The Trolley Problem

[WI_Rifleman]

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

Edited December 11, 2005 by softwareNerd

[nimble]

There is no answer to this. It is an out of context moral example where no good can come of it. Rand speaks of the problem deserted island conundrums often.

[softwareNerd]

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

Let's see: A train is heading toward Peter Keating and Toohey, who are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill Howard Roark who is tied to that track.

Your professor's counter to this would be: assume that you did not know any of the people.

If you say that the example is unrealistic, your professor will probably say it is simply an illustration of a more general question.

Well, what is the more general question? Here is my formulation: suppose you are in a situation where you have to decide on action or inaction. Action will cause the death of some people; not acting will cause the death of more people. As far as you know, none of these people has any value to you. In such a situation, what is in your best interest?

[Richard Roark]

This is almost as bad as what came first the chicken or the egg . Regardless, it has been pointed out that there is no context given and that Rand and Peikoff have talked about this type of situation before. How often do you find people tied to the railroad track and you, you alone, have the ability to change the course of a train? What type of moral question does this answer? None what so ever, the reason for this lies in the fact that there is no practicality to the situation, and morality is a subject that should solely deal in the area of what you will actually encounter in real life and is a subject of practicalities not the impossible.

[EC]

Assuming none of the three people have any specific value to you (they are all strangers), the moral thing to do would be to take no action such that your action doesn't kill the other guy. You have no control over the metaphysical fact that the train is going to kill some people, so don't get involved and make your self morally responsible for the single man's death. But after this horrer has occured, one should contact the authorities and let them know that an accident has occurred with probable fatalities. Of course, one is under no MORAL obligation to do even that, but it would be the benevolent action.

[Nxixcxk]

You have the capability to change the direction of the train...

B/c your TA is cocky and wants to disregard context, so shall we. Tell your TA that you will have the train travel upwards and off the tracks.

[drewfactor]

This is a moral impasse. Craig Biddle tends to these questions in his book Loving Life. In his book he states that these questions do not contain a should and therefore are outside of the realm of morality. He also states that a professor's attempt to promulgate moral skepticism, however, does not stand outside the realm of morality.

[source]

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

This is not a question about morality. It is more similar to "Why did the chicken cross the road?" i.e. it has no practical meaning. I've only heard of people being tied to a railroad track on movies and rather bad ones at that. Having three people tied to railroad tracks at the same time in almost the same place is utter nonsense. That would be like tying people to railroad tracks is a day-to-day activity. "Oh, I've just tied my mom to a railroad track. She's been a little annoying, so..."

[Inspector]

This is a moral impasse.  Craig Biddle tends to these questions in his book Loving Life.  In his book he states that these questions do not contain a should and therefore are outside of the realm of morality.  He also states that a professor's attempt to promulgate moral skepticism, however, does not stand outside the realm of morality.

I second this answer.

[Bourgeois]

If the scenario is not likely to happen, we can't discuss it?

The probability that someone named Dagny Taggart will ever crash a plane in a hidden valley in Colorado is extremely small, but I still do not disregard that story because it has no "practical meaning".

Most of us believe that morality can be derived from reason; that implies that we can find solutions to problems without seeing the actual problem arise, because we can visualize them. We do not have to observe murder before we can conclude that murder is wrong, and we could still have said that murder was wrong if we lived in a country where murders were so unlikely to happen that we could say that murder is utter nonsense.

[softwareNerd]

If the scenario is not likely to happen, we can't discuss it?

Sure we can.... let's.

The point that some folk made did not refer only to the improbability of the situation, but to the fact that it is a category they termed "moral impasse".

I have not read Craig Biddle's book yet (though I do own it). So I do not understand what is meant by "moral impasse": what are the characteristics of a situation that would make it a "moral impasse"?

My guess would be as follows, those who have read the book, please correct me if I'm way off base: the conundrum can be summarized thus: "Suppose you are presented with two choices and you are forced to choose one and only one. Both choices are immoral. Which one do you choose?"

Morality assumes that one can choose between the moral and the immoral and act accordingly. That conundrum precludes a moral choice. (Aside: Wasn't that the theme of "Sophie's Choice" ?)

There is another way to view the conundrum. Perhaps it is asking one to choose between two immoral acts, one less moral than the other.

How would you answer the conundrum, Bourgeois?

[Hal]

If the scenario is not likely to happen, we can't discuss it?

You can discuss it if you like. However, the question is 'what use does discussing it have?'. Counterfactuals certainly have their place, but what purpose could an example about 'saving 2 people versus 1' possibly serve? One of the fundamental tenets of Objectivst ethics is that there are no actions that are necessarily 'moral' or 'immoral' everywhere in the universe, at all times, no matter what. Instead morality is held to be contextual, and moral principles have to be formulated, and applied, through the consideration of particular situations by paying close attention to all the factors involved. Philosophy can provide general principles, but the correct application of these principles requires a sensitivity to context. For instance, it is silly to elevate 'killing is wrong' to the status of a universal moral law - killing might be perfectly justifiable (and even moral) in certain situations, such as self defence. Examples such as the one given in this thread, which provide no context or criteria for what a principle could be applied, are simply not relevant to moral discussions. Who cares whether one the person is saved, or the two? You can let all three die for all it matters.

Several traditional moral philosophers sought to discover ethical statements which are valid everywhere (such as "happyness is good") and, having failed to find any,concluded that morality cannot be objective. It is this kind of thinking that Ayn Rand tried to cut off at the root, and contextless examples such as this one only serve to encourage it.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Hal

[Gabriel_S]

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

Hehe...haven't heard that one in about 13 years (Contemporary Ethics course). It was under the heading of "Kantian ethics," and was one of a number of examples used to confound and confuse students (to the apparent amusement of the professor). Actually, the version I heard was a little more telling:

A train is heading towards your entire family who are tied to the railroad tracks. You can pull a handle to activate a switch which will direct the train onto a sidetrack before it hits your wife, but in doing so it will necessarily run over Adolf Hitler (fill in the blank with the appopriate bad guy; or you can use "a stranger," for a different angle). What is the moral thing to do?

The professor then explained how according to Kantian ethics it would be immoral to take a positive action that would lead to the death of the villain (or stranger), even at the expense of sacrificing your family. The reason as I recall (or a significant part at least) is that by activating the switch, thereby saving your family and killing Hitler, you were treating another human being as a means and not as an end-in-itself. There were similar arguments given as to why killing enemy troops in a war was immoral (yes, the professor deduced pacificism from Kantian ethics too). This, in part, had to do with notion that enemy soldiers were simply following orders from their superiors, which they allegedly had no choice over. Therefore, it was immoral to shoot them (even if that meant that they would shoot you, which was perfectly moral).

Other "funny" hypotheticals:

You and several others are exploring a cave near the ocean. The tide starts rising and soon the cave will fill completely with water killing everyone. While making your escape, the person in the front of the line, who happens to be obese, gets stuck in the narrow cave walls (assume for this that you cannot get him unstuck). This blocks escape for the other members of your party. The water is rising fast, you only have a few minutes to do something. You have a stick of dynamite. Would it be moral to blow up the fat man, so that everyone else can escape? (I know, you have to assume a lot in this, but you are supposed to accept that you could blow him up without collapsing the cave, etc.)

Again, it was claimed by the Kantian professor that it would be immoral to kill the fat man (ever at the cost of your life and the lives of the others) because it was taking an affirmative action to treat his life as a means rather than as a end-in-itself.

Let's see, one more because these are just so delightful. We'll raise the stakes a bit:

A mad scientist is building a doomsday device in his underground laboratory. He's informed the world that once completed he will detonate the device and destroy the world. Unfortunately for us, he built his laboratory directly underneath a garment factory teaming with poor Third World peasants slaving away making shirts for greedy Americans (yes, this was his actual example; how could I forget). The government only has minutes before the scientist will detonate the device killing us all. The only way to stop the mad scientist is to fire missiles into the garment factory which will destroy his laboratory. Unfortunately, this would kill the poor garment workers. According to the professor, it would be immoral (again treating the factory workers as means rather than as ends-in-themselves) to fire the missiles and save the world. The moral thing to do would be to let everyone die.

I kid you not. These were (some of ) his actual examples and positions. So yes, there is a world of non-A - that's the world as it exists in the minds of certain professors and the fantastic scenarios and moral commandments that they devise.

[Hal]

Hehe...haven't heard that one in about 13 years (Contemporary Ethics course). It was under the heading of "Kantian ethics," and was one of a number of examples used to confound and confuse students (to the apparent amusement of the professor). Actually, the version I heard was a little more telling:

(railroad example)

I would say that these are good uses of counterfactuals. You're creating a situation where the Kantian is forced to answer in a specific and 'unnatural' way, in order to highlight the problems with Kantian ethics. If you can show that an idea leads to absurd consequences, then you have good grounds for rejecting the idea.

Of course, the professor then goes on to show the problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments - theres always the risk that your opponent will gleefully embrace whatever nonsense suggests itself.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Hal

[Gabriel_S]

I would say that these are good uses of counterfactuals. You're creating a situation where the Kantian is forced to answer in a specific and 'unnatural' way, in order to highlight the problems with Kantian ethics. If you can show that an idea leads to absurd consequences, then you have good grounds for rejecting the idea.

Of course, the professor then goes on to show the problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments - theres always the risk that your opponent will gleefully embrace whatever nonsense suggests itself.

Precisely!

How can you reduce your opponent to absurdity when they revel in the absurd?

Edited April 4, 2005 by Gabriel_S

[MisterSwig]

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

The moral thing to do is to make a decision that is in the best interest of yourself and act on that decision.

I would not change the direction of the train unless I was trying to save somebody of personal value to me, because I would very much not like to cause someone's death who would have otherwise survived had it not been for me.

However, I could conceivably make an exception if I were given the opportunity to direct a train into O.J. Simpson.