Trolley Problem!

[rvkevin]

Would you pull the lever to kill 1,000,000,000 people if it meant that 1,000,000,001 would be saved?

Yes. Its all about the consequences. The compassionate thing to do is to minimize suffering when suffering is the focus of the scenario. It's the lesser of two evils.

The point is that there is no guarantee that any of those will happen with 100% degree of certainty. That is the main point. Many people have defied seemingly impossible odds to survive great catastrophes (for example some car crash victims have survived internal decapitation, which is basically having your head severed from your spine but held in place only by the skin). We are just assuming that all of those things will happen for the sake of the trolley experiment, and likewise we are making assumptions for the doctor version as well.

The problem lies in what we expect what the consequences of our actions will be. In the trolley example, the most likely scenarios by a long shot are the ones proposed. In the organ transplant example, the least likely scenarios are proposed as being the outcome. It would be like saying that some people win the lottery, therefore it is a wise retirement decision. In the organ transplant example, are assuming that the person playing is going to win the lottery, which is not good decision making. This is why when the decision gets made, it seems to be incorrect, but that is simply because it is based off of a false assumption stipulated by the hypothetical. These differences in the expected results are significant in decision making and ignoring these differences will get you conclusions that have no basis in reality.

If we don't know anything about this one person then we have to assume that they have the right to live under normal circumstances. We don't have the right to deprive them of their right to live for the sake of others. So no, assuming that one person is innocent I will never pull that lever. It's not ok to murder someone in cold blood so that others can benefit.

Let me get this straight, you would let the rest of the human race be killed rather than pull the lever?

 

[Dre89]

Rv- I think the fact that it's unlikely you'll save the people with the ograns isn't the reason why people do it. It's the action required that turns people off. It's easier to pull a lever than murder five people, just like how it's easier to order a hit on someone you've never met on the other side of the world than it is to stab someone to death.

If you changed the scenario so that it is evident that by murdering one person the five will definitely be saved, most people still wouldn't do it, due to the nature of the action.

 

[rvkevin]

If you changed the scenario so that it is evident that by murdering one person the five will definitely be saved, most people still wouldn't do it, due to the nature of the action.

And the point is? We are discussing what the moral decision would be, not whether most people would actually follow the decision. If we concluded that killing animals for food when we have other alternatives is wrong, then most people would be in the wrong. If we were asking these same questions a couple hundred years ago, most people would not have done what we determine to be moral with regards to slavery, women's rights, etc. Do you think that what the majority of people would do determines the answers to questions of morality? If not, then this has no relevance to the current discussion.

 

[Orboknown]

to enter into this thread(as i have not yet done so)
I would switch the lever to save the five.
why?
because saving five ives ik nothing about is better then saving one ik nothing about.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Yes. Its all about the consequences. The compassionate thing to do is to minimize suffering when suffering is the focus of the scenario. It's the lesser of two evils.

This seems to me to be a Utilitarian viewpoint. The ends justify the means, right? Well let me tell you something about Utilitarianism. Because of this mindset many, many horrific atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of some greater good. Just look at pretty much any genocide in history. Look at the Khmer Rouge for example, and their policy that people needed to be killed for the greater good of the country. And that's what pulling the lever does; you have committed genocide for some expected greater good.

From Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge):

"The Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed "enemies":

• Anyone with connections to the former government or with foreign governments.

• Professionals and intellectuals – in practice this included almost everyone with an education, or even people wearing glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they were literate). Ironically and hypocritically, Pol Pot himself was a university-educated man (albeit a drop-out) with a taste for French literature and was also a fluent French speaker. Many artists, including musicians, writers and filmmakers were executed. Some like Ros Sereysothea, Pan Ron and Sinn Sisamouth gained posthumous fame for their talents and are still popular with Khmers today.
• Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Thai and other minorities in Eastern Highland, Cambodian Christians (most of whom were Catholic, and the Catholic Church in general), Muslims and the Buddhist monks. For example, The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as forbidden (ḥarām). Many of those who refused were killed. (A similar policy was enacted in Maoist China, where Muslims were forced to breed pigs.) Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed. One former Khmer Rouge Commander, Comrade Duch, converted to evangelical Christianity in the years after the regime fell.
• "Economic saboteurs": many of the former urban dwellers (who had not starved to death in the first place) were deemed to be guilty by virtue of their lack of agricultural ability."

It's immoral to cause some people to unjustly suffer to alleviate other people's suffering.

Moreover, when the difference between the groups is just one person how do you know that you are reducing suffering? Most likely murdering people brings more suffering than simply letting them die. Is that really the compassionate thing to do?

The problem lies in what we expect what the consequences of our actions will be. In the trolley example, the most likely scenarios by a long shot are the ones proposed. In the organ transplant example, the least likely scenarios are proposed as being the outcome. It would be like saying that some people win the lottery, therefore it is a wise retirement decision. In the organ transplant example, are assuming that the person playing is going to win the lottery, which is not good decision making. This is why when the decision gets made, it seems to be incorrect, but that is simply because it is based off of a false assumption stipulated by the hypothetical. These differences in the expected results are significant in decision making and ignoring these differences will get you conclusions that have no basis in reality.

Again, none of this matters, because the purpose of a thought experiment is to illustrate a certain point.

Imagine the following: I have made a device out of cleaning supplies that can blow up the Earth. Would it be immoral for me to use the device? Of course it would. Such a thing could never actually happen in reality, but that doesn't mean that the thought experiment cannot illustrate a point. Thought experiments are by their nature rather removed from reality.

Let me get this straight, you would let the rest of the human race be killed rather than pull the lever?

I would spend my energy trying to find some other way to save the human race, and it won't involve murdering an innocent person.

to enter into this thread(as i have not yet done so)
I would switch the lever to save the five.
why?
because saving five ives ik nothing about is better then saving one ik nothing about.

What about the fat man variation, where pushing a fat man off of a bridge and onto the tracks and killing him will stop the train and save the other five people. Would you push him off?

 

[rvkevin]

This seems to me to be a Utilitarian viewpoint. The ends justify the means, right? Well let me tell you something about Utilitarianism. Because of this mindset many, many horrific atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of some greater good.

Like I said before, this highlights the value of having true beliefs. Just because someone claims that X was necessary for a greater good doesn't make it so. You actually need to evaluate whether it is the case or not. There is no evidence that the targets of the Khmer Rougue posed a threat, so we have no expected benefit to those actions and a massive expected negative for the actions that they took. This means that utilitarianism would not advocate such actions or deem such actions morally salient. On the contrary, in a utilitarian framework, such actions would be considered deeply immoral. Yes, people can think they are doing good when they are not if they have false beliefs, but what does that have to do with anything? This can happen within any system, even yours, utilitarianism is not special in this regard.

I would spend my energy trying to find some other way to save the human race, and it won't involve murdering an innocent person.

This is dodging the hypothetical. The consequence stipulated for non-action or in this case, not making a decision is that the rest of the population will be killed.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Like I said before, this highlights the value of having true beliefs. Just because someone claims that X was necessary for a greater good doesn't make it so. You actually need to evaluate whether it is the case or not. There is no evidence that the targets of the Khmer Rougue posed a threat, so we have no expected benefit to those actions and a massive expected negative for the actions that they took. This means that utilitarianism would not advocate such actions or deem such actions morally salient. On the contrary, in a utilitarian framework, such actions would be considered deeply immoral. Yes, people can think they are doing good when they are not if they have false beliefs, but what does that have to do with anything? This can happen within any system, even yours, utilitarianism is not special in this regard.
This is dodging the hypothetical. The consequence stipulated for non-action or in this case, not making a decision is that the rest of the population will be killed.

I still stand by my original statement that it's immoral to cause some people to unjustly suffer to alleviate other people's suffering. If there is really no other option it is better to let them die. You can't kill a man and take his organs to save 5 sick people (assuming this would work).

What about this situation: 2 people are eaten alive by lions and this gives much pleasure to 100,000 people watching. The net utility should be positive. Wouldn't Utilitarianism say that this is OK?

 

[rvkevin]

I still stand by my original statement that it's immoral to cause some people to unjustly suffer to alleviate other people's suffering. If there is really no other option it is better to let them die.

Let's say that a portion of the population are at risk for a cancer that is not easily treatable and has a high fatality rate. This can be prevented by vaccines, however, it is only effective (e.g. herd immunity) if those who are not at risk of getting the cancer (it is easy to identify these individuals) also get the vaccine. Should the vaccine be mandated? This means that the choice are 1) Mandate that everyone gets the vaccine, with the worst side-effects being slight tenderness near the injection location or 2) No vaccines administered, but higher rates of cancer.

Given your stance, it would seem like you would consider the suffering to be an unfortunate natural side-effect and the means to prevent it would be objectionable since it poses the slightest amount of pain to individuals that don't benefit from it. I don't understand where this is coming from since, this is basically the equivalent of giving blood, which is typically considered a morally noteworthy action. In both cases, you get a pin prick, and then someone else gets a renewed life.

What about this situation: 2 people are eaten alive by lions and this gives much pleasure to 100,000 people watching. The net utility should be positive. Wouldn't Utilitarianism say that this is OK?

Remember, it is about the totality of experience. Killing someone is such a great detriment not because of the pain leading up to the death, but also because it eliminates all of the positive experiences that they would have experienced (for a young person this would be accumulated over decades). First, consider that the pleasure by the spectators would be measured by minutes. Then consider that the expected time that a 27 year old is conscious until death is approximately 300,000 hours. Even thought the crowd outnumbers the participants by 50,000 to one, it is easy to see how they don't overwhelm the utility calculation since it is actually the participants that dominate the calculation. However, you could overcome this by arbitrarily increasing the number of spectators to an unrealistic amount.

This is also assuming that nobody worries that it could be them in their and have the displeasure of fearing for their life on a regular basis. This is why a community of Samaritans is desirable; when someone finds themselves in need, they can expect others to help them, not cheer for their death. It is preferable to have this security, which is why such a society would not partake in gladiator events. Also to note, this also means that such individuals would not take pleasure in the death of another, they would feel sadness.

Also, this hypothetical stipulates a society that is full of individuals that get pleasure from the sight of others in pain. What is the consequence of this? Presumably, it would be rife with citizens committing acts of violence against others. If we were compare countries in which have such citizens to those that don't, which is preferable? It doesn't take much effort to determine based on those consequences that we would rather have a society in which people don't take pleasure in the misery of others and we work to shape those who do. Therefore, it would be obligated to implement this societal change.

Also, you need to look at the opportunity cost. Can they accomplish the same amount of pleasure by watching those same participants doing something that doesn't require their death? We have effectively replaced gladiator matches with boxing. Boxing results in higher utility than gladiator fights (same good effect without the bad), therefore utilitarianism would prefer boxing over gladiator events. This simple lesson shows us that if we can eliminate the element of death and retain the pleasure aspect, we should do so. If we have an option that produces more utility, then it becomes the morally obligatory choice, and the lesser one is ignored.

For the above reasons, I highly doubt that utilitarianism would advocate such actions and for some of the assumptions, utilitarianism advocates for the opposite which renders the hypothetical null. It is not a coincidence that moral progress is correlated to expanding the set of individuals of who we are empathic towards. This means that the main goal of a utilitarian would be to take actions in order to make sure these assumptions are not met, and if they are, to undo them.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

What do you guys think? Is it OK to kill one to save five?

I don't think it's "OK" to save one to kill five, or save five to kill one.

But If I had to choose, I would save five by killing one, even though we really can't put a price on human life. If we are going to allow one person to die (they miss out on everything that life has to offer) or five, there is a greater loss being had letting five die than one.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Let's say that a portion of the population are at risk for a cancer that is not easily treatable and has a high fatality rate. This can be prevented by vaccines, however, it is only effective (e.g. herd immunity) if those who are not at risk of getting the cancer (it is easy to identify these individuals) also get the vaccine. Should the vaccine be mandated? This means that the choice are 1) Mandate that everyone gets the vaccine, with the worst side-effects being slight tenderness near the injection location or 2) No vaccines administered, but higher rates of cancer.

Given your stance, it would seem like you would consider the suffering to be an unfortunate natural side-effect and the means to prevent it would be objectionable since it poses the slightest amount of pain to individuals that don't benefit from it. I don't understand where this is coming from since, this is basically the equivalent of giving blood, which is typically considered a morally noteworthy action. In both cases, you get a pin prick, and then someone else gets a renewed life.

The suffering of a needle is not comparable to the suffering of death. Furthermore, if you choose to donate blood than you are choosing to go through that suffering for someone's benefit. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you forced someone to donate blood to someone else regardless of whether they wanted to or not, that would be wrong.

Remember, it is about the totality of experience. Killing someone is such a great detriment not because of the pain leading up to the death, but also because it eliminates all of the positive experiences that they would have experienced (for a young person this would be accumulated over decades). First, consider that the pleasure by the spectators would be measured by minutes. Then consider that the expected time that a 27 year old is conscious until death is approximately 300,000 hours. Even thought the crowd outnumbers the participants by 50,000 to one, it is easy to see how they don't overwhelm the utility calculation since it is actually the participants that dominate the calculation. However, you could overcome this by arbitrarily increasing the number of spectators to an unrealistic amount.

Yes, let's assumes that there are 3,000,000 spectators.

Also, this hypothetical stipulates a society that is full of individuals that get pleasure from the sight of others in pain.

Let's assume they only get pleasure from the sight of certain discriminated people getting eaten by lions.

Also, you need to look at the opportunity cost. Can they accomplish the same amount of pleasure by watching those same participants doing something that doesn't require their death? We have effectively replaced gladiator matches with boxing. Boxing results in higher utility than gladiator fights (same good effect without the bad), therefore utilitarianism would prefer boxing over gladiator events. This simple lesson shows us that if we can eliminate the element of death and retain the pleasure aspect, we should do so. If we have an option that produces more utility, then it becomes the morally obligatory choice, and the lesser one is ignored.

But the crowd is thirsty for bloooooood! Let's assume they will get much, much more enjoyment out of watching lions rip people apart.

 

[rvkevin]

Can you outline what your framework is. You had said that it was immoral to make someone suffer in order to help a third party. I pointed out an example in which inflicting a little pain on someone would be needed to drastically help a third party and that this is arguably good. According to what you proposed the level of suffering is not significant, unless you intend the term suffering to be synonymous with death. Also, is this framework objective? Is a moral action just the negation or immoral ones? This doesn’t seem right for obvious reasons, but this all seems like an arbitrary stance to me so it hard to tell what follows from what.

Yes, let's assumes that there are 3,000,000 spectators.

Then the other objections apply.

Let's assume they only get pleasure from the sight of certain discriminated people getting eaten by lions.

You get the same objection. Just replace “individuals that get pleasure from the sight of others in pain” with “individuals with xenophobic tendencies.” This can also has the added effect of decreasing the liberties of the people who don’t yet share the undesirable traits as well as producing an endless cycle of violence that could be ended by changing the desires of the public, netting utility.

But the crowd is thirsty for bloooooood! Let's assume they will get much, much more enjoyment out of watching lions rip people apart.

See above.

Also, we are going into the same problem again. You can add so many assumptions on the participants that are either so unrealistic so that they would never happen or make them so different from us that they would qualify as a different species. At that point, it is no longer a case of would you do this or would this be acceptable to me, but I would be addressing their society and how their stipulated biological functions interact with each other. Without having a firm understanding of this hypothetical species, it would be complete speculation as to what follows from the assumptions. You could stipulate that certain scenarios are the best outcome, but you probably won’t have a clear understanding of what you are objecting to, which makes them worthless as objections.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

If that suffering is unjustified than it is immoral. You can't make unjust suffering become just even if it means other people will suffer less. It would be immoral to force someone to donate blood against their will. And it would be immoral to kill an innocent person so that others can live. This is my framework.

 

[rvkevin]

You haven't clarified anything. I have no idea what you mean by unjust or just. Are taxes just? What about garnishing wages? What about only having the standard for an arrest being probable cause? You do realize that the justice system will, by the very nature of the law, convict innocent people, right? For this reason, do you think that the justice system is immoral? All of these things are done against one's will and invoke either the deprivation of property or liberty.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Murder is defined as wrongful killing. Suppose I kill someone because I feel like it. That's murder. What I am saying is that killing an innocent person who does not deserve to die does not become OK if it means other people will be saved. It is still murder, but for a supposedly good cause.

I say that the ends do not justify the means. And you say that they do. That's the difference between us.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

-This post was written without viewing any other posts, in order to remain unbiased-

I'm going to try to wrap this up as much as I can. Yes, if you pull the lever, the quantitative total number of humans saved is increased, which allows the feeble mind to think they performed a noble stunt. But, at the same time that you pull that lever, you are intentionally causing the trolley to end a life, one of which we as humans are in no position to place value upon. With that being said, one may argue that not pulling the lever ends lives as well, but in that case, what position are you in to pull that lever? I would not pull the lever, mostly because, to me, the immorality of deciding the fate of that one man trumps the other option.

EDIT: Thank god nobody uses trolleys anymore to kill.

 

[rvkevin]

Suntan Luigi,

The principle that you base that position on would undermine the entire justice system. Does this bother you? The reason why the the justice system is not objectionable is not because it never causes an innocent person to suffer for the benefit of others (since it does), but because the ends justifies the means. Living in a society that has a justice system is preferable to living in one that does not, which means that its implementation is a net positive for the people living in that society. The justification for the justice system is utilitarian in nature; it would be undermined by your framework. Are you willing to concede that the justice system is immoral?

 

[Dre89]

To continue Rvkevin's point, a negative of the justice system is that there is the possibility that innocent people can be wrongly punished, but seeing as the JS overall does more good than bad we apply it anyway.

As Rv said, by your logic we'd have to abort the JS.

 

[Strife]

Suntan Luigi,

The principle that you base that position on would undermine the entire justice system. Does this bother you? The reason why the the justice system is not objectionable is not because it never causes an innocent person to suffer for the benefit of others (since it does), but because the ends justifies the means. Living in a society that has a justice system is preferable to living in one that does not, which means that its implementation is a net positive for the people living in that society. The justification for the justice system is utilitarian in nature; it would be undermined by your framework. Are you willing to concede that the justice system is immoral?

I feel like comitting to the Proving Grounds again.

Is your point here that the Justice System is moral? If so then I'd have to disagree with you. The JS is immoral, an innocent person suffering for a crime he didn't commit cannot logically be moral.

I think the point you're trying(or should be trying) to illustrate with this is that the Justice system is more moral than other institutions of punishment visible in some countries and therefore while our justice system is immoral it could be more immoral. And obviously have limited immorality is a lot better than overflowing with it.

 

[rvkevin]

Is your point here that the Justice System is moral? If so then I'd have to disagree with you. The JS is immoral, an innocent person suffering for a crime he didn't commit cannot logically be moral.

You think that we should abolish the entire justice system and empty the prisons?

To clarify, the point is the justice system uses a standard of proof that is less than absolute certainty. This means that when implemented, there is a chance that false positives will occur, meaning that an innocent person will be convicted. This is an epistemic limitation that we face. We can either allow a very small percentage of false positives, or simply abolish the system all together. The principle invoked by Suntan Luigi in which you defend would advocate abolishing the justice system. Yes, I think that we should risk the chance of a false positive if it means getting many more individuals who would harm others off the streets. Also, note that as to whether our current justice system has the correct balance for the standard of proof or whether the laws it enforces are just is a separate issue and irrelevant to this point. The principle brought up would apply to every justice system.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Ideally any justice system should be designed with the goal of not convicting even one innocent person. I'm sure you would agree that our current justice system in place fails miserably at this task. Ideally we should abolish the entire justice system and replace it with a much better one.

The point is this: when we know that we have control of a situation we should not sacrifice some for the sake of others.

 

[rvkevin]

Ideally any justice system should be designed with the goal of not convicting even one innocent person.

The only way to accomplish this task is to not have a system. You would need to require absolute certainty for the standard of proof for the prosecution. With this standard of proof, no amount of evidence given would achieve it. This means that no one could ever be convicted in such a system which amounts to not having one. Your imaginary system is impossible.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Well of course it's impossible. It is an ideal. The point is that we have to work towards that ideal as best as we can.

 

[rvkevin]

Well of course it's impossible. It is an ideal. The point is that we have to work towards that ideal as best as we can.

I'm saying that the ideal is impossible to ever achieve in principle, not just in practice. Even if we eliminated human error and everyone was on board with this goal, it would still not be possible to achieve. Given this and given your framework, the only conclusion one can make is that no justice system is better than any justice system.

 

[rvkevin]

This is relevant.

 

[GwJ]

That's not surprising at all. It's so much easier to figure this out through practice in a virtual environment than by simply asking them for what they would do.

 

[Orboknown]

This is relevant.

This just supports what many have already said here-kill one to save five. The high emotional state of the non-reactors doesn't surprise me much,because they are frozen by an overflow of emotion.
I am intrigued by the three who pulled the switch but returned it to the original position.what was their reasoning on that?

 

[Lord Chair]

Murder is defined as wrongful killing.

Only it isn't.

 

[Orboknown]

to answer the above, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
it registers one definition as the unlawful killing of another.

 

[ciaza]

@ the virtual world simulator: i wonder how much ecological validity that study had? the article stated that those who did not pull the switch were more emotionally aroused. if real people were actually on the line, i wouldn't be surprised if more people in charge of the switch became emotionally aroused too, and did not hit the switch.

an interesting study nevertheless, when virtual simulators become more life-like i think better studies will be conducted. at the moment i think fallout 3 will suffice (raise your hand if you blew up megaton)

 

[Lord Chair]

to answer the above, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
it registers one definition as the unlawful killing of another.

Even that definition isn't strictly correct. Again comes the question what definition you'd like to uphold, the legal definition would differ per state/country and so would the common definition.

You never say 'person X was manslaughtered', you'll always say he was murdered even if he wasn't. It wouldn't be incorrect to state that murder = any form of killing another being.

 

[Orboknown]

And you will almost never have anyone murdered in a correct(opposite of wrongful) way,so SuntanLuigi's definition is still correct for the majority of cases.

 

[yani]

Since the scenario is pretty vague, and it's a lose lose either way, I'd pull the lever. I'd have five thankful people, as opposed to one.

 

[1048576]

If you pull the lever and then pull it back, did you murder the 5 people? Why does it matter?