Choosing to do nothing is also an action that can cause things to happen.
What if someone offers you, “Unless you tell me otherwise, I’m going to violently kill five people and let you out of jail”? Now inaction lets him carry out his plan.
You don’t need to explain to me what you’re doing. I understand, and find it deeply unconvincing.
The Trolley Problem lacks nuance because it’s only the first question; it’s supposed to appear straightforward and look as if it has a very simple and obvious solution, because there are supposed to be followup modifiers where it’s ‘OK, but now suppose this or that’. It’s a process whereby we discover our values, confront our biases, our weaknesses, etc.
The problem doesn’t do anything useful; the process does.
Even if I had time to consider that aspect of the problem I would act the same way and pull the switch. I don’t think it’s even a serious consideration in this hypothetical. I don’t believe anyone would end up in prison for making that choice. Somebody else will have deeper pockets if there’s a lawsuit, and they’ll want me as a cooperative witness.
Zach has done lots of trolley problem comics. This might be my favourite:
Well, that or this one:
I would feel miserable either way. So I would choose option B. Because misery loves company.
I don’t get the logic here. How does removing the possibility of killing no one remove the relevance? The lack of an option that kills no one is what makes it relevant.
What makes it unrealistic is the certainty that you are 100% sure you will kill 1 person with option A and 5 with option B. IRL there is absolutely no way to know that for sure especially in a split second decision in a speeding trolley. So saying do nothing is a perfectly ethical decision. But thought experiments don’t have to be realistic
I’d like to add another layer of complexity to the debate, one that’s been touched on in the thread, but I feel deserves more discussion.
The intentions of the framer in asking the question.
Far, faaaar to often outside of academia and places like this message board, where we debate the existence of absolute v. conditional morality, the person posing the question is doing so out of a desire to seize the moral high ground, or excuse questionably moral decisions.
As such, I tend to find the use of the trolley problem to be nigh-equivalent to poisoning the well. Or, as I very nearly typed:
TROLLY problem.
Okay, so that’s out of the way. So I’m not accused (legitimately) of dodging the question, I find that in most cases, I’m corrupted by my inability to divorce the real world from the moral absolutes. I’d be terrified I’d do something wrong, make something worse, and given the condensed timeframe I’d dilly dally to the point of inaction. Sure, there are 5 people I see one way, and on the other, just one in a Hitler cosplay, but what’s right around that dip? What if I hit the wrong level and cause it to accelerate? What if I take action, and my family and everyone else is sued (so not just me at risk). I’m too human.
Which really, IMHO, is what the point of the problem is as an abstract. What sort of human are you? What are your certainties or uncertainties? Do you examine your impulses, emotions and reasons? Bringing up those questions to yourself is always of value - asking them (or the trolley problem) of others is where things get tricky.
ETA - I realize the above may still be seen as a dodge, even though it’s my honest answer, so, given that I’d have to answer without any real-world considerations, I’d probably lean towards inaction anyway. Worse, I’m fully human enough to know the appearances of the 5/1 people I see are going to make a difference in my choice - from Hitler cosplay, to youth vs elderly, to behatted MAGAs vs Obama by himself.
To quote Starship Troopers, a deeply flawed novel, “Humans aren’t potatoes” - I can’t quantify the value of a life based only on numbers, or the question would be meaningless.
The best way to deny the hypothetical is to not participate in it, don’t you think? It’s not as if it is mandatory to participate in these little thought experiments.
The best way? Nah. One way? Absolutely, and that’s the choice that many people are making, and that also tells you something about the people making that choice.
Non-participation certainly is a way to deny the hypothetical. But I think denying both of the explicit answers is useful in the sense of dealing with unpleasant dichotomies.
That is:
(emphasis added)
Talking about why one denies the hypothetical is an interesting exploration of humans facing conflicting interests.
One real-world analog to the trolley problem is the criminal justice system.
If the sentence is too harsh, the judge will be directly responsible for ruining the defendant’s life.
If the sentence is too lenient, and the criminal goes free and re-offends, the judge will be indirectly responsible for ruining the lives of all of the criminal’s future victims.
With a Saturday night drunk-and-disorderly case, this may seem trivial and silly. But with pedophiles, it’s something the judge needs to think about.
I would imagine that every mass atrocity ever committed was rationalized using the idea that utilitarianism is the only true moral position.
I’d derail the trolley.
I mean if you wanted to fight the hypothetical-
why are five people tied up on the tracks anyway?
IRL you wouldnt know how to pull the lever or what it would do- maybe it would send the trolley the other way, or maybe it would derail the trolley and kill all on board.
Why do you have all this time to debate the pros and cons? Could you really know what to do and react that fast?
Honestly, as bad as it sounds, I’d probably let the train run over the 5 people. The main reason is that I don’t trust the legal system to acquit me if I diverted the trolley to run over 1 person. I would totally believe that a jury would convict me of homicide while not considering the 4 lives saved as a net gain.
Enlightened self-interest?
I don’t want to be tied to the railroad tracks, with the ensuing painful death against my will; I support making that sort of thing illegal. I want it to be the law of the land: that people are barred from doing it to me. I also don’t want anyone cutting me open against my will to harvest my organs; I support making that sort of thing illegal. I want it to be the law of the land: that people are barred from doing it to me.
If I’m a spectator in the first scenario — in a world where, again, I’ve already made it clear how I feel about tying people to railroad tracks, but someone is already breaking the law I’ve okayed — I may as well save lives; I’m still saying, let’s all agree that nobody should be tying anyone to railroad tracks, okay? Just don’t. But in the second scenario, you’re effectively asking me to propose a new law where it’d be legal rip me apart; I’d be saying, hey, rip me apart, okay?
That seems like a baffling assertion.
Do you think that the “Kill them all; God will know his own” guy was a Utilitarian, for example?
I think the vast majority of attrocities aren’t committed by reluctant people who are questioning whether their actions are worth the cost.