Let's go again!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanSobieskiIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JanSobieskiIII

Guest
Since the last one was so fun and got closed, I now pose a different, much simpler question.

The trolley is headed towards the larger group of people, there is no time to cut the ropes for any of them.

Do you pull the lever and save the larger group at the expense of the single man?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
What if the hypothetical trolley was from Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood? It wouldn’t hurt innocent people.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Trolleys have drivers who have access to a brake. I’d let the driver act.
 
This particular Trolley is from Stephen Kings novel Christine
 
Who said those people were innocent? 😈

I would like to think that I wouldn’t pull the lever. I’d try to untie the group.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Since the last one was so fun and got closed, I now pose a different, much simpler question.

The trolley is headed towards the larger group of people, there is no time to cut the ropes for any of them.

Do you pull the lever and save the larger group at the expense of the single man?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
If I’m at the lever, that single man is a goner. But I also consider the choice to be a dichotomy where my knowing failure to act also constitutes an act in itself.
 
I’m aware. But if I was in this situation I’d probably panic and try it anyway.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
That was addressed, there’s no time to untie anyone.
Click to expand...
[This is addressed to all the other participants. Your post is just the one I randomly picked to reply to]
To do these exercises, you can’t interject other conditions.

For example, I originally said that the one dude is dead if I’m at the lever.

But if I change the scenario to the one dude being a child and the group of five are older folks that were kidnapped from the nursing home (and have lived reasonably long lives), then I’m going to kill all those old people with my decision.

Assuming all folks involved are categorically the same, the train can’t stop and one group is getting train-smooshed, I’m killing the one guy by flipping the lever.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I agree.

I would also save the individual if that was someone I knew personally and cared for deeply vs a group of strangers.
 
I mean, if you dehumanize the thought experiment, it seems pretty simple since -1 is better (greater) than -5 and each person is equal in qualities. A decision to pull the lever suggests that the immorality of the deliberate decision is outweighed by the morality of saving 4 additional and equal lives. The person who refrains from pulling the lever would contend that their inaction is not an action in and of itself, but rather it removes them from the dilemma altogether, therefore having no moral consequence. I don’t think there is a wrong answer, it’s just a demonstration of someone’s perception of actions and moral culpability. That said, I’d pull the lever. And I think empirical studies suggest that the vast majority would do the same.

If you truly want to see where someone’s values lie, change out the 1 for their spouse, and the 5 for family members, scientific minds on the cusp of discovery, or something in that vein. I’ll admit I’d rather not play that game though.
 
Even in your latter scenario I would without hesitation save my spouse (if I had one) or some other family member (well, maybe not all of them 🤣) over a stranger.

I feel I have more of a duty to family than non-family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top