There are psychologists, following in the foot steps of Stanley Milgram who set up situations, candid camera style, to see what people actually do. This is very different from asking hypothetical questions.
Taking the trolley problem at face value, we recognise it as the problem of military command. Five regiments are encircled. Staring at the map the general realises that if he commits a sixth regiment to battle at a key point the first five regiments will break-out and survive to fight another day, but the sixth regiment will be trapped and annihilated. Of course the general sends the sixth regiment into battle. The trolley problem is set up to be unproblematic. Sacrifice one to say five? Yes!
So what is it probing? Why do we have difficulty with the pencil and paper exercise when the real life answer is clear cut? We are not in fact generals, chosen for our moral courage and licensed to take tough decisions. We are middle-class wankers playing a social game. If we are answering the trolley problem, rather than asking it, we have been trapped into playing a game of “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
The way the game works is that the hypothetical set up is unreasonable, so the social aggressor gets to vary the hypotheses after the victim has answered. If you don’t throw the fat man in front of the trolley you have murdered five and are bad. If you do throw the fat man in front of the trolley then you are being over-confident in thinking that you know the outcome, in thinking that the five men are really in mortal peril and in thinking that throwing the fat man under the trolley is the only way to save them. You murder the fat man out of arrogance and are evil.
The trolley problem probes how well the players dodge verbal blows in social combat.
The trolley problem probes how well the players dodge verbal blows in social combat.
I’m not sure which way you intended it, but I find this a good argument against them. I rarely choose to invent artificial conflict for fun, and never by putting someone else in an uncomfortable position.
There are psychologists, following in the foot steps of Stanley Milgram who set up situations, candid camera style, to see what people actually do. This is very different from asking hypothetical questions.
Taking the trolley problem at face value, we recognise it as the problem of military command. Five regiments are encircled. Staring at the map the general realises that if he commits a sixth regiment to battle at a key point the first five regiments will break-out and survive to fight another day, but the sixth regiment will be trapped and annihilated. Of course the general sends the sixth regiment into battle. The trolley problem is set up to be unproblematic. Sacrifice one to say five? Yes!
So what is it probing? Why do we have difficulty with the pencil and paper exercise when the real life answer is clear cut? We are not in fact generals, chosen for our moral courage and licensed to take tough decisions. We are middle-class wankers playing a social game. If we are answering the trolley problem, rather than asking it, we have been trapped into playing a game of “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
The way the game works is that the hypothetical set up is unreasonable, so the social aggressor gets to vary the hypotheses after the victim has answered. If you don’t throw the fat man in front of the trolley you have murdered five and are bad. If you do throw the fat man in front of the trolley then you are being over-confident in thinking that you know the outcome, in thinking that the five men are really in mortal peril and in thinking that throwing the fat man under the trolley is the only way to save them. You murder the fat man out of arrogance and are evil.
The trolley problem probes how well the players dodge verbal blows in social combat.
I’m not sure which way you intended it, but I find this a good argument against them. I rarely choose to invent artificial conflict for fun, and never by putting someone else in an uncomfortable position.