Kill 1 to Save 5? Consequentialism vs. Deontology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2020
- **Correction**
The video inaccurately says that "according to deontology, there are some moral rules that should never be broken." But that only accurately describes "absolutist" versions of deontology (such as Immanuel Kant's). Other versions of deontology can allow for any rule to be broken. What makes a view deontological is primarily that regards morality as fundamentally involving duties and principles, and that those duties are not determined solely by the good or bad consequences of your actions.
Video Description:
Is it ever ok to kill an innocent person? According to Consequentialism, morality is ultimately about doing whatever has the best consequences. But according to [absolutist] Deontology, there are some moral rules that should never be broken. Philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson offer some interesting thought experiments (i.e. hypothetical scenarios) to help us think about these issues. In the famous Trolley Problem example, there's a runaway trolley about to kill five people on the track ahead, but you can divert the trolley so that it hits only one person instead. And in the Transplant Case, there's a surgeon who can murder an innocent person so that he can harvest the organs and save five people from organ failure. Both cases involve killing 1 person to save 5 others.
Media Sources:
Illustrations: www.freepik.com (and macrovector)
Music: www.purple-planet.com
Sound Effects: www.zapsplat.com
If it's ok to pull the lever, is it ok for the surgeon to kill and harvest the organs? If not, what's the relevant difference between these cases? Some philosophers say one involves "killing" while the other involves "letting die."
I think if we're being honest, the relevant diff is that Scenario 2 involves intentionally putting someone in a state of peril/vulnerability in order to save ppl. Whereas the Trolley Dilemma involves everyone (except you) _already_ being in peril/vulnerable. _That_ aspect is "out of your hands."
Not sure where to go from there. What that implies? Something to do w/ autonomy? I dunno. Maybe you can finish what I've started here.
My best guess is that we see it (inducing peril/vulnerability) as a secondary act of evil that tips the scale.
But then again, isn't switching the tracks technically the real inducement of peril?
Maybe a better explanation has to do with how we decide who has _authority_ to do what.
Again, maybe you can take it from here.
It's nearly the same. Both good.
I don't see that distinction. The single person on the tracks wasn't in danger of dying until someone pulled the lever. If the thought experiment plays out without that lever being pulled it's assumed the trolley continues on it's path and kills the group of 5 and spares the single person. Whoever pulled the lever calculated that one dying was better than five, and chose to kill the one person to save the five. At a glance, both involve deciding who lives and who dies (is killed).
There are several variables that explain why so many people change their answers when its a run away trolley and a hospital setting. Probably the largest factor is that it's one thing to pull a lever and let the trolley do the dirty work, its quite another to kill someone with your own hands. Modifying the trolley problem to where you can push a really large individual in front of the trolley heavily reduces the people who would trade the one life for the five. It's still more than the hospital dilemma, but if I recall correctly it's far below half of the respondents would still choose to sacrifice the one to safe five.
YES
As a consequentialist, I view the very phrasing "kill one to save five" as unjustifiably ceding ground to deontology. Deontologists truck in a multiplicity of verbal disintctions. The phrasing that's fair to consequentialism is: "choose one death plus one lever pull over five deaths plus zero lever pulls".
pretty much like human's life, whatever choice you made either way society will critized you
1:19
That locomotive is not going to go around that curve, it has too many trucks. It will derail and possibly kill the five people anyway.
Aside the video, how did you animate this? Did you make everything including the background picture at the beginning, trolley animation etc… rest of the video seems like powerpoint esque
One important difference between the trolley and the surgeon scenario that I can think of is that if we allow the surgeon to kill the healthy patient to save the five that required organ transplants, we would cause people to be fearful of going to the doctor. This would negatively impact people's health, which would make harvesting the healthy patient's organs more negative than switching the trolley tracks. Another difference is that the single victim on the alternate track would know of their impending doom once you switch the trolley tracks, whereas the patient might not be aware if he was quickly and covertly sedated. But this almost seems to support switching the trolley tracks as more harmful because of the added dread.
It's possible to imagine a scenario to nullify some of the after mentioned differences. For instance, perhaps there is a way to harvest the patient organs without anyone ever finding out, and this scenario only ever happened once, so you don't have to worry about making people fearful of going to the doctor. In that case, there would still be the difference that you are deceiving the patient into thinking they are getting a normal check up when in reality you are harvesting their organs. In the original trolley problem, there is no deception. And it's a highly consequential kind of deception.
Admittedly, my own gut reaction is that it is right to switch the trolley tracks but wrong to harvest the organs, so my analysis might be biased in favor of that. Please let me know of any refutations of the ideas I have shared.
I think you brought up a great point but addressed it well. We can imagine a secret scenario where the organs case doesn’t have those bad long term consequences, yet it still seems wrong.
Though I’m not sure why the deception would be wrong for a consequentialist. If the end result is good enough, why think deceiving the patient would be wrong?
Fwiw, I think pulling the lever would be ok but harvesting the organs wouldn’t. But I’m not a consequentialist. And I think the social context and normality of the hospital matters.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff I was looking for any differences between the two scenarios, but you are right that the deception would be irrelevant for a consequentialist. The organ harvesting example is a great one and I wish it (or something similar) would be presented alongside the trolley problem more often. As someone whose formal philosophy education includes only a single college course, this is the first time I've heard it. After watching this video, this is the first time I have had doubts about whether it is always right to kill one to save five (assuming no other consequences). So thank you for making me question my beliefs. It appears that I am also not a consequentialist considering I approve of switching the trolley tracks but not harvesting the organs. But I struggle to come up with a coherent and rigorous moral philosophy that justifies behaving differently in those two scenarios.
Great and simple explanation, very easy to understand, thanks!
The dillema is clear. How do you kill all 6. Say you're on a train, and one track has 5 people tied to it and another with 1 person. Simple. This requires an incredibly good throw but you throw something with enough force at the right time to strike the single person. And then take the train on to the other path. Killing all 6.
You've solved it. I think we can say this case is closed.
The easier way to go for maximum casualties is to switch tracks when the train is going over the switch, so the front goes on towards the 5 and the backside towards the one. Bonus: it will derail the train, killing more people than were even on the track
@@ewoud2688 that's true.
The patient example would ultimately result in a society that normalizes sacrificing random non-consenting people to harvest their organs. That's not a desirable outcome.
Desirable for who? Eh
Yes, the 2nd scenario could have the *consequence* of living in a world where we must fear that someone we care about will be lotteried (or whatever) to their unexpected death.
I think that in this case it comes to the intention of the person, the current laws when the action took place, wether a similar issue has been brought up before and that there is a system to prevent the issue to happen again. So basically lets say a man ran over 5 people with the train instead of 1, if he did so because he was scared the current law will prosecute him for killing an individual instead of 5 he is innocent. now if only such an issue has happened for the first time at the very least in the system of law in which the man that pulled the lever resides in, it is the duty of the law makers to make sure that the incident at the very least can be avoided next time it happens with a new system or if the system is currently not available they should warn there citizens of the danger until a new system comes up to solve the issue. Otherwise in my opinion it is okay to save 4 people instead of 1. Coming to the next example with the doctor, the doctor is not allowed to kill one patient to save 5 because it is basically unlawful to kill someone, only unless the law perhaps permits to kill someone to save 5 others. but if the doctor is concerned that an issue might happen in the future he can give information to the law to find a resolution for the problem, a solution where no one is killed unlawfully, perhaps finding a new solution to the problem like for example making artificial organs or having organ donors super accessible etc.what i take form this is would you want a world with people that are scared to do the right thing and kill more rather then less and or to be in a world where a doctor can take your life unlawfully. not me i would rather be in a world where the doctor at the very most asks if i am willing to give my life for 5 others, and if i don't allow it, the doctor and the system we have in place finds a way to avoid the problem in the beginning so i don't need to make a hard decision like giving my life away, and also to live in a world were if someone killed me to save 5 other people, to at the very least know that if that does happen, people who didn't want me to die would work to make it so that such an issue does not happen in the future again. n
Now change that one person on the track to a family member or companion animal. Would you let that one family member die to save more people?
It's not a simple equation. There are many variables to consider.
No, almost every time. About 9.99/10, no, let the 5 people die.
@@ReyMonoMan what about 100,000 people?
I think it's simple. You save your family member. It's fate for the other people that the other guys family member was there. If the guy that is pulling the lever is a family member of one party, the other party is screwed. In this situation I have to factor in what is better for me. What is the greater good for me. If I have no connection to either party, then the initial victims have to own their fate and not pawn it off on anyone else.
@@MichaelMillerVlogs yea I agree with that
Yeah. You would probably have more insider knowledge about the family member, and it could be argued this would give you a more informed position. if you think they are a no good waste of space you may let them die. if you 'know' them to be 'good' you might ensure their survival. If you know nothing about someone you would not know if you were killing a Hitler or an Einstein. You could argue that one Einstein is easily worth five Hitlers etc etc etc. I love the way this dilemma is used to support ridiculous simplified heuristics.
My solution to the problem is pretty simple: utilitarianism works for cases which doesn't involve consent; maximizing well being doesn't always comes down to saving more lives in the short term.
Breaking consent is bad because even if you do it while being justified, you're the only one to justify your actions, and by doing so you justify a world where murder is acceptable if the person who commits the crime think is justified which is just total madness, even if you somehow get a council to approve this kind of behavior it still is tyranny, democracy doesn't decide what's right, no matter how many nazis think it's right to genocide ideological murder is absolutely terrible. Also, no one would go to hospitals if doctors could kill you without warning. Basically not killing the person to give his organs is the utilitarian correct choice.
It is also what you have to consider when pushing someone off a bridge to stop the train.
With the typical trolley problem you don't equate pulling the lever as killing and breaking consent because it is depicted as an unsusual situation, therefore the killer is not you but rather luck or incompetency or whatever lead the trolley to act the way it does, and you become merely an intermediary trying to mitigate the consequences of an already happening tragedy. the unreproducibilty makes pulling the lever virtually similar to letting die since the trolley is the one acting. Maybe there are variation which makes it harder to answer but i can't think of any.
Not to mention killing the donor is blatant second-degree murder and you can't justify murder by the amount of people you save. If that were to be the case, society would justify killing as long as the killer gives the organs of the person they kill to hospitals which is messed up in all cases because you don't get to get away with murder because the victim's body can be used to save others.
When would consent not be part of the equation? This goes well beyond trying to balance lives on a scale. Even something simple, like telling someone a lie, would involve their consent. Would you tell a lie to save 5 people? If you believe in moral imperatives you cannot tell a lie to save 5 people because lying is wrong no matter what.
Both schools of thought put you in pretty precarious situations if the right scenario arises.
This might sound extreme at first, but from my perspective consent has very little to do with morality. For example, I think many of us would consider it moral if a friend helped a thoroughly intoxicated friend safely back home to protect them from harm's way in spite of their drunken protests (in spite of outright violating their consent). Meanwhile, many of us would consider it immoral if someone tried to take advantage of that drunken friend, even with their consent, by pouring them more and more drinks.
>> Also, no one would go to hospitals if doctors could kill you without warning.
From my standpoint, this is getting to the most practical, consequentialist root of why most of us would find the transplant variant morally reprehensible beyond consent and beyond the Hippocratic Oath. It explains the practical reasons for why the Hippocratic Oath exists in the first place along with notions of medical malpractice.
Just because you feel more comfortable committing murder in one cenario then the other it doesn't mean it's not murder.
I will pull the lever and immediately rush to the person to untie him/her because train lever are close to train tracks and its faster to untie one person than to untie 5of them. Even though we both might get killed if i fail to untie him/her its worth trying, and if he/dies alone it will be guaranteed that he will be remembered as hero in the fives heart for his/her sacrifices.
yeah... except that, by playing the hero, you ruined the philosophical point
I think that the trolly case kind of depends on whether you believe human life has a limited value or you believe that it is infinitely valuable. I say this because if you value a humans life as X, then the 5 people would be worth 5X and it would be rational to pull the lever. However, if you value human life at infinity, then the one person is no less valuable than 5 people because infinity times 5 is still infinity.
Some infinites are bigger than others
@@Ambigious 😭🙏 yeah you don’t get it. I’m tired to explain but just do more research.
@@Ambigious nah, I just don't want to take my time responding when I can go watch a video chao
I'd definitely be a consequentialist here, it troubles me that I don't see much deep analysis in this comment section going over the many other factors in the example of a surgeon taking 5 organs from 1 person to save 5.
The societal impact is a great example of this and I think one of the most important things to consider. If this were done frequently or even once and the information got out in such a way that much more utility (defined as good feelings minus bad ones) was lost through stress and a lack of a sense of security among many people, it would not be ethical to do this even by a consequentialist framework.
Very good point! The surgeon case is oversimplified and neglects lots of likely fallout, which is relevant to the morality of the action (on consequentialism).
But in a way the problem is still there because *if* the surgeon could get away with killing the guy and know one found out, it looks to result in the best outcomes and so is permitted (even required!) on a consequentialist (specially utilitarian) framework. And that still seems to be a problem. Most people seem to want to say that it'd be wrong not just because of the fallout but because of the act itself.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff Definitely true, thanks for your response and the video! If the surgeon scenario took place in such a way that no one but the 7 people (including the surgeon) involved were affected by it, I think most of the time act/two-level utilitarians would agree that it's the right thing to do. There are of course rule utilitarians who might object to this, however I personally am a two-level utilitarian so I would most likely be in agreement that it's the right thing to do. There are a couple possible exceptions even then though...
There's the possibility that the negative experiences of continued living for the five would outweigh the positives. Perhaps the surgeon has good evidence that once they're saved they'll fall into depression and ultimately take their lives, doing little good either for others or themselves and thus making it a worthless endeavor. Or, if they (the five) still have an influence on society but don't tell, either because they don't know or don't want to, even then their influence might cause more negative utility than positive utility. So it depends a lot on how ethical one perceives the five patients' future actions to be.
There's also the possibility that the ethical influence of the five lives being saved doesn't outweigh the guilt the surgeon feels at having killed the one + the ethical influence the one would have had. This is also unlikely, but still something to consider.
Overall though, under currently ordinary conditions minus the influence upon society the news of such a thing would have, I believe it's ethically right to kill the one to save the five. I would even say this is ethically intuitive to me, though that wasn't the case a year or so ago when I was less certain of my position, and of course I could always be wrong. I'm also not saying I dehumanize the one, I merely find it an intuitive ethical answer.
The main reason I find it intuitive, I think, is because I believe ethics is built on empathy and the desire to feel like a good person, which is in turn also built on empathy. Empathy can be morphed based on cultural norms and such of course (eg. dehumanization and conceptions of ethics) but at the foundation of it is the ability to place one in another's shoes so to speak. To imagine another's emotional state and copy it intentionally and oftentimes unintentionally. This leads to us trying to better other peoples' lives in the pursuit of bettering our own lives. Psychological egoism, basically. And in our personal pursuit of virtually anything, we seem to be trying to maximize our own utility. So if we're trying to build an ethical system for all beings such as we (intentionally didn't say humanity to include the possibility of AI and/or aliens being included in such a system) then it seems natural we would be trying to maximize everyone's total utility, and that past attempts at coming up with such a system without realizing we (humanity) were doing so were based on a limited understanding of many subjects which lead to rule systems. Since we hardly ever experience exceptions to rules such as "Don't kill an innocent person if they do not wish to be killed", we begin to solidify them in our minds as the foundation of ethics, when really even they have exceptions because they are simplifications of our fundamental intuition that we are attempting to maximize utility.
Again, I could be wrong, that's just my best analysis of related subjects from my current understanding.
@@ferb8944 Thanks for your thoughtful response! I must've missed it a month ago when you posted it. I think you bring up a lot of relevant factors to consider. Also, I applaud your consistency in holding to utilitarianism and following it to its logical consequences. I think a big part of doing philosophy is working on inconsistencies and it turns out we've got a lot of inconsistent judgments and intuitions. It also makes sense that your intuition about the surgeon case has changed over time. I think our intuitions can change over time as we give some theories more credence. But I just can't get myself to agree that (assuming no one would ever find out and assuming...) it would be morally ok to intentionally kill an innocent person like that. There are some versions of utilitarianism that avoid it, but I'm not happy with most. I could get behind rule-utilitarianism, but it strikes me as consequentialism-in-name-only since literally speaking it is not the actual consequences that determine an actions moral status. And two-level utilitarianism doesn't seem consistent. I share a worry that was expressed by the philosophy Bernard Williams. It's not clear how the rules and exceptions are supposed to ultimately work out together.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff Thank you for getting back to me! No worries about the delay, it happens. It's a pleasure reading through your thoughts and discussing these matters.
I know what you mean about rule utilitarianism being consequentialist in name only. One could argue it's based indirectly on consequences because the rules are derived from consequences, and I think I would actually agree with this argument, but it's still a great deal different to act and two-level utilitarianism.
I would love to research more about the problem of inconsistency in two-level utilitarianism, can you share resources I can delve into on it?
To me it seems relatively clear, one is to calculate on a case-by-case basis the ethical consequences of certain decisions when a quick estimation returns that enough time be present to calculate with sufficient likelihood such case-by-case calculations to result in a better outcome than would following a simplified model which would take less time to calculate. If you're in a warzone in the midst of a charge, it's probably not worth the hesitation it would take to calculate whether it's right to kill the people you're killing every time you point your gun at someone. Of course ideally one would have already done this calculation before letting themselves come to such a situation and built a simplified model for the war, perhaps updating it when available time was given.
This is admittedly an abstract answer and perhaps not clear on the exact circumstances one should rely on a ruleset vs the circumstances one should deeply ponder such matters. But this same problem could be posed against the very foundations of utilitarianism, that it is not clear what decisions would be ethical because it is often difficult to foretell the ethical impact of varying decisions. Even without the clarity something like a deontologist approach would offer, I still believe it's better to be a utilitarian overall. Just the same, even without the clarity rule or act utilitarianism might offer on whether one should use a simplified model or not in any given situation, I still think it's better to use both, choosing which one to use depending on the situation.
@@ferb8944 I shouldn't say two-level is inconsistent because I think, in principle, there are ways to resolve the tension between the intuitive rules and act utilitarianism (AU)--especially if two-level is understood in the following sense: strictly speaking AU is the criteria for what is morally right, but our moral intuitions about rules are typically good heuristics/guides to right action. That's fine with me. That simply means AU is a theory of the right, but not always action-guiding (because it's often too hard to calculate consequences) and that our intuitive rules are what should typically be action-guiding. However, my concerns about AU are cases where you have time to calculate the consequences and AU tells you to do something that seems really really bad. What would two-level say there? Well, in principle, it seems like it can't say "Follow the intuitive moral rule" since you know the intuitive moral rule gets the "wrong" result because you've actually calculated consequences here. So two-level is fine as a practical theory about how to act in general. But it doesn't "save" AU from the seemingly bad results it appears to say are "right".
I think this problem is much simpler. In trolley problem all people image to be one who pulls level, but in hospital case they image they are the healthy patient, because they know they can't be surgeon. Even if everyone say human life is priceless, that does it mean? If we go by definition, it is something without a price. Like trash in trash can. Others would want to say they are so valuable that it is impossible to put price, but here is a problem. If every life is so valuable, if we in trolley problem replace person on side tracks with respondent mother, will he pull level? By definition five people should be more valuable than one (respondent mother). But would respondent think the same? What we value is relationships, but we don't have any relationships with strangers, but we do with our parents. If on both tracks are strangers it does not really matter, so we can play hero. Because it feels like we save 5 people, but we are not killing 1 person, because it is trolley who do it. In the end it is perception of situation than morals values.
My understanding of both terms is very limited, which is how I got to this video, but it seems to be that both decisions (taken in the same manner) can be argued both from a deontological and consequentialist point of view. In the first instance, one could propose the moral rule that one should always maximise lives saved, a deontological argument similar to utilitarianism that would have the same outcome as consequentialism. In the second example, one could argue that the consequence of allowing doctors to harm patients to save others (not just morally but by law) would overall be worse than not allowing them to do so, even if it might create a net benefit in this single instance. Again, this results in the same outcome as the deontological perspective provided.
Excellent observation! Yes, absolutely you can construct deontological theories to "give the same answer" as consequentialist ones.
And your point about the potential harm of letting doctors kill patients is well-taken too. And that's actually how most consequentialist justify the use of general rules. Although one way to "block" it is to say, "Ok. But let's suppose you know that no one will ever find out. So in this particular instance, it will maximize happiness." If that were the case, then the consequentialist still has a hard time explaining why we can't break the rule when it would, in fact, have the "better" outcome.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff >> But let's suppose you know that no one will ever find out. So in this particular instance, it will maximize happiness." If that were the case, then the consequentialist still has a hard time explaining why we can't break the rule when it would, in fact, have the "better" outcome.
For one, we can't say with certainty that it would have a better outcome in the long-term future even if the goal is to optimize happiness or minimize suffering. There are far too many unknowns here. What we can know more confidently is that violating human rights and acting on malicious intentions tends to produce negative outcomes if we're the surgeon. It can also become habit-forming.
Yet I'd also say it's inconsequential whether we want to call that moral or immoral unless we're the surgeon in that scenario, since the surgeon got away with it. We wouldn't know about it so we wouldn't be able to begin to attempt to determine the best course of action to take in response to his actions. If the surgeon is the only one that knows what he did, then it's only consequential to him what he thinks about it.
I do think for the surgeon himself, there are potentially far more negative psychological consequences than positive ones even tracing back to his self-interests if he commits this act unless he's psychopathic and completely devoid of a conscience, for which we can come back as external observers antecedently and question why we should even allow psychopaths absent conscience to become surgeons in the first place and what sort of likely consequences that would produce. We have the Hippocratic Oath for very practical reasons, and likely established it and continued to refine it upon discovering some horrifying consequences in its absence.
This type of consequentialist thinking becomes extremely recursive, but I think it's something worth attempting to explain our moral intuitions beyond simplistic explanations like, "It's simply wrong," or, "it's wrong because it's not something in accordance with what we will to be universal law."
My answer is pull the leaver right as the train will cross and see if it derails the train, possibly killing or saving both sets. Either way its a fair outcome
Solution 1 be an engineering
Solution 2 kill the 5 make a U turn kill the 1
Solution 3 jump in front of the trolley and make sure you do so in a way where it stops the trolley
Big Brain moves
I would not pull the lever at all and let the trolley follow its intended path. But yeah, if I know some of the people, it's very likely that my body will automatically pull the lever.
Deep inside your heart the truth remains the truth not to pull the lever. Bkoz that one person is innocent
@@curtismark6041 so are the 5 others.
2:25 Bout to be the biggest check-up of his life boiiiii. Doctor's probably doing the Birdman hand rub 😂
How's saving 5 idiots lying on a railway a good consequence?
Savagely funny!
I wouldnt pull the trigger to change trolley tracks.
As a naive teenager I would say the surgeon shouldn’t kill the patient at the very least because of his sworn duty as a doctor to treat patients to the best of his ability and, this is written very clearly, to not “play at god.” Which is exactly what these two scenarios are about, giving you power over these hypothetical people’s life. If this was truly the best surgeon he would probably take his oath very seriously. On the other hand, the person who pulls the lever is made personal by saying it’s the individual’s task. In this case it’s up to the person, their religions, jobs, basically their own moral laws. I guess I would say there’s no right or wrong answer to the first question(at least it depends on the individual’s morals), but there is for the second based on what should be the surgeons own moral standings. So I guess that would be post modernism wouldn’t it? However, no matter what system you’re under there will be government(or self government) and this system has to work from a logistical, almost heartless approach for the people under it, and choose the option where the most lives are saved, or with the option with the best consequences. Authority(which in a way are payed to “play god”) should always choose the option with the best consequences. However, the individual has to decide for themselves what best upholds their moral standards and understanding. This only works if all the individuals understand that killing on a fundament level is wrong(not some serial killer who would willingly kill 5 people just for fun if they didn’t see anything morally wrong with it)... so after all that I guess deontology? Idk sorry this question deeply bothers me so I ranted
No, the same rule also applies to the first question. The train/trolly is on its track. And the person who is on the alternative track knows that the train will go to the other side. But the other 5 people don't know that they are on the wrong track.
Secondly, it is illegal for a normal person to tinker with the lever. Same as it is illegal for a doctor to kill his patient.
So it is not the question of whether you will do something which is legal but confusing. It is a question of whether you break the law/rules/morals to obtain the desired results or you have to always follow the law(strict morals) even if you think that breaking them is more beneficial.
For the trolley issue, I would not touch the lever. There is the probability of survival for the people farthest from the oncoming trolley...there has to be a special reason why there is only one person on the other track which would lead me to not touch the lever.
Why would there be a special reason for one person being on the track? What might the reason be?
What if that one person is you family member and others are unknown to you
Good question. Do you think it matters morally? Some people argue that we have special obligations to our friends and family. I know that if it came down to a decision like that in the trolley problem, I'd NEVER flip the switch to kill one of my family members and save five strangers. Would I be doing the right thing? Or would it be the wrong thing (and maybe I'm just too biased to see it)?
@@ThinkingAboutStuff In my opinion that would be wrong
@@ThinkingAboutStuff I think it's the right thing because you should always put yourself infront of others unless it's like a large group of people. killing your family would be harmful to your mental state
I would let my family die. I believe, morally, it is the correct thing to do.
A family member I love and deeply care about? Or a vicious and unpleasant POS I despise, despite being family? If the former, then I'll let the 5 die, no question, 100%. But I'd certainly be haunted by the decision for quite a while.
Here's why I would choose differently for one and two:
For the trolley problem, I come across 6 total people just tied to the tracks. Someone had to do that. Someone else went out of their way to attempt to murder people like that, helpless and unable to do nothing but watch their death come. The danger is already in the situation, I have not decided that this situation should exist. I would hit the switch and save 5.
For the second, you are creating the dangerous situation for the one, you are "tying him to the tracks" if you kill him. Instead of no one being able to escape the situation, you would be going out of your way to "build tracks" to "bind" this guy to.
You ask him. That's all you do. If he consents, go through with the procedure. If he doesn't, don't.
These people on the thumbnail look like they are chilling😂
And what do I do if I'm both?
you can combine aspects of both but cannot fully believe both at the same time
I would just wiggle the lever to derail the trolley
For me the train depends on ratio... about 20:1 is the cut off
About patient , probably 2 million:1 ish
@@gratifyingmyself9474 @GratifyingMyself in patient case the sacrificial person is absolutely not related to the cause of sickness of other people...in the train case both sides deserve to die more or less equally, bring themselves to the train track either by recklessness or their profession...if the sacrificial person in train case is some innocent somewhere far away, then my ratio would have been different.......and it can be said to some extent that those patients might deserve their illness. Many people fell ill because of they have been living for too long or their accumulated bad behavior.
The process involved is important too, in the patient case we need to cut him or her up, and distribute the organ, which is much more gruesome...if he would just simply die, my ratio would be different.
The fact that the train guy has a chance to survive also an important factor too.. i would choose to give 10 percent death to 10 people, rather than 100 percent death to one person....feel like hey you have a chance to live... not my fault if you die.
switch the track just so the trolly does not enter either track thus derailing it, it will simply move under it's on momentum when it leaves the rails till it stops missing all the people.
To answer any question I use a theory that I invented. I named this theory "Hellards" and the answer to almost every question using my theory is, SOMETIMES...MAYBE
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I personally think that if I change the train's path it would be murder. But if I just didnt interfere with teh trains path and let the 5 people die it wouldnt be murder it would be what was soupposed to happen.
that denotology
Why do you suggest the death of the five was supposed to happen?
@@soslothful this was a year ago, now that I think about it I’d save the 5 and let the 1 die, unless it’s someone I care about then fuck 5 I’m going 1. But if everyone is random in this situation I’d choose to kill 1. Or why can’t I find a way to stop the train? Or choose to kill 1 but still try to save 1.
@@soslothful but also I think what I was thinking a year ago is the legal side of it, I chose to switch the tracks knowing it would 100% kill that 1 person. People would ignore the fact that I saved 5 people and would focus on me having the will to kill someone based on numbers. Like the law never favors the anti-hero.
@@andypersaud5710 Ah! I thought you were using, "supposed to happen" in a metaphysical sense, fate or karma. Still the entire scenario seems unlikely and therefore very difficult to answer. How would the people on the track not realize a trolley was coming and move off the track? And is it really the case there is a public accessible switch that any passerby could change the trolly's direction?
You can't pull the lever because all lever's have Padlocks on them. Only if there is a donor red dot on his driving licence.
Easy just do Multi track drifting
Since the intention of the act of pulling the lever isn't to kill to 1 individual, nor is the object of the act (pulling the lever) intrinsically evil, I actually don't think I agree that the train problem is an example of consequentialism.
but what if the 5 people are terminally ill and then it is a child on the other track??
The problem is ... do I have to do the “same” thing every time? Can I pull the switch and NOT kill organ donor guy? What am I then? 😂 Love these!
Great question! I sure hope there's a relevant difference between these cases because I feel the same way.
Some philosophers say the transplant case involves "killing" whereas the trolley case involves "letting die." But I'm not sure that works. It sure seems like I'm killing the innocent person when I switch the trolley! Others say that perhaps it's about "intending" someone's death rather than "foreseeing" it. But that has problems, too.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff Great vid! I heard a cool Radiolab episode about this years back where the trolley problem was switched where, instead of pulling a lever, you pushed someone onto the tracks to change the outcome and save the 5.
The responses were vastly different, probably because he has that ingredient of "killing" vs. "let die."
Then you're rule utilitarian instead of classic utilitarian. Welcome to the club by the way.
@Chris Qiu And why is that? Why would you have higher responsibility for not killing? Is keeping your hands clean really more than human lives?
@Chris Qiu My problem with that is that it's putting value of having clean hands over value of human lives. In a matter of such magnitude something like who is responsible for that seems incredibly miniscule to me.
You asked you don't understand why would anybody do that so there you have it.
In another situation in 2020
During covid-19 pandemic I was the one person who died to save 5. I was going to watch a cricket game in the stadium. 15 minutes before reaching the stadium they made the stadium behind closed doors to help stop the spread of COVID-19. as a consequence of their actions i quit watching cricket for good and sentenced cricket for life till 2051 (1 person dying, thousands may have been saved theoretically). In this case it was unjust to kill 1 person to save thousands
this is why utilitarianism sucks
One more solution, based on evolutionary theory - one should decide based on which way I more likely to save copies of genes that one shares. This one is in a way clearly correct, as it is evolutionary favoured one and our further ethical discussion is a way to rationalise this choice.
BTW: this donor problem is flawed. Setting aside, that if his HLA match potential recipients, then their antigens should also be roughly compatible and one could be able to offer them to draw straws, there is even more fundamental issue. From purely consequential perspective, by quartering this patient one is destroying the trust and cohesion within society, which is quite likely to be much more deadly than merely 5 dead.
Interesting points about evolutionary theory! Morality and evolution have a strange relationship. Many argue that morality evolved because developing altruistic behaviors confers reproductive benefits for the group--including oneself. But there also seems to be clear cases where doing what would continue my genetic line would also be the wrong thing to do. For example, rape is a paradigm case of something that is morally horrible. But in many cases it would result in the continuation of one's genetic line. (I don't think you were suggesting that continuing one's genetic line is always morally best. I'm just pointing out ways in which morality and reproductive fitness come apart.)
"From purely consequential perspective, by quartering this patient one is destroying the trust and cohesion within society, which is quite likely to be much more deadly than merely 5 dead."
Excellent point! This is a significant difference between the cases. However, suppose you had a guarantee that know one would find out that you killed the guy. Would that then make it ok? If not, then the public losing trust in the medical community can't be *the thing* that explains why it's not ok.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff “morality evolved because developing altruistic behaviors” Actually you moved it to a group level selection which is less clear cut case. More obvious cases:
-egoism on genetic level of simply taking care of close relatives (including offspring), works even with no reciprocity (it still works - it’s easier to forgive a family member than a stranger...)
-cooperation - scratch my back, I’d scratch yours
-cheating in cooperation - leads to creating methods of detecting cheaters and in more sophisticated situation… well an ethical code and even virtue signalling, not necessary honest.
The key is NOT evolutionary advantageous => moral; it’s we’re product of evolution => in ethical reasoning our starting assumptions (or conclusions that something seems wrong, even though technically speaking the reasoning seems fine) would be heavily slanted by which cognitive biases were advantageous in evolutionary terms.
“But in many cases it would result in the continuation of one's genetic line.” Only when we’re judging others behaviours. In our own case we would be quite good at finding excuses, starting that it was purely her fault as she did not wear suitable clothes, like the ones that were trendy in Great Britain under queen Victoria or even better in Afghanistan under Taliban. ;)
“However, suppose you had a guarantee” Prisons are full of people that thought that can get away with something ;) Not fully a joke. Big part of our cognitive process is operating under uncertainty. So we would see it differently, even when said we would get away with.
“Would that then make it ok?” Still this breach of trust is an issue, though with higher exchange rate would consider as lesser evil.
I think the thrust behind these thought experiments are to force you to decide between one and five lives. Maybe a MacGyver could think up a way to disrupt the trolley dilemma and make it to where you're not choosing between one and five, but that's only ignoring what question these thought experiments are trying to answer - Is it moral to sacrifice one person to save five?
As far as your evolutionary theory goes, it's not practical at all - at least not as practical as you having the ability to pull a lever or a surgeon having the ability to kill someone and harvest their organs). And even if you could see, and process, someone's genome at a glance, how do you weigh each phenotypical and genotypical gene? Is having your exact eye color more important than having your exact temperament? There's a lot of subjectivity when trying to decide who is and who isn't a close genetic match to yourself. Moreover, one could argue that that goes against evolution for sexual reproducing species as the whole point of sexual reproducing species is to have diversity of genetics. Imagine we're all exact clones of each other. One bad event, say a virus, and we're all dead.
Also, Thinking About Stuff brought up a great point. If you could kill the healthy person in secret, then there wouldn't be any rippling effects within society that would cause distrust between the medical community and humanity at large. Arguing that it's unlikely or impossible to keep it a secret ignores the purpose of these thought experiments. Change the previous question to "Is it moral to sacrifice one person if you can do so in secret to save five?"
@@notsafeforchurch "As far as your evolutionary theory goes, it's not practical at all" You seem here to miss obvious markers of genetic similarity. Simplest - one of those dudes is your far relative. Suddenly you know whether it's OK to sacrifice 1 for 5, just you retrospectively would make an explanation that would save him. Your compatriot (in roughly homogeneous country) vs. foreigner. Person of your race vs of other race. If you notice that such reasoning is natural, then suddenly it makes lot's of sense why we can in the same time care about compatriot and watch with disinterest another bloody war in some hard to pronounce third world country.
"goes against evolution for sexual reproducing species" Technical question - are you familiar with the term "kin selection"?
"If you could kill the healthy person in secret" It seems that more socially adjusted people are wary to assume (even if they don't see any obvious way in which they can be discovered) that they are guaranteed to run away with something. Though it may look as bias, it seems evolutionary to be a correct bet.
For number 2
If i was an organ surgeon I would asked the healthy person to sell an organ if he denied thats ok if he accepts that will be great
well, the utilitarianism can be made in any case
The answer is untie the one and only person on the other side then
and pull the lever to save the other five on the other side that makes it you save everyone.🙂
There is also the theory of Virtue Ethics!
Yes! Virtue theory is actually my favorite. More specific videos on all of these theories to come. It just takes me forever!
I don’t know, lives cannot compare and it doesn’t matter how many people die, it is always someone who will die, if you pull the lever, and the trolley rushes to the one person, the entire incident still has a bad outcome although five people did survive.
Who are these people? Are the people stuck on train tracks familiar to me? Are they my loved ones? If my mother was stuck on one side, and five strangers on another, I’d save her. If my best friend is stuck with four other strangers, and a lone stranger on the other side, I’d save my best friend. Who are these people to me? What worth do they bring to my life? I don’t want or need any publicity or thanks from strangers. We all die in the end. What’s so special about these people? What is rewarding about saving them? Unless they aren’t an everyday joe or a loved one, I wouldn’t bother. The same goes for the surgeon question. Am I saving patients or people who are dear to me? Because I’d kill for a loved one. What do I gain from breaking the law?
I think the difference between the first scenario and the second is how removed you are I guess. pulling the lever saves 5 lives while happenstance means it also leads to one death. In the second scenario the act of saving the 5 lives requires the direct and intentional action of killing. I think deontology could justify pulling the lever by the intention of saving lives, given the action requires not intent to murder, while the second scenario requires the intent to murder in order to justify it. I appreciate the second scenario though because it did bring in to question the assurance I had that pulling the lever was the right decision to begin with. I still think I would do it though. Consequentialism would justify both the scenarios though I think. I guess, as in all things, you should take both into consideration. actions aren't removed from their consequences, but the consequences can't justify anything. I can't prove that, because the whole question of morality is entirely subjective unless you believe in objective morality as I do. I just refuse to engage with the extreme that the ends are all that matter. The ends of everything is ruin. I think keeping a healthy and righteous conscience is most of the time more important than maneuvering outside forces through unscrupulous means. I don't know. I'm sure there's a much better argument for my stance than I'm giving. I can feel that theres more to uncover, but I'm sort of in the middle of something and I don't have time to sit here pondering the truth of the situation. If I come to a conclusion that I feel makes a strong rational case I'll come back here and give my thought as I'm prone to do. thanks for the vide.
you make nice videos
Thanks so much! I try my best :) I wish I had time to make a lot more but the school year is always very busy. But I do have several in the works and will be doing a lot more this summer.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff it’s funny that you say that since I have the exact same problem. Especially last semester has been so busy I was only able to put out one video. Where do you study?
@@thesanesociety5948 I’m actually teacher at a community college in California. But I did my PhD at UC Davis just a few years ago. Where are you studying at?
@@ThinkingAboutStuff Hey there, i am currently studying at the HU in Berlin. It´s an amazing institute and I get to be taught by incredible thinkers and critiques and im constantly learning a lot. On another note i actually know some people at the community college in Santa Monica hahaha.
I take the easy choice. I do nothing. Since I won’t be the reason for who gets run over. The blood would not be on my hands
It depends on the value of the 5 people versus the one person. 5 lawyers (parasites) should not be spared to save one farmer.
I'm deontologist because a world where all my neighbors are consequentialists would be a terrifying world to live in and almost all evil in the world is rationalized by consequentialism.
Deontology has been used in crimes such as the Holocaust. The SS gave the excuse that they were just following orders.
At the trolley its 5 dead vs 1 dead consequence whereas the surgeon its 5 dead vs a not expacted to be dead person killed consequence. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Pilate had an innocent person crucified because he was a consequentialist/ utilitarian.
I can see where you are coming from, but I view this as God pulled the lever on his own son to save us
As I see the Trolley problem: You are in control of the trolley, choose path A(turn right) to save 5 of 6 people, choose path B(turn left) to save 1 of 6 people. Next version is: Will you kill a fat guy to save 5 people (consider other people are then allowed treating you the same). Hospital scenario: If you are allowed to sacrifice healthy people, society will break down, and people can kill you if it will save one and prolong another’s life by 1 hour. Trolley problem is not a problem just save the most people, but in real life you would have to consider a lot of things, what are their ages, are they sick, are they criminals, do you know them, are you in a country where execution by trolley is normal...
We can break the track
The Trolley Car example seems to be ubiquitous in introductory texts. The serious drawback is it is very unrealistic. Is it actually the case there is a track changing switch that anyone happening by could use to divert the trolley? And one would think the five or the one would just get off the tracks!
It is the Kobayashi Maru test no win scenario. Change the conditions of the test so that all are saved. Jam the switching mechanism or switch it at the last second so that it is in the stuck in the middle of switching so that guiding rails are split such that the train de-rails and proceeds straight thus saving both people. If the train has passengers prepare them to brace as the are more likely to survive in the larger train. You must have compassion and love for all people seeing all as important rather than the few.
Loving your content , keep it coming. I know one day soon I'll check my feed and you'll be getting six digit views.
Keep up the good work 😊
(include this comment when you hit 100k subs 😉)
145 subscribers down. Just 99,855 to go! ;)
When I hit it big time I'll be sure to say that @MrMaRtInRox called it.
people just take the easy option always
Me: deja vu I have been to this place before
The question is why the fuck they are on track
I'm fine with playing the numbers game. I think even from a deontological standpoint choosing to do nothing has moral value. If 5 people would die if you didn't pull the lever and you had all the knowledge and ability to save them with a simple pull of the lever, you would be responsible for their deaths as far as I'm concerned. not directly, but abdicating to engage is just as involved as directly pulling the lever. therefore I view the problem as simply as this. If you could start the scenario with the trolly hurdling towards one person and intervention would kill even more people, would you? Then why not let your small intervention make that scenario true, because choosing not to pull the lever is just as involved and responsible a choice as choosing to pull it. Noninterventionism is a choice as much as people want to think it isn't. We are always intertwined in the fates of others and allowing people or scenarios to remain as they are puts part of the blame on you for the way things head. If intention matters in deontology then I consider pulling the lever a moral choice if it is made with the intent of saving lives. pulling a lever isn't a moral choice. it has no value. So the only morality in the choice is in the intention if we're speaking deontologically and I suppose the choice to not pull the lever would only hold value in the intention behind it.
How to kill all six and the passengers on the train?
my ethics teacher lol
Some lifes aren't worth saving
what are you doing there kasi? gagawin ninyo pa kaming mamamatay tao 😭
wow, philosophy is complicated
I miss the part were thats my problem i simply walk away none of my business
I'd be centrist about this, but deciding what to do on a case by case basis is hard on the brain, so I'ma go extremist. Yolo.
I don't know why but both questions seem easy to me. I don't have right to decide who live or die.
So let the trolley follow it's intended path, it's terrible to kill one person with my hand than let fate decide.
For hospital problem also seem clear to me too, same theory. I'll just follow the procedure. Not gonna be killer just to save 5 unknown ppls. The 2nd case is totally breaking the law if you decided to kill that innocent. I might be deontology lol 😂
Well, there are modified versions of the trolly problem that might be a little more difficult to answer. What if there are two tracks that are side by side. The trolly is on track 1 by default and it´s moving towards a fork. If the trolly continues on track 1 then one person will die and the trolly will move towards a second fork. If the trolly continues on track 2 then noone will die and the trolly will also move towards the second fork. At the second fork you can choose once again if the trolly should continue on the track you initially picked or if the trolly should change tracks. Should the trolly be on track 1 after the second fork it will kill one person. Should the trolly be on track 2 after the second fork it will kill 5 people. What track combination would you choose?
My issue with the surgeon is the greater social harm caused by his decision. Basically, what kind of world would we live in if someone pulled the lever in the trolley problem vs the kind of world where the surgeon kills the one person? If we heard of a situation where a trolley was going to kill 5 and someone diverted it to 1, with no other choice, none of us would feel disgusted or unsafe. But in the surgeons case imagine living in a world where at any point someone could kill you provided they could use your organs for someone else. That is a nightmarish world. That is the consequence that is really at the root of this problem, that is the reduction in happiness that would offset any perceived benefit in happiness from a utilitarian standpoint.
Both these theories are terribly flawed.
_Multi Track drifting_
You do realize that the first and second example were completely different, right? What to choose always depends on the situation and not on some stupid agreement that forces everyone to break or not break morale codes ...
You're right that the two examples are different in many ways. But they're also similar in some ways--namely that they both involve the loss of one life to save five lives. So the key (if you think it's ok to pull the lever but not kill the guy for his organs) is to identify precisely which differences are the morally relevant ones. Is it that the surgeon case seems to require you to be more directly involved in the killing? Is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?
@illogicalrelish not really, what if he's a professional organ theif and will make sure his sacrifices are never found?
The universe already planned on the 5 dying so who am I to change the universes course of action
Then I am a deontologist.
There is no right answer on either situation. You should do whatever is the best while recognizing that what is best is inevitably going to pass somewhat through your own biased view of what is right.
Imagine a society where a innocent healthy person was killed so that five sick people could be healed. Take a second to think how chaotic that society would be. Do you think taking a innocent persons life to save five is the right thing to do if it makes every other innocent person scared for their life? I don't think that would create a society where people would trust each other or even want to help each other. We all value our own lives and that is almost everyone's first priority. Our second priority should be realizing that another persons life is special because there life means a lot to them. But taking an innocent persons life to save five sick people would collapse society. I don't think that would be the "greater good" thing to do.
I sarcrifice 1 to save 5, thats my choice, even though the 1 is one of my family member.
In both cases you just do nothing
What if that one person on the track was YOU? Don't do something to someone else that you wouldn't do to yourself first. That's a good guide for psychopaths trying to control their impulses to harm others. Or even if you were a hero and wanted to save 5 people by sacrificing your own life, you have no right to make that choice for someone else. Don't play god!
But then what if you were one of the five? You would want the other person to pull the lever to save you, right?
Either case is unfortunate. I’d flip a coin 🪙 and let chance determine the outcome.
philippa foot.....fruit by the foot
The deontologist example is absurdly constructed, reducing the guy who came for a yearly checkup to the one who likes to sleep on the rail.
Both are safe from harm, correct? Unless the trolley can defy physics and jump the track on it's own, the single person is only in danger of harm if someone changes the direction of the trolley.
In both instances the single individuals are safe from harm unless someone acts upon them.
@@notsafeforchurch Yet it's far easier to avoid ever sleeping on a rail than it is to avoid ever going to clinics and hospitals. The societal consequences of condoning what would currently be medical malpractice are far more severe.
denotology better
dO bOtH xD
Don’t change destiny hahaha let them die
Morality is stupid.
Everyone just does what's best to them.
The concept of morality just makes it easier to force ones views on other people.
Then I will steal from you, after all, it is what's best for me
@@camden7806 But then he and others will be inclined to seek retribution as what's best for them.
@@darkengine5931 but then I will mass murder his family and freinds, then I will not get caught kr bribe the spies
@@darkengine5931 So basically the person with the most guns wins. Nice, might makes right I guess.
Okay, someone views slavery as morally correct. They are just doing "whats best for them".
No you cant fkin kill 1 to save whatever number, or you become guilty of it, and its better to suffer injustice than to commit it. If you think like capitalists ye 1
Theres no real factors that could make you reconsider in this exact example so lets raise the hypothetical stakes a notch. Theres no such thing as witnesses or cameras present in any of these examples that could lead to legal repercussions
Example 1:
Track 1 a mother has lost the grip on her stroller with her infant inside and it comes to rest on said tracks... she cant possibly reach it in time so shes screaming and pleading with you to redirect the train.
Track 2 should you choose to switch has an old homeless drunk sleeping off his buzz on top of it.
Example 2:
Track 1 has a friend who has broken their leg while attempting to cross on it
Track 2 which you can switch to sees a person who wronged you (in a very bad way) sitting on top of it.
Example 3:
Track 1 has the most important person in your life tied to it and they are lookin right into your eyes
Track 2 on the other hand has a schoolbus carryin 50 kids stuck on it which you could theoretically divert the train to.
In the original example (from the video) i dont care for either one of the 2 parties and i wouldnt do anything
E1: I would potentially switch
E2: Would have to be a switch for me due to my hatred towards the person on track 2
E3 i would 100% switch (even if there were legal consequences to it)
@@julianeder4699 yeh dumb problem dumb solutions
@@123sLb123 fair enough