Trolley problem: There is a trolley traveling along a set of tracks. The driver has lost control of the trolley. On the track ahead of the trolley are five people who cannot get off the track in time and will all die if the trolley gets to them. You are standing next to a lever that can switch the track the trolley will take, preventing the deaths of the five people. On the other track is a single person who also cannot get away in time and so will die if you switch the track. Do you refrain from switching the track (“straight”) or do you switch the track (“turn”)?
Addendum: you are not allowed to explicitly consider e.g. future reputational effects of your choice. (Most people will hate you for flipping the switch or just for being involved no matter what you do. The safest bet is to run away if you haven’t been seen near the switch yet.)
Interesting—I hadn’t heard that added to the problem before. Are you allowed to explicitly consider other psychological effects of your choice? (e.g. presumably people would update their beliefs to account for “marked-as-currently-unused trolley tracks are more dangerous than I thought” and “in-active-use trolley tracks have another level of safety I hadn’t considered”)
Suppose the switch is stuck halfway between “straight” and “turn”. It will take some effort to move it to either position. If you leave it alone, the trolley will take a path at random with equal probability.
If you take the time to move the switch to either position, you will be seen. The survivors will thank you and the families of those you chose to kill will sue to put you in prison. Newspapers will print your photo and denigrade philosophers of ethics in deeply misguided editorials. Your unique and memorable name and face will be forever associated with the story.
If you don’t touch the switch and run away, nobody will know you were there.
If this situation actually arose, there is a substantial possibility that I would not switch the track, in order to avoid being prosecuted for murder. This isn’t to say that I “endorse” that (in)action; I would prefer a legal code under which that wouldn’t happen, and would vote for legislators who committed to changing the law in that way.
Discussions of “law” aren’t discussions of which laws to make; those are called discussions of “policy”, and they are in my opinion the place where ethical considerations are most relevant.
Presuming I value the lives of all the people involved equally, I turn on to the side track. If I have a strong reason not to let the person on the side track die—they’re a relative, I know them well, they owe me money, I’m in love with them, whatever—I let it go straight.
This is a really easy problem if you accept that you’re only a marginally good person at best.
As, to be fair, are their billions and billions of counterparts in hypothetical-experiment land who are tied to the tracks further from convenient switches.
I voted “lead toward: straight”, but thinking about it some more I think the correct answer is: “other, hypothetical isn’t sufficiently detailed to determine correct choice”.
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching): straight or turn?
[pollid:93]
Trolley problem: There is a trolley traveling along a set of tracks. The driver has lost control of the trolley. On the track ahead of the trolley are five people who cannot get off the track in time and will all die if the trolley gets to them. You are standing next to a lever that can switch the track the trolley will take, preventing the deaths of the five people. On the other track is a single person who also cannot get away in time and so will die if you switch the track. Do you refrain from switching the track (“straight”) or do you switch the track (“turn”)?
Addendum: you are not allowed to explicitly consider e.g. future reputational effects of your choice. (Most people will hate you for flipping the switch or just for being involved no matter what you do. The safest bet is to run away if you haven’t been seen near the switch yet.)
Interesting—I hadn’t heard that added to the problem before. Are you allowed to explicitly consider other psychological effects of your choice? (e.g. presumably people would update their beliefs to account for “marked-as-currently-unused trolley tracks are more dangerous than I thought” and “in-active-use trolley tracks have another level of safety I hadn’t considered”)
How is that different from choosing “straight”?
Suppose the switch is stuck halfway between “straight” and “turn”. It will take some effort to move it to either position. If you leave it alone, the trolley will take a path at random with equal probability.
If you take the time to move the switch to either position, you will be seen. The survivors will thank you and the families of those you chose to kill will sue to put you in prison. Newspapers will print your photo and denigrade philosophers of ethics in deeply misguided editorials. Your unique and memorable name and face will be forever associated with the story.
If you don’t touch the switch and run away, nobody will know you were there.
What do you choose?
Other. The more relevant question is what kind of laws I would enact, rather than what I as an individual would do in the situation.
Relevant to what? It’s usually brought up in discussion of ethics, not law.
If this situation actually arose, there is a substantial possibility that I would not switch the track, in order to avoid being prosecuted for murder. This isn’t to say that I “endorse” that (in)action; I would prefer a legal code under which that wouldn’t happen, and would vote for legislators who committed to changing the law in that way.
Discussions of “law” aren’t discussions of which laws to make; those are called discussions of “policy”, and they are in my opinion the place where ethical considerations are most relevant.
Presuming I value the lives of all the people involved equally, I turn on to the side track. If I have a strong reason not to let the person on the side track die—they’re a relative, I know them well, they owe me money, I’m in love with them, whatever—I let it go straight.
This is a really easy problem if you accept that you’re only a marginally good person at best.
Oops, I meant to choose “Accept: turn” instead of “Accept: straight”
Too late, and now they’re dead.
As, to be fair, are their billions and billions of counterparts in hypothetical-experiment land who are tied to the tracks further from convenient switches.
Is this about what I think would be normatively better to do or about what I predict I would actually do if personally faced with such a situation?
Traditionally, trolley problems are asking about normative ethics.
My prediction would be “Other: dither ineffectually.”
I voted “lead toward: straight”, but thinking about it some more I think the correct answer is: “other, hypothetical isn’t sufficiently detailed to determine correct choice”.