Skip to main content

Week 12 [10-16.06.19] Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem


Did you heard about The Trolley Problem? It is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this:

You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up people lying on the tracks.
You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

  •  Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
  •  Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

So which is the more ethical option?




And there is another variation of this problem called:

The Fat Man Problem


As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy 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?




Questions:
  •  So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
  • Would you push the Fat Man on the rails? 
  • Do you like such ethical questions?



Now you can watch some tedx about this:



Comments

Bartosz Barnat said…
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

I would pull the lever just because I would not kill that many people. Sadly it's a psychopath decision but as we all know there is evil and bigger evil so I prefer this small evil.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?

I wouldnt push the fat man on the rails just because he was never there and it was not meant for him to die. When it comes to people on tracks they would die and the lever was deciding who exacly, and fith pushing that man I would decide which is bad because we shouldnt decide who lives and who dies (with lever I guess we had to choose thats why I chosen a less evil option )

Do you like such ethical questions?

I don't like this type of questions because both answers are bad and shouldn't be made by anyone.
1. I would not pull the lever, because I would be responsible for that single man death. If I don’t pull the lever I am not responsible for the death of those people, because there were killed by the train, not me. Of course, I could prevent those deaths, but no one is allowed to decide whose life is more valuable, and the number of people doesn’t matter.

2. No, absolutely not for the same exact reason. Neither me or the fat man are responsible for those deaths. Killing the fat man is as bad as killing those people on the track – no difference, but the responsibility for the fat man’s death.

3. Honestly no, because they are disturbing just like paradoxes. It is just uncomfortable to think about them.
Ethical problems are always problematic. In the case of a problem with the lever, in each, literally in every case, I would leave the whole question to fate - I have no right to decide about someone's life or death. Whether it would be the death of one or a thousand people, I have no right to decide specifically that one person would have died to save others. What else if it was about my life and if I could save some people. Then I have the right to do something because I decide about my life myself. Ethical issues are not only very difficult, but also psychologically exhausting. Always in such situations at the back of the head, unfortunately, we would have a question - "What if ..."
Maciej Sadoś said…
Answering these questions is very hard. Maybe someone could say that generally it’s better to save more people then less. I think that every life is equally important. Every person in the presented stories has their own life and plans. Every person probably has a family. When a member of a family dies it really hurts and the family don’t care if that person died alone or with other people. Also in real life I don’t feel authorize to decide who should live and who should die. I probably would do nothing because I would rather be passive than kill a person who wasn’t meant to die.

Do you like such ethical questions?
No I don’t. They are really hard to answer because there is no a good answer. Always somebody would die. Whatever I would do I would feel very bad. Probably also there would be other people, like family of a victim, who would blame me for my choice and letting die the person they loved.
Never trouble trouble 'til trouble troubles you

In both cases that is not my problem an by making any decision, I volunteerely become involved in particularly shitty situation. Not my business, and no judgment for making a bad decision (which makes both of them in both of situations).
Adam Nguyen said…
From my point of view both problems look the same. In both scenarios you are sacrificing one person to save others. It is similar to the thought experiment devised by Judith Jarvis Thomson called “Transplant”, in which a surgeon kills one healthy patient to save 5 others. Act Utilitarianism maximizes happiness among all people. Objectively, there is no logical reason why you shouldn't be making actions that serve you in the best way possible. However, only if you exclude all other factors such as law, morality and ethics. The problem comes in when we must calculate this. It possible to calculate happiness of people, and even if it is possible, do we even have the right to take happiness from others?
Even so, I would pull the lever and push the fat man over the bridge, because for me choosing to do something is the action. Options are "I decided that 1 person dies" and "I decided that 5 people die." People are going to die, but it’s up to me what decision is eventually made.

Yes, I like when a problem doesn’t have the “right” answer and it’s up to us to decide what’s is “good”.
I guess in both situations i wouldnt do anything if i know nothing about these people. I can't judge why they are there and who they are. How old are they, do they have family etc. In such hypothesis i would make a decision what would made me nither pull leaver nor push fat man. You never know what will happens next etc. Also, i both liked and disliked this type of questions. They are cool just to ask yourself but to share that decision is kinda strange. Its not just opinion right now.
I am not sure that i could pull the lever, even though it seems a bit more moral to kill 1 guy instead of four, pushing a fat man may sound funny but i am not sure it can stop the train. Such "moral" questions are pointless because in a real life threatening situations you would never know how exactly you would act.
This is a problem that can not be solved as a mathematical problem. That's why students around a world on courses like phyliosohpy are making cinversations what sould and what shouldn't be done. I can not answear it. Sometimes I think that it's better to lose 1 life than 3 lifes, but who am I make decision like that?
Zygmunt Z said…
• So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

I would pull the lever, as I’d rather save five lives instead of single one.

• Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?

Yes, I would, same as in the first question – five lives are more valuable than a single one. The worst thing is doing nothing and just looking at things next to you as if they don’t concern you.

• Do you like such ethical questions?

Yes I do.

So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
In my opinion, nobody has rights to decide is 5 people are more important than 1. What if those 5 are terrorists or something similar? What if you would safe 5 people and that 1 man who died was the man who would save the world? What if the man who would save the world is lying next to 4 terrorists? To be honest, I don't know what to do in that case. But maybe I would choose to kill 1 man, as I cannot save all of them, but I can save the majority.
Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
Definitely not. In previous situation none of 6 man had a choice to live or not, but in this situation fat man is not in danger, and I haven't any right to kill him, even to save 5 people. I must be a decision of a fat man.
Do you like such ethical questions?
No, I don't.
ExoKuzo said…
Which one is more ethical ? For us or for general public ? For us it would be doping nothing, for general public it would b e sacrificing one unit for the lives of many.
I would but only because im a psycho.... For real though the problem with such questions is that they are based on our ability to make and be responsible for decisions but those problems are flawed as nothing we have done thus far makes us in any way responsible for whats happening. Basically those dilemmas are asking people "would you take the blame for decision you made in good will?" or "Would you be able to convince yourself that options you had were both bad and you could not make it better"....
1. So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

It is a really hard question and to be honest I don’t know what I would do if I were in that situation. Just to answer your question my answer is “pull the lever” but I don’t really know if it would be true if I was in this situation.

2. Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
I think I wouldn’t push the Fat Man. In the situation above I could try to justify my behavior of pulling the lever with “He was already on the tracks”, I know that it’s weak but It’s something. I can’t possibly think about one thing that would justify my behavior of pushing the fat man even to myself.
3. Do you like such ethical questions?

No, I hate it. It’s really hard to think about so complicated things. I’d rather not have to think about them ;)
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
I would leave it just as it is. When it comes to the life numbers don't matter, so I would leave it to the fate. Also I assume that doing something in this case will be considered by society as cruel. When I'm pulling the lever I decide who lives and who dies; when I do nothing, it's the matter of the fate.
Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
Absolutely not! I don't even understand why it is an option! And also why his weight is the main characteristic of him?
Do you like such ethical questions?
Not at all. I don't really know what they should prove and it's totally exhausting for me to think about the answers.
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

I would pull the lever, In my opinion, this is a "lesser evil". Although I don't like to make such a hard decision.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?

When making such a decision, I would be guided by the character and deeds of this man, not his external appearance

Do you like such ethical questions?
None of us is entitled to make such decisions.
I will be honest and frank. I do not like such questions, because in any case I will be guilty and will kill someone. In the first case, I intend to kill one person for the sake of five, in the second case I will kill five for the sake of one. It seems to me that the salvation of the five will be more humane. But I still do not want to be in a situation where there is a choice in front of me, where I have to choose who to live and who to die. And yet I hope that there is always a way out! And we can find a way to save everyone!
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
It's all a matter of choice. But people with authority often have to do it. And sometimes the answer is obvious, you need to donate one life to save the majority. Although it depends on who this one person is. If this is your loved one, or because of this person may experience even greater problems, the choice is complicated.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
There is no such fat person in the world that he stops the train with his body. Although the analogy is clear to me. Hardly I would be able to push someone because the lever is an indirect murder. And pushing someone under the train, you kill him directly, with your own hands.

Do you like such ethical questions?
Yes, I really love these puzzles. But usually, I prefer not to share my opinion. Often my answer is too immoral for other people.
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

I do not know what is more ethical, choose or do nothing? I would pull the lever.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?

I know it's a bad but fat man can save these people. I do not think I would do anything. It's a difficult decision.

Do you like such ethical questions?

I like these questions. It's nice that we're talking about how the human brain works.
Peter Clemenza said…
The only difference is that you are not doing this by yourself - lever is just an excuse like killing someone with bomb from remote drone an not by your own hands
Peter Clemenza said…
Trolley is just an example. Imagine something similiar - you have option to stop a dictator from a gas attack, but the only way is to kill him - plant a bomb under his car - few innocent people may die - his wife, children, but other hundred will survive. Lever is just a tool. More acceptable one, you would feel better because you can blame the lever.
Peter Clemenza said…
Yeah here we are discussing dilemma 5 lifes vs 1 life. But what about life of your family member vs life of 5 strangers, the life of old vs life of young, life of sick, and life of healthy?
Peter Clemenza said…
> five lives are more valuable than a single one.

What if fat man is your father?
Peter Clemenza said…
http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Wiki/images/2/2f/Trolley_Problem_-_Sick_Loop.jpg

1. So which is the more ethical option for you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
Most ethical it would be to stop the train with magic force. I would not pull the lever just because it would put me in charge. I think no one should decide whose life has more value and putting that much of a responsibility on someone shoulder is not ethical. I would love to see the ending that all people survive.

2. Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
I would not push the Fat Man on the rails. He has a right to live as well. And we are not 100% sure that he would stop the train.

3.Do you like such ethical questions?
I do not. They are too hypothetical.
• So, which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
These are no ethical options in there because whatever decision you will choose you will kill someone. Doing nothing and knowing that you could do something is also a decision.
• Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
No, I would not. Well maybe if I know someone among these five people. But let be hones if this man is so heavy that he can stop trolley I don’t think that I have enough strength to lift him or even push.
• Do you like such ethical questions?
No, I don’t, because these are just wishful thinking mostly, we don’t know what we would do until it happens
Imagine that you have to develop an algorithm for an autonomous car which decides how the car reacts in a sudden and dangerous situation. This is exactly the same dilemma as the one described in both examples and it has to be solved if one day autonomous cars are to be a reality. It doesn’t matter if we like this kind of questions, we have to be able to find acceptable answers. Doing nothing is the most convenient solution as the whole world could not really blame you for choosing this option. Even if families of five dead people would be sorry, they could not accuse you of killing their relatives. However If you would pull the lever than you could be responsible, purely from legal perspective, for death of this one person. It’s even more evident in case of you pushing somebody from a bridge to die on the trail. Therefore it’s not purely an ethical problem, clearly it’s also a legal issue. You would kill somebody and explanation that you made this in self- or rather others- defense probably would not be enough for a judge to say “unguilty” and isolate you from a healthy part of society for a few years. That’s why I’ll never be a programist of an autonomous car…
Pull the lever. It’s hard to believe that someone wouldn’t. It’s a simple math, why one live should be more valuable than five?

Same as above. In both situations performing saying “not my cup of tea” and leaving is for me the same as someone would need medical help on the street and you just pass by.

I don’t. Especially these, because they are designed to make you feel guilty, while you are actually saving more lives with action.
Adam Sukiennik said…
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

If You ever played a game Wither 3 You could know about choices of minor evil of huge evil, whatever You choose, future dosesnt change that much as it could.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?

I don't feel i could do it becouse my spirit won't let me do this, and i think that it isnt him/her choose to be fatty, i think it could be genetical and his/her fat is only the result of event of creation

Do you like such ethical questions?

Yea i like them becouse they could show us the truth reflection of ourselfes, and let us think about our system of values in any case.
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
Both of these options are strongly unethical. If all of those people are strangers, I would pull the lever, because it is better to save at least 5 lives, not 1.
Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
Rather yes than no, depends on guaranties that it will save the lives of those people , who are tied to the track.
Do you like such ethical questions?
Simply hate them, because they simply have no sense.
So which is the more ethical option to you? Pull the lever, or do nothing?
I believe that doing nothing is more ethical because I think this one life is as valuable as the other five. If it's meant to be, it's meant to be. How I see it, is by pulling the lever I would intentionally kill someone, not save someone.

Would you push the Fat Man on the rails?
No, I wouldn't push him off the bridge. I wound't want to be responsible for any deaths. Yes, the others would die but there's no killing anybody on purpose.

Do you like such ethical questions?
Yeah, I like this kind of questions but they make me feel a bit uncomfortable.
I will answer a little differently. This question is always interesting to me but I can not answer such questions. It seems to me that I would sacrifice one person to save a lot, but no one really knows what he would do in such a situation. I do not exclude that I would have escaped to cry, this can not be foreseen. :)
I generally find such questions enjoyable becouse in my opinion there aren't wrong answers. I believe that act of pulling or not pulling the leaver makes you a killer anyway becouse in both actions you are responsible for the lives of people laying on the railways. If I was in first situation and I had to choose between one or five people I would propably choose one but if I knew the person and this particular individual would be dear to me then I propably would kill five people but decision I made is clearly dictated by variables of profiles. Fat man would propably also be killed by my hand in order to rescue remaining five.

Popular posts from this blog

Week 12 (12.01-18.01.15) Are you an early bird or a night owl ?

Owls are nocturnal creatures. They’re wide awake at night and they sleep during the day. If this sounds like bliss to you, then, like about 20 percent of the population who find themselves most active at around 9 pm, you may fall into the same category as our feathered friend. Night owls often have difficulty waking up in the morning, and like to be up late at night.  Studies of animal behaviour indicate that being a night owl may actually be built into some people’s genes. This would explain why those late-to-bed, late-to-rise people find it so difficult to change their behaviour. The trouble for night owls is that they just have to be at places such as work and school far too early. This is when the alarm clock becomes the night owl’s most important survival tool. Experts say that one way for a night owl to beat their dependence on their alarm clocks is to sleep with the curtains open. The Theory is that if they do so, the morning sunlight will awaken them gently and natura...

Week 11 [03-09.06.2019] The problem with ecological cars emission in UK

The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust.   The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog.   What is smog?   Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds...

Week 4 [06-12.11.2017] This is what happens when you reply to spam email.

James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s  way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?