[Labyrrinth]

One of the most famous thought experiments in ethics is "the runaway trolley". It aims to clarify how we should distinguish right from wrong.

Here is the scenario with two well-known variations. As you read them, think about each carefully before you answer

Variation 1
A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?


Variation 2
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

[Gimfalisette]

Those are not different scenarios. In either one, I cannot STOP the trolley, but I can choose whether it kills 5 people or just one. Flipping a switch and pushing someone are the same thing; an action that I could take which would be a death sentence for that 1 person. Just because I didn't physically touch anyone in the "flip a switch" scenario doesn't change the fact that I made the choice and took the action.

The only thing that would make the scenarios different is if my realization that "I'm too light to stop the trolley" was really a lie to myself so that I wouldn't have to choose between my death and the fat man's or the people on the track.

For me, the identity of the people on the tracks would make a difference as to whom I chose to save. If there were kids on the tracks, that would weigh heavily for me.

Like with the first moral dilemma, I don't believe that life/death has ultimate moral implications. I am not choosing for the trolley to run away. Someone is going to die, regardless of what happens. So it's really just a question of mitigating the damage that is done.

[rabb1t]

The version I heard from number 1 (actually read from a book for an ethics class) was that the 5 were adult construction workers and unaware of the danger, the single person was a child (also unaware of the danger).

Variation 2
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Whoever thought of that needs their head examined. There is no way 1 person could stop the trolley by 'blocking' it with their body if it would kill 5 later down that same track.

[Labyrrinth]

Originally Posted by Gimfalisette

Those are not different scenarios.

Just for clarifications sake, I didn't post that they were 2 different scenarios. I posted it was 1 scenario with 2 variations

[Gimfalisette]

Originally Posted by Labyrrinth

Just for clarifications sake, I didn't post that they were 2 different scenarios. I posted it was 1 scenario with 2 variations

Difference and variation are synonyms. My point was, there is no difference or variation between the scenarios. They may *feel* different because the idea of flipping a switch versus pushing someone *feels* different. But logically speaking, there is no difference since the choice is between choosing to kill 1 person or to kill 5.

[Gimfalisette]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

Whoever thought of that needs their head examined. There is no way 1 person could stop the trolley by 'blocking' it with their body if it would kill 5 later down that same track.

We also don't know whether the trolley has people on it, and if the fat man's body blocks the wheels or something, will the trolley flip over, thereby killing a whole car-ful of people?

[Fadetree]

These are not realistic situations, and so they do not have realistic solutions. In reality, no-one has perfect knowledge about the outcomes of actions or situations. The problems you pose are predicated on perfect knowledge, which doesn't exist.

[Labyrrinth]

Originally Posted by Gimfalisette

Difference and variation are synonyms. My point was, there is no difference or variation between the scenarios. They may *feel* different because the idea of flipping a switch versus pushing someone *feels* different. But logically speaking, there is no difference since the choice is between choosing to kill 1 person or to kill 5.

Ok let me put it simply. It's the same story with a different way of telling it

[Labyrrinth]

Originally Posted by Fadetree

These are not realistic situations, and so they do not have realistic solutions. In reality, no-one has perfect knowledge about the outcomes of actions or situations. The problems you pose are predicated on perfect knowledge, which doesn't exist.

You're right, they're NOT realistic situations. Instead of focusing on the story itself, the purpose of an ethical dilemma is to reflect and question our own values and morals. I'll repeat here what I posted in the other thread:

The purpose of an ethical dilemma isn’t to examine the story in depth. The stories are generally abstract and are there to set the stage. It’s to spur conversation, to examine and talk about the moral decisions made based on the dilemma’s posed.

[Eye Gouge]

I would actually time it so that by throwing the switch it would force the trolley to jump the tracks. The trolley would roll between the group of people and the other person therefor saving them all.

tadaaaaaa
/bow

[smooth1]

Lol ya gotta have these kinda questions. Feels like I am taking a new job and this is that lame test they make you take.


Most people wouldnt have that kind of time to think most would jump. Now if said fat guy was laughing or not concerned he would be speed bump material.

The only hesitation on my part is that now that I am a Dad I take care of myself more as I would not want my children to have to bury their father before its time.

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by Labyrrinth

The stories are generally abstract and are there to set the stage. It’s to spur conversation, to examine and talk about the moral decisions made based on the dilemma’s posed.

That's what video games are for.

Ooooh that gives me a good idea for a new alt avatar. So I can add it to this one, or this one, in case I want to swap.

[Shelby]

Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die? Are consequences all that matter, or are there some things we should never do, whatever the outcome?

I recall this particular example very well in my death and dying class. I think though unfortunately that all of these examples are poor tools. They do not happen by and large. Instead I encourge people to volunteer with a hospice nurse. Observe for a week or two and see the real life ethical dilemmas that people face.

[armsakimbo]

I'm with Eye Gouge on this one. When you find youself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, your best hope is to seek a creative alternative.

[Gimfalisette]

Originally Posted by Shelby

Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die?

Legally, there may or may not be. If you kill someone (intentional or not), you can be prosecuted for crimes ranging from manslaughter to first-degree murder. If you let someone die, I'm pretty sure you can be prosecuted in various ways for that if you have knowledge and ability to save them. (For example, you see a couple of thugs beating someone to death and just walk on by rather than calling 911, or worse, you cheer for them); I know that I've read news stories about people being prosecuted for things like that. (I'm not a lawyer, so if you're planning to kill someone or already have, please do not regard this as legal advice )

Morally, there may or may not be. For example, assisted suicide could be seen as "killing someone." Is that wrong? Some will say yes, some will say no. Putting a gun to someone's head and firing as they scream, "Please don't kill me"? Most people in most cultures will say that's wrong. To a certain degree, it depends on the ability of the dying person to make and state their own choice, assuming they are in their right mind and have all the facts. That's why it's so much easier to make these choices in a hospice situation where someone has already filled out their powers of attorney and other papers, right? Because they have made and stated their choices in their right mind...the health care provider isn't having to choose for them.

[Gimfalisette]

Originally Posted by armsakimbo

I'm with Eye Gouge on this one. When you find youself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, your best hope is to seek a creative alternative.

I agree with this too. Hey, don't we all play superheroes with awesome powers in alternate realities? Then my choice is: I blast the trolley with magical nukes, conveniently blowing it to bits right on the tracks. Since things that get blown up in games never leave debris, there's nothing to fall on anyone and hurt them. Voila! Crisis averted

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by Gimfalisette

you see a couple of thugs beating someone to death and just walk on by

See: Bystander effect - Social psychology

rather than calling 911, or worse, you cheer for them); I know that I've read news stories about people being prosecuted for things like that.

Most likely for the cheering, not the walking by.

For example, assisted suicide could be seen as "killing someone." Is that wrong? Some will say yes, some will say no.

That is deeper than simple 'right or wrong'. That gets into the Doctors ethical code of 'do no harm'. The perception of harm can be seen in both ways in some cases, thus the conflict.

[Shelby]

Originally Posted by Gimfalisette

Morally, there may or may not be. For example, assisted suicide could be seen as "killing someone." Is that wrong? Some will say yes, some will say no. Putting a gun to someone's head and firing as they scream, "Please don't kill me"? Most people in most cultures will say that's wrong. To a certain degree, it depends on the ability of the dying person to make and state their own choice, assuming they are in their right mind and have all the facts. That's why it's so much easier to make these choices in a hospice situation where someone has already filled out their powers of attorney and other papers, right? Because they have made and stated their choices in their right mind...the health care provider isn't having to choose for them.

Actually Hospice care doesn't require any power of attorney. Simply it requires that you have a terminal disease processes that you are no longer seeking a cure for, with your treating physician willing to sign you over for hospice care. More frequently though, people don't get on hospice untill they have less than a year to live. Interestingly enough, the average patient is only with Hospice 7 days.

For Hospice nurses and families the dilemmas is more than just allowing someone to die. How do you know someone is in pain when they can no longer communicate? What is too much medication? What is to little? I've seen medication given in amounts that by your standard hospital setting and even in some states would be deemed unreasonable and potentially a crime. But it doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing for that patients pain and comfort. Of course there are orders which nurses follow, typically a set of guidelines based on vital signs. But I often wonder what happens when the nurse leaves.

It is a very rough road to travel sometimes.

[Razorwire]

To give my anwser to the origional question in the simple ethical question: I live and the single person dies. Me > 5 people > 1 person. There are alot of variables that would change my desision, like the 5 people being Bush and cronies or the 1 person being my wife etc but given a bunch of random people, the single person dies.

I value some people more than I value others, but given a group of people that I have not made value judgements on numbers become the deciding factor.

[Fadetree]

Originally Posted by Labyrrinth

You're right, they're NOT realistic situations. Instead of focusing on the story itself, the purpose of an ethical dilemma is to reflect and question our own values and morals. I'll repeat here what I posted in the other thread:

The purpose of an ethical dilemma isn’t to examine the story in depth. The stories are generally abstract and are there to set the stage. It’s to spur conversation, to examine and talk about the moral decisions made based on the dilemma’s posed.

Well, I'm aware of that, but my answer is that there's no point in discussing moral decisions about situations that can't happen. It might be amusing conversationally, but it won't lead to any conclusions that mean anything.