The fat man and the trolley

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 2 per post.

File: 1447598713205.jpg (137.05 KB, 620x852, 155:213, Trolleydilemma.jpg)

The fat man and the trolley Anonymous 11/15/15 (Sun) 14:45:12 6d7067 No.2409

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is a person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

This is the thought experiment created by Philippa Foot in 1967. I've read the book Would you kill the fat man? by David Edmonds and it has made me think. I still don't know what I would do, however I would approve of killing the fat man in order to save the other five. According to negative utilirism and the doctrine of the double effect, that would be the right action. The only problem is that you'd have to kill a human being.

I feel quite conflicted about these two choices, what would /philosphy/ do?

Anonymous 11/15/15 (Sun) 18:38:35 13157d No.2411

File: 1447612715184-0.png (571.09 KB, 1000x1500, 2:3, trolley1.png)

File: 1447612715187-1.png (560.45 KB, 1000x1500, 2:3, trolley2.png)

I never liked this thought experiment because we know nothing of the individual people, and so we cannot determine which set of people has more net value. Unless you explicitly already see things in terms of some strict moral principle and not the value of the human beings individually (the Utilitarian or Kantian ethical answers to this conundrum), then it's unanswerable, and pointless to go on talking about it, in my opinion.

If the one person is a Shakespeare and the five people are hobos, I would save the one person, but if there is again, the one Shakespeare, but now instead of five hobos, there are now five more Shakespeare's, I'd choose to save the five over just the one. But we know nothing of the people, so it's just a big "I don't know."

There's these two ambiguous stances, I suppose:

"The best choice is the one that a person of good moral character would make. Being ethical is not about following a formula for moral decision-making that tells us how to act in various situations. Being ethical involves cultivating virtues and good character throughout life" (Virtue Ethics).

"There are no pre-existing moral guidelines that determine how we must act in this situation. We are forced to create our moral values through our choices, and we have no choice but to make choices" (Existentialism).

Your call as to which you prefer.

Anonymous 11/16/15 (Mon) 01:34:41 0f95f9 No.2414

without further knowledge, killing the fat man would be better since your chances of saving someone worth living is 5 times higher.

Anonymous 11/18/15 (Wed) 23:26:27 fe861c No.2436

If you do nothing doesn't that absolve you of responsibility since you've chosen not to be involved?

Or is this like the extreme case of unexpectedly running into someone being assaulted and if you turn around and walk away you're a shit person?

Youyou !YOlO.KoMek 11/22/15 (Sun) 22:16:50 46e20a No.2516

File: 1448230610431.png (342.64 KB, 808x1141, 808:1141, dorifto_dorifto.png)

Anonymous 11/22/15 (Sun) 23:41:18 21ace3 No.2518

Push the fat man off. He will just eat the train anyways.

Anonymous 11/26/15 (Thu) 21:27:03 b83b54 No.2567

File: 1448573223987.gif (453.21 KB, 2788x2160, 697:540, brop4z2.gif)

The only real choices are to avoid interfering or kill every party involved.

Anonymous 11/28/15 (Sat) 20:06:21 ae6868 No.2584

I just wouldn't interfere, I don't know those people and I don't care about them. If I knew one of those choices would be beneficial to me over the other (perhaps someone whose invention would make life better for me would be on the tracks) I'd choose tha, but otherwise I don't want to risk screwing myself over by choosing the wrong option. That causes regret and bad feels, and I don't want none of that.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 16:07:11 1ca44e No.2603

>>2584

Let's say you're stranded on an island with these people, and you depend on their cooperation to survive.

Don't you think the labor of five would be a more viable option than one.

Also, one of the stipulations of the experiment is that you're forced to make a choice. Not making a choice is still making a choice.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 17:07:30 ae6868 No.2604

>>2603

Then I would of course save the five people, since that would be beneficial to me.

Unless they were out to get me or something, then I wouldn't.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 18:10:56 488d90 No.2606

>>2603

>>2604

but what if the fat guy is a master craftsmen or survival expert ( unlikely i know) and the 5 were actually retarded?

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 18:20:45 1ca44e No.2607

>>2604

Now, what if told you that whether or not you're stranded on an island, your survival depends on the cooperation of other people?

More people generally means a stronger economy and a more effective national defense.

Using this knowledge, perhaps you'd be more inclined to choose the five regardless of the specific situation, provided that they're of your in group.

This is how I think of it, anyway.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 18:27:01 ae6868 No.2609

>>2606

Then I would save the useful guy. Not much of a choice, really.

>>2607

More people also means you're less likely to get a job, they could also be jobless and living off welfare.

Besides, the benefit to me country is so small that it's unlikely to have an effect on me, or at least not enough of an effect to outweight my bad feels.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 19:32:30 f0a555 No.2610

>>2609

>bad feels

those don't exist. Morality is a lie.

Just convince yourself of this and your decision making will become clearer.

Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 20:58:26 ae6868 No.2613

>>2610

I know that morality is just a spook, but I unforunately still need it to function in today's society.

Notice that I'm not trying to act in a way that is moral, I'm trying to act in a way that won't make me feel bad.

If I could just throw away my morals like that, I might choose to save the five people, after I analyze the situation and weight the potential benefits to myself.

That said, I think there are far too many variables to consider, meaning we can't clearly pick five people over the one guy every time.

Hume was wrong Anonymous 11/29/15 (Sun) 22:37:40 1ca44e No.2615

rationality >>>>>>> sentimentality

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 04:07:48 f86583 No.2655

>>2615

How does rationality give your life any meaning?

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 04:15:15 2ec9fa No.2656

>>2615

Emotions are the sole reason why rationality has a content in the first place. Reason is a way to actualize desired aims that begin in emotion. Pure reason is meaningless.

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 12:38:17 ae6868 No.2663

>>2655

>the meaning of life

nice meme

>>2656

Pure reason is great for philosophy, and science in general. Emotions are, of course, an important part of our life, but they're just too subjective and easy to manipulate to base any theory on.

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 02:00:18 14d935 No.2668

>>2663

>pure reason is great in philosophy and science

Except that's wrong, you dingus. There is no such thing as pure reason, reason is only the form of real content that is only amenable to thought form, in itself it is nothing.

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 02:31:53 1ca44e No.2671

>>2656

>Reason is a way to actualize desired aims that begin in emotion

How can this be the only purpose for reason?

How can we know reason has any purpose at all but that which you ascribe to it?

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 05:15:55 f86583 No.2672

>>2663

>philosophy

>science

stop

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 08:27:29 381893 No.2674

Once you've decided on an answer, consider this.

You're in a hospital where there are 5 very sick people who will all die without organ donations. Suddenly, in walks a healthy looking man here for a check up. You notice he would have enough organs to save the 5 dying people. Would it be okay to kill this man against his will to save them?

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 13:31:34 13157d No.2675

>>2674

Something clever I heard once was to let one of the dying patients pass away, and then to use any of his healthy organs to help as many as the other four as you can.

Anonymous 12/04/15 (Fri) 03:29:02 48836b No.2678

>>2675

Why have the utilitarians not thought about this sooner? They could've saved a life!

Anonymous 12/13/15 (Sun) 21:26:05 e34ab0 No.2825

>>2675

That wasn't really the point of the question. They all die at the same time from all of their organs rupturing.

Anonymous 12/15/15 (Tue) 02:18:15 1ca44e No.2831

>>2825

Kill the least useful. He'll die anyway from ruptured organs.

Anonymous 12/15/15 (Tue) 09:49:44 786c87 No.2836

>>2409

>fat guy puts his trust in me

>5 ignorant shits on the track

those guys deserve some training anyway

Anonymous 12/24/15 (Thu) 06:28:13 d75a6e No.2920

The problem with any 'means justifies the ends' scenario is that you don't truly know the ends.

Sure, you *may* save the five people by killing the fat man, but you can't really predict the future. Your plan may fail. You may kill everyone. You might be better off making no choice. The train may stop on its own. Those five idiots might get loose at the last moment.

The problem with this question, as I see it, is you can't 100% predict the future in any scenario and this question assumes you can. IRL, you end up doing nothing hoping for the best in situations like these. It's why people freeze in fear.

Anonymous 12/24/15 (Thu) 09:20:14 423698 No.2928

File: 1450948814724.jpg (60.69 KB, 506x267, 506:267, 1362290168319.jpg)

I press A really fucking fast and destroy the train, saving all six vets and collecting a Rocket Lawnchair to boot.

Anonymous 12/24/15 (Thu) 10:01:48 79a857 No.2929

I wait for the fat guy to jump.

Anonymous 12/24/15 (Thu) 18:24:11 760519 No.2940

I Do nothing. I don't want to go to jail for pushing a fat guy to die on the tracks. Imagine trying to tell a jury why you killed him.

And what if the train keeps going and killed 5 more. What if you were a fat man? Should you kill yourself instead?

Anonymous 12/25/15 (Fri) 13:33:17 3aa6b4 No.2971

The only solution is not to interfere and thus you are not complicit in murder and not morally wrong

Anonymous 12/25/15 (Fri) 13:58:10 f0a555 No.2974

>>2971

>letting 5 people get killed

>not morally wrong

Anonymous 12/25/15 (Fri) 20:14:33 8c9882 No.2977

>>2974

>implying morality exists

Anonymous 12/26/15 (Sat) 00:43:56 3aa6b4 No.2992

>>2974

By pushing the Fat Man you are killing somebody directly but by doing nothing you are no more responsible for the deaths of these 5 people than somebody living 500 miles away

Anonymous 12/26/15 (Sat) 02:41:47 9df69e No.2997

I would stand by knowing it was not my place to decide who is and isn't worth saving.

This marxist non-sense has a single answer that does not devolve into relative morality. You can't as third party distribute something that isn't yours nor has been voluntarily forfeited to you.

Anonymous 12/26/15 (Sat) 03:36:23 14d935 No.2998

>>2997

>this marxist nonsense

Retard just showed himself, folks. If you knew anything about Marxism you would know Marxists HATE ethics and moralism.

Anonymous 12/26/15 (Sat) 17:42:14 f0a555 No.3007

>>2992

that is why you should change the trolley to hit the one man on the track. that way you are saving 5 and not killing any

Anonymous 12/27/15 (Sun) 17:02:40 85cc65 No.3042

Who are you to say that those 5 people's lives are more important than that of the individual? Such utilitarian reasoning.

The only correct decision to make is to not do anything.

Anonymous 12/28/15 (Mon) 00:11:59 14d935 No.3066

>>3042

Who is that trolley to say that the law of inertia justifies its killing one or any x number of men tied to its rails with responsibility on someone only trying to make the best of its rampage?

Anonymous 12/28/15 (Mon) 08:33:18 e78827 No.3072

>>2409

If you have the ability to push the fat man, and the fat man is heavy enough to stop the trolley, then it would be trivial for you to hop down yourself and give the trolley a light tap to derail it as it passes by, thus saving the fat man and the five people.