did I actually save the others?’ for the rest of their lives.

 

That uncertainty and situational evaluation is also why the trolley problem is such a big thing for AI, AFAIK. What happens if you give a self driving car a definite set of rules in an uncertain world?

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, Skwrl said:

do you mind if I ask a follow three follow up questions? 

Hi Skwrl,

IMO you had your chance.

Ever read the book or see the movie Fail Safe?

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,380]

17 minutes ago, jakee said:

That uncertainty and situational evaluation is also why the trolley problem is such a big thing for AI, AFAIK. What happens if you give a self driving car a definite set of rules in an uncertain world?

I want to scream every time I see someone bringing that up wrt autonomous cars.

1. How many times have you had to choose between with of two targets to hit while driving? How many people you know have ever had to make such a decision?

2. How would an autonomous car know how many potential victims there are in each of the potential targets?

3. Why would an autonomous car not just use its brakes, instead of swerving?

In summary, it is a fictional dilemma for autonomous cars. Common sense would dictate the car would first use braking to avoid a collision, and opt to swerve only if there was insufficient distance for braking AND an open path to steer into.

[wmw999 2,114]

I agree with the "no moral obligation in 1 second" attitude. Also with the second-guessing. I'd like to say I'd probably pull the lever, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't push the guy off the bridge. Way too little certainty there, and, yeah, too much physical contact. If I really had to do that, I might just jump off myself instead. 

I'm hoping I never get into a situation like that. I haven't even had to decide whether to hit the squirrel or the curb; I've always been able to avoid without serious risk, or there was never any doubt to begin with (when they run into you, there's not a lot to do).

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

12 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I haven't even had to decide whether to hit the squirrel or the curb

Hi Wendy,

30 yrs ago, when my daughter first started driving, our insurance agent talked to her.  I went with her.  One of the things that he said/told her ( using your terms ) was to hit the squirrel.

Jerry Baumchen

[SethInMI 145]

11 minutes ago, ryoder said:

In summary, it is a fictional dilemma for autonomous cars. Common sense would dictate the car would first use braking to avoid a collision, and opt to swerve only if there was insufficient distance for braking AND an open path to steer into.

I came up with the same.

Do whatever you can (violate any rules of the road etc) to avoid any collisions. But if you don't have a clear open path to swerve into then follow the rules of the road (braking as hard as possible is assumed) and hit whatever is in front of you. 

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 hours ago, Skwrl said:

There's another thread going that led me to thinking about the Trolley Problem, a pretty fantastic thought experiment that deals with ethics and morality.  I wanted to break out a discussion on it, since it would otherwise get lost in that thread. 

I'm curious not just how you'd answer it, and the reasons for your answer.

Here's the problem: 

There is a run-away trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

The question: Are you morally obligated to do one or the other?  If you're not morally obligated to do one or the other, are you morally permitted to do one or the other?  Does the answer change between whether it's you doing the lever-pulling, or a friend or loved one who is asking you "what should I do?"

Obviously, we don't deal with trolleys hurtling down the tracks in the real world, but it's a metaphor for fundamental moral questions about our actions.  

Are the group of five all dudes who beat your ass in school? Is the one guy Einstein or someone you owe bank to? Is there time to sell the opportunity? These thought games always take a lot of thought, sometimes.

[ryoder 1,380]

11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

30 yrs ago, when my daughter first started driving, our insurance agent talked to her.  I went with her.  One of the things that he said/told her ( using your terms ) was to hit the squirrel.

Jerry Baumchen

Here is an example why you don't do sudden, unexpected maneuvers for wildlife:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387

[JoeWeber 2,294]

53 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I agree with the "no moral obligation in 1 second" attitude. Also with the second-guessing. I'd like to say I'd probably pull the lever, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't push the guy off the bridge. Way too little certainty there, and, yeah, too much physical contact. If I really had to do that, I might just jump off myself instead. 

I'm hoping I never get into a situation like that. I haven't even had to decide whether to hit the squirrel or the curb; I've always been able to avoid without serious risk, or there was never any doubt to begin with (when they run into you, there's not a lot to do).

Wendy P.

Have you ever put yourself in harms way for another who you did not know? Very few of us have but it's that hard decision that the scenario masks.

These scenario games miss the mark and tell us nothing about ourselves. Here's a thought game, and it is not directed at you: If a kid you didn't know was in the street with cars coming, how far would you go? Would the kids color matter? Would anything matter? What about a house fire? What about any crappy thing? 

Obviously, the question is also unanswerable but unlike the scenario question it is worth thinking about.

 

[SkyDekker 1,120]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Added to which there are vanishingly few real world situations in which the outcomes are so definite, so cut and dried.

Outcomes might be definite, but there is no right or wrong answer to the question. Nor do I think that what people say they would do correlates to what those same people would actually do.

[kallend 1,619]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Indeed. Added to which there are vanishingly few real world situations in which the outcomes are so definite, so cut and dried.

Churchill and the bombing of Coventry, 1940.  According to some sources (and disputed by others) he did not give a warning to protect the intelligence source.

 

I suggest that many military command decisions in wartime have an element of this situation.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Outcomes might be definite, but there is no right or wrong answer to the question. Nor do I think that what people say they would do correlates to what those same people would actually do.

Well, no shit.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Here is an example 

Hi Robert,

One thing that comes to mind is why the motorcycle people did not allow enough room to stop.

And, I've been to Candiac numerous times.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

I suggest that many military command decisions in wartime have an element of this situation.

Hi John,

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

As I said in my first post on this:  Not all warriors survive the battle.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,380]

4 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Robert,

One thing that comes to mind is why the motorcycle people did not allow enough room to stop.

And, I've been to Candiac numerous times.

Jerry Baumchen

I'll bet the accident happened as the bike was changing lanes.

Imagine you are in the right lane, following a car moving slower than you like. So you move over to the left lane to pass.  Are you prepared to deal with a stationary car in the left lane?

There was a dashcam video on Reddit some time back of this situation. Some moron was stopped in the middle lane of 3 lanes of heavy traffic, changing his tire!  A car in the right lane moved left to pass slower traffic and plowed into the stopped car, missing the tire-changing moron by inches. The traffic was probably moving 65+ mph, and the lane-changer could not see the stationary car up ahead until he moved into the lane.