The Trolley Problem Revisited

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:13:45 -0500

As visited by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member :There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 4:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:31:25 -0500

I hate this question. Why isn't there an option to scream at, run to rescue, and/or flag down the trolley to stop? It's an ethnical question. I say it's a "lose, lose."

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Mar 7 at 2015 5:10 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:10:37 -0500

Where is the option that people standing on the tracks deserve to get ran over?
These are individuals that are complicit in their own demise and are not owed anything by anyone else. For that matter, there is a utilitarian argument that the world would be a better place without people that like to stand on trolley tracks.

Oh, wait, lets go ahead and take this to a logical extension.
Nicomachean ethics indicate that responsible human action depends upon the combining of all the powers of the soul: perception, imagination, reasoning, and desiring. The neglect of perception and reasoning of the individuals that choose to stand on the track, indicates an acceptance of the fate determined for them as a result of deliberate and intentional ignorance. Abandonment of any virtue in pursuit of the mob mentality deserves its fate.

Kant would argue that there is the categorical imperative. In this case, what it means is that if you don't want to get hit by a trolley, you should not be standing on a trolley track. From an outsider's perception with this philosophy, their choice is to get hit by a trolley, they may actually desire it, else why would they be standing on a trolley track.

I could go on, but the essence from my point of view is this: stuff happens, not losing sleep over these morons either way.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Mar 7 at 2015 5:18 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:18:07 -0500

why not just email me to get the F out of the way

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Mar 7 at 2015 5:29 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:29:27 -0500

The civilian Kobayashi Maru. SFC Mark Merino can we Kirk this?

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 7 at 2015 5:36 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:36:05 -0500

So, if I fail to act, five people die, if I pull the lever one person dies. With the option and ability to chose, I'd pull the lever to divert the trolley to the track with one person.....would it be a tougher choice if that one person was a relative - yes.

I remember this in an early ethics class, I found it online and wanted to share the rest: To further explore these ethics consider this:

The Emergency Room Case:

Imagine a homeless person enters an emergency room of a large city hospital. Imagine that after a quick check, the homeless person is judged to be “fit as a fiddle,” in excellent good health.

Now imagine the hospital has five patients on the upper floors in need of a transplant: two in need of a kidney, two in need of a lung and one in need of a heart. Imagine that the heart, lungs and kidneys of the homeless make a good match for each of the five.

Say, too, that unless each of the five receive a transplant of the required organ, he or she will die straightaway. Their only hope for survival are the lungs, kidneys and heart of this homeless person. Why not harvest the organs from the homeless person and transplant his organs, thereby saving the lives of five for the price of one? Imagine you are the doctor on call in the emergency room at this moment. What would you do?

Would you kill the homeless person, harvest his organs and save the five patients each
in need of a transplant?

If so, why? If not, why not?

If not, what is the difference between the emergency room case and the trolley problem
in its first formulation?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 5:56 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:56:06 -0500

You do nothing. Through ethics only action is judged and not decision of inaction. If you were not there the 5 people would die anyway, if you choose to move the lever you choose to kill which is unethical. The ethical decision is to not act and not actively kill someone.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 7 at 2015 6:34 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:34:32 -0500

I pull the level. I act. It is better to ACT and make the wrong decision, than make no decision which will result in death regardless.

Let's think the issue through. Even if there were 5 mobile people vs 5 immobile, my acting has the chance for less immediate harm. Those people still have a chance of survival, as opposed to none. That's magnifying the problem by five.

I act.

Is it the correct choice? No. Is it better than making no choice at all? Yes.

Think about standardized testing. You have 4 answers. One is correct, for which you will receive full credit, leaving 3 which will receive no credit. Do you leave an answer blank? No, never, even in cases where an incorrect answer penalizes at 1/4 credit, it has been shown better to answer everything. This hypothetical parallels that.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 7 at 2015 6:37 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:37:17 -0500

You didn't ask to be in the situation but there you are. 5 w/no chance or 1 who could possibly move. Easy Decision

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Mar 7 at 2015 6:52 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:52:24 -0500

These are interesting ponderables, but I submit that there is no "correct" answer, but rather a "most rational" one: The answer is always the action that results in the fewest injuries - ethically and morally it's impossible to come to any other answer.

So... Let's add a nasty dimension...

What's the decision if the SOLE person on the side track is a loved one, and the other track contains only strangers?

Sorry, SSgt Alexander Ingram, the switch is BINARY - there's no in-between...

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Mar 7 at 2015 7:19 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:19:59 -0500

Phillipa Foot rears her head again.

And what about the people in the trolley itself?

You also skipped the alternate scenario with the fat man on the bridge (as shown in the illustration).

The single person on the side track is not restrained in this scenario. In this case, I would be the Utilitarian and throw the lever to save the 5 helpless people. However, THEN I would run like mad to warn the single person who is now in danger but able to dodge the train. The chances of him being able to escape safely are not wonderful, but obviously higher than those of the five who are restrained had I not thrown the switch.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 7 at 2015 7:38 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:38:57 -0500

Jump in front of the trolley and stop it with my massive muscles.

Response by SPC David Shaffer made Mar 7 at 2015 8:16 PM

SPC David Shaffer — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:16:52 -0500

I would think the people tied up could possibly be of importance and hit the lever but I didn't see where the question states how far the train would be from the single person in the track. Also, the other person in the track CAN move. At least the person that can move has a chance.

Response by SPC William Vegh made Mar 7 at 2015 10:53 PM

SPC William Vegh — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:53:55 -0500

Pull the lever, warn the guy on the other track.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 11:00 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 23:00:37 -0500

Not to be mean or anything but I would let the trolley run over the stupid ones. Rather it be the 5 or the 1.

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made Mar 8 at 2015 12:01 AM

MSgt Michelle Mondia — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 00:01:32 -0500

The doctrine of double effect...taking an action to deliberately cause harm is wrong. Philosophically the problem goes further and then asks, if you would just pull a lever that's no big deal...but would you push a big fat man infront of the train to stop it? Would you push him if he was a villain? So it attempts to show you what part of brain is applying the logic and where morality arises. But from a moral stand point taking any deliberate action that causes harm to anyone Dispite the intended consequences is wrong.