Would you vote for building a vehicle and road system that would flourish civilization, increase trade, and connect cities, knowing thousands of lives will be lost due to car accidents each year?
If this question was asked a century ago, the answer would be probably be no. Today we can't live without cars and roads.
One difference I can't help thinking about is that if this were a real situation, I would be fairly confident in the fact that when I throw the lever, the train will definitely divert. I would not be farily confident in the fact that pushing the man over will definitely stop the train and save the people; because it's nearly impossible to gauge something like that in real time.
Kinda stupid discussion. The difference is obvious. The difference is controlling the object of destruction versus becoming the object of destruction. If I switch the lever it is still the train that kills the man. If I push the man, it is me that kills the man. In the bridge scenario you have positioned me to forcing action on someone else. There is no mystery in this discussion.
if u pull the lever it would be murder if u push that fat dude u murder if u do nothin on both u do not murder. evan tho it's ur choice the fat dude and the lonly dude might be important. if u do nothing u r not envolved! Why dont u shout for them 2 move!
The elephant in the room: trolleys save lives, keep our downtowns viable, connect us to one another, and don't require wars based on lies for oil, killing millions. The fat cats we should be pushing off the proverbial bridges onto the tracks are Big Oil, Big Auto, and their dirty lobbyists who've inhibited us from enjoying modern, state-of-the-art electric streetcar, interurban, subway and high-speed intercity rail infrastructure worthy of a civilized nation of 300,000,000 people.
It is ethical to push the fat man. When our intuitions say something is wrong, we need to remember that intuitions are often culturally created. I knew that pushing the man was the logical choice, but it felt wrong. Months later, my intuitions changed. I would compare the sensation with how one feels when they finally comprehend a hard concept.
The outcomes are the same, but the situations are not.In both scenarios these people chose to work on the tracks everyday,knowing that they would be at risk. It is easier to pull the lever cuz the man at the other side of the track has put HIMSELF at risk by working on the tracks;WE didn’t place him there.In the 2nd scenario,the fat man was there by CHANCE, if pushed,then WE would be placing him at risk and also causing his death.While in the 1st scenario we are only causing death. THE END...
The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first one, the death of the one person is not intended and merely an unfortunate side effect of you trying to save four lives. However, in the second example killing the guy is used as a direct means to saving the others lives. You're actually using the death of the guy to save the others, whereas in the first one, even though you can foresee his death, you're not intending for him to die. This comes down to the doctrine of double effect...
(With why all 5 men are on the rails aside) ...What if the one man is a socially, historically, or scientifically significant being (like a modern Leonardo Da Vinci or a young John Nash)? And what if the other four men are elderly (having lived full lives), have terminally ill diseases, etc? Doesn't that change the scenario a bit?
Final comment: this is an ethical problem fit for comedians. Would you push 5,000 people in front of a train in order to stop it from entering a terminal where 5,050 would be killed by a bomb on the train? You'd be saving 46 more lives than you would by pulling the switch in this problem.
Boy, math gets harder every year, especially when you add ethics to the calculation.
They are NOT the same! In the video it is presumed that you know you are killing one man to save 4. In reality you cannot ever know that. By intervening to save 4 you may or may not know that you are endangering another person, but you cannot be certain of the result. He could see the trolley and jump out of the way. Pushing a man in order to stop the trolley requires that he be hit, so you are definitely killing someone, not changing the course of events to some indeterminate result.
What this argument proves is that morality is not entirely rational, that it's not something that can be calculated. Philosophers have been trying since forever to rationalize morality, and come up with some unique calculus -- something everyone can agree on -- for determining what is the right thing to do in any situation. This argument goes a long way towards demonstrating that this is a hopeless quest.
Not to mention that these two setups completely ignores a scenario in which the single person being saved is a doctor, while the the other 4 are homeless alcoholics. In such a situation, another utilitarian calculus could be applied.
Actually, it's NOT exactly the same. You people concentrate on the mathematical variables, completely ignoring that it is a moral decision and thus it depends on people's emotions. Touching another person's body is highly charged with personal prejudices, feelings and expectations. This is exactly why it is easier to push a button and launch a cruise missile which kills 100 people, than killing those people by strangling them yourself.
They don't need to be fat to be pushed, just effective at stopping the train. If I knew the person on the bridge would stop the train and the poor innocent hard working men below would be saved then I believe I would push the lazy individual standing around doing nothing on the bridge. If they were fat then that is just a bonus.
Well, to quote a famous fictitious logical thinker, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". If only we had the ability to set aside our own internal fears and do what's logical, but maybe that's a good thing we don't. Who knows.
They are the same, But I don't see why emotions should play into this, in either instance. If you let the people die because you DON'T pull the lever or push the guy, it's still your fault, just through inaction rather than action.
I think it's because the action of pushing the man is so much more direct than pulling the lever. When you push the man, you are directly condemning him to death. When you pull the lever it doesn't seem quite as a direct act.
It also may be because pulling the lever to change the trolley's course is a much more reliable action that would surely save the four men. If you look at it logically, pushing a fat man to stop a trolley just seems moronic, because it would probably do nothing.
Yeah you have a point, but in this hypothetical situation you have a guarantee that pulling the lever and pushing the fat man has the exact same effect.
Quite simply, we are much more willing, as a rule to "let" a thing happen, however terrible that thing may be, than to actively *do* a particular thing.
Putting the switch into the equation distances the participant from the act. We simply switch a train. The train does the dirty work at a remove from our action.
The point is, "moral" equations are, fundamentally, deeply emotional and intuitive - not the result of reason.
Even the idea that things *ought* to fair is an emotional one.
Evidently pushing the fat man off the bridge will not ensure the four men will be saved he could land beside the track or he could live and crawl off the track or if you did succeed in getting him on the track your estimation that his weight would stop the train might be wrong and it could still fail to derail the train. These thoughts can be subconcious when answering the question thus prompting people to say they wouldn't do it without actually knowing why.
@classicchinadoll Just to make my point clearer when pushing the man off the bridge most people would understand that you are meant to assume it will be successful yet in answering the question people will imagine as if they were really in that situation and they would automatically respond as if that situation was contingent factors that would apply in reality
Except, what is shown in the video is a toy trolley that can kill no one.
Think I'm being flippant? The fact is, one person, no matter how fat, could not stop the kinetic energy of a runaway trolley going too fast for the 4 workers to simply step out t of the way. So, in fact, its the question that is a meaningless toy.
It's the same. **Exactly** the same...It's just more personal because a)You are touching the person, not a lever and b)The man above is not below, so it seems more 'forced' pushing him down to harms way. But the end result is what the professor says. It's the same. I racked my brain for hours, and why I put this up on youtube. He is absolutely right. I disagreed with him vehemently at first, but came to the same conclusion. They are the same....
Stabbing with a knife blood being splattered all on you? NO WAY? Shooting from a far distance? HMM... NO Aiming from an helicopter maybe? MMM... DUNNO Pressing a button bombing citizens from the other side of the atlantic? COOL!
scenerio 1, you save 4 people and kill 1, all are involved in the same activity, shown here as working, scenerio 2, you push an obese man to his bloody death in order to save 4 people who are about to have a workplace mishap. how can you not see how this scenerio is seen differently in peoples minds? ones got the emphasis on saving 4 lives while the other has the emphasis on you actually physically taking a life
@pdonovansouthie I disagree that the SITUATIONS are exactly the same. The OUTCOMES are of course the same, but in scenario 1, you don't know how that one man might feel. You can think, "Well if he knew, perhaps he would be willing to make the sacrifice," and be less afraid of taking his life completely against his will. In the scenario 2, you know the man does not wish to make the sacrifice. You would be wrenching life from him, not only without his approval, but blatantly AGAINST his wishes.
@pdonovansouthie The professor doesn't say which of your options is "right" or "wrong" in that situation. And there is a fundamental difference you failed to notice. In the second case, you are actually USING the second person to save the four other. His death, therefore, is not an accident, as the death of the one worker in the first case might be considered, but it is a murder.
the difference between the two is that the former one person dies as a consequence of an action, while in the latter the action is to kill the person.
it seems as thought the deontological perspective is the one people are inclined toward because you act out of duty to save lives and as a result later in the chain of events one person dies. in the second one the action of pushing the fat man and killing him is viewed as wrong
Anyone on the track is going to die, but it is not justified to violate the fat guys life to save four considering hes not on the track. He should not have (or forced ) too give up his rights for others.
in my perception, situation 1 doesn't differ from situation 2. as for the trolley or the fat man i wouldn't touch either of them. who am i to decide who dies or not regardless of the death count? i did not cause that situation to happen, so i don't feel obliged to fix it unless its possible that i can save them all. just because i didn't take control of this situation doesn't mean i caused it. if i had some personal connection to either the single person or the 4 workers, my morals might change.
I'd pull the lever and push the fat guy. but then kill the 4 with a hatchet or something. I could not pull the lever or push the fat guy but 4 is more fun than 1.....
Could the irrational scenario itself be driving people away from the decision? Well no, not really. It's called suspension of disbelief. I think what is driving people away is the personal touch involved with the bridge scenario, bombing people from a b2 isn't as personal as slaughtering someone to death with a dull hatchet, it's the personal touch.
What I don't get is why can't they jump off the track? I wouldn't pull the lever at all. The 4 men together have a better chance at helping each other get off the track. I wouldn't push anyone off the bridge because no matter how big the man was there is no way he could STOP a train.
The concept is interesting, but the actual scenario is ridiculous. A human being falling on a tram/trolley or train wouldn't stop it. It's illegal to throw someone off a bridge anyway.
Isn't there a better scenario we can think of that's more realistic/legal?
The Trolley problem posed here is a famous moral thought experiment. Most people from all cultures react the same and find it much easier to switch th elever than push the fat man. Interesting, but surely the moral philosopher's coild have thought of a more believable scenario. I mean, how fat would a man have to be to stop a train?!
Yes, I need a pound by pound break down, LOL! Maybe that is at the crux of the problem. I suppose they want us to be sure that the fat man would stop the trolley, save the men on the track. But the act of pushing him over to do this, IS murder! No matter how you dress it up, you are not just taking law into your own hands, you are acting in a completely, unlawful way. And having discussed this now, if you acted as you have said, it would be premeditative murder.
The problem with the second scenario is you wouldn't know for certain the fat would stop the train, also, you'd probably get done for murder.
If I knew for certain the fat guy would stop the train and that I wouldn't get in trouble, then I'd have no problem whatsoever with pushing fatty over the edge.
Another thing to consider is what if you know that the 4 men are apart of a terrorist organization and what if the one man is Gandhi? How does this alter your decision? We can't just think of this in terms of numbers because human judgement has to come into play.
Also, the trolly problem assumes you can only do one action, why not warn the people to get out of the way? There is never just one option when circumstances like this are real.
@IntellectualInquiry I think the point of this vid was the question of what really is/isn't an immoral act. The greatest way to start this debate is to use the dreaded hypothetical. if you DID have just one option as in the real world (which seems pretty reasonable to me for a scenario to happen NOT like this but with just one limited option in whatever scenerio)
That doesnt make sense, you'd pull a lever to save four lives and yet you wouldnt push a fat man to save four lives.
The numbers are the same.
Situation A - Kill 1 to save 4
Situation B - Kill 1 to save 4
I'm only commenting on this video, those people in the vid said they pull the lever to save 4 lives and they wont push a fat man to save four lives. Either way four lives are saved and one dies.
I agree with you. Either way, you play GOD and kill 1 person to save more. It appears worse because there's physical interaction, and the large man is up above, not in harms way the way the others 'MIGHT' be considered to be.
Well then i guess you'd have to share the pain and jump off with him, lol, only then would it be fair. Should his head break, so should yours and plus, there's a higher rate of the train stopping if you go in with him.
The guilt lies within killing that one person, despite the lives you save. Do you think it would be fair if a guy pushed you off the bridge to save 4 lives even though you had much to live for?
It would be fair, i wouldnt like it because as a standard egoist human being i value my life higher than others, however that is the right thing to do, if you dont believe so just increase the death ratio.
I most likely wouldnt take someone else's life for 100,000 others, to kill a person with your bare hands is a big thing, but to watch 100,000 people die is even bigger. But whatever it is, i defenitely wouldn't want to be in that situation.
Considering the negative attitude people have nowadays towards fat people, perhaps it's ethical to push a fat person in front of a trolley even if you are NOT trying to save four people.
How about pushing one fat person in front of a trolley in order to save one person who isn't fat? We talk about charging overweight people more for health insurance & airline seats. Obviously they are worth less than people who aren't fat. How about pushing 3 thin people to save 4 people? 4-3=1 saved!
@Divinenite The video shows only an utilitarian approach to the Trolley Problem. In this scope, of course it makes no sense to pull the lever, but refuse to push the fat man since the consequentialists are the same and this is all that matters in consequentialists theories (e.g., utilitarianism). On the other hand many ethicists reject utilitarianism on such grounds, since it could justify torturing a minority if it would please the majority, for example.
@Divinenite Moreover, the two scenarios differ in that in the first, you only divert the fatal sequence whereas in the second, you initiate a new one (passive vs active killing). Philosophers like Philipa Foot argued that while the first is sometimes permissible, the latter never is.Still,I feel most answers are built on psychosocial constructs: I couldn't kill a healthy man to harvest his organs to save 3 sick patients, but I would ride over one tied to the only road 3 leading to 3 drowning men
A related real-world situation would be agreeing to commit suicide to become an organ donor and save ten people. People routinely die while waiting for donor organs, because there aren't nearly enough to go around. Many people have nice healthy organs and could save lots of people by giving them up right now. Agreeing to become an organ donor when you die eventually is not the same, because all the people who need your organs right now could die before you get around to it.
A realistic application of the trolley problem is whether we should protect the privacy of HIV-positive people. Studies show that about half of HIV-positive people neglect to mention that when they get a new sex partner. We could test everybody, and tattoo all the positive people, so their prospective partners would know. But this would violate the privacy of the HIV-positive people. So we let millions more get infected and die.
I think it's a perceptual issue in regard to our perceptions of avoidable vs. unavoidable, as well as our perceptions of what we CAN control vs. what we SHOULD control. Lastly it's a perception of our general resignation toward those things in life that are quite regrettably seen as being "happenstance" and "dumb luck" vs. those things that are deliberate and volitional.
We humans perceive that to take a proactive action AGAINST any person or thing which is a source of aggression and violence is a moral thing to do. In this instance, the trolley is the source of agression and violence and we need to act against that trolley. So the act of diverting the trolley is PRIMARILLY acting against the trolley, and only SECONDARILY acting against the lone man.
(And now I have to say "rats!" because I now need a third post to complete my thought.)
But when we push the fat man, we're PRIMARILLY acting against the fat man, but only SECONDARILY is that action acting against the trolley.
The fat man is NOT a source of agression or violence at all. And it totally goes against our perception of "rightful interventeion" to act against him since he's not posing any threat of harm.
If the trolley has enough momentum to kill the four men in the video, who look like normal-sized men, then how is one fat man going to stop the trolley? The dilemma is ill-posed. Plus, while you're standing on the bridge, how do you know that pushing the fat guy off would work? How do you know this fast enough? Maybe the fat guy would survive the fall and crawl off the tracks. Or maybe the fat guy would fall to the side. Then you have four dead guys and one injured fat guy.
Actually, the real, moral, correct answer depends on how many people are in the trolley (if any) as well as how evolutionarily fit all of them are. What's morally correct is based on what's best, evolutionarily speaking, for the human race.
If there were no people in the trolley, the answer becomes very simple, move the lever halfway and derail the trolley, so that it crashes without killing anyone.
I respectfully disagree. Letting the workers on the other side die is a surpise too. Both solutions are identical, and that's what shocks people. Both sacrifice humans to minimize carnage. It appears worse because the man on the bridge isn't down below and isn't as close to peril.
Pushing the man off the bridge is exactly the same as pulling the switch!
@pdonovansouthie What is overlooked are the legal consequences. Same number of people die, yet in the 2nd scenario you can be put in jail for murder. Is it then worth sacrificing your own life as well?
Pulling the lever is a surprise too. I'm telling you, they are the same. It just seems like they're not. In both cases you sacrifice less for more humans.
They're not the same. Pushing people off heights has been a violent act all the way back to hominid days, whereas trolley tracks have only been around for about 150 years. The human emotional brain which makes moral judgments has been shaped by evolution to understand what pushing someone off a cliff means, but not to understand what throwing a trolley switch means. To understand the latter requires making a rational calculation, and that's not how the moral brain operates.
In both cases, do you not assume that every life is worth the same? Is it not the fat man's duty to judge the value of his own life? If you push the fat man in front of the trolley is he a hero? If he jumps is he a hero? Will believing in God for someone get them into heaven? The difference is that in the lever situation, the 1 man can NOT make the decision, only you can. The fat man can make the decision, he is simply choosing not to.
Why don't they get off the track?!
mollymcflyxx 6 days ago
Would you vote for building a vehicle and road system that would flourish civilization, increase trade, and connect cities, knowing thousands of lives will be lost due to car accidents each year?
If this question was asked a century ago, the answer would be probably be no. Today we can't live without cars and roads.
777Skeptic 2 weeks ago
i'd scream, GET OFF THE TRACK!!!
SonLastName 3 weeks ago
One difference I can't help thinking about is that if this were a real situation, I would be fairly confident in the fact that when I throw the lever, the train will definitely divert. I would not be farily confident in the fact that pushing the man over will definitely stop the train and save the people; because it's nearly impossible to gauge something like that in real time.
Exstadrenaline 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kinda stupid discussion. The difference is obvious. The difference is controlling the object of destruction versus becoming the object of destruction. If I switch the lever it is still the train that kills the man. If I push the man, it is me that kills the man. In the bridge scenario you have positioned me to forcing action on someone else. There is no mystery in this discussion.
MachetePanda 4 months ago
if u pull the lever it would be murder if u push that fat dude u murder if u do nothin on both u do not murder. evan tho it's ur choice the fat dude and the lonly dude might be important. if u do nothing u r not envolved! Why dont u shout for them 2 move!
RandomMixoo7 5 months ago
Where could you possibly fins a man fat enough to stop a trolley?
dragonridley 5 months ago
The elephant in the room: trolleys save lives, keep our downtowns viable, connect us to one another, and don't require wars based on lies for oil, killing millions. The fat cats we should be pushing off the proverbial bridges onto the tracks are Big Oil, Big Auto, and their dirty lobbyists who've inhibited us from enjoying modern, state-of-the-art electric streetcar, interurban, subway and high-speed intercity rail infrastructure worthy of a civilized nation of 300,000,000 people.
dpjaexp 6 months ago
Also in the first example, you are choosing who to let die. In the second one, you are choosing whether to kill or let die.
trecool9992 7 months ago
Save four innocent families in return for one fat, resource-consuming one. Makes sense to me.
trecool9992 7 months ago
how's this for a choice....."hey, railroad workers!! There's a runaway trolley coming!! get the f%&* off the tracks!!!!!!"
buddhablessU 7 months ago
I would not have pulled the lever and I would not have pushed the fat man.
MrJawsbreaker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 4 will always have to die
if you never push him the 4 will always die anyway
but if you push him sometimes
then potentially the 4 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
It is ethical to push the fat man. When our intuitions say something is wrong, we need to remember that intuitions are often culturally created. I knew that pushing the man was the logical choice, but it felt wrong. Months later, my intuitions changed. I would compare the sensation with how one feels when they finally comprehend a hard concept.
Vazeroth16 11 months ago
1 person would push the fat guy.
MrTeracotapie 1 year ago
The outcomes are the same, but the situations are not.In both scenarios these people chose to work on the tracks everyday,knowing that they would be at risk. It is easier to pull the lever cuz the man at the other side of the track has put HIMSELF at risk by working on the tracks;WE didn’t place him there.In the 2nd scenario,the fat man was there by CHANCE, if pushed,then WE would be placing him at risk and also causing his death.While in the 1st scenario we are only causing death. THE END...
FinestWM 1 year ago
The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first one, the death of the one person is not intended and merely an unfortunate side effect of you trying to save four lives. However, in the second example killing the guy is used as a direct means to saving the others lives. You're actually using the death of the guy to save the others, whereas in the first one, even though you can foresee his death, you're not intending for him to die. This comes down to the doctrine of double effect...
cfsch 1 year ago
(With why all 5 men are on the rails aside) ...What if the one man is a socially, historically, or scientifically significant being (like a modern Leonardo Da Vinci or a young John Nash)? And what if the other four men are elderly (having lived full lives), have terminally ill diseases, etc? Doesn't that change the scenario a bit?
rockafeladave 1 year ago
Final comment: this is an ethical problem fit for comedians. Would you push 5,000 people in front of a train in order to stop it from entering a terminal where 5,050 would be killed by a bomb on the train? You'd be saving 46 more lives than you would by pulling the switch in this problem.
Boy, math gets harder every year, especially when you add ethics to the calculation.
small45gt 1 year ago
They are NOT the same! In the video it is presumed that you know you are killing one man to save 4. In reality you cannot ever know that. By intervening to save 4 you may or may not know that you are endangering another person, but you cannot be certain of the result. He could see the trolley and jump out of the way. Pushing a man in order to stop the trolley requires that he be hit, so you are definitely killing someone, not changing the course of events to some indeterminate result.
small45gt 1 year ago
What this argument proves is that morality is not entirely rational, that it's not something that can be calculated. Philosophers have been trying since forever to rationalize morality, and come up with some unique calculus -- something everyone can agree on -- for determining what is the right thing to do in any situation. This argument goes a long way towards demonstrating that this is a hopeless quest.
hummingfrog 1 year ago
The fat guy should just jump. If you push him you're a murderer. If you flip the switch, you're just flipping a switch.
julieann98 1 year ago
Not to mention that these two setups completely ignores a scenario in which the single person being saved is a doctor, while the the other 4 are homeless alcoholics. In such a situation, another utilitarian calculus could be applied.
renumeratedfrog 1 year ago
Actually, it's NOT exactly the same. You people concentrate on the mathematical variables, completely ignoring that it is a moral decision and thus it depends on people's emotions. Touching another person's body is highly charged with personal prejudices, feelings and expectations. This is exactly why it is easier to push a button and launch a cruise missile which kills 100 people, than killing those people by strangling them yourself.
renumeratedfrog 1 year ago
if the mans really that fat to stop a train, I wouldn't be able to push him lol
penguindiverz 1 year ago 24
They don't need to be fat to be pushed, just effective at stopping the train. If I knew the person on the bridge would stop the train and the poor innocent hard working men below would be saved then I believe I would push the lazy individual standing around doing nothing on the bridge. If they were fat then that is just a bonus.
hippyknight 1 year ago
Well, to quote a famous fictitious logical thinker, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". If only we had the ability to set aside our own internal fears and do what's logical, but maybe that's a good thing we don't. Who knows.
Quinnatator 1 year ago
ok, there is just too much in the spectre to care about. well, i just would not be a guy in that area+car
aizik2005 1 year ago
They are the same, But I don't see why emotions should play into this, in either instance. If you let the people die because you DON'T pull the lever or push the guy, it's still your fault, just through inaction rather than action.
PoisonedV 1 year ago
I believe it has something to do with the choice of the agent.
You are not using the mans life to save anyone when you pull the lever. That's just a bad consequence.
The fat man you are actively killing a rational agent to stop the train.
I'd shout at the guys to "GTFO off the track!"
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
But pulling the lever has do with kiling someone who just happens to be there.
The fat guy is himself acting as the lever.
Guy on the track isn't dying to save the other 4 he is a consequence of the lever.
lol I recall dawkins explained it a while back in watchmaker
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
how do you not see and hear a fucking trolley coming for you? lol
StackCityEntOfficial 1 year ago
I would pull the lever and push the man.
I really don't understand why people say that they wouldn't push the person O.o
After the moment that in the 1st situation you decide to pull the lever, it shouldn't be a hard decision to push the man off the bridge.
Kazept9 1 year ago
@Kazept9
I think it's because the action of pushing the man is so much more direct than pulling the lever. When you push the man, you are directly condemning him to death. When you pull the lever it doesn't seem quite as a direct act.
It also may be because pulling the lever to change the trolley's course is a much more reliable action that would surely save the four men. If you look at it logically, pushing a fat man to stop a trolley just seems moronic, because it would probably do nothing.
Quinnatator 1 year ago
@Quinnatator
Yeah you have a point, but in this hypothetical situation you have a guarantee that pulling the lever and pushing the fat man has the exact same effect.
Kazept9 1 year ago
Quite simply, we are much more willing, as a rule to "let" a thing happen, however terrible that thing may be, than to actively *do* a particular thing.
Putting the switch into the equation distances the participant from the act. We simply switch a train. The train does the dirty work at a remove from our action.
The point is, "moral" equations are, fundamentally, deeply emotional and intuitive - not the result of reason.
Even the idea that things *ought* to fair is an emotional one.
prodprod 1 year ago
Evidently pushing the fat man off the bridge will not ensure the four men will be saved he could land beside the track or he could live and crawl off the track or if you did succeed in getting him on the track your estimation that his weight would stop the train might be wrong and it could still fail to derail the train. These thoughts can be subconcious when answering the question thus prompting people to say they wouldn't do it without actually knowing why.
classicchinadoll 1 year ago
@classicchinadoll Just to make my point clearer when pushing the man off the bridge most people would understand that you are meant to assume it will be successful yet in answering the question people will imagine as if they were really in that situation and they would automatically respond as if that situation was contingent factors that would apply in reality
classicchinadoll 1 year ago
Except, what is shown in the video is a toy trolley that can kill no one.
Think I'm being flippant? The fact is, one person, no matter how fat, could not stop the kinetic energy of a runaway trolley going too fast for the 4 workers to simply step out t of the way. So, in fact, its the question that is a meaningless toy.
HConstantine 1 year ago
It's the same. **Exactly** the same...It's just more personal because a)You are touching the person, not a lever and b)The man above is not below, so it seems more 'forced' pushing him down to harms way. But the end result is what the professor says. It's the same. I racked my brain for hours, and why I put this up on youtube. He is absolutely right. I disagreed with him vehemently at first, but came to the same conclusion. They are the same....
pdonovansouthie 1 year ago
@pdonovansouthie and that's how war works.
Stabbing with a knife blood being splattered all on you? NO WAY? Shooting from a far distance? HMM... NO Aiming from an helicopter maybe? MMM... DUNNO Pressing a button bombing citizens from the other side of the atlantic? COOL!
Clean hands, same action, no remorses.
gaprilis 11 months ago
scenerio 1, you save 4 people and kill 1, all are involved in the same activity, shown here as working, scenerio 2, you push an obese man to his bloody death in order to save 4 people who are about to have a workplace mishap. how can you not see how this scenerio is seen differently in peoples minds? ones got the emphasis on saving 4 lives while the other has the emphasis on you actually physically taking a life
dirrtysteve89 8 months ago
@pdonovansouthie I disagree that the SITUATIONS are exactly the same. The OUTCOMES are of course the same, but in scenario 1, you don't know how that one man might feel. You can think, "Well if he knew, perhaps he would be willing to make the sacrifice," and be less afraid of taking his life completely against his will. In the scenario 2, you know the man does not wish to make the sacrifice. You would be wrenching life from him, not only without his approval, but blatantly AGAINST his wishes.
PasatibePimpin 2 months ago
@pdonovansouthie The professor doesn't say which of your options is "right" or "wrong" in that situation. And there is a fundamental difference you failed to notice. In the second case, you are actually USING the second person to save the four other. His death, therefore, is not an accident, as the death of the one worker in the first case might be considered, but it is a murder.
RUBENSolol 2 months ago
the difference between the two is that the former one person dies as a consequence of an action, while in the latter the action is to kill the person.
it seems as thought the deontological perspective is the one people are inclined toward because you act out of duty to save lives and as a result later in the chain of events one person dies. in the second one the action of pushing the fat man and killing him is viewed as wrong
jumboshrimp09 1 year ago
@jumboshrimp09 Wrong.
xPlatinumKirby 1 year ago
@xPlatinumKirby
how?
jumboshrimp09 1 year ago
@jumboshrimp09 Either way you're killing one person and saving four. No way around it champ.
xPlatinumKirby 1 year ago
@xPlatinumKirby
i explained the difference stfu troll
jumboshrimp09 1 year ago
@jumboshrimp09 There is no difference.
xPlatinumKirby 1 year ago
@jumboshrimp09
im sorry your right
xPlatinumKirby 1 year ago
Anyone on the track is going to die, but it is not justified to violate the fat guys life to save four considering hes not on the track. He should not have (or forced ) too give up his rights for others.
JoshTheDrummer69 1 year ago
in my perception, situation 1 doesn't differ from situation 2. as for the trolley or the fat man i wouldn't touch either of them. who am i to decide who dies or not regardless of the death count? i did not cause that situation to happen, so i don't feel obliged to fix it unless its possible that i can save them all. just because i didn't take control of this situation doesn't mean i caused it. if i had some personal connection to either the single person or the 4 workers, my morals might change.
larry89 1 year ago
I wouldn't do either. Very unfortunate circumstances, but adding murder to the mix is even worse.
HywelEd 1 year ago
I'd pull the lever and push the fat guy. but then kill the 4 with a hatchet or something. I could not pull the lever or push the fat guy but 4 is more fun than 1.....
Fullmetal9876 1 year ago
Pull a lever, kill 1 save 4.
(Rational scenario)
Push a fat man off a bridge, kill 1 save 4.
(Irrational scenario)
Could the irrational scenario itself be driving people away from the decision? Well no, not really. It's called suspension of disbelief. I think what is driving people away is the personal touch involved with the bridge scenario, bombing people from a b2 isn't as personal as slaughtering someone to death with a dull hatchet, it's the personal touch.
MaskedTirade 1 year ago
It just supposed to demonstrate moral thought processes; don't take the scenario too literally...
jakewoot101 2 years ago
I would shout and make them get off the tracks.]
And I'm not sure how I feel about the quantity of lives being more important than the quality of them.
Plus, there's no way that 1 person would be able to stop the train, even if they are OMG FAAAAAT.
xxgunsgobangxx 2 years ago
This is dumb...can't they hear or see this trolley? haha. This is pretty unrealistic too considering 1 fat man will NOT stop a runaway trolley lol.
systemofadownhunny 2 years ago
What I don't get is why can't they jump off the track? I wouldn't pull the lever at all. The 4 men together have a better chance at helping each other get off the track. I wouldn't push anyone off the bridge because no matter how big the man was there is no way he could STOP a train.
TheMarMar 2 years ago
The concept is interesting, but the actual scenario is ridiculous. A human being falling on a tram/trolley or train wouldn't stop it. It's illegal to throw someone off a bridge anyway.
Isn't there a better scenario we can think of that's more realistic/legal?
ByeByeBelly 2 years ago
The Trolley problem posed here is a famous moral thought experiment. Most people from all cultures react the same and find it much easier to switch th elever than push the fat man. Interesting, but surely the moral philosopher's coild have thought of a more believable scenario. I mean, how fat would a man have to be to stop a train?!
RiCorr 2 years ago
Yes, I need a pound by pound break down, LOL! Maybe that is at the crux of the problem. I suppose they want us to be sure that the fat man would stop the trolley, save the men on the track. But the act of pushing him over to do this, IS murder! No matter how you dress it up, you are not just taking law into your own hands, you are acting in a completely, unlawful way. And having discussed this now, if you acted as you have said, it would be premeditative murder.
Peace,
\A/
Awwa1 2 years ago
The problem with the second scenario is you wouldn't know for certain the fat would stop the train, also, you'd probably get done for murder.
If I knew for certain the fat guy would stop the train and that I wouldn't get in trouble, then I'd have no problem whatsoever with pushing fatty over the edge.
Philipisgr8 2 years ago
Another thing to consider is what if you know that the 4 men are apart of a terrorist organization and what if the one man is Gandhi? How does this alter your decision? We can't just think of this in terms of numbers because human judgement has to come into play.
Also, the trolly problem assumes you can only do one action, why not warn the people to get out of the way? There is never just one option when circumstances like this are real.
IntellectualInquiry 2 years ago 4
@IntellectualInquiry I think the point of this vid was the question of what really is/isn't an immoral act. The greatest way to start this debate is to use the dreaded hypothetical. if you DID have just one option as in the real world (which seems pretty reasonable to me for a scenario to happen NOT like this but with just one limited option in whatever scenerio)
POPCANA 2 months ago
That doesnt make sense, you'd pull a lever to save four lives and yet you wouldnt push a fat man to save four lives.
The numbers are the same.
Situation A - Kill 1 to save 4
Situation B - Kill 1 to save 4
I'm only commenting on this video, those people in the vid said they pull the lever to save 4 lives and they wont push a fat man to save four lives. Either way four lives are saved and one dies.
Divinenite 2 years ago
I agree with you. Either way, you play GOD and kill 1 person to save more. It appears worse because there's physical interaction, and the large man is up above, not in harms way the way the others 'MIGHT' be considered to be.
pdonovansouthie 2 years ago
Well then i guess you'd have to share the pain and jump off with him, lol, only then would it be fair. Should his head break, so should yours and plus, there's a higher rate of the train stopping if you go in with him.
Divinenite 2 years ago
this is dumb, 1 death is better than 2 deaths.
There shouldnt be moral guilt when what you did is save 4 lives by taking one.
baalshin 2 years ago
The guilt lies within killing that one person, despite the lives you save. Do you think it would be fair if a guy pushed you off the bridge to save 4 lives even though you had much to live for?
Divinenite 2 years ago
It would be fair, i wouldnt like it because as a standard egoist human being i value my life higher than others, however that is the right thing to do, if you dont believe so just increase the death ratio.
what about 1 life for 100,000 ones? still no?
baalshin 2 years ago
I most likely wouldnt take someone else's life for 100,000 others, to kill a person with your bare hands is a big thing, but to watch 100,000 people die is even bigger. But whatever it is, i defenitely wouldn't want to be in that situation.
Divinenite 2 years ago
Considering the negative attitude people have nowadays towards fat people, perhaps it's ethical to push a fat person in front of a trolley even if you are NOT trying to save four people.
How about pushing one fat person in front of a trolley in order to save one person who isn't fat? We talk about charging overweight people more for health insurance & airline seats. Obviously they are worth less than people who aren't fat. How about pushing 3 thin people to save 4 people? 4-3=1 saved!
small45gt 1 year ago
@Divinenite The video shows only an utilitarian approach to the Trolley Problem. In this scope, of course it makes no sense to pull the lever, but refuse to push the fat man since the consequentialists are the same and this is all that matters in consequentialists theories (e.g., utilitarianism). On the other hand many ethicists reject utilitarianism on such grounds, since it could justify torturing a minority if it would please the majority, for example.
Psychological constructs : doctors
igotkiwi 3 months ago
@Divinenite Moreover, the two scenarios differ in that in the first, you only divert the fatal sequence whereas in the second, you initiate a new one (passive vs active killing). Philosophers like Philipa Foot argued that while the first is sometimes permissible, the latter never is.Still,I feel most answers are built on psychosocial constructs: I couldn't kill a healthy man to harvest his organs to save 3 sick patients, but I would ride over one tied to the only road 3 leading to 3 drowning men
igotkiwi 3 months ago
@Divinenite yeah but its like murder if you push him.
the other situation your is more about saving a life instead of creating death.
aba2185 3 months ago
I was absolutely shocked when people said they would kill someone to save the others. You're all barbaric savages.
alique087 2 years ago
I would let the train kill the 4 people. Pulling the lever and killing that 1 person is intentional murder. Killing the 4, you had no controll over.
PowerHeal 3 years ago
what if it were 1 person or 100,000 people? would you still let 100k people die ?
baalshin 2 years ago
A related real-world situation would be agreeing to commit suicide to become an organ donor and save ten people. People routinely die while waiting for donor organs, because there aren't nearly enough to go around. Many people have nice healthy organs and could save lots of people by giving them up right now. Agreeing to become an organ donor when you die eventually is not the same, because all the people who need your organs right now could die before you get around to it.
Teratornis 3 years ago
A realistic application of the trolley problem is whether we should protect the privacy of HIV-positive people. Studies show that about half of HIV-positive people neglect to mention that when they get a new sex partner. We could test everybody, and tattoo all the positive people, so their prospective partners would know. But this would violate the privacy of the HIV-positive people. So we let millions more get infected and die.
Teratornis 3 years ago
POST #1 of 2 POSTS
I think it's a perceptual issue in regard to our perceptions of avoidable vs. unavoidable, as well as our perceptions of what we CAN control vs. what we SHOULD control. Lastly it's a perception of our general resignation toward those things in life that are quite regrettably seen as being "happenstance" and "dumb luck" vs. those things that are deliberate and volitional.
I'll elaborate in my next post.
InnocentByproduct 3 years ago
POST #2 of 2 POSTS
We humans perceive that to take a proactive action AGAINST any person or thing which is a source of aggression and violence is a moral thing to do. In this instance, the trolley is the source of agression and violence and we need to act against that trolley. So the act of diverting the trolley is PRIMARILLY acting against the trolley, and only SECONDARILY acting against the lone man.
(And now I have to say "rats!" because I now need a third post to complete my thought.)
InnocentByproduct 3 years ago
POST #3 of 2 POSTS
But when we push the fat man, we're PRIMARILLY acting against the fat man, but only SECONDARILY is that action acting against the trolley.
The fat man is NOT a source of agression or violence at all. And it totally goes against our perception of "rightful interventeion" to act against him since he's not posing any threat of harm.
InnocentByproduct 3 years ago
I don't think your regular "fat man" would stop a trolley in time to save four people on the other side of a bridge. They'd all die.
And if you have a man fat enough to stop a trolley in its tracks, then you're probably not strong enough to push him.
digitalxdreaming 3 years ago
If the trolley has enough momentum to kill the four men in the video, who look like normal-sized men, then how is one fat man going to stop the trolley? The dilemma is ill-posed. Plus, while you're standing on the bridge, how do you know that pushing the fat guy off would work? How do you know this fast enough? Maybe the fat guy would survive the fall and crawl off the tracks. Or maybe the fat guy would fall to the side. Then you have four dead guys and one injured fat guy.
Teratornis 3 years ago
Actually, the real, moral, correct answer depends on how many people are in the trolley (if any) as well as how evolutionarily fit all of them are. What's morally correct is based on what's best, evolutionarily speaking, for the human race.
If there were no people in the trolley, the answer becomes very simple, move the lever halfway and derail the trolley, so that it crashes without killing anyone.
m1ss1ontomars2k4 3 years ago
I respectfully disagree. Letting the workers on the other side die is a surpise too. Both solutions are identical, and that's what shocks people. Both sacrifice humans to minimize carnage. It appears worse because the man on the bridge isn't down below and isn't as close to peril.
Pushing the man off the bridge is exactly the same as pulling the switch!
pdonovansouthie 3 years ago
@pdonovansouthie What is overlooked are the legal consequences. Same number of people die, yet in the 2nd scenario you can be put in jail for murder. Is it then worth sacrificing your own life as well?
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
pushing someone off a bridge is a surprise attack so that's why you wouldn't want to do it. It's not because it's direct.
blahyapyap 3 years ago
Pulling the lever is a surprise too. I'm telling you, they are the same. It just seems like they're not. In both cases you sacrifice less for more humans.
pdonovansouthie 3 years ago
They're not the same. Pushing people off heights has been a violent act all the way back to hominid days, whereas trolley tracks have only been around for about 150 years. The human emotional brain which makes moral judgments has been shaped by evolution to understand what pushing someone off a cliff means, but not to understand what throwing a trolley switch means. To understand the latter requires making a rational calculation, and that's not how the moral brain operates.
Teratornis 3 years ago
In both cases, do you not assume that every life is worth the same? Is it not the fat man's duty to judge the value of his own life? If you push the fat man in front of the trolley is he a hero? If he jumps is he a hero? Will believing in God for someone get them into heaven? The difference is that in the lever situation, the 1 man can NOT make the decision, only you can. The fat man can make the decision, he is simply choosing not to.
SirBackDrake 1 year ago