it's your choice... so what do you choose?

Yesterday I was watching a show on the human brain and its decision making abilities, and this psychological test problem came up, which I found to be very interesting.... along w/ what people actually replied w/..........

SCENARIO 1:
Imagine a situation where there is a runaway trolley. Just a few feet ahead, there are 4 construction workers working on the tracks. The trolley comes, and *splat*.... all 4 are dead. But you can save them, by pulling a lever to change the trolley's direction, but on the other side, there is 1 construction worker. If you pull the lever, the trolley changes its direction and saves the 4 workers, but it kills the worker on the other side.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO? WOULD YOU PULL THE LEVER? WHY?


SCENARIO 2:
Same situation from above.... Runaway trolley.... few feet away, 4 construction workers. Trolley comes and they WILL die... but you have a choice.... this time... the track is under a bridge, and there is a man on the bridge... and he's FAT (I donno why that was important but it's a fat guy). You can save the 4 workers by pushing the guy off the bridge so he can stop the trolley from advancing, thus saving the 4 workers.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO NOW? WOULD YOU PUSH THE FAT GUY? WHY?

 

SENARIO 1:
i'd pull the lever to kill the one guy. it's better to save 4 lives than 1

SENARIO 1:
i'd push the fat guy in front. again, i'd want to save as many lives as possible.

 

I would let the trolley kill the 4 people for I cannot feel justified killing 1 man to save 4. I would have had a hand in it and some things are left to fate. If I could have saved them because no one else was in peril, I would have but seeing as this one man's life hangs in the balance by me instigating a change, I would not.

Same response. I would not forsake another life because of a fate of saving four others. If I felt that dramatic about it I would toss myself in the way before I would kill someone else to save someone else, because this man was doing nothing wrong. Now if it's the guy who caused the incident to happen in the first place, that's a different story because he'd have been responsible for their deaths so him dying would make sense. However, his life is as important as any of the others so I would let fate play its hand and just try to call out and hope someone would move.

In both cases, the 1 person is just as innocent as the 4 so I would not feel it right to deem him unfit to live above 4 others who are in the way of harm. He is safe from harm so putting him in it to me would be wrong.

 

To the above poster. I'm just wondering. But, if these events were really happening in front of you. You wouldn't have enough time to truly think. If anything, you barely will have enough time to notice the chance. Yet, you would at least that. So, if that is so. By human nature and impulses, would you still not pull the lever? Would you seriously have enough time to think about fate and your hand in it? Or would the ideal 'good' nature of humans to protect people and quick impulse via the lack of time probably get that lever pulled?

 

I agree with Repliku.

I would probably take the path which requires me to do nothing.

I could not KILL one person. I am not killing anyone letting the others die, just letting an unfortunate accident happen.

I hope I never have to face that situation ever. My consience would haunt me my whole life whatever decision I make.

 

First off, if you have enough time to think that you would push the lever, you have enough time to think you would not push the lever. The way this exercise is explained is that you -do- in fact know the outcome of your decision. You know if you push that lever, someone is going to die. You know if you do not, then 4 people will die. So therefore, in that amount of time, just as you can choose to go off an impulse to push a lever, you can also go off an impulse not to push the lever.

Also, the brain is amazingly quick and can think out these things in very expedient time. People's brains though can work different. Some people may be driven into a state of severe anxiety where they either push the lever or don't because they are paralyzed. Since the exercise clearly demonstrates you know what will happen if you do either act, it can be assumed that the person had the time to logic it out. Therefore it's a matter of push or don't push. The reaction I would have is to not because in that amount of time I can figure out that the life of one man would be forfeit by my hands to save 4 others and he doesn't deserve that.

 

To poster above. I agree with you and see what you mean. Different people, in real-time events of this, react and think in different ways. You are one to think quickly and decided with your logic. I know a lot of people that would probably freak-out and not have enouh time to even pull the lever if they wanted to. I didn't mean the question as an assult on your comment, rather a question that entered my mind.

To the question of thread, I'm a very impulsive person I would pull the lever. And forever deal with the afterthought of killing one person to save four. Yet, then again...fate. I may have mingled with it, or maybe me pulling the lever was part of fate. Fate put a impulsive person, who would see the chance of saving four people...near the lever. But, I would not push the guy onto the track. Simply because it would turn the action into a solid act of killing. I couldn't just push a guy to his death. If anything I would jump myself. This case, I would live with the fact my un-quickness cause the death of four people. And, yes even if pulling the lever is killing someone - its indirected until later thought. Whereas pushing would be right up in your face bad.

 

That is an interesting answer. I love the 'Fate put a impulsive person' there. I do agree with ICSP's thought too in that whatever choice had to be made, there will be some guilt afterwards because the scene is pretty morbid to live through and witness.

 

You know what would be horrible. In scenario 2... if you were to push the fat guy off the bridge, and he misses the train when he lands, but still dies from the fall, then the 4 guys dodge the train.

Meaning, you killed someone, when no one had to die. That would be pretty bad. Or worse yet, you push him, he dies, and the four people get hit anyway.

Also... Repliku. Whichever decision you make, you would also have to live with the guilt of it. Not only the fact that you watched someone die, or watched 4 people die, but the fact that you had the ability to choose who died, and made the decision.

It would be tough to know that either 1, you let four people die, when you could have saved them or 2, you killed one person to save four. Its horrible.

 

Personally I don't think the idea of taking another mans life to save others would occour to me, not as immediately or impulsively as that anyway.

Oh, and ICSP, why did you make the line "I agree with Repliku" a link to the dramatic chipmunk? :laughing-smiley-004

 

Because we debate everthing...

http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.php?t=39790

Just an example of some of our greater battles.

 

The scenarios are actually philosophical as opposed to psychological, and are meant to convey the ethical stance that Utilitarianism postulated by Mills in 1861. The basic stance that he takes is that the most morally capable action is the one that yields the greatest amount of utility (i.e. good for all or the best possible outcome). It's quite sad really that the scenario is designed for you to choose between 2 morally conflicting outcomes; death to 4 or death to 1. In most cases, and as the situation allots, I'm quite comfortable with the inevitable death of 1 person as opposed to 4 people. It was typical of Mills to place the reader in inescapable issues that forced one of the two choices, never allowing for something like using a car to help slow the trolley down. In most cases they're just too unrealistic to actually expect. Which brings me to the second scenario.

The second scenario has sort of been warped from the more universal model used. In the case of the scenario that's posted there's to ridiculous of an outcome-- I mean who pushes a fat man in hopes it will stop or slow a trolley? The real version of the story goes like this: You and a group of people are touring an ocean cave at low tide, but before you're able to leave at the end of the tour a fat man gets stuck in the entrance. The tide is rising and if the fat man is not removed everyone including the fat man will die. Someone happens to have a stick of dynamite that can be used to blow the fat man up and free up the entrance. But of course the fat man dies, and again Mills has you choose between the death of one or the death of many plus that one. And again I'm comfortable with sacrificing the one.

EDIT TO THE ABOVE:
The man is too fat to be dislodged, and the cave is sturdy enough to support the blast of dynamite (the explosion won't kill anyone bu the fat man). Yes, it is ridiculous because if the fat man can't get out how did he get in in the first place, etc.

So why am I fine with such a cold calculation? Many of you feel that an inevitable death that has occurred due to an action of other intentions would "haunt your conscience" or you see yourself as not one to trifle with fate. But the idea here is that we're not only morally responsible for our actions, we're also responsible for our inactions. If you and you alone saw such an outcome coming, would it not be your moral duty to try and do what best you could to ensure at least some good? With that in mind there's room for an equal amount of guilt, if not more when you decide not to act. At least with losing one person, there's a marginal amount of comfort knowing that you did what you could.

 

While true, a little knowledge of how tracks work would reveal that pulling the lever half-way would result in the trolley getting stuck in the fork, thus killing no-one. It's one thing to choose one of two obvious choices, but when more effort is put into looking past the obvious, the results can be quite unexpected.

Again, you're being bound by the obvious. Using the dynamite would cause a cave-in, killing everyone anyway. A simple drop-kick to the fat man's persona would be enough to liberate him with naught but a few scratches and a bruised behind... And again, everyone survives.

There's a difference between acting, and acting hastily. Why take comfort in the death of one person when no-one had to die?

Frankly dood, you scare me. o_O

 

That was the smartest idea that I've ever heard. I was here contemplating whether I should just close my eyes and ignore the whole thing, but pulling the lever half-way would indeed be the best answer for both scenarios.

Of course, if the lever's electronic, though, you'd be stuck with the original two choices. Unless you think of one more choice outside the box.

In that case, snap the lever off (because the only way this would happen is if the lever was rusted to begin with) and throw it onto the track. Thus, it derails the trolley and saves everyone except the unfortunate sap inside the trolley.

Of course, how could the four workers NOT see a trolley barreling down on them? :huh:

 

Obviously the argument has it's issues, and there have certainly been better alternatives postulated regarding what the right thing to do should be. Given the circumstances that Mills puts you in I'm simply viewing the best economical outcome in terms of utility. I had said so in the beginning that there are obviously better outcomes to either scenario-- the simple point is that Mills has designed the scenarios (or at least designed them with the intention) for you to consider utility, and the utility alone in terms of a choice between two negative outcomes.

The implications have never been about looking past the obvious. Anyone is capable of doing that. In a real situation involving any of these variables death isn't even an obvious consideration. The ideal scenario is that you're placed in a situation where either one or many have to die, suffer, go hungry, aren't cured, etc. From such a bare outcome, you are asked to consider what the greater good would be.

 

I'd do nothing.
knowing me, I probably would'nt relise i could've saved them and even if i did, i would'nt want to have to regret killing people i don't even know, because they might be bad people and i just dont know it :/

now srsly, what are the chances of a fat man that just happens to fall of a bridge and stop a trolley.
So i once again wouldnt have done anything

 

Situation 1: I will not pull the lever. The 1 person did not do anything to just die.

Situation 2: Just like situation 1. The fat guy just happened to be on the bridge. So he does not deserve to die at all.

 

I agree we are responsible for our actions and also for our inactions. Of course you are responsible for what you do or do not do in the situation, which is why it is perfectly normal to be conscientious as well regarding either choice.

However, you seem to have the opinion that declares those who do not make a choice are either too cowardly to do it or are just not willing to make the choice at all. I disagree strongly with this. Those who do not push the lever -are- making a choice to not kill a man in order to save 4 that are in harm's way. I may feel guilt over it but I would stand by that decision because an 'accident' is better to cope with and accept than 'murder' is. Just because someone does not choose to act and push the lever does not mean it is the coward's way out or it's the 'easy choice'. Also, your 'marginal comfort' of knowing you did what you could is your thought on it. Not pushing the lever to murder some guy who was not in danger until you put your hand on that lever is also a marginal comfort to others, because it would be very tempting to do so in the rush of the moment.

It is a moral duty, therefore to choose whether you want to actively reach out and murder someone to save 4 people or you want to let the forces of nature take their course and the four die by accident. The point here is if you push that lever, you have decided to kill someone. If you do not, it was an accident because you certainly didn't start the cart that is going to smash into them. In the end, you are right that people have a moral choice to make but don't just think that people who choose to not push that lever are taking the -easy way out- because it's not the case. Their morality just sits different than your own.

Also, let's take a play of scenario and spruce it up a bit. Say that one person is someone whom you admire such as some star or it's a family member of yours? Where does your morality sit then? Would you still push that lever or let it go and hit those 4 people? The situation becomes muddled when people actually value a life above others.

I think you might be missing the purpose of these tests, or you are just countering and all but I thought I'd point this out. For the question you are given two choices only. You cannot ad lib and create new ones as much as you would want to (or I would etc). I see what you are saying and all, but in the end, the tests just present those two options and though human minds will wander to other solutions, these are questions on examining morals and your stances on what you will do and won't and what you will compromise and won't. It's really not based on thinking of a way out of the two possible scenarios.

 

To keep things short, I would not want to be the cause of any deaths. So I would have yelled out to warn the workers, instead of doing nothing.

 

It's not that I see other's views of inaction as being cowardly. There is some merit to not being involved. It's just you have the opportunity to, for lack of a better word, reduce the harm of a tragedy. I don't look at the act of puling the lever as actual murder either. It was never your exact intention to kill the one man in place of the other four and it's not like you have anything against the guy in particular. Given the circumstances you're just forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I look at it in terms of that ordinary moral laws were designed for ordinary situations. Yes it is wrong to kill a man in any ordinary circumstance, but if by chance (which is highly unlikely) that an abnormal situation arises where you must choose to either kill four of kill one or blow up one or drown all, the unnatural situation more often than not calls for unnatural action. And in this case the unnatural action results in being aware that one person has to die to save many.

I may have been wrong earlier about taking comfort in the fact that four survive and one dies. Really, you're never going to like either outcome. Every other scenario according to Utilitarianism seems to always work out better when the choice doesn't result in death (i.e. Do you cure 1 person or only treat 100? Fully feed one person, or moderately satisfy masses?). To be blunt the calculations of those previous examples have fewer negative outcomes that weigh against the positives. But I digress.