1. What is the problem? (The first 3 of you to post can work together to describe it -- from the 1st Sandel video here or
2. What are the possible solutions? The rest of you (if you weren't one of the 3 describers above) can use your intuitions to map out the possibilities.
By 5 Feb
3. What solution do you prefer? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your solution? (Everyone participates on this part, but you probably won't all have different solutions, so you don't need to repeat what someone else has said before you, but do try to gently critique the responses of at least two of your classmates).
1) The problem to solve in the trolley video is basically; how do you decide who dies as a result of the trolley crashing? letting the scene play out would result in the 5 passengers being killed, however changing routes could save their lives but put the lives of others in danger.
ReplyDelete3) honestly, not necessarily out of preference, but if I know myself I would choose to stay the course and the 5 on the trolley car would die. mostly because of simple panic and the inability to react. Ideally, in the perfect situation, I would say why cant the 5 on the car somehow buckle down and take the hit without death being eminent?
I think I too would stay on course only due to not being able to react in time, however if I had the time to process my thoughts I believe I would switch course and only kill the one. I wondered the same thing, why do they have to die? Can't they just move out of the way? But I suppose the scenario is to challenge us to think ethically.
DeleteJessica I never thought about the inability to react that's an interesting viewpoint. Wouldn't you think that instincts would take over and you would just react instead of making a decision? Although I do think if you froze in the situation that might clear your conscience of making a decision of killing someone.
DeleteGood view point, I did not think of this either. Makes you feel a little better in the fact you could not react fast enough than having to make a moral decision regarding taking a life.
DeleteGood view point, I did not think of this either. Makes you feel a little better in the fact you could not react fast enough than having to make a moral decision regarding taking a life.
DeleteI Think that of all the possible solutions, I would probably do just what Jessica brought up and let the scene play out as it will. Due to the fact that I wouldn't be able to think out a solution rationally at such a point. If I did, I feel that the situation becomes one of "why?" I did what I did, and not one of 'an unfortunate accident'. Mostly, in life, things happen that are out of our control. I believe that this is one of them. Thinking that suddenly the fate of others is all in your hands is an egotistical way of looking at it.
Delete1) What is the problem with the trolley car dilemma?
ReplyDeleteThe trolley car portion of this video contrasts how various people would handle the same problem if presented with it: to use consequentialist moral reasoning or to use categorical moral reasoning when presented with the decision of whose lives should be taken.
The first scenario: you're the driver of a trolley car going down the hill, unable to stop. On the main track there are five workers certain to die when you run them over. You look to the right to see a side track where there is only one worker. Do you stay on course and take the lives of five workers, or steer to the side track and kill only the one worker. Insert consequentialist reasoning here.
The second scenario: You are a helpless observer on a bridge overhead, next to you a large person whom you could sacrifice to save the lives of all the workers below. Insert categorical moral reasoning here.
1. What is the problem with the trolley car dilemma? Professor Sandels presents two different scenarios and then challenges the class with a "what would you do" question. Stay on path and kill 5 people or make the choice to turn to the side track and only kill 1 person. This is a great way to present the consequential reasoning viewpoint. Is that one life worth less than the 5 lives? Then the second scenario takes the categorical moral reasoning viewpoint as being an observer and pushing a large man over the rail to save the 5 people on the track. Again killing 1 to save 5. Both situations seem almost impossible to decide unless you were placed in the heat of the moment
ReplyDelete3. If I had to choose right now I believe I would choose to turn the trolley and risk killing just the one person. Every part of me would hope by some miracle like in the movies that one person would move at the last moment, or Superman swoop in to save the day. I would not consider the second scenario because as an onlooker on the bridge I am not directly involved. If you shove the man over it feels like a willful act of murder. In the first scenario I would have no control of the train, someone would die no matter what choice I made.
I was hoping at some point, he would further complicate the matter by saying the person beside us on the bridge that we could sacrifice to save the workers below had a terminal illness..... What would most people do then? Would they sacrifice the person with a terminal illness to save those below who were healthy.
DeleteI also thought it would be interesting if he added that the five workers were convicts out working on "the chain gang" versus a non-criminal solitary worker on the right track there doing his normal job.
I would most likely chose the same reaction if I had enough time to process, also hoping th at th eon ebistander would somehow tempt fate.
DeleteWould you push the man off the bridge if one of the workers on the track was your relative? (assuming you actually like your relative)
DeleteErin, if it was my child on the track, I'd push than man off the bridge in a heartbeat. (Sorry, being honest)
DeleteErin, that is a good question, and a hard one to answer. I'd like to be able to outright say no, but then again if it were my son I don't think I would hesitate. I feel like I'm a bad person for even thinking it, because what if that person has a family and children.... I just hope to never find myself in that position to have to make that kind of decision.
DeleteI think most people would choose their children over someone you may not know. I wonder if you had the time to look at the people on the track if that would influence your decision into who you may choose to kill. If one group had tattoo's all over her body would that make you choose them? If they were scruffy looking people would that make you choose them?
DeleteAlex, to respond to your question of killing based on appearance, that is another sticky situations. If I saw a group standing there covered in tattoos and another without I couldn't make a choice based on that. For I could very well be be in that tattooed group standing on the track. I have multiple tattoos, I just hide them well. I don't think that makes me more of a trolley car target. If you mean a tattooed group of gang members or biker gangs, then I could understand your point in that they may not be the most upstanding citizens. Now say there is a 90 year old person and a young child, then appearance may be easier to make that choice. The 90 year old has lived a long life and may not have much time left, where as the child still has a lifetime to live.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe possible solutions to the Trolley car problem are:
ReplyDeleteScenario one:
• The driver of the trolley car chooses to continue on the track as originally intended which results in killing 5 people.
• The driver of the car chooses to abort the original route and turn the car to the other track which will result in killing 1 person.
Scenario two:
• An onlooker can do nothing and watch the trolley car crash into 5 people killing them.
• An onlooker can push another unknowing onlooker onto the track which would stop the car from killing the 5 people but result in the 1 man’s death.
To add to my post related to the question of which solution would I prefer, in the first scenario it would be to only kill the one person. That being said, I base my decision solely on the information given. There are so many "what ifs" to be considered. Like Shelly said, what if the 5 were convicted convicts?
DeleteIn the second scenario, I know I absolutely could not bring myself to shove the man off the bridge. However, if you add in some "what ifs" my decision could change. What if the man on the bridge was a rapist? Or what if my own family were the ones on the tracks? But, given only the known information in the stated problem, I would not shove him off the bridge.
I agree with both of your decisions. Kill one instead of five, and no to pushing the man over the rail. What I do find interesting is that so many people are willing to change their decisions based on the "what if's". There isn't a right or wrong answer to the question. But I think this case does make us delve into our own morals. There is a situation where we are willing to kill someone/s, if they meet or don't meet certain criteria. Throw in something like my son, and you better believe I'm going to do whatever it takes to save him, even if its throwing me over the rail.
DeleteErin and Jocelyn, I agree. We can't ad in the "what ifs". In the scenario, we have to make a split decision on who lives and who dies, there is no time to find out if there are convicts or a terminally ill fat person on the bridge. You have to make a decision, stick with it, and pray you made the right one.
Delete2. I feel there are few possible solutions that would sit well with a persons conscience. One the hand you can do nothing and 5 people will die and after the fact you can chalk it up to equipment failure. On the other hand you can make a decision to turn the wheel and head toward that 1 worker using the logic 1 sacrificed is better than 5. Using some logic maybe that one worker would have a better chance of escaping the tracks than the 5 surely all 5 couldn't escape. Maybe a few of the 5 could escape and help the others after they are struck. Lastly you could try to alert them in some way by either yelling or using a horn on the trolley car. I think one of the big take aways from this that all human life is precious and you can place any logic on killing a person. I feel like there is a good chance that you feel the same after the fact about either decision you would make.
ReplyDelete3. I would personally choose to kill the 1 and the reason being is simply a numbers game. I feel like a strength of my choice would be if there was a chance to escape the odds are better for 1 to escape than 5. I feel like the biggest weakness of my argument is you are making a choice to turn that wheel and take that person's life even though it is better than killing 5. Like I said earlier what makes this problem so difficult is you are trying to put logic on killing people and that is something very difficult for the human mind to take on.
That is a good perspective taking into consideration the 'what ifs' that one person has a better chance of escaping than five. Not that is makes it easier to take a life regardless.
DeleteI agree with you completely, Alex. It would be ideal if we could warn them, and they could clear the tracks. It would be nice to think they would be aware and hear the trolley coming and move from the tracks without any incidence.
DeleteHowever, if a choice must be made, and it's not involving someone who wasn't already involved (like the man on the bridge), that choice would be to take one life versus five. This reminds me of the first time I took a mass casualty class. I wanted to save everyone. I wanted to work on that traumatic arrest, while also finding a way to give those moderately injured, needing care, while also monitoring the walking wounded for progression of their injuries while awaiting help. I struggled so much with letting that traumatic arrest go (although I knew their chance of surviving a traumatic arrest was minimal)and focusing my efforts on those whom we could save, and were likely to survive.
First of all how nice is Harvard's lecture halls. Secondly I would do the same. I would save the 5 and sacrifice the one. I would not consider the man on the bridge. If he had the scenario I don't want to be pushed off the bridge.
Delete2) Solutions
ReplyDelete• Allow the trolley your are driving to continue on it’s path and kill five workers or steer trolley on another track where one worker will be killed…
• As you are an observer standing on the bridge in the same scenario, you are faced with the option to stand and watch the train hit all five workers or preserve their lives by pushing the fat man beside you off the bridge to halt the train from hitting the five workers…
3) Solutions Chosen
• This situation is difficult to answer because ultimately I would prefer that no one die and all could be saved. However, having to choose between the two options, I would choose to steer the trolley and only kill one worker. Taking a utilitarian view it would feel obligatory to save more lives. The only strength of this decision is to preserve more lives and take only one. One weakness of this solution is the fact that there is going to an obligation for you to participate in the event because you are the one driving the trolley. The other weakness is the fact moral wrong is going to occur because ultimately a life is going to be taken.
• This situation is no more appealing than the first. In this situation I choose to alter my view point of saving more lives to preserve the one. I am almost positive I could not bring myself to push another human being to their death. The only positive besides saving the man's life beside me on the bridge is that you are an ‘observer’, so theoretically you feel removed from the situation. Choice of taking five lives is still hard to swallow, however, when you are not the one steering the trolley into them it makes one more detached from the situation. Having to use my hands to push another off a bridge; ultimately knowing his fate, causes me to feel I have direct responsibility for his death. The weakness to this solution is that five workers will be killed and you are not saving the largest amount of people involved in the situation.
If you believe in fate I would not change the course of the trolley and let the 5 die. Like the movie premise Final Destination. We are not to change the outcome of an event. Luckily for the 5 I don't buy into that theory and would change the direction of the trolley.
DeletePossible solutions to the Trolley problem: First, to stay on course and kill the 5 workers, or turn the wheel and kill one worker. Solutions could vary depending on variables not listed; such as yelling a warning, blowing a horn or train whistle. Knowing something about the workers; are they upstanding honorable citizens or serial killers? Maybe they are not 'working' on the track, but dismantling it in order to kill you and everyone on it.? These questions may change decisions if the answers were known. The scenario of the bystander on the bridge dilemma: Solutions given were the bystander could push another bystander over to stop the trolley; this is assuming that because he's fat, it will stop it thus saving the lives of all involved; (except for the fat man, of course). Other solutions, might be you yourself-being the bystander- would sacrifice and take the hit; because you are fat. Or maybe there's an object nearby that would serve the same purpose, thus stopping the trolley, and no one's life taken.
ReplyDeleteObviously being an ethical dilemma, there is no easy solution that I prefer, but I can say that my belief that all life is sacred, and it's not morally right to decide who's life is more valuable than another. Say, the bystanders life vs the fat man's. Who's to say why the fat man should be the one. As for the men on the track, it's about the numbers. We aren't given any information about them. If you were, it may make the decision harder; but when you get down to it, once again you have to ask who makes the judgment of who's life is more valuable? So you go with the least number of people killed, turning the wheel toward the one on the track. I personally, think I would freeze up and let the trolley just continue and fate take it's course. Not to say that's right, but given such a situation, I'm not sure I could think things out.
Well stated, Gloria. I agree that it is a dilemma and if we were the trolley driver, we would be choosing ultimate death for one or five people. A very hard decision to make.
DeleteI agree that you would have to pick the one over the 5 to die. With no other variables given we have no choice. If we were told that the 5 were old men and the one was a young man I might change my mind since they got to live their lives.
Delete1. The problem is a trolley car speeding down the track without any breaks. The driver can only steer to trolley, he cannot stop it. He sees in front of him, on the main track, five workers. Off on a side track, there is only one worker.
ReplyDeleteThe professor added a second scenario with the fat man on the bridge looking down at the track. The fat man could be pushed over onto the track to stop the train and save all six people, but the fat man would be the sacrifice.
2. The solution: Should The trolley driver turn and only kill the one worker, or stay the course and kill five workers? Should I tip the fat man over the bridge and save all six?
There isn't really an easy or moral solution to these scenarios.
I would definitely not tip the fat man over the bridge. If I did tip the fat man over the bridge, I feel that I made a conscious decision, which in my mind would be an act of murder.
3. After much thought on these scenarios, I will pray that I am never put in the situation to decide who lives and who dies. If I were the trolley driver, They easiest answer for me would be to have one person die and five live. I would steer over onto the side track and pray for mercy.
As far and strengths and weaknesses to my solution, I feel there isn't a strength if someone has to die at my hands. The weakness is one or many have to die and I would be forced to make the choice.
DeleteNo 2. The first possible solution is to kill the one over the 5. The second is to not change the route of the trolley and allow it to kill the 5 workers. The 3rd is to push the fat man off the bridge and allow him to die. I will leave these as the only possible solutions that were offered. He stressed there was no time to do something else to the trolley.
ReplyDelete3. The solution I would chose is to change the route of the trolley and kill only the one. I would rather affect the lives of one family than the lives of 5 families. I would not push the fat man off the bridge. He is not in the equation and his fate should not be tied into the trolley. If that is the choice you would pick. shouldn't you yourself jump from the bride? Sacrifice yourself before killing an innocent person.
Excellent question about self-sacrifice, Christopher Thomas. However, you're not in the equation either and what about your wife and children.
DeleteI really don't have anything tot add to this on my own post because I feel like everyone had it covered but this really intrigued me about the self sacrifice. I mean I know that we are not in the equation for this but I would have to agree. I would sacrifice myself. Even in regards to shelly's comment I think that my husband and children would be strong enough and understand. Obviously they would grieve but It wouldn't be long and they would understand why I did it .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete