# A train-trackish ethical question from science fiction **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2017, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136 "2017-08-31T00:13:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/61 "2017-09-01T21:09:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Absolutely a good comparison (and I also think the references to Omelas are on-point). > > The difference, as I see it, is that there are two trains, as you say. I can’t stop the war train; I have no influence there. I do have influence over the murder train. At first blush, stopping the evil that I can immediately stop seems like a great idea. > > What complicates the arrangement is that I kinda do have influence over the war train: the evidence has convinced me that if I stop the murders, I’ll restart the wars, albeit uncertainly and indirectly. Is the distance I’m removed from restarting wars sufficient to make me not responsible for their resumption? Is the uncertainty involved enough to absolve me? > > I tend to think it’s not. My basic moral code says that I share responsibility for the foreseeable outcomes of my decisions. If I stay silent, I share responsibility for the murders that I enable. If I speak, I share responsibility for the wars I enable. My finger may never touch the trigger, but I’m not sure that that’s important. I agree that the distance/uncertainty you might have about being responsible for restarting the wars is not enough to ‘absolve’ you, because you can’t really have any such uncertainty. We’ve accepted the cabal is good for the world (albeit bad for certain specific individuals). That’s part of the hypothetical. Pretending that one doesn’t realize that wouldn’t be distance; it would be denial. So, it can be taken as given that you have exactly as much influence on the resurgence of war as you do on the murders of the cabal. Enough so, in fact, that the two trains are actually _one_ train. You have exactly one choice, which will select one of two dooms. On one track, a dozen doe-eyed orphans stand. On the other, a lone orphan. The train is currently pointed at the lone orphan. Unless you interfere, in which the greater number of orphans will die. The train is pointed at the lone orphan at the moment because the cabal came upon the _normal_ train problem and chose to flip the switch, taking on guilt for the greater good. You’re coming upon the situation after them and considering switching the train _back_ to the track which will do more damage…for some reason. If you presented the average person with the ‘train problem’ but modified it such that instead of taking on guilt to save the majority, they have the choice of taking on guilt to _kill_ the majority, I’d imagine most people would look at you like you were nuts and declare that they’d never route the train to the more harmful path. And they’d say this without guilt. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/62 "2017-09-01T22:03:32Z")
A few comments: (1) Suppose the hypothetical were changed… instead of a secret cabal of humans, it’s a God. A God who convinces you that if he adopts humanity as his chosen people, he will use his Godlike superhuman powers to generally advance the human condition as much as possible… less war, fewer diseases, fewer plane crashes, more scientific advancement, less environmental catastrophe, new seasons of Firefly. Etc. You are absolutely convinced that this God will do what he says, and that his opinions of what is “Best” for humanity will be reasonable ones that generally align with mainstream human concepts of morality and happiness, etc. So, cover all the loopholes. BUT, in exchange for this service, he will (painlessly and suddenly) kill (in apparent accidents) 20 random human beings a year. Also, for whatever reason, you and you alone have to make the decision as to whether to accept this deal, you can’t put it up to a worldwide vote or anything. I would absolutely accept that deal (2) In the hypothetical as presented, however, there’s another factor to consider, which is that even if this secret society has, for hundreds of years, been basically benevolent, the idea of a small group of people secretly running the world with no oversight or accountability scares me. Maybe they’re reducing war now. Maybe in 50 years they are just setting themselves up as dictators. Certainly, the combination of the ability to predict future trends with great accuracy along with the ability to assassinate anyone with no one knowing is a frightening one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/63 "2017-09-01T22:03:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The train is pointed at the lone orphan at the moment because the cabal came upon the _normal_ train problem and chose to flip the switch, taking on guilt for the greater good. You’re coming upon the situation after them and considering switching the train _back_ to the track which will do more damage…for some reason. > > If you presented the average person with the ‘train problem’ but modified it such that instead of taking on guilt to save the majority, they have the choice of taking on guilt to _kill_ the majority, I’d imagine most people would look at you like you were nuts and declare that they’d never route the train to the more harmful path. And they’d say this without guilt. That’s a really interesting rephrasing. The biggest wrinkle, I think, is that the “kill lots” is the normal course of events, and it’s for lack of better phrasing more transparent and even more democratic. The cabal has taken it on themselves to undermine the majority in order to save a lot of people; they’re acting illegally to prevent essentially legal killing. Me, I’m chaotic good, so I’m good with that, but I get where others are not. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/64 "2017-09-01T22:19:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s a really interesting rephrasing. The biggest wrinkle, I think, is that the “kill lots” is the normal course of events, and it’s for lack of better phrasing more transparent and even more democratic. The cabal has taken it on themselves to undermine the majority in order to save a lot of people; they’re acting illegally to prevent essentially legal killing. > > Me, I’m chaotic good, so I’m good with that, but I get where others are not. I balk at considering armed invasions, terrorist actions, and genocides as “democratic”. I mean, yes, the cabal is obviously acting illegally (in several government’s opinions), but the only reason the tyrants and warmongers are all acting “legally” is because there is no overarching legal authority that is able and willing to enforce any kind of restrictions on the warmongers. If there were such an authority, well, we probably wouldn’t need the cabal. You \*can \*argue that the ‘kill lots’ option is the more normal and natural state of affairs, though. Like polio! And cyanide! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/65 "2017-09-01T22:27:46Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > A few comments: > (1) Suppose the hypothetical were changed… instead of a secret cabal of humans, it’s a God. A God who convinces you that if he adopts humanity as his chosen people, he will use his Godlike superhuman powers to generally advance the human condition as much as possible… less war, fewer diseases, fewer plane crashes, more scientific advancement, less environmental catastrophe, new seasons of Firefly. Etc. You are absolutely convinced that this God will do what he says, and that his opinions of what is “Best” for humanity will be reasonable ones that generally align with mainstream human concepts of morality and happiness, etc. So, cover all the loopholes. BUT, in exchange for this service, he will (painlessly and suddenly) kill (in apparent accidents) 20 random human beings a year. Also, for whatever reason, you and you alone have to make the decision as to whether to accept this deal, you can’t put it up to a worldwide vote or anything. > > I would absolutely accept that deal I’ve you’ve got a diety micromanaging things that closely, they’re personally responsible for _every_ death. If they only kill twenty people a year you’re looking at, well, a _huge_ deviation from the original hypothetical, to say the least. Not to say I wouldn’t go along with it. Firefly was a pretty good show. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (2) In the hypothetical as presented, however, there’s another factor to consider, which is that even if this secret society has, for hundreds of years, been basically benevolent, the idea of a small group of people secretly running the world with no oversight or accountability scares me. Maybe they’re reducing war now. Maybe in 50 years they are just setting themselves up as dictators. Certainly, the combination of the ability to predict future trends with great accuracy along with the ability to assassinate anyone with no one knowing is a frightening one. I’m pretty sure this would fall under “fighting the hypothetical”, but you’re right - if we can’t be certain the cabal would be good into the future indefinitely then we should _definitely_ try to stop them - though we might want to delay taking that action until they actually do turn evil, so as to get as much use out of them as possible. (Note that in this instance good=murdering people. Everything’s relative.) ---
**Author:** ![ThisIsTheEnd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thisistheend/32/4713_2.png) [@ThisIsTheEnd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisIsTheEnd)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/66 "2017-09-02T11:09:51Z")
Eh, I’d want to see the list first. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/67 "2017-09-04T10:35:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I can’t stop the war train; I have no influence there. I do have influence over the murder train. This situation differs from the trolley car dilemma in one important respect: trains can’t change course but civilizations can (slavery, once almost universally accepted is now almost universally condemned). I see the murder train as a mini-version of the war train. If I decide that these people are worth saving, maybe it will influence society to value the lives of the soldiers and inconvenient civilians who would be killed in a war. (Probably not, but maybe so - or maybe society will just nullify my decision not to look away.) Whereas if I decide not to intervene, it definitely feeds the idea that some people are expendable. Or maybe I just can’t get past the worst-case scenario where I let innocent people die and war breaks out anyway. I mean, your cabal didn’t see me coming; they don’t know everything. Sure, they have a great track record, but so did the 1920s stock market (except the last couple of months). ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136/68 "2017-09-08T03:02:23Z")
Yeah, I see no one has posted since me; but when I was here last, I saw something that’s been on my mind: > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If they kill the politician, they’d also have to kill her five successors, all of whom have similar politics. If they kill her excellent secretary, that leaves the politician in place, but renders her sufficiently incompetent that the war won’t break out. Oddly enough, I think I would prefer to have them kill half a dozen politicians rather than one person who’s only tangentially involved. Then you could make a semi-reasonable argument for collective self-defense. Still a little dodgy (it would basically be the death penalty for warmongering, and I’m not a fan of the death penalty - particularly when administered by a secret group accountable only to themselves), but it would be enough to keep me quiet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-train-trackish-ethical-question-from-science-fiction/795136.md?page=3)