Morality and Ethics - The Trolley Problem

[billvon 2,396]

56 minutes ago, airdvr said:

There's your answer. 

That's not an answer - that's a statement of the problem.  And it's similar in both cases.

There's an interesting third reaction to these sorts of questions where the person answering simply refuses to answer, citing all sorts of logistical reasons.  "I couldn't see the trolley coming if I was working."  "Trolleys have deadman switches so they can't run without an operator - so it''s his decision, not mine."  "I would use my tools to build a deralier and save everyone."  Often this happens when both answers seem unpalatable to them, or create an internal conflict they cannot resolve.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That's not an answer - that's a statement of the problem.  And it's similar in both cases.

There's an interesting third reaction to these sorts of questions where the person answering simply refuses to answer, citing all sorts of logistical reasons.  "I couldn't see the trolley coming if I was working."  "Trolleys have deadman switches so they can't run without an operator - so it''s his decision, not mine."  "I would use my tools to build a deralier and save everyone."  Often this happens when both answers seem unpalatable to them, or create an internal conflict they cannot resolve.

The Epstein/Einstein Conundrum.

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

There's your answer.  If you said he most surely will die there was an episode of M.A.S.H. that dealt with that scenario and  even then they waited.

So you shouldn’t kill the patient because he’d otherwise have been fine? The guy you’re happy to murder on the train tracks would otherwise have been fine too. In your first post you said that 5 def vs one dead was a simple choice. What changed? 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

So you shouldn’t kill the patient because he’d otherwise have been fine? The guy you’re happy to murder on the train tracks would otherwise have been fine too. In your first post you said that 5 def vs one dead was a simple choice. What changed? 

Just the position of the minute hand on the clock. Now just wait a little more.

[airdvr 197]

On 1/18/2020 at 3:17 PM, jakee said:

So you shouldn’t kill the patient because he’d otherwise have been fine? The guy you’re happy to murder on the train tracks would otherwise have been fine too. In your first post you said that 5 def vs one dead was a simple choice. What changed? 

I'm beginning to see the point however there really isn't a choice to be made in the ER scenario.  Unless we want to suspend disbelief.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I'm beginning to see the point however there really isn't a choice to be made in the ER scenario.  Unless we want to suspend disbelief.

You've just hit the nail on the head. You're happy to say you'd kill someone to save 5 people on the tracks because it's a contrived situation. It's not realistic and you know you'll never have to do it. You can suspend your disbelief, say whatever you want and it doesn't matter.

 

You say you absolutely shouldn't kill the guy in the hospital to save people on the organ donor list because it's real. You know that you both can't and shouldn't murder people for organs because otherwise it's something that really could happen every day if we let it. This response is what your morality is really telling you.

[DJL 232]

On 1/17/2020 at 6:20 PM, billvon said:

The doctor would be expected to be less moral, because he is forbidden from choosing the utilitarian option?

The difference is causing death vs. preventing death and never mind oaths, doctors through history have had to make triage decisions.  Some have favored the 5 allowing the one to die, others have favored a preferred one allowing 5 to die.  Every scenario we look at in which someone was compelled to die for a greater good has come with very obvious ethical ramifications even if that person is already dead and their organs are sold illegally.  Other scenarios include using a group of people to test drugs, diseases or things like radiation without their knowledge.

Causing the death of someone who would otherwise have normally survived is different than allowing the death of someone who is already in the path.  The train MUST go somewhere and just because switching tracks causes that death it's still a life on the path of options for where the train must go.  That's getting back to the scenario of pushing the person into the path so that they die and therefore save the others.  They begin as an observer and are no more involved than the pusher.  Simply put, decisions don't have to be utilitarian to be right.  It's OK to not jump on the grenade, it's OK to not cause someone else to jump on the grenade.

Edited January 20, 2020 by DJL

[DJL 232]

On 1/17/2020 at 4:42 PM, billvon said:

The person considering throwing the switch could as easily be a doctor.

But strip away all the other obligations (like that oath, or the idea that maybe the railroad worker isn't authorized to touch the switch.)  What's the _moral_ thing to do?

Being utilitarian does not equate to being moral.  It also doesn't necessarily mean the choice is immoral.

This scenario is easier because it's more defensible when one group is a factor of 5 larger.  Let's say we changed the group to not be about the ratio but about the difference which is five people dying vs 1 if the track were switched. 10 vs 6, 30 vs 26?  That tends to bring the decision back to allowing inaction but only because they're more equally sized.  However it's the exact same result because of a difference of four people per group size.  Nobody would ever tell the person after the fact that they should have switched the track to kill the group of 41 people instead of the group of 45 because it's about the same result, overall.  So starting there and marching it back to 30 vs 25, 10 vs 6, 5 vs 1 it's not an issue of morality but on deciding the best of purely numerical bad outcomes based on a limited knowledge of the people and situation.  Neither choice is moral, neither choice is immoral.

Now again relating the situation of compelling a person outside of the system (pushing them off the bridge so they die hitting the switch that changes the track) that is immoral as you are bringing them into the system.  It IS utilitarian but it also IS immoral.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Being utilitarian does not equate to being moral.  It also doesn't necessarily mean the choice is immoral.

This scenario is easier because it's more defensible when one group is a factor of 5 larger.  Let's say we changed the group to not be about the ratio but about the difference which is five people dying vs 1 if the track were switched. 10 vs 6, 30 vs 26?  That tends to bring the decision back to allowing inaction but only because they're more equally sized.  However it's the exact same result because of a difference of four people per group size.  Nobody would ever tell the person after the fact that they should have switched the track to kill the group of 41 people instead of the group of 45 because it's about the same result, overall.  So starting there and marching it back to 30 vs 25, 10 vs 6, 5 vs 1 it's not an issue of morality but on deciding the best of purely numerical bad outcomes based on a limited knowledge of the people and situation.  Neither choice is moral, neither choice is immoral.

Now again relating the situation of compelling a person outside of the system (pushing them off the bridge so they die hitting the switch that changes the track) that is immoral as you are bringing them into the system.  It IS utilitarian but it also IS immoral.

What if the cause of the situation is the one guy on the tracks?

How does this work if the event has already happened? 

 

[DJL 232]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What if the cause of the situation is the one guy on the tracks?

How does this work if the event has already happened? 

 

What do you mean, that the one guy who is on track 2 somehow caused the situation that could kill the 5 on track 1, the normal path of the train?  Not sure what you mean by "if the event has already happened".

Edited January 20, 2020 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

What do you mean, that the one guy who is on track 2 somehow caused the situation that could kill the 5 on track 1, the normal path of the train?  Not sure what you mean by "if the event has already happened".

Like the guy on the track to divert the train was the cause of the people being tied up.

 

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Like the guy on the track to divert the train was the cause of the people being tied up.

 

So the person flipping the switch knows the one guy on the right side has tied five people to the track on the left?  I think the known attempt at murdering 5 people makes the choice a little easier.  I guess we also have to assume the guy on the right got his foot stuck or something.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

So the person flipping the switch knows the one guy on the right side has tied five people to the track on the left?  I think the known attempt at murdering 5 people makes the choice a little easier.  I guess we also have to assume the guy on the right got his foot stuck or something.

He is suspected, only.  No proof available at the moment.  But he's guilty.

[DJL 232]

14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

He is suspected, only.  No proof available at the moment.  But he's guilty.

So we're turning this into a Damsel on the railroad tracks scenario?

Yeah, we can kill that guy.

[wmw999 2,120]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

So we're turning this into a Damsel on the railroad tracks scenario?

Yeah, we can kill that guy.

Ooh -- but what if it also kills the girl? huh?

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

He is suspected, only.  No proof available at the moment.  But he's guilty.

What are you talking about?

[DJL 232]

8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Ooh -- but what if it also kills the girl? huh?

Wendy P.

You'll have to tune in next week.  And now a message from our sponsors...

[billvon 2,396]

12 hours ago, jakee said:

You say you absolutely shouldn't kill the guy in the hospital to save people on the organ donor list because it's real. You know that you both can't and shouldn't murder people for organs because otherwise it's something that really could happen every day if we let it. 

And it's something that people can imagine might happen to _them_ - so there's a different set of criteria applied.

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

Being utilitarian does not equate to being moral.  It also doesn't necessarily mean the choice is immoral.

 

Agreed there.  You can make a good argument that the utilitarian decision _should_ be the same as the moral decision, but they are not the same.

Quote

Let's say we changed the group to not be about the ratio but about the difference which is five people dying vs 1 if the track were switched. 10 vs 6, 30 vs 26? 

And once you get to those scales you start to see real world cases where such decisions are made.  Do you push a vaccination campaign that will likely kill 3-4 people due to injection site infections but could save tens of thousands?  Probably yes.  Do you mandate airbags that will save tens of thousands but could kill hundreds?  Harder to say.

Quote

Now again relating the situation of compelling a person outside of the system (pushing them off the bridge so they die hitting the switch that changes the track) that is immoral as you are bringing them into the system.  It IS utilitarian but it also IS immoral.

Well, you are bringing them both into the system.  I think the big difference is that again, it's more personal.  It's easier to think about killing someone far away from you by throwing a switch.  It's harder to think about killing someone standing right next to you - even if the outcome is the same in both cases.  In addition, people rarely work on trolley tracks in confined tunnels, but people stand next to each other on bridges all the time.  So the calculus of "would I want someone to do that to me?" comes into play more.

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

And once you get to those scales you start to see real world cases where such decisions are made.  Do you push a vaccination campaign that will likely kill 3-4 people due to injection site infections but could save tens of thousands?  Probably yes.  Do you mandate airbags that will save tens of thousands but could kill hundreds?  Harder to say.

Even in retrospect, people seem to accept the people who are helped as being the new normal, and focus on the (generally smaller number) who are hurt, as being an unacceptable cost of whatever change it was.

I can remember talk around airbags, and even seat belts; an older friend said that she had a cousin who was saved in a drunk driving accident (his fault) because he wasn't belted in, and therefore he just rolled with it. Really.

We assume that all the people who don't get measles, polio, and other diseases will continue not to get them, even if we decide our children are too precious to risk immunizing. We assume that other people will drive predictably if we're speeding because we're in a hurry. We assume that we might just need that gun, and that our family will never, ever, make a mistake with one. And we assume that if we hurt, we should take the pills to make the hurt go away, because we don't have time for the exercise to keep it at bay in the first place.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Agreed there.  You can make a good argument that the utilitarian decision _should_ be the same as the moral decision, but they are not the same.

And once you get to those scales you start to see real world cases where such decisions are made.  Do you push a vaccination campaign that will likely kill 3-4 people due to injection site infections but could save tens of thousands?  Probably yes.  Do you mandate airbags that will save tens of thousands but could kill hundreds?  Harder to say.

Well, you are bringing them both into the system.  I think the big difference is that again, it's more personal.  It's easier to think about killing someone far away from you by throwing a switch.  It's harder to think about killing someone standing right next to you - even if the outcome is the same in both cases.  In addition, people rarely work on trolley tracks in confined tunnels, but people stand next to each other on bridges all the time.  So the calculus of "would I want someone to do that to me?" comes into play more.

Instead of using people in the example, use bowling pins. That's about where we are asked to quit thinking before we pull the lever, or not. That's why it's such a crap problem to present. For example, whereas 5 bowling pins aren't looking anywhere, one or more of the 5 people may see the problem and alert the others. But the one guy is on his own.

Edited January 21, 2020 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 1,909]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Instead of using people in the example, use bowling pins. That's about where we are asked to quit thinking before we pull the lever, or not. That's why it's such a crap problem to present. For example, whereas 5 bowling pins aren't looking anywhere, one ore more of the 5 people may see the problem and alert the others. But the one guy is on his own.

The real question for America is "how many lives of Muslims from a shithole country would you sacrifice to save one American contractor"? Morality is relative. To be fair, the principle applies equally to all people. Not just Americans. And that is why I don't have much interest in "the trolley problem". Morality and ethics and who to save?

Edited January 21, 2020 by gowlerk

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

For example, whereas 5 bowling pins aren't looking anywhere, one or more of the 5 people may see the problem and alert the others. But the one guy is on his own.

I actually think (at least for the example in which they're all about in the same spot) that it's more likely that one of the 5 would see the train in their periphery because it's now on an adjacent track and be able to alert the one vs. the one being able to see the train and alert all 5 on time.  But that's not what the "rules" of the test are.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 1/16/2020 at 10:09 AM, 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.  

Problem solved:

 

https://gfycat.com/warmanchoredgerenuk

[brenthutch 383]

On 1/17/2020 at 3:12 PM, billvon said:

OK, then here's a similar situation:

You are a doctor in charge of the ER in a hospital.  A man comes in unconscious from a car accident.  He will almost surely recover 100%.  Also in the ER are five people who will die within the day unless organ donors are found, but no donors are available.  The unconscious man is a perfect tissue match for those five people.

Do you choose 1 dead or 5 dead?

Not his/her choice