Trolley Problem

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem


Image
There is a runaway trolley barrelling 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 allow the trolley to kill 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 more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
The above thought experiment is usually introduced to demonstrate 'consequentialism' as a moral theory.
  • Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome.
    Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or on some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Assuming ceteri parribus, the obvious option would be option 2, i.e. kill 1 instead of 5 people.

I have argued consequentialism and its related morality are not morality-proper, i.e. they are pseudo-morality.

Now what if in the following scenario,
  • 1. Option 1 kill 6 billion people
    2. Option 2 kill 5.5 billion people
Thus according to consequentialism, the rational choice would be option 2 i.e. killing 5.5 billion people instead of 6 billion.

Then a year later a similar scenario is presented,
  • 1. Option 1 kill 2 billion people
    2. Option 2 kill 1.5 billion people
Then every year thereon a similar scenario is presented with lesser and lesser humans.

Theoretically consequentialism appear to be logical and rational but it is really a stupid moral theory in terms of being-human, i.e. in the humanity sense.

Do you agree consequentialism is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt as a moral theory, thus cannot be morality-proper?
If not, why?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Also I believe posters like Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher, Terrapin and their likes would settle for consequentialism as fundamentally relative-morality subject to the whims of each individual, group, culture, traditions, tribes, etc.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

The trivial way to reframe trolley problems is via integration.

The first integral of a trolley problem would be thus:

If killing 1 person results in this very dilemma recurring daily ad infinitum (because death is normal and society doesn't notice), but killing 7 people results in mass-social outrage and the investment of social capital towards preventing such dilemmas from ever recurring.

Consequentialism is (fundamentally) optimisation. What are you optimising for and on what timeline?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
Is it your opinion (that you Hold come what may), or is it it a fact that the fact-opinion distinction exists?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
Right. On my view, it's simply a matter of whether an individual chooses to focus on consequences, or duties, or whatever. And a particular individual might focus on different things for different scenarios or at different times.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:49 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
Right. On my view, it's simply a matter of whether an individual chooses to focus on consequences, or duties, or whatever. And a particular individual might focus on different things for different scenarios or at different times.
And on top of that there are times when loyalty is seen as a good thing in itself, but other times when it is the motive for terrible crimes. Times when honesty carried to excess is near criminal, or when the demands of justice are unfair and those of fairness unjust. So it's not as if we can just choose one virtue or one moral desire and assign that to be the scaffold that props up all the others.

The primary value in trolley problem is that they are useful for spotting frauds. You can know really quickly if some exotic new theory is going to turn out to be bullshit by just checking if they think they have an answer to it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:14 pm The primary value in trolley problem is that they are useful for spotting frauds. You can know really quickly if some exotic new theory is going to turn out to be bullshit by just checking if they think they have an answer to it.
Tell that to a doctor next time they face the trolley problem of amputating a gangrenous arm vs letting the patient keep it.
Or a scientist who focuses on curing things that kill millions, instead of curing things that kill 10 people a year.

The idiocy of Philosophy is that dumb philosophers like DangerDork profess to believe in things they don't actually believe in.

We make trade-offs all the damn time. We call them choices.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Impenitent »

do nothing and be a witness to an unfortunate circumstance that you did not create

or commit murder

-Imp
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

The trolly problem breaks down when it becomes personal.
THe obvious thing is to divert the train to save the majority, or the young persons over the old persons - which ever way it is articulated.

Here's one that causes hesitation.
You are on a bridge with a fat guy and you can save 100 children on the train - all you have to do is push the fat guy off the bridge onto the train. All of a sudden the up-close and peronal option of killing one to save many is not so easy.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:42 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem


Image
There is a runaway trolley barrelling 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 allow the trolley to kill 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 more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
The above thought experiment is usually introduced to demonstrate 'consequentialism' as a moral theory.
  • Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome.
    Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or on some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Assuming ceteri parribus, the obvious option would be option 2, i.e. kill 1 instead of 5 people.

I have argued consequentialism and its related morality are not morality-proper, i.e. they are pseudo-morality.

Now what if in the following scenario,
  • 1. Option 1 kill 6 billion people
    2. Option 2 kill 5.5 billion people
Thus according to consequentialism, the rational choice would be option 2 i.e. killing 5.5 billion people instead of 6 billion.

Then a year later a similar scenario is presented,
  • 1. Option 1 kill 2 billion people
    2. Option 2 kill 1.5 billion people
Then every year thereon a similar scenario is presented with lesser and lesser humans.

Theoretically consequentialism appear to be logical and rational but it is really a stupid moral theory in terms of being-human, i.e. in the humanity sense.

Do you agree consequentialism is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt as a moral theory, thus cannot be morality-proper?
If not, why?
I think you might be missing the point. The problem is a hypothetical designed to make you consider your position.
There are variations of the hypothetical that might make you change your mind.
Killing one involves ACTION. That action makes you culpable.
Inaction means you do not kill, you allow five to die you might have saved. You are not culpable.
There is not any case of ceteri parribus here.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:28 pm Killing one involves ACTION. That action makes you culpable.
Inaction means you do not kill, you allow five to die you might have saved. You are not culpable.
That's still a trolley problem, [redacted].

Track A: Your feelings of guilt/culpability.
Track B: Four people's lives

The only way culpability matters is if you are worried that your ticket to Heaven might get cancelled, because legally you are off the hook.


[Edited by iMod
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
You are off tangent here.
The OP is NOT about consequentialism and moral objectivity.

The point here is, consequentialism is pseudo-morality thus flawed and bankrupt in dealing with morality-proper, i.e. not in alignment with what is intrinsically human nature.

From what you have posted you are supporting consequentialism [ineffective], i.e. moral relativism as to what are opinions of what is right or wrong based on consequences.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:42 am
...

Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or on some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
[/list]

Assuming ceteri parribus, the obvious option would be option 2, i.e. kill 1 instead of 5 people.

I have argued consequentialism and its related morality are not morality-proper, i.e. they are pseudo-morality.
I think you might be missing the point. The problem is a hypothetical designed to make you consider your position.
There are variations of the hypothetical that might make you change your mind.
Killing one involves ACTION. That action makes you culpable.
Inaction means you do not kill, you allow five to die you might have saved. You are not culpable.
There is not any case of ceteri parribus here.
Didn't you read what I referenced above, i.e.
Ceteri parribus means assuming all variables remain the same, i.e. don't vary the scenario like what if the one person is a famous scientist on the verge of discovering something that could cure cancer and save million of lives, etc. etc.

Based the above consequentialism definition, then in principle we will logically face options like;

1. Option 1 - kill 6 billion people or
2. Option 2 - kill 5.5 billion people

where the above option 2 is PREFERRED and the above is applicable eternally.
They did the above in WWII by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan instead of risking thousands of American and other lives.

In the case of my morality-proper where the maxim is,
'no human ought to kill humans' [as verified and justified true moral fact],
then that maxim will trigger humanity to go all out in the future to ensure the above scenarios do not happen in the first place.

So it is case of "prevention is better than cure" or "preventing and solving problem at the root level"
rather than fire-fighting and groping around with stupid options like the above as with consequentialism and other "relative morality" driven supposedly by opinions, beliefs and judgments like what you are condoning.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
You are off tangent here.
The OP is NOT about consequentialism and moral objectivity.

The point here is, consequentialism is pseudo-morality thus flawed and bankrupt in dealing with morality-proper, i.e. not in alignment with what is intrinsically human nature.

From what you have posted you are supporting consequentialism [ineffective], i.e. moral relativism as to what are opinions of what is right or wrong based on consequences.
I neither support nor condemn consequentialism. I'm pointing out that, wherever we look for moral facts, they don't exist.

For example, here's your 'morality-proper' pitch: if we prevent a problem occurring, we won't have solve or 'cure' it. And your folksy line is: prevention is better than cure - which sounds right and applicable in many situations.

But that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'better than' other tactical and strategic methods for ending the war in the Pacific is a matter of opinion. And better for whom? Can prevention be worse than the cure?

Your (by now only) supposed moral fact is that no human ought to kill humans. But you say this has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, and is merely a matter of following programming. But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming - which, presumably also has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness ... and so on.

At bottom is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - which is what moral realists and objectivists refuse to recognise. And this is why morality - consequentialist or otherwise - isn't and can't be objective.
Post Reply