Trolley Problem & Ethics

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

There are a few of these, so I'll just copy+paste the basics. If you want a more in depth explanation, visit that link.

The problem is this:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?


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 dropping a heavy weight 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?


A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.


So what would you do and why?

 

It is,obviously, a very interesting and difficult topic. In my opinion, although you would save more lives, you do not have a right to directly kill the "victim" without his consent.

 

That's sort of how I feel too. I think while objectively it is better to kill one person than it is to kill five, I still would rather have no part in any of the deaths.
It's a tough question though.

 

Scenario 1: Buttons are tempting. And people's lives don't honestly matter to me, so I'd push the button/switch anyways.

Scenario 2: The fat man lived a good and [un]healthy life. If the trolley doesnt kill him, the cardiac arrest will. Might as well put him out of his misery.

Scenario 3: No... The doctor would be the last person to have any type of secret contact with the man. Of course you would suspect the doctor... This is a horrible example. The man lives, the patients, just like many others, die.

Thats life... Not everyone can live. If they did, the world would be even more overpopulated than it already is. Its a natural system of checks and balances.

 

The logical answer is to minimize deaths in all scenarios. Press the switch, push the fatty, kill the young man.

I'd probably fail to act in the second and third scenarios even though that is what would give the best outcomes.

 

Thats following ethics and being ethical... If there are 2 old men and 1 young man, and either the 2 old ones needed to be killed, or the 1 young one would die. Naturally the first thing you would do is minimize the death. But think, the old men will be dead within a few years time anyways.

 

There are a few of these, so I'll just copy+paste the basics. If you want a more in depth explanation, visit that link.


Senario 1 : I would Push the switch because If I dont 5 will die.

Senario 2 : No I wouldnt push him Because It not his fault that The trolley is going to crash.

senario 3 : Investigators Would eventually track it down to him , the young healthy man did nothing wrong why should he have to die.

 

Posted my answers in your quote.

 

Scenario 1: It's impossible to please everyone. In this situation the logical decision is to push the button decreasing the amount of deaths. This was the most obvious answer of all three- you can't be a superhero.

Scenario 2: Again, it's too difficult to know how many people's lives you may save. I might do it if I knew I could save multiple lives, but I would be held accountable; likely going to jail- you can't just throw someone in front of a trolley to hopefully save a few lives, it's just illogical and would never happen.

Scenario 3: You can't expect someone to offer his life to save five others whom he had no prior contact with just because he has the matching blood types. In this scenario I'm inferring that we are the doctor, in this case, no I would not kill the man to save the others lives- this is a ludicrous statement. You have to attempt to stay morally proper and it's likely that the patients won't survive anyways: as many patients don't.

I didn't really think these questions were difficult to answer nor did I find myself pondering at multiple outcomes. On a logically proper basis, these answers can all be derived easily such as following the law and staying somewhat morally correct.

 

I won't go into as much detail on nr 1 and 2 as I will go on nr 3.

1: I would probably flip the switch, 5 better than 1. It's sad for that 1 person, but it's for a greater good. (Note: that is not always a right decision)

2: I would try to look for something else, but I would not push the fat man in front of the trolley, since I am against killing people. I am not responsible for the deaths of the five others since I had no other option.

3: This situation occurs every day. There are alot of people who need new organs. The problem is, that there are not enough donors. People die every day because they need new organs. If there is nothing that can be done, they have to die. It's wrong to kill an innocent person, because other people are going to die. Also, I also think that this is against the Hippocratic Oath doctors have to follow.

 

1. I believe that nobody can make decision who will die and who not, so I'll let it go the way it has

2. Can't see difference between 1 and 2

3. I would not like to meet that doctor, in my opinion he should wait for 1st to die, then use his organs

 

It sounds right to save 5 people over one person, but I just imagine myself being the one guy to be killed and it's messed up, it's a hard decision.

 

I don't see how you are being logically consistent here.
The train is going to hit the 5 people in the first scenario. If you hit the switch, it will instead go and kill 1 person instead. How is it that 1 guys fault that the trolley is going to hit the 5, like you stated in your answer to the second scenario?
Basically I'm asking what do you see are the differences between each case? I don't see how you can say it is ok to sacrifice 1 person to save 5 in the first case, but not in the second or third.

 

I agree, there are inconsistencies in your answers of one and two. If you're not going to push the obese man onto the track because it's not his fault, then why are you flipping the switch and killing the one person tied to the track in the first scenario when it's blatantly not their fault either.

 

Women and Children first.

 

Minimize death count on all occasions, I would take 1 life than 5.

 

1. Id flip it just to save some more lives, Unless they are terrible people then id let it run them over.
2. Id push him probably.
3.Probably just kill the guy and take the organs.

 

In scenario 1 - Death is Inevitable in both choices, so naturally i'd have to choose the switch, it would be uncomfortable decision but it would be "for the best"

In Scenario 2 - It depends by how Fat/Unhealthy the man is, if he is Severely overweight, with Heart Disease or some other form of Life-depreciating Factor, I'd most likely choose to "roll him over the edge" so to speak

In Scenario 3 - Thats a hard one, Im guessing the transplants would be to their own decisions in life, so No i would choose the latter of the choice.

 

I know that your all posting logical answers but what if the 1 was your dad? and you had no history with the other five. what would you do?

 

There are many ways this could be spun. If the single person tied to the track were 10 years old, and the other 5 were senior citizens, then I would not pull the switch, and would let 5 people die in the place of 1. Similarly, I might push the fat man if I figured him to be at a high risk for a heart attack anyway.

I'm not a sociopath, though, so if I answered the question generically, with all its vagueness, I'd pull the switch, wouldn't push the fat man, and wouldn't kill the traveler (though I might ask him to sign an organ donor slip before leaving >.>)

Those are the 'right' answers, as taught in psychology. You're supposed to be willing to save more people when possible, but not if you have to break societal rules to do so. Hence, you can pull a switch, but you can't push a man onto the tracks, even though you're at fault for one death either way.