The one thing I never understood about this problem placing it on a real life situation is how throwing one man onto an out of control trolley will stop the trolley killing the other 5? No matter how big his person is the only thing I can see is just a really messy situation. Most likely if I throw that other person all 6 of them will die without a lever to change tracks
Interestingly, having the neurological correlates mapped out leads me to question the faith we put in logical reasoning at the expense of emotion or intuition. In part because we cannot always know the consequences, and in some cases do not have the ability (or time) to logically analyze a situation completely, it is important to have a set of principles defining moral acts (as well as moral consequences). A sense of duty or obligation is actually embedded in either view.
Thanks, Massimo! I know Greene himself is a pretty hardcore consequentialist but I think I remember you criticizing consequentialism on Rationally Speaking a while ago. I could be thinking of something else. Have you written on consequentialism before?
Interesting, because I most likely wouldn't touch anything if I were in that situation. I wonder how many people answered that and if they studied those people's brains?
You are missing the point. It's about the type of choice you'd make, not whether it would actually work in a real life situation.
MassimoPigliucci 4 days ago
The one thing I never understood about this problem placing it on a real life situation is how throwing one man onto an out of control trolley will stop the trolley killing the other 5? No matter how big his person is the only thing I can see is just a really messy situation. Most likely if I throw that other person all 6 of them will die without a lever to change tracks
quiksilv3rsurfESTV 4 days ago
Comment removed
Nicoissimo 4 months ago
Interestingly, having the neurological correlates mapped out leads me to question the faith we put in logical reasoning at the expense of emotion or intuition. In part because we cannot always know the consequences, and in some cases do not have the ability (or time) to logically analyze a situation completely, it is important to have a set of principles defining moral acts (as well as moral consequences). A sense of duty or obligation is actually embedded in either view.
Nicoissimo 4 months ago
i agree with the gentlemen below me
hamsandvich 11 months ago
Excellent video.
phlewis86 1 year ago
Epydemic, yes, that is correct. There are different approaches to ethics that would not consider the two versions of the dilemma equivalent.
MassimoPigliucci 1 year ago
Cool video.
One critique tho, calling the two alternatives of the trolley dilemma "ethically equivalent" is only true if you are a consequentialist of some sort.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
I'm in the process of making a video about Joshua Greene's take on the trolley problem...This video helped me to clarify my thoughts on this...
Btw you might want to add "Joshua Greene" to the tags?
2bsirius 1 year ago
Keep the videos coming Massimo! They're great!
Terlegon 1 year ago
GP, I haven't written much on consequentialism, but I've been thinking quite a bit about it! (I tend toward virtue ethics myself...)
MassimoPigliucci 2 years ago
Thanks, Massimo! I know Greene himself is a pretty hardcore consequentialist but I think I remember you criticizing consequentialism on Rationally Speaking a while ago. I could be thinking of something else. Have you written on consequentialism before?
GodlessPhilosopher 2 years ago 2
Interesting, because I most likely wouldn't touch anything if I were in that situation. I wonder how many people answered that and if they studied those people's brains?
16parker88 2 years ago 3
Great job Massimo, I'll pass it along.
ju706634 2 years ago 2