Trolley Problem

[Spinal]

We seem to enjoy a good debate here, so I thought I would try this one. It's not politics nor football, but may spark some interesting thoughts...

It's called the trolley problem.

In it's basic form, imagine this scenario:

There is a runaway train trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The train trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.

You have two options:
(1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
(2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice?

Now - my first thought was (1) would be the lesser of two evils, even if it does mean that you are now responsible for the death of a person. Then I got confronted with this (almost identical) scenario:

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

Suddenly, it takes a whole different angle.

(with thanks to wiki for saving me from typing the scenarios out)

M.

 

[Sp!ke]

That all depends on whether the five are willing to pay handsomely for their replacement organs?

If the price is right...

 

[Palfrem]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so pulling the lever saves 5 lives.

Doctor cannot kill (unless young man was a terminal scroat?) to harvest organs. Hippocratic oath and all that I guess.

 

[finisterre]

In both situations the winners and losers deserve to live. In both five are destined to die.

Legality is a convenience to guide community and justice exists to exact impersonal revenge. We will never be able to define or codify fair, people have to make their own choices. But these choices are inherently unfair. So we need to accept necessity and divorce ourselves from responsibility.

I think they should toss a coin. That way five are no longer destined to die, reality is confronted, responsibility sidestepped, choice is accepted, and all are given a chance.



Do I get a gold star?

 

[Sp!ke]

On a serious note... what if the young man had been in some nasty accident and had a 50% chance of survival? Would the surgeon strive so hard to save his life knowing he could save five others by using his organs?

What about a 40% chance or 30%? At what point would the surgeon start to think differently?

 

[Doodle]

3) The Kobayashi Maru approach - pull the lever halfway, and derail the trolley.

 

[finisterre]

Trekkie!

 

[ChrisA]

If you do nothing then you are not held liable.......if you flick the switch you instantly become involved and that's then a whole new ball game!

 

[Giantvanman]

These look like basic questions about/on philosophy.

There is no room for philosophy in either of these scenarios were it real life. As dreadful as it seems, it would cold, hard, legal logic for me. Seeing as I couldn't stop the trolley without endangering another otherwise uninvolved person, I would step away and do nothing.

The phrasing of the second question suggests or presumes a more philosophical 'for the good of the many' answer to the first question and is therefor loaded for teaching purposes, perhaps.

 

[Spinal]

If you do nothing then you are not held liable.......if you flick the switch you instantly become involved and that's then a whole new ball game!

Though, using Asimov's laws of robotics (yes, I realize we are not robots), doesn't the act of not acting doom the five people?

Does that not make one responsible for their deaths?

 

[Jeff666]

3) The Kobayashi Maru approach - pull the lever halfway, and derail the trolley.

That was cheating then!!!

 

[ChrisA]

Though, using Asimov's laws of robotics (yes, I realize we are not robots), doesn't the act of not acting doom the five people?

Does that not make one responsible for their deaths?

.....but then ask the question

Who tied up these people, why were they tied up?

If you decide to involve yourself then I would presume the "Nasty" people would decide it's now your turn to play Houdini on a track

 

[Spinal]

If you decide to involve yourself then I would presume the "Nasty" people would decide it's now your turn to play Houdini on a track

Which raises a third approach - jump onto the tracks and stop the trolley, but replacing your life for the other 5/1/6...

 

[whitenemesis]

I'd just shoot all six of them, I don't play favourites.....

 

[Deker]

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

Leave the traveller alone and when the first transplant person dies use their previous working organs on the other 4 patients as they all needed different organs.

 

[Dryce]

Does that not make one responsible for their deaths?

Where does this all stand with reference to the Prime Directive?.

 

[Rashman]

Shout to the person standing on the side track!
Urge him/her to quickly go and help the 5 people who are tied up on the other track!


Quietly cackle to yourself as they all die.









Is this wrong?

 

[boxbrownie]

Doctor cannot kill (unless young man was a terminal scroat?) to harvest organs.

Unless he is a Chinese prison doctor.........

 

[219]

We seem to enjoy a good debate here, so I thought I would try this one. It's not politics nor football, but may spark some interesting thoughts...

It's called the trolley problem.

In it's basic form, imagine this scenario:


Now - my first thought was (1) would be the lesser of two evils, even if it does mean that you are now responsible for the death of a person. Then I got confronted with this (almost identical) scenario:


Suddenly, it takes a whole different angle.

(with thanks to wiki for saving me from typing the scenarios out)

M.

Well , it doesn't say that the person on the side track is tied up and unable to move , so I'd switch the points , at the same time as shouting a warning to that person to get off the track

On the other hand , if you are dead jammy , switch the points just after the front wheels pass over , but before the rear ones do , and you could derail the trolley , thus saving all six .

Not everyone believes in the no win scenario .

 

[Bellow]

Switch the points and then harvest his organs. Ten saved, one down. Best arithmetic result so far.