Happy Atheist Forum

This is one of my favorite thought  experiments. The problem goes thusly (though there are variations; my apologies to obese people who live near train tracks):

QuoteA trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people tied to the tracks. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop the trolley by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

The original version of the problem involves a divergence of the track, powered by a switch. There are five people tied to one part of the track and one person tied to another part. If you do nothing, the train kills the five people. If you flip the switch, it moves the tracks and you kill the one. I like the fat man version better because the switch is much less personal.

So, what do you do?

(I have allowed re-voting if you wish to change your vote at any time.)

If this were a real situation I'd attempt to find an alternate solution, but I suspect that would be cheating. The question is about a moral equation.

Assuming that murdering the obese man is the only solution, I'd have to pass. It's not my right to sacrifice the obese man. I'd probably mention it to him, giving him the opportunity to sacrifice himself, but I'd not force him.

It is not right to drag others who have no business with the problem into it.

In the end, assuming he (or they) means nothing to you personally, it's simple math ...  drop the fat man.

Kyu

So, after reading the OP I discussed this with my coworker. She told me that she wouldn't pull the lever, or push the man as she did not have a responsibility to the five tied to the track. She rationalized, that because she didn't put those people there, she would not be at fault when they died - and if she had pulled the lever/pushed the fat man it would be her direct responsibililty for the single persons death.

I told her that by not acting, she would be condemning the five to die. Saving five lives justifies taking one.

So she asked me then if I knew anyone involved personally.
Me: "Would that matter?"
Her: "Yes, because emotion could take over your logic. If it was your best friend tied to the opposite track, would you still kill him in order to save five strangers?"
Me: "I think I would. I believe that every individual has an equal value to each other, regardless of their friendships, intelligence, race or beliefs."
Her: "So then emotion wouldn't change your mind at all? What if it is your wife, whom you love dearly"
Me: "..."

So perhaps I can see myself valuing certain people above others - even though I see it against my own convictions of right and wrong. If the choice was between the woman I love and five strangers - or fifty strangers - I would still probably choose her. And I really don't have a good argument as to why.

Is it logical then, to assume that for many of us in extreme situations would not act as we would personally find to be logical?

It seems to me for myself, and likely many others, our ethics would take a back seat to our irrational emotions. This is part of being human.
I think this is also why so many people get wrapped up in religion. We are emotional beings.

I changed my vote from "push the fat man" to "other"

But don't you think that no innocent should be murdered to keep others from being killed, especially if they have nothing to do with the problem? Imagine if the only way to stop the trolly would be to drop an infant on the tracks? I don't think any innocent should be forced to atone for other people's problems. Last I heard, Jesus did that. Scapegoat theory. And I don't think it's right.

Right?  

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"But don't you think that no innocent should be murdered to keep others from being killed, especially if they have nothing to do with the problem? Imagine if the only way to stop the trolly would be to drop an infant on the tracks? I don't think any innocent should be forced to atone for other people's problems. Last I heard, Jesus did that. Scapegoat theory. And I don't think it's right.

Right?  

I see what you did there...

The fat man has to go. Five lives are more valuable than one morbidly obese one. Although depending on how heavy he actually is I dunno if I could push him off.

Why am I on a bridge with a fat man?  How the hell will one fat guy stop a whole train?  What if I push the fat guy and it doesn't stop the train?  Damn variables.

Anyhow, I understand it's a thought experiment in moral reasoning and ya just have to give an answer and then reflect on why.  My mind would change depending on who was involved and if I had any personal ties to them.  No personal ties? The fat man goes down.  Personal ties with the man such as a best friend?  The five are gonna perish.  It's all about the monkey sphere.

Quote from: "Sophus"The fat man has to go. Five lives are more valuable than one morbidly obese one. Although depending on how heavy he actually is I dunno if I could push him off.

Well you better start working out! This could really happen!

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Sophus"The fat man has to go. Five lives are more valuable than one morbidly obese one. Although depending on how heavy he actually is I dunno if I could push him off.

Well you better start working out! This could really happen!

So true. I'll get right on that.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"But don't you think that no innocent should be murdered to keep others from being killed, especially if they have nothing to do with the problem? Imagine if the only way to stop the trolly would be to drop an infant on the tracks? I don't think any innocent should be forced to atone for other people's problems. Last I heard, Jesus did that. Scapegoat theory. And I don't think it's right.

IMO all are innocent therefore the 1 has no greater right to life than the 5 except in pure "save as many as possible" terms.

A similar situation has been raised more than once in science fiction stories where the commander of a base sacrificed half the base (random decision) to save the others) based on the idea that a supply rocket with essential oxygen would arrive in 2 weeks, the base had sufficient for just over a week but if half the people were dead then the remainder would survive. Sure I understand why such a person would be reviled (as I think would the person pushing the fat man off the bridge) but in once sense he/she is a hero because he/she has turned a losing situation into a win (sort of, slightly more complicated for various reasons).

Imagine if the world were about to end (asteroid or whatever), you have 1 shelter that can take 1000 people ... could you choose those who would survive? I think I could if I had to ... a small number of older people with useful skills (teachers, scientists, engineers etc.), everyone relatively young.

I believe it is a misnomer to say we are all equal because in a survival situation we are not (though Cat's situation does portray us as equal) and people, despite the principle, do evaluate (judge) each other and value themselves against them in various ways.

BTW ... I thought of another solution ... throw yourself off! Very human.

Kyu

I'd push the fat man because he was obviously thinking about jumping anyway.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

QuoteA trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people tied to the tracks. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop the trolley by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

I've thought about this longer than the time left to actually do something. By now the five are dead.
The fat man and I have decided to have a drink in a bar.  

MONSTERS!! All of you!  

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"MONSTERS!! All of you!  :D

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"MONSTERS!! All of you!  :lol:

So, what would House do?  

In my professional opinion (granted, my profession has nothing to do with this, but it sounds good), you kill the one to save the five. Period.

The Sprint Free and Clear Plan is neither free nor clear: discuss.

(Anybody get that reference?)

I think I would take the choice of doing nothing because that is the choice that doesn't have me spending time in jail for murder. Only pushing the fat man is a crime. And who am I to decide who lives or dies in this scenario? Do all lives have equal value? What if the fat guy is just your average Joe and the five people tied to the train tracks are members of a drug dealing gang. All five have committed murder, robbery, and assault. This explains why they are tied to the train track in the first place. (A rival gang is taking over their territory)  

I know that in that situation I would not be able to push the fat man, even if I thought it made logical sense.

Btw, how the hell can a fat man be walking if he's fat enough to stop a trolley?  

Quote from: "parllagio"What if the fat guy is just your average Joe and the five people tied to the train tracks are members of a drug dealing gang. All five have committed murder, robbery, and assault. This explains why they are tied to the train track in the first place. (A rival gang is taking over their territory)  :D

That's the beauty of this thought experiment: your decision is always affected by the position and/or relationship to you of those in peril.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Oh, come on. Haven't you ever seen the old silent films where the diabolic mad-man has tied the innocent woman to the train tracks? Well, imagine that the jerk-in-black (cause, he's always wearing black) is just really efficient and managed to tie five helpless damsels (sorry, girls; it's just for the sake of argument) to the tracks.

What then?  

In that case I change my answer and push the fat man. Only because I am single and if I save the lives of 5 women odds are I can score with at least one of them.

Quote from: "parllagio"In that case I change my answer and push the fat man. Only because I am single and if I save the lives of 5 women odds are I can score with at least one of them.

Okay, in that case, assume it's five men, no matter how attractive, will never be "into" you. Change your decision?

The one thing that I'd do is look around carefully to see if there was any way that I could be blamed for the situation, and try to avoid it as much as possible. Push someone in front of a trolly? I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison for murder.

I five people tied on the tracks cannot stop a trolley then why should one fat man be able to stop it?  I'm not sure that I'd be able to push such a heavy weight over the bridge. It is therefore more likely that the 5 people die and that the fat man beats me up.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Okay, in that case, assume it's five men, no matter how attractive, will never be "into" you. Change your decision?

Yes, in that case I change back to my original decision. These 5 men are obviously criminals and deserve to be tied to the tracks.  

Quote from: "Martian"The one thing that I'd do is look around carefully to see if there was any way that I could be blamed for the situation, and try to avoid it as much as possible. Push someone in front of a trolly? I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison for murder.

That was my original point, no matter how you try to justify it, in this situation if you push the fat man you are committing murder. And probably would be convicted of the same in front of a jury. You have no right to murder the fat man even if you could be saving lives.

They way I originally heard this question, and I will quickly paraphrase so please don't attack the logic, was in a social issues and ethics class. You and 5 friends are exploring a cave with only one entrance/exit. You enter the cave, explore and when leaving the largest of your friends goes through the entrance/exit first and gets stuck. Lucky for you, you always bring dynamite while exploring caves. You have two options, die with all 5 of your friends, or blow the hole where one of your friends is stuck and safely escape with your other 4 friends. No other options available, I know I know, doesn't make much sense but pick one. I am curious if this situation changes anyone's answer to the previous.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"So, what would House do?  :hail:  House  :D

Quote from: "parllagio"They way I originally heard this question, and I will quickly paraphrase so please don't attack the logic, was in a social issues and ethics class. You and 5 friends are exploring a cave with only one entrance/exit. You enter the cave, explore and when leaving the largest of your friends goes through the entrance/exit first and gets stuck. Lucky for you, you always bring dynamite while exploring caves. You have two options, die with all 5 of your friends, or blow the hole where one of your friends is stuck and safely escape with your other 4 friends. No other options available, I know I know, doesn't make much sense but pick one. I am curious if this situation changes anyone's answer to the previous.

Well, if it was 100% certain that there was no other way, then obviously the large guy is going to have to pop. It's either everyone or just him. Since I'm part of the "everyone" group, then I'm going to do what I have to in order to live. But this situation is slightly different, because you can die.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "parllagio"They way I originally heard this question, and I will quickly paraphrase so please don't attack the logic, was in a social issues and ethics class. You and 5 friends are exploring a cave with only one entrance/exit. You enter the cave, explore and when leaving the largest of your friends goes through the entrance/exit first and gets stuck. Lucky for you, you always bring dynamite while exploring caves. You have two options, die with all 5 of your friends, or blow the hole where one of your friends is stuck and safely escape with your other 4 friends. No other options available, I know I know, doesn't make much sense but pick one. I am curious if this situation changes anyone's answer to the previous.

Well, if it was 100% certain that there was no other way, then obviously the large guy is going to have to pop. It's either everyone or just him. Since I'm part of the "everyone" group, then I'm going to do what I have to in order to live. But this situation is slightly different, because you can die.

It's also different because the large friend is doomed either way.

I think I'll avoid bridges now for the rest of my life   , since I would be that large person that most people want to throw off the bridge in order to save some other people. Thanks, but no thanks. The next time you guys ends up in such a situation, take a knife with you.

Quote from: "Tom62"I think I'll avoid bridges now for the rest of my life  :D

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Tom62"I think I'll avoid bridges now for the rest of my life  :D

Yep, drinking a good glass of Islay whisky and trying to forget all those nasty people who are out there to get us.

I don't care what you people say, an innocent should never be dragged into a problem that they were not originally a part of. What if you were the fat man, and you were just waddling your way home to spend an evening play GTA4 with your fat little midget son? What THEN? HUH?!? HUH!?!

That's my principle. No innocents involved. Can any say that is bad logic?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"I don't care what you people say, an innocent should never be dragged into a problem that they were not originally a part of. What if you were the fat man, and you were just waddling your way home to spend an evening play GTA4 with your fat little midget son? What THEN? HUH?!? HUH!?!

That's my principle. No innocents involved. Can any say that is bad logic?

How would you feel about saving one innocent person if we changed the hypothetical? I know that this is absurd, but what if instead of there being 5 people that would die if you don't sacrifice one, let's say there is a hundred, or maybe a thousand, or even a million. What then? Would you let a million innocent people die to let one innocent person live, or would you kill one innocent person to save a million innocent people?

Innocents are not part of the problem. Victims are. Normally, as human beings, we evolved our morality. Problem with that is that it's not consistent all the way through. I would like to say that if there was a mad scientist threatening to kill a million people if I didn't kill one person, that I should kill the mad scientist. I can't think of any other ways that the scenario might apply. Still, I do know that I would never want to be killed to save others if I wasn't somehow responsible or involved. In the same way, I would not kill an innocent to save people that might be responsible for their own predicament.

i think the whole thing comes down to whether you're willing to reduce a human being to an object, a means to an end, and USE him.  i'm not.  to push the fat man would be to USE him.  whether he's healthy or unhealthy, worth more or less than the people tied to the track, he's still a human being, not something to be used like a heavy, lifeless weight.

so i wouldn't use the fat man as a brake to save the five.

i've also heard this with a second part added: what if you had the option to divert the trolley onto a second track, where the same fat man happened to be standing?  you can either take no action, or divert the trolley to kill one instead of five.  does that change things?

If the guy is big enough to stop a trolley, I doubt I could get him over the rail.  "Excuse me sir, judging by your enormous size, you look to, in my estimation, just the perfect size to stop that oncoming trolley.  What do you say?  Great!  The trolley looks to be about two or three minutes away, so we have just enough time to get your big butt over the side."

Seriously, who can decide logic or morality under a panic situation.  I have difficulty making my mind when ordering from a lunch menu when the waitress comes by the second time.  In a hypothetical situation, given a few seconds to answer under no stress you could give an answer that might make sense.  What does that mean, though?

Questions like these cannot be answered when they are this vague.
Applied ethics and rational thinking together must form situational ethics.

The fact that who the fat man is or who the five people are changes things makes it a question impossible to answer in an all-encompassing and certain manner, at least for me. (Others who are so "sure of themselves" as to believe their answer is correct because it is their answer [i.e., Rand] would be happy to shout their answer at you.)

It is like attempting to answer the question, "Would you rather eat ice cream?" You don't know the other option, you don't know the specifics, therefore you have differing answers for the specific situation involved, i.e., whether the alternative to eating ice cream is to do something you thoroughly enjoy or whether it is death.

You can guess that ice cream would probably be better than some things, but you have no context to go on. The best method you have in such an instance is guesswork.

So I don't think it is really a "problem," as it stands.

Assuming the fat man and the five people are all complete strangers to me, and all of them are of the same objective value as individuals, I would probably push the man over. As someone mentioned earlier, when you get right down to it, given the right parameters, it's simple math: -1 is better than -5.

Oh, and hello, HAF. This is my first post.  

I would panick, run away and spend years in therapy allowing the five people to die, then have a drink with the fat guy as we look back on the good old days.

Hi, again, everyone.

The situation varies based on your relationship to the people and involved, and your knowledge.  If the 5 people are a team of agriculturists who were going to end world hunger, and the guy standing next to me raping a woman in broad daylight, two birds with one stone, I say.  If the five are thugs who are tied there as a crude form of public execution by the totalitarian police state, then me and the fat guy and the rest of the proles and party members are just gonna watch and probably have a good time to boot.  If the 5 are my best friends, or my family, and I don't know the fat guy, then I deem their lives worth my life in prison + 1 fat guy.  If I don't know the 5 and the fat guy is my friend, then we're going to be talking about it later at the bar.  If I thought I was heavy enough to stop the trolley (though I'm not fat), then I might jump down myself, but I'm not sure I have the massive, clanking, 6 pound iron balls needed to do it for just 5 people.

And I prefer the switch, Curio, because then you are in close proximity to the switch and you don't kill anyone, they just die as a result of your choice.  Pushing a person over a bridge is liable to land you in prison, throwing the switch to save the 5 probably won't, just how the human mind works.  I wouldn't be surprised if even Wechtlein Uns would feel negligently responsible for not throwing the switch to save the 5.  It still requires a choice on your part, but the train does all of the more-impersonal killing.

Another variant is where a terrorist has taken 6 people hostage, and called you over the phone, randomly.  You can see on the nearby TV that the situation is legit.  They demand you select one person, based on their voice, to die, and then they will surrender and the other 5 will be unharmed, but that if you select no one, all 6 will be shot.  Other variants place you in the room, but I prefer being distant because then there is no other choice but to cooperate.  If we want to make this airtight, we can say that even if the police manage to get in, he will still succeed in killing all six, so there's no point stalling.  This has the beauty of placing the weight of the selection on you, the murder and situation on the terrorist, and your negligence will kill all of them so you can't afford to sit it out.  I'd pick one, it's that simple.

 

Quote from: "PipeBox"Another variant is where a terrorist has taken 6 people hostage, and called you over the phone, randomly.  You can see on the nearby TV that the situation is legit.  They demand you select one person, based on their voice, to die, and then they will surrender and the other 5 will be unharmed, but that if you select no one, all 6 will be shot.  Other variants place you in the room, but I prefer being distant because then there is no other choice but to cooperate.  If we want to make this airtight, we can say that even if the police manage to get in, he will still succeed in killing all six, so there's no point stalling.  This has the beauty of placing the weight of the selection on you, the murder and situation on the terrorist, and your negligence will kill all of them so you can't afford to sit it out.  I'd pick one, it's that simple.

You're still left with the possibility that the terrorist is lying.

I'd probably ask him why he just doesn't roll a die.  

I'd tell myself that it's not my problem and watch the carnage.  

Quote from: "bowmore"You're still left with the possibility that the terrorist is lying.

I'd probably ask him why he just doesn't roll a die.  

If the terrorist is lying, then everyone dies anyway, or no one dies, and it was never your call, and you're absolved of any possible guilt.  It would, however, be very irresponsible not to choose holding out hope that he was lying.

As to the rolling the die, I dunno, you can ask.  Maybe he didn't have one handy, or maybe he goes "Oh yeah, thanks," and hangs up the phone to assign numbers to each person before rolling the die he had on him.  Maybe he figured a random phone call was just as good as, and that's just how it is.  If he does invoke a die, you still effectively told him to single out one person, you just removed the choice of who from resting in your hands.