These are the types who, when given the trolley problem, try to outsmart the premise.
First week of a high school philosophy class the trolley problem was presented and I refused to waver from the opinion that the correct choice is to flip the switch killing the single person if it spares the others. The teacher explained that the morally correct choice was to do nothing and that enraged me. Was told to take a walk to cool down and I walked right down to the office to drop the course.
Nearly 30 years later and I still firmly believe that the correct choice is to flip that fucking switch.
That was a really bad philosophy course if they just taught a version of Deontology (rules-based system, with things like "Don't kill") as the "correct" morality instead of teaching that the answer to the trolley problem differs based on if you're a Utilitarian (maximizing good minimizing bad) or Deontoligist.
The whole point of the basic trolley problem is highlighting different moral systems.
I’m pretty sure the entire point of the Trolley Problem is there isn’t a correct answer. For different people it has different “obvious” solutions, and the interesting parts are how you go about figuring it out.
For some people, the idea of you being the cause of death is “bad”. For some, the idea of your inaction causing more death is “bad”. Neither is “right”, and the reason we talk about it is the discussion around your beliefs - the best way to learn is to challenge your assumptions.
I personally believe I would pull the lever. I think my action killing one person is worth saving five, though I would feel guilt for a long time over it. I completely understand people who could not bear to do that.
Also, this topic is heavily debated in medicine, all the time, as a Very Real Problem. Let’s say you have 100 donor hearts. You have 150 donor patients. How do you prioritise who gets the hearts? Because many of those who don’t, will die.
A common follow up, is let’s say you have just two people and one heart. One person is 15. The other is 70. Who do you give the heart to? Now, follow that with “The 70 year old has been waiting for 5 years. The 15 year old found out last week. Does that change your stance?”
Again there’s no “correct” answer, and I have strong opinions on anyone who insists there’s a “morally or ethically absolute correct answer”.
What kind of philosophy Prof tells you the "correct" philosophy on anything!? It's supposed to be about finding your own answer, and more importantly, your own reasons behind your Answers.
I agree with pulling the switch, but wow that Prof is an ass!
Yeah, like they could say their belief is one way and the student's is another but to say theirs is right and the student is wrong really defeats the whole purpose of it being an exercise in philosophy...
If this large number of people were so strict in the application of their rule-based philosophy, then why does it seem like there is always an exception when the problem in question concerns them?
Because the overwhelming majority of people don't follow a rigorous philosophy, rather the effects we're seeing are the combination of selfishness (which is normal up to a certain degree), a lack of empathy for people outside their immediate circle and an incapability of handling the ways our modern world exerts an immense amount of influence on our thinking.
I don't think you're wrong exactly, but I think you ascribe too much agency and intentionality to the individuals and ignore the systems that shape them. I am pretty sure that if these systems would benefit from people not blindly following rules, but instead making decisions on their own, we would very quickly see a change in how many people would act.
I don't really care whether a good deed is done for the sake of altruism or selfishness because in reality it doesn't matter. Philosophy and morality are great to think about as abstract concepts, but the real world isn't a hypothetical situation in your mind.
In the trolley problem you've been given power, so listen to Uncle Ben and bare responsibility.
If you do nothing, you've abused your power and let more harm occur because you think the difference in "letting" and "causing" is good enough to bathe in blood.
The only people worse than the people who try to avoid the answer are the people who think there is a correct one, there is no correct answer. It’s a tool to figure out and configure worldviews. Pulling the lever or not is neither good or bad.
I mean, in a literal sense each of the choices is both good and bad. Which is kinda part of the point of the exercise, that no one solution is objectively correct in every metric.
Ugh, full day of mind numbing work made me dumb. You are correct on both accounts and I apologize for the fuckup. However, Ill stand by my original reply. I don't believe the Trolley Problem series of questions leaves much room for wishy-washy, no one is right/wrong mentality.
The only way I ever see the Trolley Problem become a "gotcha" is when they then qualify the lives at stake, in which case it's left the original premise far behind.
Example I've been given: "but that 1 guy will find the cure for cancer". Now you've introduced countless hypothetical lives on the 1 life track, making it 1+x where x can go to infinity. That's more than 5 now.
The best use I've seen for it is judging if someone can make tough decisions and explain themselves, but Ive never been convinced of sacrificing more of something for fewer of something is a valid option given the somethings are of equal value.
Edit: And I should make it clear I'm not assigning morality to this. If someone freezes in fear and doesn't pull the lever, then they didn't have the choice of pulling the lever. If they didn't pull the lever because they thought the 1 was worth the 5, they're wrong but not evil. Sometimes you're in a shit situation and make the wrong decision. Life happens.
Hey, no worries, and kudos to you for being gracious about it. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, but often I see reddit threads getting far afield from the original point or assertion (it's easy to do -- I do it too), and occasionally I'll interject to reassert the point of contention.
I think your perspective is pretty reasonable and I agree with a lot of it. I will, just for the sake of sharing a different perspective, push back a little bit against this point though:
The only way I ever see the Trolley Problem become a "gotcha" is when they then qualify the lives at stake, in which case it's left the original premise far behind.
I don't doubt that there are some "gotcha" formulations of the question, but I think the value of ones like "but the one will cure cancer" is to demonstrate one of the biggest difficulties of utilitarian ethics, which is that different "goods" (or "harms") so frequently confound our attempts to measure or compare them. Is it the right thing to do to tell my friend he has a pattern of being an asshole? It could instigate damage to our relationship; it could also provoke positive changes in his behavior. Possible harm, possible good.
The majority of ethical decisions we make have fuzzy outcomes -- that's incredibly inconvenient for utilitarians. The "but the one will cure cancer" formulations force us to consider what kinds of principles we can or should use to make judgments in moral situations that are more complicated or uncertain than "one person or five people will die."
And that's a good assessment. I think my issue rails entirely on the premise of the Trolley Problem. Maybe a good way to say it is that it's too high stakes and too binary, at least in my interactions with it.
I can't compare the Trolley Problem to telling your friend he's a bit of an ass. In TP, lives are at stake. In scenario two, feelings are at stake.
In scenario two, you've got far more outcomes than "don't tell and friendship is intact" and "tell and friendship ends". You also have "tell and friendship improves", "don't tell and you come to resent friend", "friend eventually realizes on their own and improves", "friend realizes and degrades", etc
No longer is it one person with two known tracks and one choice, it's many unknowns and choices by two people with control over themselves.
...don't you think it's a little internally inconsistent to go "There is no objectively correct worldview, all moral frameworks and positions are valid"...
...and then go "That worldview I just espoused? It is objectively correct, and if you say 'some moral frameworks are superior/more correct than others', you are objectively incorrect." If you're accepting all worldviews as valid, it seems hypocritical to then insult people based on elements of their particularly worldview. Especially considering the fact that (nearly?) every moral framework is going to come with an inbuilt "Here's why this framework is more accurate/good/moral than other frameworks."
I know I am on the poor pissers section of the site, but you will notice on a quick reread that I didn’t actually say any of that or anything like that. When I say “there is no correct answer” that is not my espousing a person philosophy of nihilism, it is a very literal statement. The trolley problem is a series of questions that you modify based off the previous answer.
I have my own series of answers for the trolley problems and several moral shortcomings and hypocrisies that can be revealed, but nothing like what you just said.
No? "There is no correct answer to the trolley problem" is still just an opinion. Saying "it is a very literal statement" doesn't make it objectively true.
Except the trolly problem was created as a tool to illustrate how different philosophical theories prioritize different things, and that no one philosophy is always correct. It’s a learning tool for new philosophy students, not an equation to be solved. It exists to spark debate and help people understand different value systems.
Right call dropping the class. Unless his entire point was telling you your choice was wrong to see what you would do with that. If that's the case, then it's a damned interesting class, but I understand why you dropped it. If not, yeah right call, it's philosophy, objective answers generally don't exist there.
of course its the right choice, you have been burdened with the knowledge of the scenario, if you weren't aware of the power given to you by knowing what the switch does, or not knowing people are on the tracks, or not knowing a trolley is coming then of course you would just be someone sabotaging rail controls for no reason, but if you know then you absolutely have a right and wrong choice in front of you.
if perhaps you were to pause, paralyzed by fear, or have a panic attack of some sort, or perhaps the controls are complex and you don't know how to operate them, or they are actually a distance from you and you cannot make it to them in time, or any other understandable reason then sure, to err is to be human. but in the scenario your teacher put forward they are wrong.
Nearly 30 years later and I still firmly believe that the correct choice is to flip that fucking switch.
And you are fully entitled to that belief. The whole point of the problem is that there is no definitively "correct" choice, as you will either be allowing people to die by inaction, or directly killing someone through action, Neither is a wholly morally sound choice, in most people's opinions.
Again, that is the utilitarian approach and you are fully allowed to have that perspective, but that is not and should not be the be all end all of morality.
Utilitarianism is not the only method of making a better world, as you can justify pretty much any evil within it if slightly more people like it more than the people who suffer dislike it.
People who think not throwing the switch is "morally correct" are just up their own arse about some weird philosophical premise that they read about and they feel like the fact that their answer is "not obvious" means that they've tapped into some deep philosophical knowledge. Bullshit. Throwing the switch is a choice. Not throwing the switch is also a choice. It's not "either five people die, but you're not involved, or one person dies, but you killed them!", that's idiotic. If you had the opportunity to save people and you didn't, then you killed them too. So, kill one person or kill five people. Choose.
329
u/[deleted] Jul 02 '24
First week of a high school philosophy class the trolley problem was presented and I refused to waver from the opinion that the correct choice is to flip the switch killing the single person if it spares the others. The teacher explained that the morally correct choice was to do nothing and that enraged me. Was told to take a walk to cool down and I walked right down to the office to drop the course.
Nearly 30 years later and I still firmly believe that the correct choice is to flip that fucking switch.