If there is a principle that it is right to act to kill 1 to save 5, the principle should apply to both scenarios. Since it doesn't apply to both scenarios, there must be another principle that overrides the numbers principle that makes the difference. This is the idea of doing thought experiments, that you test how you justify things. — unenlightened

This ignores what he's actually said. In the OG scenario, you have no idea about differential value. You couldn't employ such a principle.

IN the subsequent, it is available to you. Unless i've missed something fundamentally esoteric about hte cases, this seems obvious.

It already is both a tragedy and immoral. Before I'm even asked to intervene. Why should I pile immorality upon immorality and tragedy upon tragedy? I'd call the cops. Failing that, I'd watch and be regretfully traumatized.

for what it's worth, I think any inclination to act, the "veiled" in the heroism of taking responsibility to save the greater number, is rooted in the Ego's attachment to its own narrative to a God complex level. Who the hellbam I to make a decision like that? As I said, it's already a tragedy. Who am I to decide? Unless...I am heroic to God level proportions and can make such decisions without bringing my self into the tragic, profoundly immoral equation.

In THIS limited situation, what is more moral? — Philosophim

Neither. IMHO, wrong question as I point out (above):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908263

How would you respond to the trolley problem?

By pointing out that it is based upon impossible scenario. If such a scenario should ever arise, there's much better ethical considerations to be had than which 'choice' one would make. The focus ought be upon how we ever got to that point to start with...

:brow:

Aha, I respect that you have doubled down on this. Yes, I think my view on this can change a lot depending on how I picture the scenario or the details like you say. Many times I am inclined to think maybe there are scenarios which just do not have a best answer. I am not entirely sure on this 999 scenario though my first instinct was to not kill them. The less I think of the deed as like an intentional, culpable act as opposed to like a preference, the more I feel inclined to kill the 999. But as a culpable act, the more comes into it the thoughts of it being immoral to impose yourself on someone else's freedom of agency and being alive which seems competitively important, morally. But then again, even just changing how I conceptualize the act itself can make this part seem less salient. You can imagine some kind of rescue scenario where a decision must be made and no one would blame you for having made the decision; but the fact that there is like an initial default set of people who are going to die, then the choice seems less like a necessary thing either-or and more of a culpable act being imposed on people.

where there are no other options. — Philosophim

Kill 1 or kill 5. In this scenario, I choose whether the trolly stays left and kills 5 or goes right and kills one. I have the same control in my choice whether 5 or 1 dies, so sitting there and doing nothing is making the this one choice one way (by selecting left towards the five), as pulling the lever and selecting right and killing one. It’s one choice and to effectuate the one choice I either leave the lever alone or pull it. So the fact that I can sit there changes nothing about the responsibility for either choice. If I sit there, I can’t say “it was not because of me that the five died, I just sat there.”

It’s one choice with me responsible for it. That is a very poor scenario (sitting still or pulling lever) to analyze the issue of taking responsibility.

Now 1 or 5. Obviously kill 1 instead of 5.

But, is that a moral choice? Did I choose rightly? Could I have chosen wrongly?

But here is the moral question: did I know which was the wrong choice and yet choose it anyway? Did I act immorally in making my choice?

In order to judge whether choosing to kill 1 or 5 was immoral or good, I need more facts. There is no morality inherent in this choice. Why did I choose to kill 5? Why did I choose to kill 1? Because 5 is greater than 1, killing 1 equals saving 5 which is greater than killing 5 to save 1? So I am moral now?

We need reality here.

In reality, I would hope I would have the courage to say “I refuse to participate at all. If you think that means I am choosing to kill 5, I ask you who set this trolly in motion, who won’t let me stop the trolly, who is trying to force me to participate? Who chose the 5 and the 1 man? Who is giving me this choice of who dies, but made all of those other choices without me?? THEY are killing 5 people and forcing me to see it. They have arranged to save the one person.”

You can’t ignore all of that and seek the morality of me playing along and thinking for a couple seconds, do I sit still or pull the lever? The only morality to question in me is any participation in the trolly ride.

We can try to play along to see if killing one person to save 5 is the right and moral choice, but not in these circumstances.

But if I didn’t think of the sickness of the situation and recognize all of the apparatus and planning that had to be in place to put me here, and I just played along, that doesn’t make me a hero or murderer for pulling the lever. It makes me quick at math under some pressure. It demonstrates the immorality of telling someone to make that choice in that fabricated situation. It doesn’t make me any better or worse if I made a choice that someone else would have made differently.

Truly, anyone in that circumstance could not be held responsible for any outcome. (Sitting versus pulling is how the trolly goes / that remains true. But responsibility for the outcome here, sitting versus pulling is one small act in what is happening here, like the trolly wheel turning is another small act, and the engine racing is another.)

So it produces very little understanding of ethics and morality to think about whether choosing to kill 5 or 1 says something good or bad about the person forced to ride that trolly. Despite the confines of the scenario, I would not be responsible for any outcome. I am a cog in a wheel someone else put in motion. And if you thought about the trolly engine starter who gave the instructions about the lever or the sitting, don’t you think we’d have more to discover about ethics there than in the person nail-biting over whether 5 is greater than the number 1?

I am not sure that I agree. For simple, totalizing moral theories, such as classical utilitarianism, it is very much relevant (perhaps as a reductio).

In other cases it depends on degree of similarity and how that factors into your moral thinking. Most of us at least contemplate public policies. Public policies not infrequently involve life-and-death decisions. Do we do this and save this many lives, or do we do that and save that many, or do we do nothing? How about emergency room or field hospital triage? Battlefield decisions? Relatively few people are directly involved in those, but it's not a negligible number. — SophistiCat

The real world parallels indeed seem apparent and relevant.

In the case of triage there's an essential difference in the fact that every person there will die unless treated, and the medic uses triage in order to save as many of them as possible.

So while the medic must choose who lives and who dies, anyone they save is a life won.

In the trolley problem, one must actively kill innocent bystanders in order to save.


There's potentially much substance here to talk about, and moral principles to test. I'm not sure why people dislike the trolley problem so much.

there's much better ethical considerations to be had than which 'choice' one would make. The focus ought be upon how we ever got to that point to start with... — creativesoul

Exactly the point of my last post. :ok:

This ignores what he's actually said. In the OG scenario, you have no idea about differential value. You couldn't employ such a principle.

IN the subsequent, it is available to you. Unless i've missed something fundamentally esoteric about hte cases, this seems obvious. — AmadeusD

Nor is there any differential value in the variant examples I offered unless you have something against fat men or people who need transplants. Let me say something callous sounding.

There are way more people in the world than it can sustain, and we are destroying the ecosystem on which we depend. Therefore it is better that five people die than one. Assume the facts are true; is the moral logic wrong? This is the logic of accelerationism. Human population is in overshoot and the sooner it is radically reduced, the better it will be both for the planet and for humanity. Only the most fortunate will have a quick death by trolley; most will die of heat-stroke or starvation.

The trolley problem is a thought experiment where you’re asked to either watch five people be killed or pull a lever so that only one person gets killed.

In this hypothetical scenario which choice would you make?

For those who would let the five people die by not pulling the lever to kill one person is there a minimum number of people on the track that would make you choose to kill the one person?

50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

What is your reasoning? — Captain Homicide

I think if a decision MUST BE made between "watching 5+" or "causing 1" human death by train then it would have to be, or shall I say, OUGHT TO BE judged in the time available...Like, perhaps it appears to be friends or a family dying together if you decide to watch 5+ die instead of CAUSE one to die alone instead. I think, sick as it is, that I might watch that instead of assisting or aiding by hand to kill just one. I am picturing the begging person. I am picturing the begging group. I think the group begging wouldnt bother me like hearing just one life beg for help. I think it would be harder for me personally to pull the lever and I think I do not consider this choice "saving lives"...

I believe the 5+ on the track should have a set limit for this to work, i dont think its realistic to imagine 10,000 bodies on the track because that is not realistic-- WHERE ARE THE BODIES COMING FROM, WHO HAS TIME FOR DOING ALL THAT? WHAT KIND OF TRAIN IS KILLING THIS MANY IN A ROW, HOW FAST, HOW BIG? MANY QUESTIONS EXIST! SO.... Lets say 50 is the max. I, personally will admit for the sake of fairness and my belief that intel exists here in this thread, think my mind changes around 10-20 bodies...

The one life vs the 20 okay...hm! LET ME THINK...Okay, well the thing is: we (by we- I mean me and brain) have to quickly decide using, judgment given the TIME we have to compare the groups... I might change my mind if I have enough time to reason with because I ought to, AND WILL BE (by my own self at least) held accountable for the decision and hopefully I can justify or explain my decision for my own sake [HOW DID I GET IN THIS POSITION AGAIN? WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? DAMMIT KIZZY!!!] WHO ARE YOU?

I might still just watch the 20 get hit. Depends how they beg I guess....thats so disturbing that I went there but am I surprised? Cant say I am. Am I enjoying myself? Not pleased to admit my truth but willing to accept the reality of it.

I think the trolley problem has been over used and literally USED differently every time it is presented by anyone after the originator...its contents can be reorganized and presented again, the probability is not going to give you any ANSWER OF USE. THE MATH IS NOT THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED. IF USING THIS PROBLEM FOR PROBABILITY YOU ARE ACTING IMMORALLY. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO GET THE MATH, THERE ARE NOT BETTER WAYS TO GET THE TRUTH (in some form - to be used and important not NOW BUT LATER) I am not bothered by participating in the not immoral act of thinking, but the act of thinking immorally to get more intel - I think can be excused or justified in a case by case basis - to come at a later time) and my will for seeking the greatest depths exceeds the pleasure and that pleasure in the body is distributed differently. The only pleasure, for me is in what is happening mentally, emotionally but physically I am not pleased with my ungodly hunched back position I am stuck typing this right now but I am willing to sacrifice the back pain to come to type this out of my mind now.... THAT occurs for me often. [*] My will fights back with me at times and some times the body/mind/moods determine actions while the will is left sizzling out, but still patiently waiting for some spark, it is unchanged as a whole but with unknown potentials as far as strength, timing, force, power, AUTHORITY...The wick is wound in wax, tangled and long. The speed of the burn is hard to measure, as we are waiting...waiting for what? The show? Who is lighting up these roman candles? Waiting like these people are waiting for the fireworks on the fourth of july!!!

ANYWAYS,

I think I can see one trying to justify to self by seeing if/how the family or mass group might be able to be somewhat find acceptance in the moment before passing, the solo person begging might not be convincing...they might have a look in there eyes saying, "please kill me" and for me... to kill them would get to me worse I think, am I selfish for thinking that YEAH SURE but THIS insane "problem" is only allowing participating thinking, and I dont think thinking about deciding between watching the family or group die together is totally immoral because it might wake people the fuck up.I think, either way, a strange and shocking surprise will find this person justifying this way (who me? lol) next time they (hi) look in the mirror. For it only says or confirms or shows what you are TO YOU AND OTHERS potentially only YOU (me? we? us? sure) matter here- as a, the living person with power and a choice . Here I am...I see me, I know me, what do you see? Numbers? Get real.

Here I go, you saw that I said it earlier, right? When I said I was not surprised with myself... that is/was the truth.


So, WHO ARE YOU?

Train is coming, people are dying no matter what! BAD BAD BAD! What hand do you play here? Are you willing to explain yourself? I think justification is valid and everyone who has to make a decision here in this hellscape scenario of a "problem" must be given time-- either before making the decision (not rushed ex. in a panic mode because a short amount of time is avail. to make a decision) or proper time after to be judged by their decision after, if they are valid in their explanation that can teach or filter out good and bad intentions in people maybe too? Like if people are so sure and interested in watching the train kill people, how they react is worth noting, etc. (any behaviors, signs that are observable in body, actions, reactions, tone, attitude, expressions) For then they can be held accountable, because really its fucked up any which way you look at this "problem".

BUT I think lessons do exist here, within a problem like this, and from lessons THINGS can be learned. I have seen a website that is like a simulation of this problem, it was interactive and a bit different but still equally messed up. When this proposed problem is given to people digitally, it is not realistic enough for the severity of the situation. Its almost presented in a fun, game like manner. (chose your own adventure) Its still telling, through indirect collection of data (think of it like a survey that is asking for feedback but the answers you provide (honest or not) tells them more than what they appear to be asking about. Consider data they could gather:
-Timing (like quickness of choice, how much thought going into the decision, etc) How they accessed the simulation (reference from another, how many attempts or times they accessed or shared simulation with friends or family members)
-Devices (used to access simulation, does this relate to any recent activity before and after accessing simulation?)
-Plus more like what is being "learned" or "noted" or "compiled" either of the three are true at the same time really (personalized, input based on owner-this can be adjusted and changed based on personal standards, goals, systems/technology) ....but anyways based on this simulation / game like website presenting the trolley problem, is this good or real enough for useful intel that they are gathering from its users?

I am considering realistically how close though does that get to say this experiment happening in real life... like say these people tied to the tracks, both groups 1 or the 5+, all know/knew before hand that one group was going to die and one group was going to live based on a persons choice THIS GO AROUND... say they were WILLING to die in the first place? Say all the groups on the tracks agreed to be there (tied to the tracks), while the person making the choice, (to CAUSE 1 death by PULLING the lever or WATCH 5+ die) no matter what they decide, knows nothing! Say they are going into this with no idea or existing info about the people tied to the tracks, who ALL agreed to be the fork in the road at the moment of deciding which way we lead the train... Say the decider walks into this only having the intel of what they see once at the scene of THE CRIME! Say the decider picks to pull the lever kills the 1 and saves the 5+...but then the 5 people get up from the tracks, brush themselves off and then goes right back in line to be recycled back into the whole pool of people willing, waiting and ready to die or risk death on the tracks of a train..im thinking too, what if some of the people on the track are willing to play a game of risk, kinda like russian roulette?

At least, they (death decider) WILL be recognized for what they are. Or they will remember who they are, and stand by their decision. Or remember and hate themselves all over again but learns to love who they really are.... BUT I believe no matter what--life for them will be, ought to be revalued all around ,how they see it, others and them selves being in it, doing it--it being, Life. And its values. What is matter to you? Is your mind over or above it? Think: Mind / Matter

Those who can relate to this problem and the horror of this reasoning for probability purposes, I think is immoral all around! But considering the problem and relating to it through your actual existence and pov of life currently though thinking/participating in the thought experiment is not immoral but the use of this problem in philosophy is, i think. SO I am admitting it to be not fully immoral and that depends on the best way to move on from such participation. Know what this is as a whole, not what it seems to be at the surface. As for me, I admitted how I would feel if I were in this place of deciding and I think that though my feelings are immoral if it were to take place for real not in my mind, BUT say the unlikely becomes real in reality [this DOES happen in real life (unlikely becoming real-by chance, time may factor in here)]

I searched "trolley problem" in the philosophy forum search bar and 8 existing threads appear. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN? WE CAN DO BETTER! IF the OPoster and commenters use this EXCUSE of a problem and PRESENT problems for others to participate in, that requires honest participants to think of immoral and of ungodly acts in the first place! Unnecessary...other problems may exists that dont require such criminal considerations. You force those, like me who are WILLING TO GO THERE AND PARTICIPATE FOR PHILOSOPHY AND ITS PEOPLES SAKE, to participate in aiding or watching/letting people die?? That is a wild ask, capt! BUT I am with you for the moment.

It requires putting the self in the shoes of someone who has found themselves in a situation and those situations that people get themselves into require IMMORAL thinking and perhaps one cant grasp such a analogy because they think it is immoral to propose such a problem in the first place! I can see how people who bring up this problem in debates may have lost sight and/or consideration of people who may be able to offer insight but cant comprehend why anyone would imagine such a analogy in the first place...So the contributions, comments and of course the person initiating through the OP (many already exist,if the problem is the problem itself and who is interested in it- time and time again may point to interesting perspectives and why/ how certain versions of the trolley problem keep appearing.)
I think THAT is what makes this immoral unless one is able to see the big picture and the lessons that can be learned, then at most this immoral problem that is proposed in philosophical discussion can bring intel from thinking immoral thoughts to gain greater insight of the minds of humans. This problem is not moral, only amoral at best because of how extreme this presents itself in philosophy and the severity of it occurring in reality. Using the mind and reality as we know it to picture yourself in this person (deciders) shoes is not wise unless you are prepared for what you may reveal in your participation. People are influenced easily, and reoccurring interest in violence will easily filter out with specific immoral intentions with how they are explaining there place...HERE, in the trolley problem presented AGAIN, on TPF.

With that being said... I want to know, why you are interested in this basic, popularly used, specific analogy and why present the trolley problem here on the forum when SOOOO many answers exist already online. What do your friends, peers, family members, whomever you associate with face to face think when/if have you asked or inquired about this problem in your actual life? What do they think about the problem you present to them? Are they quick to get into it, are they equally interested or curious about it, or do they think nothing of it because they know its coming from you, who is into this sort of deep thinking? Are they quick at first or do they not know how to react, do they hesitate in participating for you? Do they have to think hard about what they chose? Do they give not a fuck? Or do they answer quickly without consideration? Do they think before they answer you?
Also, @Captain Homicide , when did you first learn of this problem, if you can recall? And what about it, this problem specifically caught your attention. What value exists in it for you? Others? You were moved enough to bring your interest of inquiring minds here. Thats something...so, What are you looking for that you havent gotten yet in your research? Are you just seeing this for the first time and mind blown?

This is a rather sick way to be particular in philosophy, unless you are honest and willing to see the GOOD in the UGLY... Who is down for that? ME! (apparently)

So, is that fair enough? I believe in fairness-- and I think it, to be not an act of immorality but thinking of acts considered immoral (watching or causing death by train lol at the extremeness and insanity in general) BUT, if/as long as a lesson is TO BE learned and adjustments CAN THEN be made accordingly -- after the decisions and revaluing occur of self and its valid / credible in its justification efforts.

Yes, its true that I appear to have gotten quite into this myself, the immoral thinking... but I consider this an amoral act overall.(my part in it, at least) I started this comment quite literally for NO GOOD REASON! Bad kizzy!!! But I am true in my efforts to contribute intel from my pov. I learned from this, although useful NOW, for me, I dont think it works the same for others...Does a good enough reason exist in the future though? I think it may! I am not acting immorally for my acknowledgment of this post and leaning into the sickness, (i like to call it, diving into the depths of darkness) but I think overusing this "problem" IS, if you cant quickly learn something from your own participation.

I am curious what is more valuable then your own answers here? Other peoples answers? I dont think so, because were not ready to judge yet! NO trust exists now here but it can come. Maybe if you are lucky maybe if you are willing maybe by chance maybe with divine timing but it is possible to come from/for all! I think this "problem" has the potential to get us to a place that can and WILL not help but make- FORCE- people see what kind of person they really are, but only if you dare to go there!!! Get ready to expose!!! Or be that. I am willing to be judged, dont you see? It is worth it. It being everything.

But you can have a kind of incidental, naturalistic reason for why the event occurred. It could be just to do with trains carrying people like they normally would day-to-day and some unforseeable circumstance happens which requires this choice.

Millions of imaginary people have been severely injured due to this problem.

You make an effort to save the people or stop the train. Anything less than that is cowardly business.

Trolley Car is useful because it serves as a litmus test for moral theories. If a moral theory says you ought not pull the switch, that's a bit of a red flag. If a moral theory says you ought not pull the switch to save a million people, that's a giant red flag.

Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?

If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero.

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live, people are not dying in front of me countless times, or even ever in my longish life.

I can't help it if I'm lucky. — Bob Dylan

Distance has something to do with it?

There are no levers on a television.

Well, that's not an answer to my question, but this is getting more interesting by the minute.

Apparently there exists a moral obligation to save people from dying, even if it requires the murder of bystanders, but this obligation is limited by distance and now seemingly also does not include acts that exceed the effort of a lever pull.

Fascinating!

Apparently there exists a moral obligation to save people from dying, even if it requires the murder of bystanders, but this obligation is limited by distance and now seemingly also does not include acts that exceed the effort of a lever pull. — Tzeentch

No, I'm on the other side of the lever pulling in theory, but i think in the moment I would be tempted. Try to keep up.

There is no obligation to act whenever there is no action one can take. If breaking the the tv would stop the war, I'd feel obligated to break the tv, but it wouldn't. I can respond to something on the tv by various means, usually involving my bank account so as to pay someone else to do something. But if I did that too often I'd have to sell the tv and then I wouldn't even have that option. What can you do heroic countless times a day if only you felt you ought ?

No, I'm on the other side of the lever pulling in theory, [...] — unenlightened

Well, you were challenging my comment and I worked with what you gave me.

I can respond to something on the tv by various means, usually involving my bank account so as to pay someone else to do something. — unenlightened

Does that really count, though? :chin:

How do you know that money doesn't disappear into some embezzler's pocket?

And if it does, have you fulfilled your moral obligation?

But if I did that too often I'd have to sell the tv and then I wouldn't even have that option. — unenlightened

The idea that the bystander is morally obligated to involve themselves creates all sorts of strange situations.

But if you don't believe there exists such an obligation then that's fair enough.

Given the wholesale slaughter caused by trolleys, banning them is way overdue. Also ban fat people, bridges over trolleys, and switches. If there are no trolleys, no one will be run over. No fat man will be thrown from the bridge to save 5 thin people. Promiscuous travel in the city will be sharply curtailed with resulting gains in public health. Best of all, the creative destruction of the hazardous trolleys will open the opportunity for Uber and Lyft.

Trollies don't kill people. Switching attendants kill people.

The heart of the trolley problem is this:
“Without any context or explanation, if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?”

Everything else is a distraction. Trolleys, levers, instructions given to force you to make a decision, no brakes or time for brakes, etc) allow you to start to picture the scene, but these facts introduce the real world, which introduces many new questions. These questions influence what the basic hypo actually is, so they have to be answered before one could say whether they killed 1 or 5 people was right or wrong.

So to avoid the creeping presence of real world questions, and stick to the hypo, the question becomes: is it worse to kill one person or five people.

Depends on what you think of people. If it’s bad to kill a person, then, since you are forced to kill either one person or five people, it seems a no brainer. And since you are FORCED to kill one or five, neither choice is immoral or moral for you. One might be better or more practical, but it’s not your fault someone has to die.

Who is forcing the choice?

We're changing your name from BC to SP for smarty pants.

This is a trolley:


This is a tram:

I don't think I can agree on your view that the other things are distractions. These "distractions" are part of what make it interesting, and the fact you can vary these different factors and change how the situation seems I think is very informative about morality.

I also don't think the statement: "if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?” is an absolute description of the trolley problem. I think stating it like this changes the scenario a bit - from what I can gather, the most common views of it have it that 5 people were going to die anyway. As I said in another post, I'm inclined to think that framing it this way makes the situation different to a simple choice of 1 vs. 5. Viewed this way you could also argue that there is not so much a forcing element here. 5 people are going to die; you can choose to save them if you so wish at the cost of 1 person's life.

Edit: Thinking about it, maybe someone could view the last description / sentence as forcing if they wish; but at the very least, I think its not absolutely clear there is a single way to interpretate. Depends what you mean by forcing I guess. If you were to view that last description as forcing then perhaps it is not so different from many other scenarios in life someone could choose to engage in or abstain from (in similar way to what has been saying I suppose). On the other hand, does forcing really exempt you from moral responsibility?

- :up: Essential to the trolley problem is the possible distinction between an act and an omission, and excluded that distinction from the problem. Regardless of what the trolley problem was to begin with, it has now become a stock argument for consequentialism. It is essentially the cultural reaction to deontology.

Then the arithmetic is not crucial, and your justification based on the arithmetic is not valid. — unenlightened

Yep. :up: To appeal to arithmetic is to fall prey to the counterexample. To withdraw the arithmetical justification is to withdraw the only justification provided for the decision. There is an undeniable analogy which obtains between the trolley case and the organ transplant case. The similarity is strong enough to place the burden of proof on the naysayer to explain why they are relevantly different.