I'd do neither. What I'd attempt to do was jerk the lever riiiight when the trolley hits the switchy-part and then jerk it back again so that the trolley is stuck. Then I go untie the people.
The Trolley Dilemma
- Thread starter Willchill
- Start date
In principle they are the same (1 death vs 5), but pushing someone to their death is a lot more personal than flicking a switch that kills them, in the same sense that stabbing someone to their death is more personal than pulling a trigger to shoot them.
This in turn makes people reconsider whether or not they would pull the switch. It gets some people to realise that they are condemning the person to their own death by pulling the switch.
^^^ Nah, the bystander effect is a form of social loafing - the more people around the less responsibility you feel you have as an individual to act. It doesn't apply to the situation where you are the only one capable of acting. For your reasoning, look more towards 911 calls if an incident occurs in public - everyone will look to someone else to call instead of themselves leading to no one calling 911.
the 'personal'-ness of your manner of facilitating their death is irrelevant as the end result is the same (example: a stabbing and a shooting are both categorised as murder). it's a twist on the scenario in order to skew the initial perception you get. 'oh no, you can't just push someone to their death!!' is all well and good but the end result is the same: you directly caused their death, same as you may indirectly cause the deaths of five people, though you are no less responsible for their deaths despite them being cause by a lack of action on your part rather than a direct action. your decision to remain idle is still a decision you're making with the lives of those six people.
imo you have the means to decide the outcome, therefore the responsibility for the eventuality belongs to you.
That's exactly what I was saying in my post though... The fact that you are pushing the man to his death makes people go, as you put it, "oh no, you can't just push someone to their death!!"
This change in scenario highlights the fact that both end results are the same, but one is, for some reason, more likely to get a negative response.
And the reason I proposed was that grabbing/pushing someone's flesh to throw them in front of a train is much more upfront ('personal') than flicking a switch. It is easier for a person to open a valve to gas 5 people than for them to strangle them one by one. Not because of the physical difficulty, but because in the second scenario their death and the fact that it is your fault is more tangible.
I fail to see how our points differ.
What if I just pull the lever as the trolley goes over it, with the intention of causing a derailment?
As far as the fat man thing, if a man is fat enough to stop a moving trolley whereas someone less fat cannot, can we really be sure they won't survive? Furthermore, can we really be sure we are able to push this fat man in the first place?
As far as the fat man thing, if a man is fat enough to stop a moving trolley whereas someone less fat cannot, can we really be sure they won't survive? Furthermore, can we really be sure we are able to push this fat man in the first place?
I'd rather save 5 lives, than letting 5 die and only saving 1. There will always be a bad decision, if you stand there and do nothing, you've let 5 people die when you could've saved them, if you save the 5 people you'll have murdered 1 person.
i started with disagreeing with you on the personal thing but then continued on to agree with the 'save 5 people' notion when i probably should have done the reverse so thats a communication error on my part there.
idk exactly what you mean by this so please excuse me if it's not a proper response but if you're saying that the fat man scenario is just a tool to better enunciate the point that trap and a few others are voicing then i'd have to disagree due to the fact that it's introducing emotional(?) bias to the scenario. the original is better because it displays the proper juxtaposition of 5 lives vs 1 where all lives are equal due to you knowing nothing of the people in question. to put it another way, you'd surely call it incorrect judgement if i said 'the fat man likely has poor health and is therefore worth less than one life let alone five', because that's taking the new irrelevant information in a fashion that's less palatable. the altered scenario is sort of playing on people's squeamishness as many people undoubtedly would fall under the banner of "i'd rather flick a switch to kill 5 people than kill one with my own hands" but this is negligence of proper rationality and morality as ultimately you're still responsible for the deaths.
Depending on the philosophy you're inclined to use - none of that is irrelevant. The fat mean being on death's door means he's even /less/ valuable under Utilitarianism, for example. Trap Wolf's example is moreso a kick to say "are you SURE you believe what you're saying?" rather than changing the scenario. It's a bait to catch out amateur philosophers. The emotional bias is necessary to make the point that you're acting on emotional reasoning
Ah, the reasoning is arbitrary, it can be whatever you want (Utilitarianism, Moral Relativism, Subjectivism) - I'm just arguing moreso that adding the "emotion" to the second scenario doesn't change the scenario, and if you support one decision you should be prepared to use the exact same set of rules to support the choice in the second
why's it gotta be one person
what if there were four people on the other track?
how's about there's a nuke or something headed for a city with thousands, or even millions or people, but it can be diverted to one with a lower population?
is it more about the difference in number, or that on the other track there's one specific person?
what if there were four people on the other track?
how's about there's a nuke or something headed for a city with thousands, or even millions or people, but it can be diverted to one with a lower population?
is it more about the difference in number, or that on the other track there's one specific person?
Translation: why is human life the currency here used to measure the moral disparity of pull the lever one way or another? What is "potential" and how is that measured?
