The trolley problem

[Peter van Velzen]

Scene one:
There is a runaway trolley running down a slope, and unless you do something it is going to kill 5 people working on the tracks. You can push a button and the trolley will go on the another track, where it will kill a single individual. What should you do?

Scene two
There is a runaway trolley running down a slope, and unless you do something it is going to kill 5 people working on the tracks. However there is a fat man standing on a bridge and if you push him off the bridge he will fall on the track and his weight will bring the trolley to a halt, saving the five. What should you do?

Tests have revealed that in scene one, most people will say you should push the button, wherase most people will not say you should push the fat man. Some philosophers have argued that this is not logical as the net result is the same: One dead instead of five.

However I will explain that this logic is in fact false. First of all, it will in real live never be a 100% sure that the five will die if you do nothing or that only one will die if you push. In real life there are always other possibilities, and we are not likely to know their probability. Human decision making has developed for use in real life, not in artificial thought-problems. Secondly our moral sense will blame us more for what we actually control and not for what is not really our doing.

If one isolates the parts of the problem, it is clear that though we have a moral plight to save the five we can be sure we will not be trialed for first degree murder if we do not save them. We may be charged with a lesser crime but if we were just bystanders happening to be at the scene, and pushing the button was not part of our job, we might even get off with no judicial problems at all. If we push the button, the family of the single individual we bring in harm’s way might sue us, but chances are again that we get off without any penalty.

However pushing a man so his body will fall down in front of a trolley, can be described as first degree murder, and we would not only have to be pretty sure that it will save, at least two of the five men working on the tracks. We would probably have to convince a judge or a jury that this was the case.

As in real life we are not omniscient, we have to consider the probability of the five workers escaping in time, to save there lifes, the probability of the single individual saving his. The probability of the fat man dying without stopping the trolley and maybe some other scenario’s that might play out.

In the first scene the worst that can happen if we do not push is that the five will die. The best is that the five will somehow be saved nevertheless. If we push, the worst that could happen is that the button does not work properly and the five will die anyway, but that would clearly not be our fault, the best that could happen is that the button works and the single individual sais nevertheless saved. This best scenario is somewhat more likely than the best scenario when we do push, because the probability of – for instance – one man saving himself is always higher than five saving themselves. Thus – even being not omniscient – it would be clear which path has the best chances of producing the least harm.

In the second scene things are different. Presuming the fat man will not drop dead anyway after the trolley has passed by, the chances when we do not push are the same as in the first scene, However: What might happen if we do push? In real life we might not be strong enough. De fat man might not fall, but sue us for attempted murder, or even throw us down the bridge (and we have not enough weight to stop the trolley!). Or he might fall, but to the side; still dying from a head injury but not stopping the trolley. The worst that might happen might thus be six people dying instead of five! The best that might happen is the fat man stopping the trolley, but then he would certainly be dead. Thus the death toll in the second scene will be probabilistically higher in the case of us pushing than the death toll in de first scene.

Apart from probability: As we judge our responsibility for what happens to the man that we push, higher than our responsibility for what happens down the track, most people will not simply make a body count based on presumed omniscience, but will weigh two separate items. Item one: our responsibility for what the trolley would do, and item two: our responsibility for what we do.

If one takes the trolley away from the scenes, it is clear that pushing the button in scene one, has no impact but pushing the fat man from the bridge is a crime anyway. (The fall might indeed kill him if there is no trolley). If one removes the single individual from the scene, then pushing the button in scene 1 is a zero harm option, while pushing nobody from the bridge is not an option at all. So it is totally logical that our incentive to push the button in scene 1, is definitely higher than our incentive to push the fat man; both from a probabilistic point of view as from a moral point of view.

I would say there is probably nothing wrong with the response people give towards this problem, but there is possibly something wrong with philosophers that fail to understand this response.

[MoreTime]

@Peter van Velzen:
Interesting explanation of this problem! When they performed an hypothetical experiment using this dilemma, 90% of the participants actually did pulled the switch (see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

You can think up similar problems though, even ones closer to real life. What about our unwritten rule 'woman and children first' in case of an emergency (think of the sinking of the Titanic for instance)?
This is a rule that is/was generally followed. The explanation there may be: preserve those that have the longest life expectancy.

[Peter van Velzen]

@Peter van Velzen:
Interesting explanation of this problem! When they performed an hypothetical experiment using this dilemma, 90% of the participants actually did pulled the switch (see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

You can think up similar problems though, even ones closer to real life. What about our unwritten rule 'woman and children first' in case of an emergency (think of the sinking of the Titanic for instance)?
This is a rule that is/was generally followed. The explanation there may be: preserve those that have the longest life expectancy.

But how many people dared to push a fat man?

The reason for "women and children first" might be something else.
80% of the men are expandable and in hunter-gatherer groups actually only serve to protect the women and children. About 20% are actually fucking needed

[MoreTime]

You can do the Fat-man experiment here:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fa ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great fun to do this expirement yourself and see how inconsistent people/you are. What if the fat man was a terrorist who has threatened to blow up the train or something? That changes peoples feelings whether they should/should not push the fat man.

Interesting. Does this mean that all morals are relative?

[Peter van Velzen]

You can do the Fat-man experiment here:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fa ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great fun to do this expirement yourself and see how inconsistent people/you are. What if the fat man was a terrorist who has threatened to blow up the train or something? That changes peoples feelings whether they should/should not push the fat man.

Interesting. Does this mean that all morals are relative?

No you can't do it. There is no real life fat man!'
Would you dare to try and push a terrorist from a bridge?
How much of a hero are you?
You don't know untill there is a real life terrorist in front of you.

Let's be honest
If you yourself were a fat man
what would you decide?

Morals are indeed relative. Some deeds are better than others, but no deed is perfect.
And we can never be totally sure what the outcome will be,
no matter what the philosophers tell you.
Om pra ma pood (whether the wise man says so) phom mai chua (I don''t believe it)

[HenkM]

this has little to do with crime and punishment. This is a moral dilemma and (the) guilt accompanying it.

On the subject of not (ever) killing a fellow human, under what circumstances could you end up killing a person?

You fly a plane, it goes down, and control is extremly limited. Now, you as the pilot, could manage the plane from a city (with many more casualties) to a village (obviously fewer casualties), only in that village your family lives, or your lover .....

[MoreTime]

So morals are relative and moreover, they are dependant on personal circumstances. I bet some/most(?) people would fly the plane into the larger city, as long as their family is saved.

Where does that leave biblical morals by the way? What about Jesus who says: You can't do a greater thing than sacrifice your life for your friend. Is this so? I think this is a silly saying, it only goes in very special circumstances, but not in everyday life.

[Peter van Velzen]

this has little to do with crime and punishment. This is a moral dilemma and (the) guilt accompanying it.

On the subject of not (ever) killing a fellow human, under what circumstances could you end up killing a person?

You fly a plane, it goes down, and control is extremly limited. Now, you as the pilot, could manage the plane from a city (with many more casualties) to a village (obviously fewer casualties), only in that village your family lives, or your lover .....

I think the pilot in reality would try and land in between. (this example is bound to have an in between), but this ecxample also shifts the focus to the question of bias.

The original fat-man problem is a problem of intent. At least that is what most philosophers think. The fat man is no acquaintance nevertheless his death is less acceptable than the death of the man walking on the alternative track. I maintain our inborn morals are working just fine here, and we should consider it logical. Many philosophers however act like strawman vulcans and consider it not logical.

[MoreTime]

@Peter van Velzen:
What would you do if the person that could stop the train was a relative, say your wife?
Or in a similar problem where the choice is between many people you don't know or someone you do know/love? Is there such a thing as a right decision here?

If you'd choose for the mass of people, you'd be a hero...but your wife is dead. If you chose for your wife, wouldn't you feel egoistic later or be branded as an egoist by the press? Like the captain who saves his own skin?

[Peter van Velzen]

@Peter van Velzen:
What would you do if the person that could stop the train was a relative, say your wife?
Or in a similar problem where the choice is between many people you don't know or someone you do know/love? Is there such a thing as a right decision here?

If you'd choose for the mass of people, you'd be a hero...but your wife is dead. If you cgh as much ashose for your wife, wouldn't you feel egoistic later or be branded as an egoist by the press? Like the captain who saves his own skin?

Again the problem of personal bias was not what I intended to debate. If my wife was walking on the track that would - I think - make a difference - but if you put her in place of the fat man, I would only be a hero when I jumped of the bridge myself. (As you van see the fat man problem is a false biffurcation)

Surely if the captain of the Costa Concordia had put his wife in the lifeboat, no one would have blamed him. His egoism is not the point, but the lack of performing his duty. He would only be blamed for saving his wife if she had been the captain!

Why are you so interessted in the difference between strangers and kin,
and not in the difference between pushing a button and deadly assaullt?

[MoreTime]

Ok, so let's concentrate on the pushing the button or deadly assault.
In the experiment, the vast majority of people were sure about the switch, making them utalitarians, but very unsure about pushing the fat man, because that would constitute in murdering someone personally.

What I read on the web, some people assume that it has something to do with different psychological/neural systems. The one responding to 'the more people saved the better' and the other is a more emotional system responding negatively to pushing someone to his death.

What's more to be said about this? Only that right/wrong are no absolutes.
Is it right to start a preemptive war that could save thousands of lives at home? Maybe not, but many times decisions like that have been made!

[Peter van Velzen]

Ok, so let's concentrate on the pushing the button or deadly assault.
In the experiment, the vast majority of people were sure about the switch, making them utalitarians, but very unsure about pushing the fat man, because that would constitute in murdering someone personally.

What I read on the web, some people assume that it has something to do with different psychological/neural systems. The one responding to 'the more people saved the better' and the other is a more emotional system responding negatively to pushing someone to his death.

What's more to be said about this? Only that right/wrong are no absolutes.
Is it right to start a preemptive war that could save thousands of lives at home? Maybe not, but many times decisions like that have been made!

I have tried to argue that the difference in this case is of importance. For two reasons.In real life the odds differ. And pushing the fat man, would probably be worse than pulling the switch. Moreover, the act of pushing the fat man by itself is a crime. Whereas pulling the switch by itself is neutral.

Thus the idea that our innate morals would not be logical is really a thinking error. In most cases they are really superior to any attempt of utilitarian reasoning, while ignoring this innate predisposition.

This doesn't mean such a crime could not be considered justifiable homicide under any circumstance. But one has to consider more than just the harm done. The trust people have in each other is also at stake. And maybe - because this would affect billions - that is worth the sacrifice of several people.

Kant's categorical imperative comes to mind.

[HenkM]

this has little to do with crime and punishment. This is a moral dilemma and (the) guilt accompanying it.

On the subject of not (ever) killing a fellow human, under what circumstances could you end up killing a person?

You fly a plane, it goes down, and control is extremly limited. Now, you as the pilot, could manage the plane from a city (with many more casualties) to a village (obviously fewer casualties), only in that village your family lives, or your lover .....

I think the pilot in reality would try and land in between. (this example is bound to have an in between), but this ecxample also shifts the focus to the question of bias.

The original fat-man problem is a problem of intent. At least that is what most philosophers think. The fat man is no acquaintance nevertheless his death is less acceptable than the death of the man walking on the alternative track. I maintain our inborn morals are working just fine here, and we should consider it logical. Many philosophers however act like strawman vulcans and consider it not logical.

You re an escape artist, Peter. Given the choices, what would you choose. To do nothing is also a choice, of course, but that has the result of a crash on the city.
You may also argue that it may crash on a church, or even cathedral, in which case not much harm is done.
You, the pilot, will be dead anyway.

[MoreTime]

[cut]I have tried to argue that the difference in this case is of importance. For two reasons.In real life the odds differ.[cut]

In some cases that may be so, but not always. There are situations where you have the choice between the options given in these examples. They can also be options forced upon a person. The choice then is again between saving the maximum number of people or saving the individual, no matter what the reason may be.
It's the option between two evils. Which is the lesser evil depends on the view you take.

The "landing in between" is not always an option I think.

[Peter van Velzen]

You re an escape artist, Peter. Given the choices, what would you choose. To do nothing is also a choice, of course, but that has the result of a crash on the city.
You may also argue that it may crash on a church, or even cathedral, in which case not much harm is done.
You, the pilot, will be dead anyway.

I am no escape artist and may well fly the plane into a building. But real pilots would in actual circumstances try to evade buildings and put the plane down in an open area. Cities and villages contain roads and squares, villages are mostly surrounded by farmland of woods. Forcing the idea of a city a village and no roads squares parks or farmland, is really very artificial.

The pilot will in all instances mainly try and land somewhere where passenger or crew will have a higher chance of survival. That means the city will be evaded, But I wonder whether the fate of the people living there would be his main concern, as his responsibility is first of all passengers and crew.

Last but not least. You are not omniscient. Whether the pilot dies in the crash is not decided until after the crash. The pretense of the philosophizer that he can predict all possible outcomes, creates a universe in which we do not live. Thus the example becomes irrelevant for the universe in which we do.