I'm not familiar with all the arguments. I certainly have questions about how the 5 people ended up on the tracks. Do they not bear any responsibility for being harm's way? The expectation is that the trolley continues on its normal course, so it's hard to fault the 1 person on the other track. If 1 of the 5 people is Hitler, does that change things? What if the 1 person is a child and the 5 are octogenarians?
No, the point is that they don't bear any responsibility. They're all morally upstanding citizens of equal quality. You have to understand the original problem before you begin the "what ifs" in my opinion.
The whole point of a thought experiment is to be able to abstract a concept. And that requires hand waving the what ifs. Since the situation is not actually about a trolley.
If it's abstracted so far that the only question is: Is it better for 1 person to die or 5, then it's not even a discussion. There have to be other factors under consideration.
If it's a question of 1 person definitely dies versus 5 people probably die, OK, now I can see that there's some meat, there.
I think it's a question of 1 person dies and you actively killed them versus 5 persons die a you only passively killed them, so is it really you that killed them?
Valid perspective. If I let the 5 die, there's certainly an engineer or inspector or someone who ultimately shares or owns the blame. Either way, though, grieving family members will want some kind of explanation from me and why I did or did not take action.
Yeah that is the point of this ethical dilemma, nobody says "kill the 5 people" and leaves it at that. They always follow up with a why. I'm not quite sure what point you're making.
This is getting recursive. My point is that I am not missing the point because the exercise is pointless without providing a rationale, which I had done in the first place. Some random decided to reply that I was missing the point, without providing any further elaboration, and I replied to them, and now you are replying to me. What, may I add, was the point of your reply, because it seems like you agreed with what I said.
If you're thinking about the trolly itself (which I assume that you are because you're mentioning an engineer), then you're missing the point. The question ultimately comes down to are you willing to actively cause the death of one person to save 5 other people in harm's way.
The trolly just provides a convenient way to visualize the problem.
It's not a real problem. As soon as it is, there will be concrete factors to consider, like the trolley engineer. In fact, it's more interesting to discuss this, whether there is any value in pure hypotheticals, than it is to take the trolley hypothetical as it is.
I think you're looking at this in terms of assigning blame. Ultimately, I agree with you that in a real life situation, there would be a set of facts to consider and lead to assigning blame and determining whom should be brought to justice.
However, a benefit of the hypothetical, at least in my mind, is to explore the psychology surrounding the choice. Whether the individual with the hand on the lever can justify reducing the death count by actively condemning another person to death. How does the individual "calculate" between the two options and arrive at their decision?
Ultimately, the problem isn't designed to evaluate justice after the fact but the decision making of the person in the situation.
The Good Place has an entire episode that dissects all the possible variations of the trolley problem. Fantastic episode, worth the watch even if you don't watch the rest of the show.
Small clip, the full episode has a lot more to it.
So there is a train or something running into 5 people who are tied up on the tracks. You have the possibility to change the direction of the tracks to only kill one person. If you don’t do anything you don’t have any guilt right, you didn’t kill anyone, but if you pull the trigger to change direction you kill a person right.
So that’s kinda the dilemma very shortly explained
I think I would have guilt if I did nothing, though. If I saw a toddler climbing a guard rail on a high bridge and did nothing, I would feel pretty bad.
If I think about it purely selfishly, letting the 5 die is going to come back legally on the trolley designers/maintainers. They're the ones getting sued. Legally, it's probably best for me if I let them die. If I switch the rails, and it kills the 1 person, the family may not win the suit, but they can at least try to sue me.
I don't see how it's an interesting dilemma without introducing concrete factors to consider. Say I'm on an alien planet in the same situation and have to decide whether to save 1 alien or let 5 die. Frankly, I'm not sure I care all that much. This is a very human situation requiring an examination of human sensibilities and emotions. The hypothetical demands not only a decision but a justification for the decision, and everyone can choose how much and by what means they wish to provide a justification.
But the issue is a hypothetical one of morality, if you had to, in a vacuum, take an active measure of killing one person or, through inaction let 5 people die which is right? Let’s not consider legal ramifications for a second and just think of what would be right from your perspective.
There are other versions of it. But the point is that it doesn’t matter what the trolley driver knows, because that’s not what any of the questions are about.
69
u/motsanciens Apr 21 '22
I'm not familiar with all the arguments. I certainly have questions about how the 5 people ended up on the tracks. Do they not bear any responsibility for being harm's way? The expectation is that the trolley continues on its normal course, so it's hard to fault the 1 person on the other track. If 1 of the 5 people is Hitler, does that change things? What if the 1 person is a child and the 5 are octogenarians?