Seems a pretty good solution.

Don't push the fat man. Jump.

i think it's the idea that self sacrifice is a way out of using people as means, but generally considered defective and no longer held by its oroginal proponent. However, frivolity aisde, it is a misisng piece in the psychology of it, if not the reality of moral prohibitions.

Everyone here knows the right thing is to say you would if those people were equal in worth to the world as yourself. It would be another matter if it were not an abstract. Armchair ethics is easy, having to be 'in the game', is not.

Get there early, find the one who tied them there, free them all, give the fat man some diet advice. Buy them all a ticket to the train.

Solved.

Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem, Ezio Di Nucci

I prefer a shocking twist ending:

You are the fat man

What if pushing the fat man only had a 10% chance of saving 5 people?

If not doing it has a 0% chance, surely the ethical thinking remains the same?

What-if the subject to be shoved off the bridge wasn't the disposable fat man, for whom nobody has all that much sympathy anyway, but a gorgeous woman? BTW, there was no 'fat man' in the original 1967 problem posed by Philippa Foot in the context of abortion ethics.

In 2017, a group led by Michael Stevens performed the first realistic trolley-problem experiment, where subjects were placed alone in what they thought was a train-switching station, and shown footage that they thought was real (but was actually prerecorded) of a train going down a track, with five workers on the main track, and one on the secondary track; the participants had the option to pull the lever to divert the train toward the secondary track. Most of the participants did not pull the lever

The subjects must have been very naive indeed to think the "train switching station" or the pre-recorded footage was real.

Take away: just stay away from mass transit.

What-if the subject to be shoved off the bridge wasn't the disposable fat man, for whom nobody has all that much sympathy anyway, but a gorgeous woman? — BC

The "Fat Man" does indeed contaminate the problem. I know it was supposed to make convincing that one body could stop a trolley, but it is better to leave attributes unspecified and simply state that the person you are pushing will definitely stop the trolley. The relative values of persons is another, unrelated issue.

In 2017, a group led by Michael Stevens performed the first realistic trolley-problem experiment, where subjects were placed alone in what they thought was a train-switching station, and shown footage that they thought was real (but was actually prerecorded) of a train going down a track, with five workers on the main track, and one on the secondary track; the participants had the option to pull the lever to divert the train toward the secondary track. Most of the participants did not pull the lever

This also contaminates the question. Assuming the participants really did believe what was going on (how could the experimenters plausibly pull that off??), was it moral evaluation or simply anxiety and paralysis that prevented them from pulling the lever?

Yeah, that's the philosopher I meant, Thompson. Looks like it has nothing to do with Kant (I misremembered).

It's a strange set up, and I can't see many people saying it's obligatory that they kill themselves to save the five. In some way, I think it might show it's merely permissible to turn the trolley, because I might give permission for someone to kill me to save five (or 100).

In the original trolley car problem context, it was fetus vs mother. By some definitions (not mine) a fetus is a 'person', so abortion for some people IS this life for that life.

In disaster triage, decisions are made about letting some die (who, under the specific circumstances can't be helped) so that other people who probably can benefit will be treated.

It is probably more productive to discuss actual moral dilemmas. One problem with the 'trolley problem' is that actor on the bridge doesn't have a stake in the outcome. A pregnant woman does have a stake in the outcome--her body will experience the abortion; her fetus will be destroyed; her partner may or may not approve. Further, the 5 and the 1 on the track are as good as stick figures.

Take away: just stay away from mass transit. — BC

Dang, another setback for mass transit.

I don't think a fetus is a person, but I accept that the "Trolley problem" is vacuous outside of its application to the real world.

If not doing it has a 0% chance, surely the ethical thinking remains the same? — AmadeusD

Assume that pushing the fat man only has a 10% chance of saving 5 people?

The expected number of people who die if you push the fat man is 5.5 = (0.9 * 5 + 1)

The expected number of people who die if you DON'T push the fat man is 5 = (1.0 * 5)

To minimize the expected number of people who die you should NOT push the fat man.

That would be a very strictly consequentialist bit of calculation.

I think the correct assessment is that you're increasing the potential survival rate of the five destined to die by at least 10%. That, to me, is what's reasonable as a motivating factor.

The fact that you are also increasing (from zero) the chance of ht Fat man dying doesn't seem to play into my thinking. But that may be me on a different ethical consideration.

The fact that you are also increasing (from zero) the chance of the Fat man dying doesn't seem to play into my thinking. But that may be me on a different ethical consideration. — AmadeusD

You seem to be implying that the value of the fat man's life is worth less than the value of each of the other 5 people's lives.

The default assumption should be that all of the people's lives (including the fat man) have equal value.

That's not what im saying.

What I'm saying is that raising the potential of not killing five people from 0% to 10% seems worthy of of ethical consideration, regardless of the increased risk to the Fatman. Not because he is worth less, but because the other side of the equation is an increase in the potential for saving five who are destined to die, otherwise. This may require me to consider that five people surviving at 10% potential is worth more than the 90% potential they all die. I understand your point and ultimately you might be right, but im trying to muddle through my intuitive position.

(edited in an hour later)It is worth noting I do not think life confers any intrinsic value. I am unsure why or how people understand that to be the case.

It is probably more productive to discuss actual moral dilemmas. — BC

:100:

Like my rhino beetle problem. Do I save palm trees by using imidicloprid drenches at the cost of killing more of the honey bee population (and other pollinators), or do I let the trees die at substantial cost to my employer. It's another version of the tragedy of the commons, assuming imidicloprid use is becoming widespread to combat the problem.

I'd much rather let the trolley run over the palm trees. But this isn't the topic... blaaaaaa!