Because most philosophical ideas can only be contemplated in
the abstract, philosophers have had to come up with different and imaginative
puzzles and thought experiments to help them study and teach their ideas. I
want to post one or two of these philosophical puzzles each week, and have an
open discussion. My hope is that this blog will be a fun and interesting way
for people to think about who they are and why they make the life choices they
do.
I
thought it would be fun to start with a classic. The Trolley Dilemma is a
thought experiment in ethics. Originated by the philosopher Philippa Foot in
the 1960's. It has gone through many variations, but is ostensibly this;
Part
One
There
is a runaway trolley hurtling down a track towards five workers. You are
standing next to the track and next to you is a lever that if pulled will
divert the trolley onto a separate track with only one worker. There is not
enough time to warn or help the workers. So, if you don't pull the lever five
people die and if you pull the lever one person dies.
Some
questions
1.
Do you pull the lever? why or why not?
2.
Is there a moral obligation for you to pull or not pull the lever?
3.
If you answered yes to question 2, where does that obligation come from?
Part
Two
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 dropping a heavy weight
in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you. The only
way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track,
killing him to save the five.
More
questions
1.
Would you push the fat man? Why or why not?
2.
How is part two morally different or morally the same as part one?
Part
Three
This
is not usually included in the thought experiment, but I think it's an
interesting scenario to ask parents;
The
situation is the same as part one, you are standing at a lever that can divert
a runaway trolley from killing five people. But this time, the single person on
the diversion track is one of your children.
1.
If you would have diverted the trolley before, would you still?
2.
If no, how many people would you have to be saving on the track before you
would divert the trolley and sacrifice your child?
If
you feel like participating in this first thought experiment, leave your
answers and any other comments you'd like to make in the comment section.
I'll try and respond to any questions as soon as possible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScenario 1: Pull the lever.
ReplyDeleteScenario 2: Push the fat man.
Scenario 3: Kill the kid.
I am a firm believer that the world is overpopulated. I think millions of years of evolution has made it virtually impossible to fix this problem voluntarily. Therefore, I think it best for us to race rampantly toward unfettered resource consumption and species reproduction as fast as possible. This path should bring us inevitably to a tipping point of population collapse on a global scale similar to collapses observed on a small scale repeatedly throughout history. However, this time around our technology and improvements in information transfer hopefully will allow us to accurately preserve the cause of collapse and allow the relatively few who survive to rebuild smarter, safer and more sustainably. Maybe even (heaven forbid) a net zero-consumption society.
In pursuit of that egomaniacal goal, I want to preserve as many people’s lives as possible since that will expedite the inevitable collapse.
For your goal to be egomaniacal, you'd need to survive the global collapse, and I have no doubt that you would. You are one of the best looking, and smartest men I know. But you might want to choose your kid in scenario three, just to ensure your blood line.
DeleteI would pull the lever, but possibly my reflexes would not be fast enough and I'd miss the opportunity to make a choice by waiting too long.
ReplyDeleteI'd never push anyone over the edge, that would be murder in my mind.
As for my own child, of course not. But then when you put a number on it, the first one that came to mind was 500. Would I be able to watch 500 people die to save my own child? Would "I" be willing to die to save 500 people? Good one.
The tricky part about this is that these are all split-second decisions, which I honestly don't know what I would do in the heat of the moment. I would probably do nothing, by default, simply because I didn't have time to finish the debate with myself.
ReplyDeleteNow, assuming that I can stop time long enough to think it over:
Part 1: If I have no personal acquaintance with any of the workers, I would probably pull the lever, since watching one person die isn't quite as traumatic as watching 5 people die (I think),. It would also be easier to justify it to the media when they came demanding a recap of the story.
Part 2: My initial thought would be to throw myself down, but I guess we're assuming that I am intelligent enough to discern that my body weight is insufficient, while determining that the fat man's body weight is sufficient to stop the trolley. Again, assuming I have no personal acquaintance with the fat man... I really don't know...so it looks like I do nothing on account of indecision.
The fact that I am standing right next to him, and have to make personal, physical contact with him in order to push him over somehow makes it harder to decide than in the first one. Either way, you're making a conscious decision to kill someone. Is indirect murder any different than direct murder?
Part 3: This reminds me of a contrived story that I was introduced to as a missionary, where we're supposed to imagine how God felt in sacrificing His only son.
My instinct would be to save my child, but given enough time to convince myself, I would probably pull the lever. Somehow it seems more noble to sacrifice your own offspring than a complete stranger. My belief in eternal families would be the game changer here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI should add that my answers will most likely change over time.
DeletePart 1: Assuming I have no personal relationship with anyone involved, I do nothing. I don't feel a strong moral obligation to generically minimize the loss of human life. Plus I face a risk of criminal prosecution for redirecting the train, but not for failing to redirect the train.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I would almost certainly freak out in the moment and come away with some guilt regardless of my choice.
Part 2: "
Part 3: There is no limit to the number of strangers I would sacrifice to protect a relative or a close friend. In fact, even if affirmative action were required (e.g. I had to push 100 people in front of a train to safe a friend), I believe I have a moral duty to sacrifice the strangers for the person closer to me. I think most people share my sentiment to some extent, which is part of the reason why people don't feel unbearably guilty when we spend money on something like a comfortable apartment. If I made my wife live in a cardboard box, we could spend the money we save on Malaria prevention that would save 100s of lives. But I don't live in a cardboard box. Nor does anyone close to me. And I'm glad.
Hope you are well, J.C.
Thue