Trolley Problem

[Angainor]

1. You are standing next to a switch in a trolley track and you notice that a runaway trolley is about to hit a group of five people who are unaware of their danger. However, if you switch the track, the trolley will hit only one person. What do you do?
2. You are standing on a bridge over a trolley track beside a fat person. Again you notice that the runaway trolley is headed toward five unaware people. Do you push the fat person onto the track to stop the trolley?

This is (apparently) a standard ethics “problem” in ethics classes. I wondered what everyone thinks.

 

[Angainor]

For what its worth, here is my answer:

First, do no harm.

By switching the track or pushing the fat man you are, by your actions, causing harm. Don’t do it. Simple as that.

 

[mosher]

One cannot directly will an evil act. The number of the people in both questions are irrelavent. To make a choice to kill the one over the many you fall into proportionalism.

 

[trumpet152]

Angainor:

For what its worth, here is my answer:

First, do no harm.

By switching the track or pushing the fat man you are, by your actions, causing harm. Don’t do it. Simple as that.

I would agree.

 

[CatholicSam]

I voted to switch the track but not push the fat man. And this was based on real-life logic, in my mind. If the trolley is headed toward one person vs. five, it is more likely that someone else can save the one person off the tracks, or that the one person would get out of harm’s way on his own than a distracted group of five who may be in a heated discussion. The one person is more likely to be paying attention to his surroundings and notice in time that the trolley is coming. Yeah, I guess that’s not really what the question meant to portray, but it’s what I would do in a real life situation like that Oh, and once the trolley is headed toward the one person, I would yell “Hey you, get out of the way!”

 

[precious_roy]

There is not enough information to solve the problem, therefore I refuse to answer.

Are you really far from the five people? Could you yell to them? Am I fat enough to stop the train? Could you throw a rock and derail the train or break the switch? Can I dive and knock the person off the track before the train hits it?

There is no such situation as to have only 2 solutions.

 

[marcadam]

Angainor:

For what its worth, here is my answer:

First, do no harm.

By switching the track or pushing the fat man you are, by your actions, causing harm. Don’t do it. Simple as that.

It seems to me the situations are objectively different. By pushing the fat man you are directly employing the means of his death (inherently immoral act), for the end of saving five people (not justified). By swtiching the track (an inherently amoral act in and of itself), though, you are directly saving five people with the side-effect of killing the one (covered by double effect).

This is very similar to the analogous cases of ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

 

[felra]

marcadam:

It seems to me the situations are objectively different. By pushing the fat man you are directly employing the means of his death (inherently immoral act), for the end of saving five people (not justified).** By swtiching the track (an inherently amoral act in and of itself), though, you are directly saving five people with the side-effect of killing the one (covered by double effect).**

This is very similar to the analogous cases of ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

What if it turns out that the one was the Pope and the five were terrorists plotting to blow up the train station?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

marcadam:

It seems to me the situations are objectively different. By pushing the fat man you are directly employing the means of his death (inherently immoral act), for the end of saving five people (not justified). By swtiching the track (an inherently amoral act in and of itself), though, you are directly saving five people with the side-effect of killing the one (covered by double effect).

This is very similar to the analogous cases of ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

I also wonder if the first example might fall under the principle of double effect.

 

[Angainor]

precious_roy:

There is not enough information to solve the problem, therefore I refuse to answer.

Are you really far from the five people? Could you yell to them? Am I fat enough to stop the train? Could you throw a rock and derail the train or break the switch? Can I dive and knock the person off the track before the train hits it?

There is no such situation as to have only 2 solutions.

This is a thought problem. You can be certain that one person or five persons will die.

 

[Lazerlike42]

marcadam:

This is very similar to the analogous cases of ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

I never understood this. Could you please explain it.

 

[Angainor]

marcadam:

By swtiching the track (an inherently amoral act in and of itself), though, you are directly saving five people with the side-effect of killing the one (covered by double effect).

Firing a gun is also inherently amoral, unless, of course, you know the bullet will hit someone in the head.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Andreas Hofer:

I also wonder if the first example might fall under the principle of double effect.

The only reason I do not buy that this could be an example of the priniciple of double effect is that the fact is that the effect is the death of one person. The only way I could see that this might be such an example is that if you did not have first hand knowledge that pulling the switch would cause the death of one person.

The reason, in the problem as stated, for pulling the switch is to save 5 people by sacrificing one person.

But then I guess one could argue that the intended effect is the saving of the life of 5 people and the uninteded effect is the death of one, but then if that is so then it works for both situations.

In my case, I would do neither. For me, the life of the many does not out weigh the life of the one (to borrow from Star Trek). All life is precious.

 

[Lazerlike42]

ByzCath:

In my case, I would do neither. For me, the life of the many does not out weigh the life of the one (to borrow from Star Trek).

Thank goodness it did to Jesus!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lazerlike42:

ByzCath:

In my case, I would do neither. For me, the life of the many does not out weigh the life of the one (to borrow from Star Trek)

Thank goodness it did to Jesus!

Not in the context of this question.

For if what Jesus did was put into the context of this question then that would mean that He would have forced someone else onto the Cross.

Now, to put this question into the context of what Jesus did then the question would be would you step into the path of the oncoming trolley and give your life to save the five people, not would you push someone into the path.

Now with that question, I will admit that I do not know. I would like to think that I would give my life but I can not truely say.

 

[Lazerlike42]

ByzCath:

Not in the context of this question.

For if what Jesus did was put into the context of this question then that would mean that He would have forced someone else onto the Cross.

Now, to put this question into the context of what Jesus did then the question would be would you step into the path of the oncoming trolley and give your life to save the five people, not would you push someone into the path.

Now with that question, I will admit that I do not know. I would like to think that I would give my life but I can not truely say.

I know I was kidding around

p.s. can someone explain the double effect pirnciple

 

[precious_roy]

Angainor:

This is a thought problem. You can be certain that one person or five persons will die.

I guess that is why I am an engineer and not a philosopher.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lazerlike42:

I know I was kidding around

p.s. can someone explain the double effect pirnciple

The priniciple of double effect is basicly that something is done for a certain effect but it also has an unintended second effect.

There is an example in the Catechism.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

So in the case of self defense, the intended effect is preservation of your own life. The unintended second effect is the death of the person trying to kill you.

This also works with the two examples given by marcadam, that would be ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

For ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes. If left it will kill the mother along with the child. So the fallopian tube must be removed to save the mother’s life with the unintended second effect of killing the child.

Same goes with abortifacient chemotherapy. The chemotherapy ends up killing the unborn child yet that is not the intent of the chemotherapy.

Hope that helps!

 

[Lazerlike42]

ByzCath:

The priniciple of double effect is basicly that something is done for a certain effect but it also has an unintended second effect.

There is an example in the Catechism.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

So in the case of self defense, the intended effect is preservation of your own life. The unintended second effect is the death of the person trying to kill you.

This also works with the two examples given by marcadam, that would be ectopic pregnancy and abortifacient chemotherapy.

For ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes. If left it will kill the mother along with the child. So the fallopian tube must be removed to save the mother’s life with the unintended second effect of killing the child.

Same goes with abortifacient chemotherapy. The chemotherapy ends up killing the unborn child yet that is not the intent of the chemotherapy.

Hope that helps!

But doesnt the catechism say that these things ould not be allowed because the unintended effect had to be avoided? It says the legitimate defense is *not * an exception.

Or does it mean it in the sense that this defense is legitimate and is not an exception but in a different category altogether?

 

[Mike_Dye]

This problem would fall under the Churches teaching of picking the lesser of two evils…In other words if you were the pilot of a crashing plane and had to chose between crashing into a school full of children or a single family residence you must choose the single family residence. If given the choice of crashing into the single family residence or an empty field you must choose the empty field of course. The same principal applies to this question.