@ hecks

I know real world doesn't really work in these things, but the fat man scenario is so far removed from a real world situation I simply can't put myself in it.

@hecks - When I first read it I though "simple, put the switch in the middle and derail the train at the switch". But then the doctor with a healthy individual that could save 5 patients and wouldn't be missed came up. I could never actively kill someone to save others like that. If it were "save 5 with one's organs or save the 1" then it would be different than "save 5 by killing 1 healthy patient" It really is a situational awareness thing. If, through inaction, all 6 would die, then my actions will go towards the 5. But if through inaction, the one would live, then the 5 would end up dying.

Well... yeah. That's what makes them thought experiments. It removes them from practical experience, and allows you more freely to explore what you should do, what you would do, whether there's a discrepancy, and if so, why.

@ Draug

I disagree. It's a very easy decision. Bloody difficult to live with afterwards, even if you know you made the right call, but easy to make.

Coffee or tea with breakfast, by contrast, is a difficult decision. There's very little in it, and it's easy to make a choice you find, after a few sips, is the wrong one. It's one saving grace is it is so easy to live with it you don't even notice.

@ hecks

No... not really. Thought experiements are best rooted in reality. Bits you can look at and say "that just couldn't happen" are distractions, and the more distractions you have, the less you can get out of it.

So, oct...

You are a physician and have 5 deathly ill patients needing organ transplants to live. In walks a healthy completely unattached from society patient (he won't be missed and you will never ever be charged with a crime for his disappearance) who is a perfect match for all 5. He is just there for a routine check up. What do you do?

First do no harm, Draug. We are bound by our oaths, and as a physician I would have taken that one.

This situation is fundamentally very different, though. In the original trolley example only you have the power to make the final choice, and only you have any say in the matter. In the hospital example all 7 of us have opinions and views.

The healthy dude is unlikely to want to die (if he does want to die the choice is easy ;) )

The five sick dudes are unlikely to want to sacrifice a healthy chap to save themselves (and if they do then their value as humans falls in my estimation by quite a margin, making the net gain sum rather different)

I would have no problem having a lottery amongst the sick chaps, however, with the loser being killed to have his parts dished out so the others can live. (quite easy :p )

*if the sick chaps were also willing, of course.

Draug, this was solved in the lecture. Wait for one to die and use his organs for the other four, lol.

Seriously though, murdering a lowlife isn't what you'd call moral by any means.

What about the fat villain, i.e. the fat guy is the one who put those 5 in the precarious situation with the intention to kill them. Classic supervillain stuff.

@ ulytau

Does he have a curly moustache?

@ Synapse

Harvard got it mostly right. The trouble with waiting is that you risk two people dying at once, or several of them becoming too weak to have the operation when the time comes. By using the lottery you avoid this risk and save the most people.

Still, top marks to harvard for trying. I might send them a certificate if they keep it up.

He has a curly moustache, a top hat, a monocle, a walking stick/sword/minigun, hair braided in little swastikas, 3 horns, 4 robo-tentacles, long black cape a Dollar chain on his neck, he just pulled you a wedgie and clubbed a baby seal. He isn't your father.

Oh my God! Mr. PEanut and the Monopoly Guy are both supervillains! Top hats, walking sticks, monocles, curly moustaches! I am so crushed...

Seal clubbing is an important historic and cultural tradition of the good people of Newfie! The villian lives! (Assuming he promises to shave)

Shave his hair or his facial hair? Careful, it's a trick question.

That's a tricky one. Damn it, I want the easy questions back!

@ulytau, reminds me of the plot of Unbreakable; Samuel L Jackson is sat in a wheelchair on a bridge...

This is interesting. Logically, you turn the trolley to kill the 1, saving the 5. You throw the fat man in front of the train, villain or not, to save the 5. You murder the healthy patient in order to save the 5. Morally, this obviously becomes a different set of questions. I will reflect and answer morally later.

My answer:

The question is inherently loaded with the word "should", and it is this point in which we should start our investigation. The word should carries with it a certain gravity, it implies not only that we are judging the driver, but that there is an answer to the question. What is the "right" thing to do? This suggestion of objectivity is essentially incorrect. To believe in the word should, we must justify an absolute morality, either from God, or from societal values or an inherent (for example genetic) moral code. Yet no such morality exists, as far as we are aware.

Let me first tackle the question of God. It is true that if God exists that we are committed to His values, and therefore have an obligation to save as many lives as possible. Yet even so the situation is not clear. What if the five people were sinners and the one a righteous man? Should the thousands at Sodom and Gomorrah die for the good of the righteous elsewhere? Likewise, if God created the situation, and if He is aware of what our action in this situation will be, is there not a certain fatalism to the entire scenario? Are we to believe that God, like the majority of us, shares a utilitarian value in this instance?

The utilitarian ethic cannot hold true in this scenario, for the consequential view cannot be properly quantified. We may kill a man who was to cure cancer at the expense of five criminals - we simply do not have the information to make a proper decision. Therefore to claim that one was "right" in killing the one person is self-righteous at best. The objective morality in this situation cannot be established without an impossible understanding of the facts at hand, and all future consequences, which as we know is impossible. One thousand years from now, it may turn out that killing the five was the right thing to do - but we have a very limited understanding of the situation in which to decide.

Therefore all that can exist is a subjective morality, or a morality which the majority of persons share. We either believe that the man has the authority to make such a choice or that he has no authority to make such a choice. In the second, all actions can be considered immoral. "Who are we to make such a decision?" you may ask. No man has the right to dictate another man's life. Yet the decision presents itself nonetheless, it is inescapable. We may therefore concede that the driver, in this instance, has the authority to make a decision. He is, we would hope, qualified as a trolley driver, and therefore holds responsibility over what occurs.

Will society judge the driver for killing the one or the five? We don't normally hold people accountable for accidents, yet we may judge them based on our subjective opinion, ala Kant. The movie I, Robot springs to mind, where the main character was angry at a robot for making a moral decision not to save a child, based on sheer mathematics. The protagonist felt that basing such a decision on pure logical probability was unethical in itself. The reality of the outcome of the situation is that the only person who will judge the driver is the driver himself, and he therefore holds responsibility for his own actions. He may decide to kill five adults rather than harm one child, he may judge the persons based on how they look or who they are. Perhaps he would hit five workers to avoid hitting one non-affiliated citizen. Either way, there is no "should" about the question, and therefore I believe the driver is entitled to do whichever decision he wants to do, and will offer him no blame either way, for being the victim of such an unfortunate situation.

@Synapse
Nice Obi-post.

Question 2:
Suppose a bomb has been planted in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Would it be right, as a last resort, for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber about the location of the bomb? Explain why.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html

I'd say yes. It's similar to the trolley problem - immoral to one to save five. In this case, immoral to one who is immoral to others to save tons.

It's ironic that this article was written in 1983 or something (check that). When I first read it and he talked about the gunmen seizing the plane and the bomb in Manhattan I just thought 9/11 immediately.

Morale to torture a suspected terrorist? Maybe. What if he isn't actually involved and you are actually torturing an innocent victom of circumstance? But if he is, sure it is moral, but he will just lie and tell you all kinds of places the bomb isn't knowing it will take you time to check between each and he won't be tortured during that time.

What sort of bomb are we talking about? Is this dirty nuclear sort of scale, or are we talking your average nutter and his home made pipe bomb? If the former, and you happen to have a confident and competent torturer on hand, then go nuts. If not, don't.