1. if i'm the train driver i'll have to kill some one eather way - of course i'll chose the part when i'll make less victims or i'll simply jump off the train;
2. but on the second problem is not my fault that the train driver was unlucky i don't want to kill any body so i'll walk away because i can choose not to go to jail or to take the fat man's life on my consciousness; i don't think the law (or anybody) covers the part that i kill 1 to save 5...
None of the options offered could possibly survive the scrutiny of a court prosecution. The only morally sound thing to do in the two scenarios is abstain from action altogether. The trolly dilemma is nonsense, it offers no moral challenge specifically because ...
Pushing the fat unsuspecting man over the cliff to his death to save 5 equally innocent people is called homicide. Changing the tracks knowing that doing so will kill one person is called homicide. Killing one innocent to save another innocent is called murder. Where's the dillema?
As the trolley driver, I am not morally responsible. I was put into an impossible situation. I did not cause it. I would not push the fat man because then I would be the cause. this example tries to create confusion on the ethical level where you are trying to equate ethics to 'an innate moral sense'. ask yourself sometime, why is this situation a flawed example of ethics? when you do, you will be dealing closer with the metaphysical premisses you have chosen that define your ethics.
wouldn't the it be more so that the action is different to physically push the person means your interacting more yet hitting the switch is not in direct contake of the person its like pulling the trigger of a gun
Haha, interesting question. But in real life people pbb don't have enough of time to think or decide so the 5 will die.
I personally think the 2 scenarios aren't exactly the same. The 1st one, u have 2 choices, accidentally kill 5 or intentionally kill one. Also it's u who do it since u are on the trolley. While the second u either kill 1 or watching an accident that kill 5. Most people would choose 2
There is one major problem I see in this. I would say that I won't push the fat guy, because that would make me a murderer. It isn't the same as the first example because my education and society teaches me that murdering someone is wrong, and it's illegal. My history takes away the objectiveness of the whole thought experiment.
I'd push the fat man, but those are extremely strange circumstances. In a real situation, I could never quickly determine whether or not the fat man would fall on the track AND slow the trolley. Someone should come up with a similar problem that is easier to relate to.
@2Jax Innate moral sense was probably a poor choice of words on my part, especially since it's not exactly clear what that means. Intuitive sympathy and intuitive empathy are certainly large components of what I was trying to describe.
@CousinoMacul I've recently (very recently) tried to look into the sympathetic process and I'm not convinced sympathy is really an emotion but instead sympathy means to see someone's situation as if it was your own (for want of a better way of putting it). Sympathy causes an emotional response but the act of sympathy is a type of sense IMO. Sympathy is learnt at an early age as we're not born with it. This has been proven.
@CousinoMacul Ok maybe so. But I can't find a decent definition of sympathy. I'm not convinced it's an emotion in itself because when you sympathize with a situation it can cause you to have many different emotions and these emotions can be very different from the emotions of the people involved in that situation.
@2Jax The way I understand it, empathy is the ability to mentally put yourself in somebody else's position, while sympathy is more of an understanding of somebody else's position. The difference is subtle.
For example, if you see somebody crying and a part of you starts to feel sad for no other reason than that, that's empathy. If you read a news story about somebody who murdered their unfaithful spouse, and you understand what motivated them (even though you would never do that yourself), that's sympathy. There is significant overlap between the two, but there is a difference there.
@CousinoMacul I don't think feeling sad when you see someone cry for no reason is empathy. Feeling sad when you see someone crying might be an reaction like gagging when you see/hear someone throwing up. Empathy can be boiled down to: recognizing other beings have minds and feelings. Very young children have been shown to have no empathy yet they get upset if their mothers are crying.
@2Jax "Very young children have been shown to have no empathy" WHAT??? That's just nonsense. Of course young children have empathy, and so do many animals. A good book on the subject is "The Age of Empathy" by Frans de Waal.
@CousinoMacul By empathy I'm talking about the recognition of other people's minds. There is a test where a doctor hand a child a smarties tube. The child gets excited. The child then opens it to find a pencil. The pencil is replaced in the tube an the lid put on. The child's mother enters the room and the doctor asks the child "what will mummy think is in the tube" the child says "a pencil". The child doesn't recognize that his knowledge is different from his mother's. this is a lack of empathy
@2Jax I think that you're making the error of modalism--in other words, one either has empathy or doesn't have it. This approach is problematic. The better approach is to ask how much (or what degree of) empathy one has. I'm familiar with the above experiment but I don't see that as proof that young children don't have empathy, but rather it tries to determine at what age humans reach a particular threshold of empathy. I again recommend the de Waal book; it's well worth reading.
@CousinoMacul I don't think empathy is like an on/off switch. But I think there is a point of development where empathy starts. But then autism has a lot to do with a lack of empathy. Severely autistic people recognize no minds at all in people. And my original point was a child getting upset at their mother crying might not be a show of empathy but an innate reflex like the gag reflex. This reflex could carry on to later life.
@CousinoMacul There is a documentary that I saw a few years ago where a professor showed the development of empathy in healthy and autistic children. It showed experiments to show where measurable empathy starts. The pencil test was one of many. I wish I could remember the name of the bloody documentary or the name of the professor but names don't stick in my head.
The reason that pushing a fat man in front of a trolly is worse than choosing to run over a bound man is that it would have been your original idea to do so. In the first case, the mad man gave you the option of 5 or 1. His goal is obviously to get you to kill the 1. He was manipulating your moral code. The situation was made for you. in the second case, you are choosing to get involved. The madman would not have planned for you to intervene.
Would be interesting to see what people developing in different environments would choose when confronted with the same dilemma. Whether different environments during development alter their morals away from the social norm. Such as those familiar with violence and/or abuse. I found your video very interesting and like how you simplified the study of this problem. Thankyou.
nah nevermind. i thought about it more..i would totally pull the lever and probably push the fat man, because he was already looking at the violence down below, so it probably wouldn't bother me if i killed him, especially if it saved 5 people.
LOL! You're totally allowed to change your answer. It wouldn't be called a moral dilemma is the "solution" was obvious to everyone. And honestly, I'm less interested in hearing what people think they would do as I am in hearing (or reading, technically) them explain why.
I'm gonna fave this video so all my friends can check it out. Cause this is some interesting shit to think about. I probably would just walk away in both situations, because then the people dying would not necessarily be a direct result of me, because I wouldn't have done a thing...But I dunno. It's still a really difficult decision, even if it is hypothetical.
What is it that you say at 6:28-6:31? No I'm not messing with you. Can't come up with anything senseful so please, clarify. ..... Some say ignorance is a bliss, but this is annoying the **** out of me. I keep replaying it.
Yeah society definitely sees it different. Pushing the fatman to save the people would be similar to assinating a political figure who will be responsible for thoughsands or millions of people dying.
in the 5 or 1 situation its obvious the wizard wanted you to make a decision with da 6 tide up, so your forced in that situation (seem justified). however with the fatman your not. you wouldn't interfere. if u wanted to be a hero you could sacrifice yourself (kinda foolish) , but you would'nt, but if u sacrifice da fatman, your conscious might say "who are u, to be able to mess wit peoples lives like that/ wat makes u more important." (seems wrong) I dunno tho just my views
You're right. For all you know, by killing the fat man, you might set up a chain of events that would result in TEN or THIRTY people dying. Or who knows? Maybe the lives that you save would result in a huge increase in overpopulation a hundred years from now that would destroy the planet once and for all.
You can't be sure what the right thing to do is, so why put yourself through the emotional strain?
The answer to the trolley problem is actually very obvious
do nothing.your moral suggest to kill the fat dude for the greater good.but your moral is not your own.you are nothing but a reflection of the moral that your society put in your head when you had no critical thought over it.
My favorite variation of this is "If there are 5 people about to die if they don't get organ transplants, all needing different organs, and a healthy dude walks in, do you rip him open and take his organs?"
Good video, but I have to say I disagree with the conclusion. I believe Sam Harris is right. We should be willing to torture if we are willing to fight modern warfare. Not being willing to do it is deeply wasteful and counterproductive.
Like the scienceblog article you linked mentions, the inhibitory action that occurs when you plan motor movements with the intent to kill is a deep animalistic restraint circuit. I don't think it makes sense to listen to it when the cost of doing so is high.
Anyway, those are classic "does the end justify the means" questions. People reason differently about them, and I guess it may be good that we do. Relying solely on the animalistic mechanism can lead to some absolutely horrific consequences, as Sam Harris demonstrates. At the same time, purely rational decisions would lead to a lot of killing.
This may sound cold, but here is how I see it. I would not push the fat man, I figure that those five individuals have already anticipated their demise where-as the fat man would have not seen his fate coming had he been pushed. But it does make you think. . .
but if the 5 people were all serial killers than the equation changes completly because those the 5 were killers and there other one is a perfect a+ student than no would kill her to save them which changed it completly and not knowing if they are bad persons can also change it so most people wouldnt touch the switch out of fear killing the 5 strangers cause no one is inocent
When I first heard this problem the first time it was slightly diffrent you saw it from a bridge there is a lever and a fork, five people on one side and a little girl on the other but it's all estentially the same.
Surely if it is the same for the victim, it is equally wrong. I would agree, not preventing someones death, and actively causing it, are worlds apart. But, I would suggest dendro has misssed a very importnt point; we are actively causing deaths. BY turning on your pc. or tv, or boiler, or buying clothes, or adoing anything, we are indulging in luxuries that actively deter peoples ability to survive. The same as a hitman deters someones ability to survive. It's just not as direct.
It's not a realistic situation. It does matter because how you face conflicts and dilemmas in your everyday life is reflected in how you respond to this hypothetical situation.
True but still in both situations you have a choice of taking a life or taking many lives. I just don't see either option as a right one. I'd just stand and watch.
Even if you had the opportunity to save basically the whole planet versus one man?
For example, you work in a Russian nuclear missile launch pad and with you there is one fucknut, who works as a janitor, but has obtained the launch codes.
So you're late at work and see this janitor entering the codes in the system, to launch all the missiles to every country, which has a nuclear weapons program.
He is quite far away and the only safe option is to shoot him in the head. Would you do it?
I believe that everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen, has been decided way before by some higher force (God or something alike) so me interfering with things that don't directly involve me would be going against it.
I'll just stand and watch, even if I die along with many other ppl. Shiet, I got nothing against dying, we all gatta go sometime
It's not how long we lived but how we lived.
If the faith of the world is to due that day, then so be it.
Dude, that was disturbing. If there is a higher plan, how would you know that your role wasn't part of it? Maybe you killing the person was part of the plan. The point of a higher plan is that no matter what you do, it was part of the plan. You can't "interfere" with the plan.
I don't know my destiny, nor do I want to. But I know that I should save people. Not by saving their material bodys from getting destroyed, but to save their souls.
haha did say "On June 19th, get on youtube, visit 'watch?v=5ux9vEqS6BM&feature=related' and comment 'Have a pre scripted diary, I just go along with anything.'" ?
Me too. Also, I would not torture or drop the bombs.
I might, however, choose youtube over maniacal attempts to save lives, regardless of where I would fall on the assassin question should anyone ever offer me money to kill.
Here is a assassin question for you and ever one watching this video. Would you assassinated Barack Obama for 100 million dollars? You would fuck up American politics for the rest of time and destroy American racial harmony but you would be 100 million dollars richer what would you do?
I would definitely choose the one person in the original problem, as would most.
I would also choose the one man leaning over the rail. This was a tough decision, but I feel that however horribly empathetic I might be, it is still to save 5 people who are just as innocent. Since society is stupid, I would go to jail, but I would at least know that I saved 5 lives at the expense of one.
The general stance in neuroscience is that morality comes from empathy. And that empathy comes from 1) mirror neurons in the brain and 2) brain structures dedicated to collective intentionality.
The very idea of pushing a person to their death, for whatever reason, stirs empathy in most people. Whereas pulling a lever stirs no empathy because the action itself does not involve "putting yourself in someone else shoes" so to speak.
The people tied to the tracks all ready know that they are in substantial risk of death and may know that the group or the other tied up must die. Therefore when the train runs them over, they will have no blame for the train operator. The fat man can decide for himself if he wants to help, but the man next to him should not decide for him
The thing is, when you say "fat man" you give a property to that person, so it makes it feel more like real. If you ask those questions to the people with explaining the characteristics, at least the way they look, then it happens to be more practical then theoretical question.
This is a very interesting problem. The way i see it, this dillemma is a lose-lose situation either way. However if you decide to take action, you end up saving a difference of four people (5 innocent ppl minus 1 other innocent person). Also, i think that both sides of the brain would percieve this problem differently. For example, the quantity value of killing the one person would be seen as the best choice in the left brain while maybe a more moral kill the 5 people ready to die in the right
It's the ONUS of murder. If you pull the switch, you make a quantity choice cause someone's gonna die on the tracks. I know, the next paragraph will answer your objection.
The fat guy was not in the direct path of death. The murder of the fat person requires inducing new murderous terror at your own hands. No one tied to the tracks knows who's going to die yet, so both the group and the individual are in an equivalent state of terror.
This should be obvious if you weren't so smug with it.
The proposition in itself requires smugness to convey it's point. If you dispassionately deconstruct the events that happened, you will have a very different list of responsibility attributions.
If a person pushes the innocent heavy person over the railing, they have committed an original murder. If they change the course of a train, they are minimizing inevitable murder.
It really is childish to act like it makes some point about moral paradox which only appears on the undisturbed surface.
I would run over the 5 people, you had no controll over placing them there, intentionally killing one man is murder. Pushing a fat guy over the ledge is murder.
It comes down to A) Take a loss and realize it was an accident or B) murder.
The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, we are forced to decide whether 1 person or 5 people die. We are the only person in direct control of the outcome. In the second, we are a spectator asked to choose for another spectator whether or not to sacrifice his life to save other people. Our decision to not choose for him does not preclude him from choosing for himself.
"Evolution may reward survival, but it doesn't care about you and it puts no intrinsic value on human life."
Evolution is about survival of the genes, which can only happen when the species itself survives. That is why concepts such as group cooperation and altruism evolved, because they are beneficial to the survival of the species (and therefore the genes).
"The value we have for life comes wholly from our innate moral sense."
I think it is wrong to take action which you know would cause a person to die, who otherwise would survive if U didnt take action. Of course you can ask permission of the person and if the agrees to die, U can take action to cause the persons death. I think it is ethically more wrong to cause a persons death than to not save one or more persons. In a situation where any way some one has to die, I will not take specific action to cause a persons death, who therwise would have survived.
i like the way you broke down the question whether you kill the fat man to save lifes or you keep the fat man but you dont save the lives....but who said those 5 lives were your responsability....couldnt you just ignore it and walk away with some guilt in you that will hopefully ware off
At the end you are right it's not even close. Now on to the trolley problem, I would make the decision to save the greater amount of people. I would push the fat guy off the bridge, because if I didn't I'd be essentialy killing five people instead of one. Then again I do say this from behind a computer screen towards a hypothetical situation, so who knows what anyone would actually do. They should make it harder and say that the other person on the tracks is your mom or dad or something.
No, I am saying that it is more nobel to save the five people and let the other person die. And how can you even compair a poker tournament to someones life??
You made an unqualified value statement. Moral values are not "naked" or absolute. They depend on contex and situation. Unqualified value statements are nonsense and tend to indicate somebodey who hasn't thought through all of the ramifications. My poker example was to show the absurdity of applying your standard across the board.
You shouldn't get offended every time somebody points out a weakness in your moral value system (all our systems have weaknesses); that's what fundamentalists do.
You are not responsible for your actions because everything has already been determined.
Therefore in a situation like the trolley problem it doesn't matter what choice you take, because the choice you will take has already been determined.
Also there is one thing. In this scenario nothing is certain, actually nothing is 100% certain, only thing that is certain is that there will be events of actions.
id push the fat man.. he is fat.. im anti fat peopel to tell ya the truth.. he also is mindless fool tryin to get a good angle onn the ppl dyin. and id also push the switch i guess.. why not??
to me, I would maybe switch the trolley because it seems much more sure that the people would be saved, than pushing a fat man on the tracks- to me it seems to be far out of ordinary to be able to land a fat man on the tracks and for the fat man to be able- if he did land on the tracks- to actually be enough to stop the train. You see, there are too many ifs there, and in the short amount of time to even decide, the train would probably be finished with it all.
Most people would do neither. That means no switch would be flicked nor would a fat man be pushed. Either action would make the person flicking the switch or pushing the fat man guilty of murder. I disagree that "most people would pull the switch" to make the trolley switch tracks. You flick the switch , you're guilty of murder, so you won't do it.
That's not what the empirical evidence says. Studies have been done and 89% of people think pulling the switch is the moral action and 11% think that pushing the fat man is the moral action.
That's interesting, mainly because in both situations you mentioned you are physically altering the situation (by flicking the switch or pushing the fatman). While when you do nothing, that's just what it is, you do nothing.
So is it not then, that the real issue is what you perceive to have higher value moralistically speaking: the life of 1 person or the lives of 5?
The beauty of ethical dilemmas (IMO) is that you're the one who is forced to decide what the real issue is (though not totally because the poser of the dilemma tries to constrain the variables). The issue (in my mind) is that in one situation, you're directly killing somebody to save five, and in the other you're doing something that indirectly leads to one death, but saves five.
The question is: Do YOU think that there's a difference?
Man, looking at these responses, I see a lot of common words like, "good" and "bad," or "good" and "evil". Terms like that are subjective and, in the real world, where we live, there is no such thing. And, as far as I am concerned, there is no intrinsic value to human life, so the "which lives are worth more" dilemma is lost on me. In both scenerios, I would let the five people die because it was by fate that the fat man was there in the 2nd and what if there was no choice to be made in the 1st?
You make it sound like it's the same problem, but in my current state of mind it isn't.
The first problem is simple, I know how a switch works, and I say I would pull it.
The second problem however indicates more thought process. Because I have to imagine myself being in another state of mind. I have to think that if I push the fat guy over the bridge he will stop the train before it reaches the five people, if I imagine that I would say push the fat guy,
But me being me, I can't imagine that being possible, it's too unrealistic to me. Trying to prove any similarities between these problems fails because my mind keeps telling me that the chance of the fut guy being able to stop the train is much smaller than the chance that the train will switch track when I pull the switch(problem 1). I would gladly have my opinnion changed if possible
Saving people is "inherantly right" and killing is "inherantly wrong" because of our, as you said, innate morality from our brain. The amygdala is basically that, we find a small or dysfunctional amygdala in murderers and psychopaths. HERE is the point We have this adaptation because for a species as social as ours, our surival is a co-dependent thing. If we save others, we increase our own odds for surival and for saving people we get a chemical reward that makes us feel good; perpetuating.
The trolley problem and its variants are what's called moral dilemmas. It's essentially a test of one's moral compass. A utilitarian would see pulling the switch and pushing the fat man as equivalent because in both scenarios you save a net of 4 lives. Obviously I disagree with that.
I don't know much about deontology, but I'm guessing that Kant would find pushing the fat man as being wrong by nature, and I'm not sure how he would have felt about throwing the switch.
What would make this little scenario even more interesting is if you were to know the people tied to the tracks. The five are petty criminals, and the one is a nun. Is it worth it to kill five people for one life simply because they've made bad decisions. Or is it right to kill one person so five others will live. Basically it comes down to the value of human life, and I call tell you this much, I would hate to be the one standing next to the switch.
You obviously never went to Catholic school or else you'd have never asked such a silly question. Kill the f***ing nun! ;-)
Seriously though, once you know more about the people involved and they're not all equivalently faceless, that changes the problem around. I think that part of the difficulty of the fat man variation is that now you're talking about killing somebody that you've kind of met.
In the first situation I would not because I do not know the people and if the five men turn out to be terrorists that would suck however in the fat man I would because he seems so interested and that makes me sick. Plus the other five are healthier and would live longer.
I would personally feel morally obligated to act, though not necessarily SOCIALLY obligated, if that makes sense. I would most likely pull the switch, but I'm guessing that I would feel guilt regardless of the decision made... However, it would be irresponsible and unjust to consider anyone a "murderer" in this situation, seeing as how no matter WHAT decision they made, someone would die, and there was no original intent to kill.
If you're DRIVING the trolley, you are OBLIGATED to do what you can to remedy the situation. Whereas, if you're standing on a bridge above, you are simply a bystander, and while it would be somewhat heroic TO act upon the situation, you are NOT obligated to do so.
Thanks for your comment kcolumbusgirl. The great thing about the trolley problem is that there are endless variations. Let's take this one.
Everything is the same as the first scenario except the driver has died and the people on board the trolley are powerless to do anything. You're standing by the junction where you can divert the trolley by pulling the switch to kill only one person instead of five. Are you obligated to act? Would you act even if you didn't feel obligated to?
The first problem was just a mater of one life or 3 but the "fat man" problem has an element of personal betrayal to it. I think that is what is making the difference. Also what is to stop you from jumping yourself.
Usually the way the problem is stated, you are not heavy enough to stop the trolley yourself. There's another version of the "fat man scenario" where it's a guy with a backpack that would get caught in the rails and stop the trolley.
There are other versions of the trolley problem where you do have the option to jump yourself. I believe the Wikipedia on the trolley problem lists several of these different scenarios.
What's the argument against saying that something is "more wrong" than something else? Don't we, in a given situation, decide that hurting someone's feelings is 'more wrong' than lying to them, and thus choose the "lesser of two evils"?
And what do YOU do in the original scenario and in the 'fat man' scenario? And should we refuse to torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (mentioned in Harris' article), even if, hypothetically, we know that he knows of an impending nuclear strike?
1.By analogy to your morality argument: logic is innate, but does it follow that we can necessarily trust our sense of what is logical? As Harris himself has pointed out, most people have the wrong intuition about the Monty Hall Problem, for example.
2. So, what do you do in the scenario that Harris presents, wherein a nuclear bomb lies hidden in midtown Manhattan, and a captive terrorist knows its whereabouts. Do you torture said terrorist?
1. I'm not sure I would agree with your first statement. Just to be clear, when I said that morality was innate, I was talking about the basic foundation (such as "there is a right and a wrong", "have empathy for others", "love and obey your parents", etc.) while many of the specifics are learned or discovered. The mistake that utilitarian ethics proponents make is to discount the origin of morality which is (IMO) the natural empathy you feel towards people you interact with.
They try to turn morality into a maximization problem while giving equal value to all individuals regardless of your relationship with them. This is an effort to give morality an "objective" base (from an 'objective' viewpoint, all people are equally valuable) when what drives morality is inherently "subjective" (empathy, golden rule).
While morality helps people get along with each other, logic helps us explain and predict empirical events. So in logic, the 'gut feeling' is not what justifies it, but rather empirical observation. I hope that makes sense.
2. I would not torture the terrorist (at least I'd like to think that I'm better than that). The purpose of the trolley car examples was to create two situations that are identical from a utilitarian point of view, but different from a personal interaction point of view. The "captive terrorist" scenario seems contrived simply to justify using torture.
Besides the fact that there's NO evidence that torture actually works for getting accurate information, I would think that the higher the stakes, the less likely it is to work. Put yourself in the terrorist's shoes. He doesn't see the bomb as being immoral. Rather, he sees himself as a hero. Torture should only make him more resolute to defend the cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
It's hard to believe that anyone could withstand the most effective torture; I'm reminded of anecdotes about snake bite victims screaming for hospital staff to please cut their leg off, for example.
And as far as accurate info goes, all we have to do is to assume that false info can be disconfirmed and torture resumed, etc., until correct info is provided. As long as there are resources for expedient disconfirmation, then torture should be effective. And yes, I'm cringing as I write this.
Not sure why the 'captive terrorist' scenario seems contrived to you. Is it that you discount the likelihood of Islamic extremists using WMDs? Or do you discount Harris' suggestion that we already have an analogous (though less extreme) situation before us with Khalid Sheikh Mohammud, who Harris asserts must surely "extensive ... knowledge of planned atrocities"?
I wouldnt agree on it to be the same problem. In the first YOU are driving it, and you have NO choice than to kill 1 or 5. In the second you SEE it happen, with the choice of killing 0 or 1 yourself... Ok, in both situations you will go for the lesser evil, I agree, but its a different problem because of no choice and choice.
I also don't see it as the same problem. The thing is that using Utilitarian ethics ("the greatest good for the greatest number") -- the ethics that Sam Harris uses to justify torture -- they are exactly the same problem. Utilitarian ethics doesn't care about the situation, only the final head count. I am very much against Utilitarian ethics.
He's talking about a tram mate. The 'trolley problem' is an old argument first put forward by Phillipa Foot against consequentialist ethics if memory serves me correctly.
they are in fact 2 diffrent problems:
1. if i'm the train driver i'll have to kill some one eather way - of course i'll chose the part when i'll make less victims or i'll simply jump off the train;
2. but on the second problem is not my fault that the train driver was unlucky i don't want to kill any body so i'll walk away because i can choose not to go to jail or to take the fat man's life on my consciousness; i don't think the law (or anybody) covers the part that i kill 1 to save 5...
miketheripper666 3 weeks ago in playlist Mai multe videoclipuri de la CousinoMacul
None of the options offered could possibly survive the scrutiny of a court prosecution. The only morally sound thing to do in the two scenarios is abstain from action altogether. The trolly dilemma is nonsense, it offers no moral challenge specifically because ...
oneoctavelow 1 month ago
Pushing the fat unsuspecting man over the cliff to his death to save 5 equally innocent people is called homicide. Changing the tracks knowing that doing so will kill one person is called homicide. Killing one innocent to save another innocent is called murder. Where's the dillema?
oneoctavelow 1 month ago
As the trolley driver, I am not morally responsible. I was put into an impossible situation. I did not cause it. I would not push the fat man because then I would be the cause. this example tries to create confusion on the ethical level where you are trying to equate ethics to 'an innate moral sense'. ask yourself sometime, why is this situation a flawed example of ethics? when you do, you will be dealing closer with the metaphysical premisses you have chosen that define your ethics.
comborye 2 months ago
wouldn't the it be more so that the action is different to physically push the person means your interacting more yet hitting the switch is not in direct contake of the person its like pulling the trigger of a gun
rummyisme 6 months ago
i would push the fat man
rummyisme 6 months ago
Great video! Nice Reflection.
lifevt94hellotoworld 8 months ago
in the case of the fatman the right moral choice to make
is too sometimes push him
if you always push him, fat men will stop standing on railway bridges
and then the 5 will always have to die
if you never push him the 5 will always die anyway
but if you push him sometimes
then potentially the 5 will be saved the most because the fat man is pushed often but not often enough that the choice is removed
by always choosing you may create the conditions in which the choice is eventually removed
MrJellyJars 8 months ago
thought it was troll-ey ~
lol
TJae1 9 months ago
Haha, interesting question. But in real life people pbb don't have enough of time to think or decide so the 5 will die.
I personally think the 2 scenarios aren't exactly the same. The 1st one, u have 2 choices, accidentally kill 5 or intentionally kill one. Also it's u who do it since u are on the trolley. While the second u either kill 1 or watching an accident that kill 5. Most people would choose 2
everynickisunavailab 10 months ago
be on bridge
see people on train tracks
"HOLY SHIT!"
a fat guy is leaning over the railing
"Well they're fucked."
walk away
none of my business
DrSwindles 1 year ago
Why should I care how many will die?
MrKoshak 1 year ago
There is one major problem I see in this. I would say that I won't push the fat guy, because that would make me a murderer. It isn't the same as the first example because my education and society teaches me that murdering someone is wrong, and it's illegal. My history takes away the objectiveness of the whole thought experiment.
klootzakisme 1 year ago
I'd push the fat man, but those are extremely strange circumstances. In a real situation, I could never quickly determine whether or not the fat man would fall on the track AND slow the trolley. Someone should come up with a similar problem that is easier to relate to.
sputnikowns 1 year ago
i must go save those in need! are u using a greenscreen?
luckynumber58 1 year ago
Is it an innate moral sense or is it a intuitive sympathy?
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax Innate moral sense was probably a poor choice of words on my part, especially since it's not exactly clear what that means. Intuitive sympathy and intuitive empathy are certainly large components of what I was trying to describe.
Thanks for watching.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul I've recently (very recently) tried to look into the sympathetic process and I'm not convinced sympathy is really an emotion but instead sympathy means to see someone's situation as if it was your own (for want of a better way of putting it). Sympathy causes an emotional response but the act of sympathy is a type of sense IMO. Sympathy is learnt at an early age as we're not born with it. This has been proven.
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax What you're describing is not sympathy, but empathy.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul Ok maybe so. But I can't find a decent definition of sympathy. I'm not convinced it's an emotion in itself because when you sympathize with a situation it can cause you to have many different emotions and these emotions can be very different from the emotions of the people involved in that situation.
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax The way I understand it, empathy is the ability to mentally put yourself in somebody else's position, while sympathy is more of an understanding of somebody else's position. The difference is subtle.
cont...
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
...cont.
For example, if you see somebody crying and a part of you starts to feel sad for no other reason than that, that's empathy. If you read a news story about somebody who murdered their unfaithful spouse, and you understand what motivated them (even though you would never do that yourself), that's sympathy. There is significant overlap between the two, but there is a difference there.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul I don't think feeling sad when you see someone cry for no reason is empathy. Feeling sad when you see someone crying might be an reaction like gagging when you see/hear someone throwing up. Empathy can be boiled down to: recognizing other beings have minds and feelings. Very young children have been shown to have no empathy yet they get upset if their mothers are crying.
2Jax 1 year ago
This is why I define empathy as: recognizing other beings have minds.
And Sympathy as (new definition): getting emotionally involved in an empathetically perceived situation.
I'm still not sure about them.
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax "Very young children have been shown to have no empathy" WHAT??? That's just nonsense. Of course young children have empathy, and so do many animals. A good book on the subject is "The Age of Empathy" by Frans de Waal.
watch?v=UONxT4Tb3C0
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul By empathy I'm talking about the recognition of other people's minds. There is a test where a doctor hand a child a smarties tube. The child gets excited. The child then opens it to find a pencil. The pencil is replaced in the tube an the lid put on. The child's mother enters the room and the doctor asks the child "what will mummy think is in the tube" the child says "a pencil". The child doesn't recognize that his knowledge is different from his mother's. this is a lack of empathy
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax I think that you're making the error of modalism--in other words, one either has empathy or doesn't have it. This approach is problematic. The better approach is to ask how much (or what degree of) empathy one has. I'm familiar with the above experiment but I don't see that as proof that young children don't have empathy, but rather it tries to determine at what age humans reach a particular threshold of empathy. I again recommend the de Waal book; it's well worth reading.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul I don't think empathy is like an on/off switch. But I think there is a point of development where empathy starts. But then autism has a lot to do with a lack of empathy. Severely autistic people recognize no minds at all in people. And my original point was a child getting upset at their mother crying might not be a show of empathy but an innate reflex like the gag reflex. This reflex could carry on to later life.
2Jax 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul There is a documentary that I saw a few years ago where a professor showed the development of empathy in healthy and autistic children. It showed experiments to show where measurable empathy starts. The pencil test was one of many. I wish I could remember the name of the bloody documentary or the name of the professor but names don't stick in my head.
2Jax 1 year ago
of course NO!
5*
all the best
kean
keanghiero 2 years ago
The reason that pushing a fat man in front of a trolly is worse than choosing to run over a bound man is that it would have been your original idea to do so. In the first case, the mad man gave you the option of 5 or 1. His goal is obviously to get you to kill the 1. He was manipulating your moral code. The situation was made for you. in the second case, you are choosing to get involved. The madman would not have planned for you to intervene.
AnotherMasterMind 2 years ago
Its not real.......
I think you're missing the point.
SarahMic90 2 years ago
Would be interesting to see what people developing in different environments would choose when confronted with the same dilemma. Whether different environments during development alter their morals away from the social norm. Such as those familiar with violence and/or abuse. I found your video very interesting and like how you simplified the study of this problem. Thankyou.
Necroticz 2 years ago
Would also be interesting to see the difference in decisions that had to be made in seconds and those who had time to think about their actions.
Necroticz 2 years ago
nah nevermind. i thought about it more..i would totally pull the lever and probably push the fat man, because he was already looking at the violence down below, so it probably wouldn't bother me if i killed him, especially if it saved 5 people.
ninjagirl77 2 years ago
LOL! You're totally allowed to change your answer. It wouldn't be called a moral dilemma is the "solution" was obvious to everyone. And honestly, I'm less interested in hearing what people think they would do as I am in hearing (or reading, technically) them explain why.
Thanks for watching! :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
I'm gonna fave this video so all my friends can check it out. Cause this is some interesting shit to think about. I probably would just walk away in both situations, because then the people dying would not necessarily be a direct result of me, because I wouldn't have done a thing...But I dunno. It's still a really difficult decision, even if it is hypothetical.
ninjagirl77 2 years ago
What is it that you say at 6:28-6:31? No I'm not messing with you. Can't come up with anything senseful so please, clarify. ..... Some say ignorance is a bliss, but this is annoying the **** out of me. I keep replaying it.
Cr0uch1ng71g3r 2 years ago
Innate moral sense
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
you look like Ben Stiller with no hair.
Darthzedd 2 years ago
Thanks! :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Yeah society definitely sees it different. Pushing the fatman to save the people would be similar to assinating a political figure who will be responsible for thoughsands or millions of people dying.
TheFutureLooksGrimm 2 years ago
in the 5 or 1 situation its obvious the wizard wanted you to make a decision with da 6 tide up, so your forced in that situation (seem justified). however with the fatman your not. you wouldn't interfere. if u wanted to be a hero you could sacrifice yourself (kinda foolish) , but you would'nt, but if u sacrifice da fatman, your conscious might say "who are u, to be able to mess wit peoples lives like that/ wat makes u more important." (seems wrong) I dunno tho just my views
ErtomicV 2 years ago
You're right. For all you know, by killing the fat man, you might set up a chain of events that would result in TEN or THIRTY people dying. Or who knows? Maybe the lives that you save would result in a huge increase in overpopulation a hundred years from now that would destroy the planet once and for all.
You can't be sure what the right thing to do is, so why put yourself through the emotional strain?
The answer to the trolley problem is actually very obvious
berniemacster 2 years ago
Shane Shemko
BadgerChild 2 years ago
do nothing.your moral suggest to kill the fat dude for the greater good.but your moral is not your own.you are nothing but a reflection of the moral that your society put in your head when you had no critical thought over it.
moxito1 2 years ago
I would do nothing in both situations.
why risk straining my back or getting injured?
There is only one ME.
Steve2323ZX 2 years ago
I would push the fat man.
fat people are gross.
I would not pull the lever.
comedytracker 2 years ago
READ THIS FUCKING COMMENT
The out-come and justice for the people in danger is the same on both stories.
HOWEVER, with the fat man story, you would definatly go to jail for murder.
With the other story you would be called a hero by society.
DauntProductions 2 years ago
My favorite variation of this is "If there are 5 people about to die if they don't get organ transplants, all needing different organs, and a healthy dude walks in, do you rip him open and take his organs?"
Skillbus 2 years ago 2
Put it in reverse. It'll break the transmission, sure, but it'll stop you.
fingerprint211b 2 years ago
Fuck that fat fucker.
roflsaurasrex 2 years ago 3
Good video, but I have to say I disagree with the conclusion. I believe Sam Harris is right. We should be willing to torture if we are willing to fight modern warfare. Not being willing to do it is deeply wasteful and counterproductive.
Like the scienceblog article you linked mentions, the inhibitory action that occurs when you plan motor movements with the intent to kill is a deep animalistic restraint circuit. I don't think it makes sense to listen to it when the cost of doing so is high.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Anyway, those are classic "does the end justify the means" questions. People reason differently about them, and I guess it may be good that we do. Relying solely on the animalistic mechanism can lead to some absolutely horrific consequences, as Sam Harris demonstrates. At the same time, purely rational decisions would lead to a lot of killing.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
This may sound cold, but here is how I see it. I would not push the fat man, I figure that those five individuals have already anticipated their demise where-as the fat man would have not seen his fate coming had he been pushed. But it does make you think. . .
PlaceboTree 2 years ago
but if the 5 people were all serial killers than the equation changes completly because those the 5 were killers and there other one is a perfect a+ student than no would kill her to save them which changed it completly and not knowing if they are bad persons can also change it so most people wouldnt touch the switch out of fear killing the 5 strangers cause no one is inocent
6effinj4ke6 2 years ago
When I first heard this problem the first time it was slightly diffrent you saw it from a bridge there is a lever and a fork, five people on one side and a little girl on the other but it's all estentially the same.
greenelf12 2 years ago
Hahaha good
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
It's easy:
wait for trolley to kill five people, than push a fat man over the bridge.
manstrone 2 years ago 2
and make sure the fat man kills the remaining guy on the other tracks!
huckball1959 2 years ago 2
With the fat man....you have to murder someone to save lives which is illegal....if you do nothing people still die and its not illegal.
xcrimsoncorex 2 years ago
Surely if it is the same for the victim, it is equally wrong. I would agree, not preventing someones death, and actively causing it, are worlds apart. But, I would suggest dendro has misssed a very importnt point; we are actively causing deaths. BY turning on your pc. or tv, or boiler, or buying clothes, or adoing anything, we are indulging in luxuries that actively deter peoples ability to survive. The same as a hitman deters someones ability to survive. It's just not as direct.
theantiantichrist 2 years ago
I wouldn't even be in the situation where either scenarios are happening, so it doesn't matter
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
Yes and No.
It's not a realistic situation. It does matter because how you face conflicts and dilemmas in your everyday life is reflected in how you respond to this hypothetical situation.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
True but still in both situations you have a choice of taking a life or taking many lives. I just don't see either option as a right one. I'd just stand and watch.
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
Even if you had the opportunity to save basically the whole planet versus one man?
For example, you work in a Russian nuclear missile launch pad and with you there is one fucknut, who works as a janitor, but has obtained the launch codes.
So you're late at work and see this janitor entering the codes in the system, to launch all the missiles to every country, which has a nuclear weapons program.
He is quite far away and the only safe option is to shoot him in the head. Would you do it?
rationalargument 2 years ago
I believe that everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen, has been decided way before by some higher force (God or something alike) so me interfering with things that don't directly involve me would be going against it.
I'll just stand and watch, even if I die along with many other ppl. Shiet, I got nothing against dying, we all gatta go sometime
It's not how long we lived but how we lived.
If the faith of the world is to due that day, then so be it.
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
People like you sicken me :)
rationalargument 2 years ago
Dude, that was disturbing. If there is a higher plan, how would you know that your role wasn't part of it? Maybe you killing the person was part of the plan. The point of a higher plan is that no matter what you do, it was part of the plan. You can't "interfere" with the plan.
mtanti87 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
oh so now you know your destiny? do you have a pre-scripted diary of what you must do each day? well do you?? :P
mtanti87 2 years ago
Thats idiotic, why would i?
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
why would you what?
mtanti87 2 years ago
Have a pre scripted diary, I just go along with anything.
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
Since you don't know what your destiny is, you can't just assume that you must be passive to every situation. Maybe your destiny is to save someone.
mtanti87 2 years ago
I don't know my destiny, nor do I want to. But I know that I should save people. Not by saving their material bodys from getting destroyed, but to save their souls.
KrazyAnub1s 2 years ago
haha did say "On June 19th, get on youtube, visit 'watch?v=5ux9vEqS6BM&feature=related' and comment 'Have a pre scripted diary, I just go along with anything.'" ?
ElectricSnakeHabits 2 years ago
The situation is purely hypothetical, if you lay it out, this scenario could relate to many things in everyday life..
Red5TheFinn 2 years ago
ya but id be with some trolly dolly and id jump a the crucial moment and leave her with all the guilt.
popebenadict16 2 years ago
I would pull the lever and I would push the fat fuck...cut my losses.
BeNyaMa1976 2 years ago 2
Me too. Also, I would not torture or drop the bombs.
I might, however, choose youtube over maniacal attempts to save lives, regardless of where I would fall on the assassin question should anyone ever offer me money to kill.
NameFreedom 2 years ago
Here is a assassin question for you and ever one watching this video. Would you assassinated Barack Obama for 100 million dollars? You would fuck up American politics for the rest of time and destroy American racial harmony but you would be 100 million dollars richer what would you do?
BeNyaMa1976 2 years ago
that sounds an awful lot like a thinly veiled offer
n0thank7 2 years ago
Morality is subjective
I would definitely choose the one person in the original problem, as would most.
I would also choose the one man leaning over the rail. This was a tough decision, but I feel that however horribly empathetic I might be, it is still to save 5 people who are just as innocent. Since society is stupid, I would go to jail, but I would at least know that I saved 5 lives at the expense of one.
classicrock5 2 years ago
The general stance in neuroscience is that morality comes from empathy. And that empathy comes from 1) mirror neurons in the brain and 2) brain structures dedicated to collective intentionality.
The very idea of pushing a person to their death, for whatever reason, stirs empathy in most people. Whereas pulling a lever stirs no empathy because the action itself does not involve "putting yourself in someone else shoes" so to speak.
inexxxorable 2 years ago
The people tied to the tracks all ready know that they are in substantial risk of death and may know that the group or the other tied up must die. Therefore when the train runs them over, they will have no blame for the train operator. The fat man can decide for himself if he wants to help, but the man next to him should not decide for him
ashadair 2 years ago
Like dropping a bomb on an innocent family vs. succesfully running a cmpaign for a president.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
The thing is, when you say "fat man" you give a property to that person, so it makes it feel more like real. If you ask those questions to the people with explaining the characteristics, at least the way they look, then it happens to be more practical then theoretical question.
Problem solved. Partially.
canerdc 3 years ago 4
No.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Because he is a fat man, it makes it easier to decide to push him because being fat is a negative quality so it makes the sacrifice easier.
If it was a young child, it would be much more difficult.
The only reason it is more difficult in the 2nd situation is because you might suffer personal consequences.
frazzzer8888 2 years ago
This is a very interesting problem. The way i see it, this dillemma is a lose-lose situation either way. However if you decide to take action, you end up saving a difference of four people (5 innocent ppl minus 1 other innocent person). Also, i think that both sides of the brain would percieve this problem differently. For example, the quantity value of killing the one person would be seen as the best choice in the left brain while maybe a more moral kill the 5 people ready to die in the right
JZSISCOOL 3 years ago
It's the ONUS of murder. If you pull the switch, you make a quantity choice cause someone's gonna die on the tracks. I know, the next paragraph will answer your objection.
The fat guy was not in the direct path of death. The murder of the fat person requires inducing new murderous terror at your own hands. No one tied to the tracks knows who's going to die yet, so both the group and the individual are in an equivalent state of terror.
This should be obvious if you weren't so smug with it.
holyjesus 3 years ago
"This should be obvious if you weren't so smug with it."
Haha! And so the pot calls the kettle black. In fact, these moral dilemmas aren't obvious at all, that's why people disagree about them.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
The proposition in itself requires smugness to convey it's point. If you dispassionately deconstruct the events that happened, you will have a very different list of responsibility attributions.
If a person pushes the innocent heavy person over the railing, they have committed an original murder. If they change the course of a train, they are minimizing inevitable murder.
It really is childish to act like it makes some point about moral paradox which only appears on the undisturbed surface.
holyjesus 3 years ago
I would run over the 5 people, you had no controll over placing them there, intentionally killing one man is murder. Pushing a fat guy over the ledge is murder.
It comes down to A) Take a loss and realize it was an accident or B) murder.
PowerHeal 3 years ago
The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, we are forced to decide whether 1 person or 5 people die. We are the only person in direct control of the outcome. In the second, we are a spectator asked to choose for another spectator whether or not to sacrifice his life to save other people. Our decision to not choose for him does not preclude him from choosing for himself.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
"Evolution may reward survival, but it doesn't care about you and it puts no intrinsic value on human life."
Evolution is about survival of the genes, which can only happen when the species itself survives. That is why concepts such as group cooperation and altruism evolved, because they are beneficial to the survival of the species (and therefore the genes).
"The value we have for life comes wholly from our innate moral sense."
...which we have thanks to evolution.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
I think it is wrong to take action which you know would cause a person to die, who otherwise would survive if U didnt take action. Of course you can ask permission of the person and if the agrees to die, U can take action to cause the persons death. I think it is ethically more wrong to cause a persons death than to not save one or more persons. In a situation where any way some one has to die, I will not take specific action to cause a persons death, who therwise would have survived.
venkataramanavurity 3 years ago
i like the way you broke down the question whether you kill the fat man to save lifes or you keep the fat man but you dont save the lives....but who said those 5 lives were your responsability....couldnt you just ignore it and walk away with some guilt in you that will hopefully ware off
Jason68iou1 3 years ago
I think that is why Ignorance is Bliss
venkataramanavurity 3 years ago
At the end you are right it's not even close. Now on to the trolley problem, I would make the decision to save the greater amount of people. I would push the fat guy off the bridge, because if I didn't I'd be essentialy killing five people instead of one. Then again I do say this from behind a computer screen towards a hypothetical situation, so who knows what anyone would actually do. They should make it harder and say that the other person on the tracks is your mom or dad or something.
samurai388 3 years ago
There are several variations of the trolley problem including scenarios similar to what you mentioned.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few.
rainingblood92 3 years ago
So are you saying that poker tournaments are inherently bad? After all, it means that the many will lose money at the expense of the few.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
No, I am saying that it is more nobel to save the five people and let the other person die. And how can you even compair a poker tournament to someones life??
rainingblood92 3 years ago
You made an unqualified value statement. Moral values are not "naked" or absolute. They depend on contex and situation. Unqualified value statements are nonsense and tend to indicate somebodey who hasn't thought through all of the ramifications. My poker example was to show the absurdity of applying your standard across the board.
You shouldn't get offended every time somebody points out a weakness in your moral value system (all our systems have weaknesses); that's what fundamentalists do.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Mmkay, you pretentious prick.
rainingblood92 3 years ago
I have an answer for the trolley problem.
In an deterministic view, or fatalist view.
You are not responsible for your actions because everything has already been determined.
Therefore in a situation like the trolley problem it doesn't matter what choice you take, because the choice you will take has already been determined.
Also there is one thing. In this scenario nothing is certain, actually nothing is 100% certain, only thing that is certain is that there will be events of actions.
UyLuy84 3 years ago
id push the fat man.. he is fat.. im anti fat peopel to tell ya the truth.. he also is mindless fool tryin to get a good angle onn the ppl dyin. and id also push the switch i guess.. why not??
WyteBudz 3 years ago
I say : push the fat guy!!!
danihc 3 years ago
to me, I would maybe switch the trolley because it seems much more sure that the people would be saved, than pushing a fat man on the tracks- to me it seems to be far out of ordinary to be able to land a fat man on the tracks and for the fat man to be able- if he did land on the tracks- to actually be enough to stop the train. You see, there are too many ifs there, and in the short amount of time to even decide, the train would probably be finished with it all.
chiniwillly 3 years ago
Most people would do neither. That means no switch would be flicked nor would a fat man be pushed. Either action would make the person flicking the switch or pushing the fat man guilty of murder. I disagree that "most people would pull the switch" to make the trolley switch tracks. You flick the switch , you're guilty of murder, so you won't do it.
charlesfloyb 3 years ago
"Most people would do neither."
That's not what the empirical evidence says. Studies have been done and 89% of people think pulling the switch is the moral action and 11% think that pushing the fat man is the moral action.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
That's interesting, mainly because in both situations you mentioned you are physically altering the situation (by flicking the switch or pushing the fatman). While when you do nothing, that's just what it is, you do nothing.
So is it not then, that the real issue is what you perceive to have higher value moralistically speaking: the life of 1 person or the lives of 5?
Jasmine4832 3 years ago
The beauty of ethical dilemmas (IMO) is that you're the one who is forced to decide what the real issue is (though not totally because the poser of the dilemma tries to constrain the variables). The issue (in my mind) is that in one situation, you're directly killing somebody to save five, and in the other you're doing something that indirectly leads to one death, but saves five.
The question is: Do YOU think that there's a difference?
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Man, looking at these responses, I see a lot of common words like, "good" and "bad," or "good" and "evil". Terms like that are subjective and, in the real world, where we live, there is no such thing. And, as far as I am concerned, there is no intrinsic value to human life, so the "which lives are worth more" dilemma is lost on me. In both scenerios, I would let the five people die because it was by fate that the fat man was there in the 2nd and what if there was no choice to be made in the 1st?
skinheadan 3 years ago
holy shit, it's uli konkell
LtotheoganX 3 years ago
You make it sound like it's the same problem, but in my current state of mind it isn't.
The first problem is simple, I know how a switch works, and I say I would pull it.
The second problem however indicates more thought process. Because I have to imagine myself being in another state of mind. I have to think that if I push the fat guy over the bridge he will stop the train before it reaches the five people, if I imagine that I would say push the fat guy,
pingismacka 3 years ago
But me being me, I can't imagine that being possible, it's too unrealistic to me. Trying to prove any similarities between these problems fails because my mind keeps telling me that the chance of the fut guy being able to stop the train is much smaller than the chance that the train will switch track when I pull the switch(problem 1). I would gladly have my opinnion changed if possible
pingismacka 3 years ago
Umm did the fat man have a beard?
descryIAm 3 years ago
Saving people is "inherantly right" and killing is "inherantly wrong" because of our, as you said, innate morality from our brain. The amygdala is basically that, we find a small or dysfunctional amygdala in murderers and psychopaths. HERE is the point We have this adaptation because for a species as social as ours, our surival is a co-dependent thing. If we save others, we increase our own odds for surival and for saving people we get a chemical reward that makes us feel good; perpetuating.
OsyenVyeter 3 years ago
is the trolley problem a counterexample of utilitarianism, or deontological
Daywalker11226 3 years ago
The trolley problem and its variants are what's called moral dilemmas. It's essentially a test of one's moral compass. A utilitarian would see pulling the switch and pushing the fat man as equivalent because in both scenarios you save a net of 4 lives. Obviously I disagree with that.
I don't know much about deontology, but I'm guessing that Kant would find pushing the fat man as being wrong by nature, and I'm not sure how he would have felt about throwing the switch.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
I would let the train hit the people then I would push the fat guy after the fact killing all of them ok i'm just being a smart ass.=P
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
What would make this little scenario even more interesting is if you were to know the people tied to the tracks. The five are petty criminals, and the one is a nun. Is it worth it to kill five people for one life simply because they've made bad decisions. Or is it right to kill one person so five others will live. Basically it comes down to the value of human life, and I call tell you this much, I would hate to be the one standing next to the switch.
AbortedWonderland 3 years ago
You obviously never went to Catholic school or else you'd have never asked such a silly question. Kill the f***ing nun! ;-)
Seriously though, once you know more about the people involved and they're not all equivalently faceless, that changes the problem around. I think that part of the difficulty of the fat man variation is that now you're talking about killing somebody that you've kind of met.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
In the first situation I would not because I do not know the people and if the five men turn out to be terrorists that would suck however in the fat man I would because he seems so interested and that makes me sick. Plus the other five are healthier and would live longer.
TimeLord222 3 years ago
I would personally feel morally obligated to act, though not necessarily SOCIALLY obligated, if that makes sense. I would most likely pull the switch, but I'm guessing that I would feel guilt regardless of the decision made... However, it would be irresponsible and unjust to consider anyone a "murderer" in this situation, seeing as how no matter WHAT decision they made, someone would die, and there was no original intent to kill.
kcolumbusgirl 3 years ago
If you're DRIVING the trolley, you are OBLIGATED to do what you can to remedy the situation. Whereas, if you're standing on a bridge above, you are simply a bystander, and while it would be somewhat heroic TO act upon the situation, you are NOT obligated to do so.
That's the difference between the two scenarios.
kcolumbusgirl 3 years ago
Thanks for your comment kcolumbusgirl. The great thing about the trolley problem is that there are endless variations. Let's take this one.
Everything is the same as the first scenario except the driver has died and the people on board the trolley are powerless to do anything. You're standing by the junction where you can divert the trolley by pulling the switch to kill only one person instead of five. Are you obligated to act? Would you act even if you didn't feel obligated to?
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
kill fat people!
animagreed 3 years ago
If he was really that fat, I don't think I would be able to push him, seeing as I am quite weak.
I love things like this, regarding the mechanics of the brain and etc.
So..thankyou =]
rachfaceeee 3 years ago
So, do you consider yourself a philosopher?
You should listen to your own voice. You will hear pure biased bullshit.
Dkzdrood 3 years ago
Since your grammar and spelling are actually correct, I will address your hater comment instead of ignoring it.
A) I don't consider myself a philosopher, but I do enjoy philosophy. I think it's important and EVERYONE should discuss it from time to time.
B) All opinion is biased. I like to think that mine is biased towards the empirical.
C) Please elaborate on what you find to be "bullshit" please.
D) Thank you.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
To bad He/She never answered.
I like your point of view and also the answer to Dkzdrood.
And by the way: you have a beautiful smile =P
00watcher 3 years ago
...but maybe you don't care about that (about your smile i mean).
Bye
00watcher 3 years ago
i would push the fat man over only if he was black
tommlene 3 years ago
i bet you would, you fucking racist!
godeidun 3 years ago
i bet you would to.
tommlene 3 years ago
you want to know what i would do?
i would have thrown you over to stop that fucking trolley, you racist fuck!
godeidun 3 years ago
i can fly, so thats not a problem.
tommlene 3 years ago
hah, not if i break your wings and tape your arms together, stick a plastic bag over yout face, choke you to death and then toss you over!
godeidun 3 years ago
but you cant.
get back to reality man.
tommlene 3 years ago
i can whatever i wish
godeidun 3 years ago
so you can fly in reality? i say you have been PWNT by godeidun... lol
TillSum1LostNeye 3 years ago
yes i can fly.
tommlene 3 years ago
i hope i see YOU on a bridge tommlene. I would shove your ass off of it. Hope i didnt hurt your E-Feelings too bad..
TillSum1LostNeye 3 years ago
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.
You couldnt even push a 3 year old little kid off.
tommlene 3 years ago
The first problem was just a mater of one life or 3 but the "fat man" problem has an element of personal betrayal to it. I think that is what is making the difference. Also what is to stop you from jumping yourself.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Usually the way the problem is stated, you are not heavy enough to stop the trolley yourself. There's another version of the "fat man scenario" where it's a guy with a backpack that would get caught in the rails and stop the trolley.
There are other versions of the trolley problem where you do have the option to jump yourself. I believe the Wikipedia on the trolley problem lists several of these different scenarios.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
i done things along these lines while studying philosophy
its using hedonic calculus
really annoying but once you get the hang of it you just realise it pointless but thats a different story
scarfacexx1 3 years ago
oops just watched the rest
first comment was kind of irrelevant and well so is this
sorry
scarfacexx1 3 years ago
What's the argument against saying that something is "more wrong" than something else? Don't we, in a given situation, decide that hurting someone's feelings is 'more wrong' than lying to them, and thus choose the "lesser of two evils"?
And what do YOU do in the original scenario and in the 'fat man' scenario? And should we refuse to torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (mentioned in Harris' article), even if, hypothetically, we know that he knows of an impending nuclear strike?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
Very interesting and well presented. Two things:
1.By analogy to your morality argument: logic is innate, but does it follow that we can necessarily trust our sense of what is logical? As Harris himself has pointed out, most people have the wrong intuition about the Monty Hall Problem, for example.
2. So, what do you do in the scenario that Harris presents, wherein a nuclear bomb lies hidden in midtown Manhattan, and a captive terrorist knows its whereabouts. Do you torture said terrorist?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
1. I'm not sure I would agree with your first statement. Just to be clear, when I said that morality was innate, I was talking about the basic foundation (such as "there is a right and a wrong", "have empathy for others", "love and obey your parents", etc.) while many of the specifics are learned or discovered. The mistake that utilitarian ethics proponents make is to discount the origin of morality which is (IMO) the natural empathy you feel towards people you interact with.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
They try to turn morality into a maximization problem while giving equal value to all individuals regardless of your relationship with them. This is an effort to give morality an "objective" base (from an 'objective' viewpoint, all people are equally valuable) when what drives morality is inherently "subjective" (empathy, golden rule).
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
While morality helps people get along with each other, logic helps us explain and predict empirical events. So in logic, the 'gut feeling' is not what justifies it, but rather empirical observation. I hope that makes sense.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
2. I would not torture the terrorist (at least I'd like to think that I'm better than that). The purpose of the trolley car examples was to create two situations that are identical from a utilitarian point of view, but different from a personal interaction point of view. The "captive terrorist" scenario seems contrived simply to justify using torture.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Besides the fact that there's NO evidence that torture actually works for getting accurate information, I would think that the higher the stakes, the less likely it is to work. Put yourself in the terrorist's shoes. He doesn't see the bomb as being immoral. Rather, he sees himself as a hero. Torture should only make him more resolute to defend the cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
It's hard to believe that anyone could withstand the most effective torture; I'm reminded of anecdotes about snake bite victims screaming for hospital staff to please cut their leg off, for example.
And as far as accurate info goes, all we have to do is to assume that false info can be disconfirmed and torture resumed, etc., until correct info is provided. As long as there are resources for expedient disconfirmation, then torture should be effective. And yes, I'm cringing as I write this.
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
Not sure why the 'captive terrorist' scenario seems contrived to you. Is it that you discount the likelihood of Islamic extremists using WMDs? Or do you discount Harris' suggestion that we already have an analogous (though less extreme) situation before us with Khalid Sheikh Mohammud, who Harris asserts must surely "extensive ... knowledge of planned atrocities"?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
I wouldnt agree on it to be the same problem. In the first YOU are driving it, and you have NO choice than to kill 1 or 5. In the second you SEE it happen, with the choice of killing 0 or 1 yourself... Ok, in both situations you will go for the lesser evil, I agree, but its a different problem because of no choice and choice.
jayhellcat 3 years ago
I also don't see it as the same problem. The thing is that using Utilitarian ethics ("the greatest good for the greatest number") -- the ethics that Sam Harris uses to justify torture -- they are exactly the same problem. Utilitarian ethics doesn't care about the situation, only the final head count. I am very much against Utilitarian ethics.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
When you say trolly, what do you mean? A trolly to the english is a Shopping "Cart"
MrDeverill 3 years ago
He's talking about a tram mate. The 'trolley problem' is an old argument first put forward by Phillipa Foot against consequentialist ethics if memory serves me correctly.
SentinelConvergence 3 years ago
Just realised I misspelt Philippa. ¬_¬
SentinelConvergence 3 years ago
I would just kill myself and not do anything before the trolly hit.
7Row7enn7 3 years ago
Also, it looks like YT needs a course on ethics.
7Row7enn7 3 years ago