The trolley problem

[Michael Michalko]

A trolley is running down a track out of control. If it keeps going, it will run over the five unsuspecting people hanging out on the track. You can prevent this disaster by throwing a switch, redirecting the trolley onto a siding where it will kill one person. Do you hit the switch?
.
Most people say that that’s OK, not great, but OK. Now suppose I change the problem slightly. You’re watching the first drama unfold from a footbridge and the only way to save the five people from certain death is to push a fat person standing next to you off of the bridge and onto the tracks. He’ll get crushed by the trolley and die, but the five people will live, so it’s another five-over-one trade-off. But now it seems wrong to me.
.
My question is does it seem wrong to you too? And if so why do we think it’s all right to sacrifice one life for five in one case, but not in the other, and is there a good justification for the difference in our intuitions?

[Peter Lloyd]

I'd give the car to my Army friend and have him save the old lady. I'd go find shelter with the girl of my dreams. What did the winner say?

Michael, I think these problems are very worthwhile. The book and movie Sophie's Choice still haunts me.

I remember reading about the Trolley Problem and recall how universal human responses were reported to be. Something makes us all feel and act similarly.

I'm reminded as well of someone's definition of creativity or of one of its characteristics, the ability to hold in one's head and to deal with contradictory or conflicting concepts. The problems you pose are among the best for examining and exercising ethical choice. It would be nice if there were always a win-win way out of our problems, but in the real world, I'm afraid it's no so ideal.

Peter

[Michael Michalko]

I agree that there are some enlightened leaders in the world who brighten it. Once hundreds of people were standing at a river bank and suddenly heard the cries of a baby. Shocked, they saw an infant floating--drowning--in the water. One person immediately dove in and rescued the child. But then another baby came floating down the river, and then another! Hundreds of people now frantically jumped in to save as many babies they could. The people were screaming about how horrible the world has become. Even babies are being discarded and thrown into a river to drown. They were weeping and wailing and cursing their very existence. Suddenly one person started to calmly walk away from the river. Accusingly, the people shouted, “Where are you going? Help us save as many babies as we can?” He turned around and said “I’m going upstream to stop whoever’s throwing babies into the river.”

[Kevin Byron]

Hi Michael,

I agree with your first comment and extend it to everyone including my own inner dialogue with myself !

I can relate to your dichotomy in the second para and my antidote is to remind myself - not how bad things are - but how worse they could be if there weren't some enlightened folk amongst the fools that claim to be experts or leaders.

Cheers,

Kevin

[Michael Michalko]

My experience with politicians has taught me to listen to what people say but pay more attention to what people do.

I have also made an odd discovery in my life about the influence of language on psychology. Whenever I listen to an intellectual analytically describe what is wrong with society and rave about all the things that can’t be done and gives all the reasons why, I feel that a joyful, positive life that has meaning is not possible; yet, whenever I listen to a preschooler I’m convinced of the opposite.

[Kevin Byron]

Comment by Kevin Byron 1 minute ago Delete Comment Hi Michael,

I guess you are familiar with the tale about the Scorpion and the Frog:

The story goes that a scorpion who couldn't swim asked a frog to help him across the river. The frog declines in fear of being stung but the scorpion reassures him that he would do no such thing because they would both drown. The frog accepts the scorpions' word and carries him on his back. However when they are almost across the river the scorpion stings the frog. In his dying breath the frog asks him: "Why did you do that ?" and the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

Like all good stories there are layers of meaning in it especially if we take the creatures as representing different facets of human nature. I believe it resonates with the dilemmas that you have described. Was the scorpion being true to himself ? Was the frog going against its own instinctive truth ? - but yet raising above its fear by a higher moral law of trust ? Should we never believe words but only judge by actions ? - I come back to this story often and I'd be really interested in your take on it ? and anyone else on The Hub !

Best Wishes,

Kevin

[Michael Michalko]

Very profound Kevin. Love the sentence "Using descriptive knowledge to explain prescriptive knowledge i like trying to knit a muffin." You hit it right on.
Michael

[Kevin Byron]

Thanks for your reply Michael and interesting to see how this discussion has developed. One of Kants' quotations goes (paraphrased from memory) "Two things fill me with awe - the starry skies above me and the moral law within me". Science may be able to explain the former to some extent but has repeatedly failed to answer the second". The former is the preserve of descriptive knowledge
the latter of prescriptive knowledge. Using descriptive knowledge to explain prescriptive knowledge
is like trying to knit a muffin. This is where I defer to Eastern thinking that understanding morality is only achieved in action......

Best,

KB

[Michael Michalko]

Thanks for the comment and reference Tom.

[Thomas Teepe]

The entire paragraph is about 4 1/2 pages with a number of details to trolley problem variations; it's not easy to summarize.

Dawkins outlines the psychological experiments Marc Hauser did and cites one of Hauser's central messages: "Driving our moral judgement is a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years to include a set of principles for building a range of possible moral systems. As with language, the principles that make up our moral grammar fly beneath the radar of our awareness."
At the end of the paragraph, Dawkins cites a study Hauser did together with Peter Singer, a comparison between atheists and religious believers. The main conclusion according to Dawkins is that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in making moral judgements (on three hypothetical moral dilemmas described in the book). Dawkins' own conclusion is "This seems compatible with the view, which I and many others hold, that we do not need God in order to be good - or evil."

The study mentioned is Hauser / Singer: Morality without religion; Free Inquiry 26: 1, 2006, 18-19.

[Michael Michalko]

Tom,
Can you remember what Dawkins had to say about the trolley problem?