To be honest I really don't see what the question is suppose to do exactly.

It places you into this hypothetical situation without any realistic options. What is preventing you from sabotaging the track? Or doing any one of the other thousands of options you have at saving all of the people in question?

I understand that the context is necessary for if it to work but my point is, the question isn't very realistic. You can't seriously make this choice because it is so lacking in options.

But to prevent the objection for my reasoning. I would probably go with the death of the single person, even if they were someone I loved beyond anything else. Why? Because I know myself and I believe the person that I loved would be one of self sacrifice in the face of others surviving. So I could make the choice because I would believe it would be the choice they themselves would make. How do I know, because if I were that single person, I would rather them chose my death to save the other five.

Think about it? The death of those five would mean the suffering of many more people were as my own death would still cause some to suffer but not as many.

You could toss in other absurdities if you want to. Like making these other five people rapists, molesters or any number of undesirable characteristics but my answer would still be the same. Even a mother loves her serial killer son.

w/ a twist

1st scenario
-------------
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2nd scenario
--------------
Same as the 1st only the single person is either your son/daughter, your spouse, or your mother/father



in the first case I think I would have to flip the switch whereas in the 2nd case I don't think that I could

it would seem that the only morally praiseworthy thing one could do would be to throw ones self in front of the train in an attempt to stop it whereas I guess I would consider my actions in scenario 1 only morally permissible given that I must view each person as equal. I really don't know what to think about my response to the 2nd scenario though other than I suppose someone I love would outweigh all else. But then the question becomes just how many people would need to be on the other track for me to sacrifice someone I loved?

I would not flip the switch in either case. If you do nothing, you are simply letting things happen. If you flip the switch, you are a murderer, willfully killing the lone person.

But can't inaction make you a murderer also, or, at the least, morally responsible? Your placement in the situation makes you morally responsible, I think.

But can't inaction make you a murderer also,

or, at the least, morally responsible?

Your placement in the situation makes you morally responsible, I think.

No, inaction is not action. To be a murderer, you must do something. Letting someone die is not murder. To think otherwise would require condemning all doctors as murderers who do not always go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive, even if only for another second.

No, inaction is not action. To be a murderer, you must do something. Letting someone die is not murder. To think otherwise would require condemning all doctors as murderers who do not always go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive, even if only for another second.

To have a moral obligation to help someone, it must be possible to do so in a manner that is not objectionable.

whereas I think it would only be murder if the doctors did nothing. Like not attempt CPR. Attempting to save someones life and not succeeding does not make one a murderer.

If you come upon a house(for the sake of the example lets say there are no windows and there are no other ways out) that's on fire and you can hear people inside but they can't get out because the doors locked, if you don't unlock the door I might consider you a murderer but if you unlock the door but someone still dies I don't see how that could be construed as murder

the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

the act of a person or thing that kills.

I would not flip the switch in either case. If you do nothing, you are simply letting things happen. If you flip the switch, you are a murderer, willfully killing the lone person.

No, to think otherwise would not necessarily mean this.

You're making it a black and white issue. I think it depends on the specific circumstances. Doing something which could lead to death is not always murder, just as not doing something which could prevent death is not always murder. But doing something which could lead to death could be murder, just as not doing something which could prevent death could be murder.

Not objectionable? Can you elaborate?

Which means, in part, letting someone die is not equivalent to murder, which is what I said.

If not, then I don't see why you would want to murder one person in the trolley problem in order to save five.

Pyrrho wrote:

I would not flip the switch in either case. If you do nothing, you are simply letting things happen. If you flip the switch, you are a murderer, willfully killing the lone person.

That's such a cop out.

But, then, given the details of the circumstance, I think you can see how someone could argue you would be responsible for the lives of those people. Not doing anything in this case would not excuse you from being morally responsible.

Well, you have to consider the context of the question. It's an either or question. There are no other options besides those two, which places it in another ballpark, so to say. If you take the question out of context, then you are not really answering the question, are you?

If you have something useful to say, you should say it instead of merely being insulting, which is a violation of forum rules.

Since you regard it as a cop out to refrain from killing someone in order to save five, what do you say to the altered trolley problem I mention in this thread? Here it is again:

Let us consider a different version of the trolley problem that in fact exists. Right now, there are people waiting for organ donors, who will die because they will not get the organs. But we could change that, if we were willing to actively kill people to get organs for them. We could find someone suitable, and harvest all of their organs, thereby saving several people, as one would get the heart, another a kidney, another a liver, etc. So by murdering one person, several (who knows? it might even turn out to be five people) could be saved. Should we be doing that? If not, then I don't see why you would want to murder one person in the trolley problem in order to save five.

I agree that one is responsible for one's actions, and that one is responsible for one's inactions, insofar as action is possible (which is added because, of course, one is not responsible for not doing what is impossible). But the question is, is it right to murder one person in order to save the lives of five people?

There is no context of the trolley problem. It is simply a made up scenario to ask the question, is it right to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of five innocent people? I say, the answer to that question is, "no".

If you believe that there is a significant difference between the trolley problem as stated in the opening post, and my real version of it involving organ donation, you should state clearly what you believe to be importantly different about the two situations.

But the question is, is it right to murder one person in order to save the lives of five people?

There is no context of the trolley problem. It is simply a made up scenario to ask the question, is it right to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of five innocent people? I say, the answer to that question is, "no".

If you believe that there is a significant difference between the trolley problem as stated in the opening post, and my real version of it involving organ donation, you should state clearly what you believe to be importantly different about the two situations.

The organ donor problem is usually given in conjunction to the trolley problem. I don't consider it a cop out to avoid killing someone in order to save five, in the version of the trolley problem where you have to push a fat man off a bridge I would not do it, simply because I don't think I could kill someone with my bare hands like that.

I didn't mean to insult you, the part I find to be a cop out was the "simply letting things happen" which I thought abdicated the responsibility to make the best choice.

Most people will choose to save the five in the trolley problem but not to in the organ donor problem. It's a tough issue, I don't think you just can point out that inconsistency and say that they must be treated the same. Our moral instincts are in conflict with our moral ideas.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 03:33 PM ----------



I don't think you are murdering anyone in the trolley problem. The trolley will kill them.

You are just deciding if the trolley will kill 5 or 1. In the other version presented, the trolley is going to kill 5 people, and you have to kill the other. This is why people answer the question differently.

How about 1 person to save 6 billion people? I say yes.

Would you rather have a society where people died from not getting organ transplants, or one where everyone was so callous that they could grab innocent people and slice them open to save others? I would rather take my chances at dying from lack of a heart transplant.