Gustaf's Philosophical question number 3 (LAST ONE WITH TROLLEYS!!)

[Gustaf]

Last one with trolley for a while anyway. I promise.

I'm gonna run a series of polls asking questions about moral dilemmas. I'm gonna start with a couple of basic trolley examples, the "classics" of modern philosophy. If you have any questions, please ask before you respond.

Number 3:

Those of you who did number 1 or 2 know the drill:

There is a track. Down the track comes a trolley. Tied to the track, through no fault of their own, are 5 people. The trolley will run over and kill all of them.

This time, however, there is no lever. Instead, there is a bridge over the track on which you are standing, in between the trolley and the 5 persons. Being the selfless good Christian that you are, you would, of course, jump down in front of the trolley and stop it, sacrificing yourself for them. But, sadly, you're thin and dressed lightly and the trolley (a bigger one than in question 2) would just run right over you. But right next to you, tied up, there is a bigger fellow wrapped up in some pretty trolley-wheel-stopping clothery. If you push him over the edge of the bridge he'll fall down on the track, get killed by the trolley, but stop it, saving the 5 other people. IMPORTANT: QUESTION IS NOT WHAT WOULD YOU DO BUT WHAT SHOULD YOU DO!

So, push or not?

Sidenote: if you, by any chance, voted yes on any of the two previous cases but vote no now, it would be interesting to hear an explanation that did not involve sentimental "I could NEVER" talk.

[Alcon]

These questions keep reminding me of my three-hour wait to ride the crappy San Francisco cablecar.  If only someone had pulled the level to kill me then

I voted yes, but there is a strong moral argument on both sides here.

[Gustaf]

These questions keep reminding me of my three-hour wait to ride the crappy San Francisco cablecar.  If only someone had pulled the level to kill me then

I voted yes, but there is a strong moral argument on both sides here.

What do you consider the difference to be compared to the first or second question?

[Alcon]

What do you consider the difference to be compared to the first or second question?

Actually, I misread the question.  There is none, other than an emotive argument.

[Verily]

Yes, with some qualification about the apparent worth of the person to be pushed against the five to be saved. In other words, if the one to be pushed is a famous chemist who is on the verge of making a miraculous scientific breakthrough, and the five to be saved are elderly and have never done anything of note, then no. In fact, age alone might be enough to determine the decision, based on how many collective years the five have left to live against the one to be pushed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  If I'm not big enough  to stop the trolley and I try to push a bigger person in front of the trolley there is a probability greater than zero that the big guy will push back or pull me along and I'll end up getting killed by the crazy trolley.  That assumes that the big guy is not a philosopher.  If he is then he will so stunned by the actual appearance of what he had always assumed to be a hypothetical trolley, that I would not be taking any risk by pushing him in front of it.

[John Dibble]

Being the selfless good Christian that you are,

The agnostic Libertarian asks "Since when have I been selfless?"

[Gustaf]

Yes, with some qualification about the apparent worth of the person to be pushed against the five to be saved. In other words, if the one to be pushed is a famous chemist who is on the verge of making a miraculous scientific breakthrough, and the five to be saved are elderly and have never done anything of note, then no. In fact, age alone might be enough to determine the decision, based on how many collective years the five have left to live against the one to be pushed.

It seems that I forgot to add the part about how you are not to assume any differences between the persons this time around. So, no such assumptions are to be made.

Dibble: The part about being selfless was of course tounge in cheek.

Ernest: the big guy is tied up and helpless, so no risks involved.

[Јas]

Instinctively, my answer is no, it would be 'wrong' to push this guy to stop the trolley. Though trying to provide a coherent and sound reasoning to differentiate this from my previous answers is difficult (if not impossible).

I think it has to do with the directness of my involvement. There seems, to me, to be a moral difference between having to choose between two paths for the trolley to travel which will inevitably kill a person (or persons) who I haven't had any involvement in choosing and actually physically putting someone on the tracks to take the hit.

I considered (and indeed, still consider) the death of the individual in situations GPQ#1 & 2 to be equivalent side-effects of saving the 5 (though I now understand the point being made in #2). In this instance, there is no doubting that pushing the 1 individual is not a side-effect, but a deliberate act and countenancing pushing him into the danger seems unpalletable.

Not sure if any of that makes sense and I know it may not sit perfectly with my previous answers, but I suppose I'm working on gut instinct more than cold logic (rightly or wrongly) in answering these questions.

[Gustaf]

Instinctively, my answer is no, it would be 'wrong' to push this guy to stop the trolley. Though trying to provide a coherent and sound reasoning to differentiate this from my previous answers is difficult (if not impossible).

I think it has to do with the directness of my involvement. There seems, to me, to be a moral difference between having to choose between two paths for the trolley to travel which will inevitably kill a person (or persons) who I haven't had any involvement in choosing and actually physically putting someone on the tracks to take the hit.

I considered (and indeed, still consider) the death of the individual in situations GPQ#1 & 2 to be equivalent side-effects of saving the 5 (though I now understand the point being made in #2). In this instance, there is no doubting that pushing the 1 individual is not a side-effect, but a deliberate act and countenancing pushing him into the danger seems unpalletable.

Not sure if any of that makes sense and I know it may not sit perfectly with my previous answers, but I suppose I'm working on gut instinct more than cold logic (rightly or wrongly) in answering these questions.

I understand the instinctive reaction. But there is no inherent "involvement" with the person tied up in case 1 or 2. He's just there, on another track. Note that this guy is also tied up and "belongs" to the situation just as much (or little) as the previous examples. In fact, you can easily imagine him being closer to both the trolley, the track and the 5 people than the "side-track" persons were.

But the way you're reasoning it seems like you did not consider case number 2 to be a deliberate act. So, imagine that in number 2 the trolley is already headed on the "other" track but will loop around and kill the 5 on the way back, as out-lined in that scenario. You have the option of putting the person on the track to block it. How would that be different from this scenario? Is there any real difference between putting the trolley over the person in one case and putting the person under the trolley in the other?

[Јas]

But the way you're reasoning it seems like you did not consider case number 2 to be a deliberate act. So, imagine that in number 2 the trolley is already headed on the "other" track but will loop around and kill the 5 on the way back, as out-lined in that scenario. You have the option of putting the person on the track to block it. How would that be different from this scenario? Is there any real difference between putting the trolley over the person in one case and putting the person under the trolley in the other?

The only answer I have is yes. Physically putting the man on the track (rather than dealing with a man already on the track because of someone else), I think, makes a significant difference. It's a somewhat tenuous distinction but I think a critical one.

[Torie]

The problem of course is that in real life there is a degree of uncertainty about outcomes. But if one were certain, one pushes.