The Trolley Problem

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:21:13 -0500

An ethics thought problem:

There is a runaway trolley barreling 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 the trolley kills 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 correct choice?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 9:45 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:45:26 -0500

- Yell to the one person on the other track to get off the track.

- Pull the lever and divert the train.

- Save the day!

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 5 at 2014 12:37 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:37:50 -0500

How much work will it be for me?
http://xkcd.com/1455/

xkcd: Trolley Problem

Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Dec 5 at 2014 12:48 PM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:48:40 -0500

My split second, no time to evaluate choice- life is life. One is less than five. The end.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 2:13 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:13:00 -0500

Let's change it up:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 5 at 2014 2:37 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:37:53 -0500

A few points to the above question.
- The correct answer depends upon what philosophy and what world view the person making the decision has.
- Skepticism. The position which questions the possibility of completely justifying any truth. Therefore any answer is the wrong answer.
- Rationalism. Emphasis on reasoning as a source of knowledge. Therefore any answer is the right answer as long as a logical thought process is followed.
- Empiricism. Emphasis on observational evidence via sensory experience over other evidence as the source of knowledge. Therefore look for other options than the two sighted.
- Ethics (concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live). Therefore choose the option that one can best live with.
- Realism (belief that some aspect of our reality is ontologically independent of our conceptual beliefs) and Logic (study of principles of correct reasoning). Better to kill one person than to allow five people to be killed.
Therefore the military answer to your question is METT-TC. It depends.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 6:47 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:47:39 -0500

Taking both instances into account here is what comes to mind, and I did have to take a nap for this, my thoughts were not clear earlier:

In either instance, one is faced with a moral dilemma and what does life mean to you. Do you save one or the five or all? In the Star Trek movie 'The Wrath of Khan', there was a pivotal moment when Spock says "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", in which Kirk replies "or the one". Acting logically and acting human can be at odds, contradictory is more appropriate. We all experience emotion and it all varies on each individual experiences, but our emotions are based on our values, morals & ethics. Ethics are what we consider what's accepted in general principle. Morally, our actions can good or bad, right or wrong and how about indifferent. Our values depends on our standards of what is more important vs what is more valuable?

In the The Voyage Home (1986), while to trying to save Chekov, Kirk asks Spock, “Is this the logical thing to do?” Spock answers, “No, but it is the human thing to do.” Here, Spock suggests that sometimes we must do the “human” thing, not the logical thing.

(1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
I could be the villain and leave the lever since not everyone appreciates what you do. I can minimize emotion and guilt, be indifferent in fact. If I did pull the lever, then I'm one responsible for those deaths. In this day and age, the courts can send you to jail, I could be stretching it but it's not far fetched. Could you live with all the media coverage if you did save the five lives, maybe be a hero in a sense? You did the best you could under all the circumstances but you know there's that one that isn't going to be satisfied because you could't save all of them. Do you pull that lever or attempt to find an alternative method, no matter the choice, someone is going to die inevitably.

(2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
If I get to choose, if it is better that 1 or 5 people die, when I have no connection to any of them. To me the choice is obvious, sacrifice the one. Does pulling the lever save five lives? Yes. However I have no way of knowing if those people wanted to be saved or if they were the most vile creatures on earth and their deaths would be of no consequence anyways.

One could argue that morally saving 5 lives vs the 1 was the better decision, however sacrificing the one fat guy to save all, I bet you'll find that one a bit harder to digest.

In case of the 1 or 5 on the track or the fat guy, the event is happening independently of myself. I am not responsible for this event nor I did not cause it. I can live with the fact that a horrible, tragic event took place, but I couldn't live with the fact I knowingly caused the death of another human being. There's a reason why the chain of events are happening, who am I to change that outcome? To kill someone is immoral or let someone die is immoral, so either choice is wrong. Could you sleep better at night knowing 1 or 5 lived? The minute I intervene is that moment, I make myself personally involved in the tragedy.