The Trolley Problem - David Schmidtz
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.พ. 2016
- Serious Science - serious-science.org
Philosopher David Schmidtz on ethical dilemmas, moral institutions, and the nature of justice
serious-science.org/the-trolle... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
Very easy to listen to. Well spoken and interesting
But its not the same.
In the hospital you are murdering a healthy person, no matter what he will be dead.You are proactively killing him.you are directly killing that person. In the second case you are indirectly causing he death of one person,to save 5, but someone or something at the last second could possibly come in and save the one person.
@@deenatova7716like he said it’s a theoretical where he will for sure die. And u are directly killing him by driving a train over him it’s just not as personal so u don’t feel as bad but why should that be different
The question of the trolley is not the same as the question of the doctor. That's why the results are different. It is not a moral dilema. It is not a puzzle. It is in fact quite simple. The difference between the doctor and the trolley operator is that the doctor would be committing murder and the trolley operator would not. The trolley operator is not at the cause of the inevitable deaths. The doctor would be at the cause. That's why people respond differently, even if the numbers are the same (1:5). The difference is in the nature of the act, not in its perceived breach of trust. The reason people chose differently is not because a hospital provides value for the community and certain rights have to then be respected, but because most people wouldn't murder and steal organs. Even if we were to accept his basis for the argument, it wouldn't add up: It is perfectly possible to think of the rail workers as part of a community and possessors of rights, and for its customers and workers to find value in their rights being respected by the rail company, and demand respect accordingly. The difference is thus in the nature of the act itself, not in its context.
Very well said! I couldn't agree more and it needs to be emphasized: this is about the nature of the act itself.
He has done a respectable thing in trying to give an account of our nearly unanimous moral intuitions about these two examples, namely, that we should switch the tracks but not sacrifice and harvest the healthy individual in the second case. I think this is correct, but like him we'll have to propose an account of why the two cases are different.
You focus first on the act and then on causality, but I think we have to make distinctions about causation, because it does seem that in the first example you are in some sense causing the death of the 1 worker. In each case you perform an action: 1) you switch the tracks, 2) you harvest the organs. Are these actions different in a way which is morally relevant? 1) seems to be morally neutral considered in itself: switching the tracks is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad. The second seems to be intrinsically bad: no matter how good the intention or the actual result, harvesting the organs of the healthy individual will (always) cause his death -- that is, it actually and actively takes his life.
The way to firm this up is to introduce the notion of ends and means, and also of foreseen consequences vs. intended consequences. In the trolley problem the death of the 1 worker is foreseen (or anticipated) but not intended; in the hospital case the death of the 1 healthy individual is not merely foreseen but is actually intended, not as the end in itself -- we would use other means if possible, like lab-grown organs -- but as a necessary and indispensable means to the desired end. This is morally relevant because we must not only do good but avoid harm (or evil), and in the hospital case we actually have to do harm. On the other hand, in the first case the actual action we perform is to switch the track, which is not in itself harmful.
Javier Borda I finally found another person online who thought similarly to me on this. The doctor’s direct act would be to wrongly murder a person, the trolley operator’s direct act was to save five, and in the case where you push a fat man onto the tracks your direct act would be murder, the consequences are secondary in moral importance to what you actually did. My comment may be difficult to understand due to poor word use and grammar, for that I apologize in advance.
@@andrewmccullough559why is switching the track not in itself harmful, also it is intended, u know that u are going to kill a man yes u don’t want to and it is to save five but u are directly killing him it’s just less personal and gruesome
Brilliant and well spoken. Thank you!
Nice upload, keep them coming please
Student: "But teacher, I'd try and find another way!"
Teacher: "Just work with me, its one or five..."
*years later*
Teacher: "Just work with me, it's one or five..."
Russian Student: "But teacher, there has to be another way!"
*mind blown*
Not the same
Watch it again
@@leonardokeller5254 It is the same, watch again.
That’s not what he said, he said the student told him that they were taught to sacrifice the few for the many.
@@tc2241 And the student said after that he couldn't choose, that there had to be another way.
The question should be different - would you kill 5 people (by inaction) or 1 (by action)?
Inaction (doing nothing) is also an action that would result in the death of 5 people.
The problem does not necessarily involve the hospital case. Suppose the trolley driver could press a button that will topple a fat man onto the tracks which will stop the trolley saving the 5 but kill him. It seems wrong to press the button. But then you can't appeal to factors about society to explain this.
Pressing the button is murder, so I wouldn't do it. Of course, if he wants to commit suicide and jump in front of my trolley, then he can. ;)
Hypothetically, when dealing with such a finalized outcome as death, the very aspect of ending up in the trains path should have been the outcome of the same resulting chances as the other individual(s). Considering that combined with the train company's reputation as well as the train driver's personal guilt, had he decided to KILL someone rather let the train come to rest/attempt braking(which would inherently NOT be his fault) in my opinion Mr. Schmidtz. I should also say I completely agree with your assessment.
From about 3:30 to 4:30 seems like it’ll be more relevant than ever in the coming years...
It's not really the same situation when you have no choice to kill someone vs making a concious decision to do so, even if the numbers are the same.
You can always tweak the details of the trolley problem to make it more interesting, too. What if you could tell that the 5 people were all seniors in their 90's and the 1 guy was a 22 year old with a new baby? What if you knew the 5 people on the track were all convicted murderers and the 1 guy ran an animal rescue shelter?
Fun with moral dilemmas!
iambiggus the way the individual feels about it is the same
I killed 1 person vs I killed 5, you should “feel” bad ethically either way, because you killed anyone. You said those 5 guys were worth mor than the one due to a moment of thought. In the real world many secret service officers say their life is worth more than one president or former president. Given they would sacrifice their own lives for theirs. All of them, currently 7000 people employed with them using 2billion $ a year. For how many living people proceed by it? I’m sure less than 7000
Is the one with the murderers that hard for most people?
It IS the same situation. Kill one person to save 5. In both situations you are making a conscious decision. Saying otherwise is messing with the moral dilemma. Which he says multiple times not to do.
When investigate or have a professor giving the dilemma it eventually becomes clear the philosophers in the branch within philosophy called “trollyoligy” have covered all those angles
The principle question will remain
A person acting on their own can choose whichever moral framework they want to evaluate the trolley problem by. But if there's a risk of you being tied to the train track, you want the person with the switch to be a utilitarian consequentialist. There's a 5/6 chance you are on the 5 person side, and a 1/6 chance of being on the five person side. There's a 1/6 chance you're the delivery boy, and a 5/6 chance of being a patient that needs an organ transplant.
In short, as citizens, it is in our common interest to make compact that the people in charge of our interests, i.e,the government, should be consequentialist utilitarians. We want a government that pulls the lever, and a government that kills the deliveryman.
This is a good guidance
I believe the difference between the two problems is 'personal contact' . The doctor has personal contact with the five sick patients and also personal contact with the one potential doner. Whereas the decision maker in the trolley problem is a complete stranger to all 6 workers on the train line. In the latter case the needs of the many, the five workers, outway the needs of the few or the one (to quote Star Trek). Hence it seems acceptable to sacrifice the single worker.
Perhaps throughout our life we find it easy to turn a blind eye to the plight of anyone or any group of people that are 'strangers' to either oneself, or our own standards, or beliefs.
Let's now slightly modify the story of the runaway trolley. On your way up the hill you stop beside the single worker and begin to exchange pleasantries about the weather, which then leads you to enquire about the work he is doing. The worker responds by saying it's hard work for very little money but he does it because he has a wife and three young children to support. After admiring his dedication to the job and feeling empathy for his family situation you bid him farewell and then continue your way up the hill. Upon reaching the top, the trolley problem begins. Now, at this point, do you feel more inclined to save the one person you have spoken to and gotten to know, or the 5 workers who are complete strangers to you?
What way would you choose?
That's a difficult choice but I would tend to favour saving the person I know the most. Such is life... People find it so easy to ignore the plight of strangers.
I like the one where a doctor has two patients a Cop and a Murder. He only has time to work on one of them. The cop's odds are really low where the murder's odd are high. Which one do you work on.
The cop, as the murderer is likely to get the death penalty or life without parole anyway. Of course, if the alleged "murderer" hasn't yet been convicted, then I'd work on them because someone being accused of committing a crime, be it murder, rape, treason, or something less serious, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would simply be applying that principle to the situation ethics of my decision making. ;)
There is also the question of would you participate. You might just do nothing and say that it was not your fault because you did nothing.
Flick the switch just as the first set of wheels have gone forward enough so then because you flicked it when the train was halfway it might cause the train to derail down the centre.
Hopefully you guys get what I’m saying😅
Pressing the button 5 times is the same as killing 5 people on the tracks. Only if there is a Red Dot on his Driving Licence.
Also, a law forbiding murder emanates precisely form the fact that life is sacred. It should not emanate from an investigation on how to reduce murder, eventually arriving to the conclusion that making murder ilegal is the best way to reduce it. If a group of people were being murdered for defending that murder should be always ilegal, what argument would we then give to reduce murder? We would have to give up our power in order to reduce the murders, and make murder legal. This is the trap of relativism and utilitarianism! A law that says Do Not Murder is an absolute command based on the objective truth that life is sacred, not a practical solution to arrive for the statistical results that we are looking for in order to fit our subjective idea that life is sacred.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
1) life is sacred
2) therefore we should do our best to prevent murder in order to preserve life
3) the most effective way to prevent murder is X
4) therefore we should do X
It’s that simple.
It seems valid that trust is very important for society. However, to claim it is best achieved by small government is just silly in a world where trust levels are highest in China, Netherlands and the nordic countries!
So the only way to win is not to play but that's not an answer where real decisions are to be made. I'm sure there are real world trolley problems people encounter every day but just never know it because they are not looking at where the trolley is heading as if not seeing the course on purpose keeps the uncomfortable necessity of ethical decision making at bay. If you can plead ignorance you get to absolve oneself of responsibility. That may feel subjectively better and that too is an ethical choice or option but that too IS a choice we cant pretend it isn't
dude goes political instead of using ethics
I thought the original was from 1905
If
Wasn’t expecting this to get political but it’s still, I respect his reasoning And it makes sense. Also applying philosophy to politics isn’t bad.
Anyone else racking their brain trying to think of a modern institution that is moral in the sense that is being described?
Donor has the final say.
is this the "snapshot" philosophy guy?
Title : The trolley dilemma. (Not problem)
As a human we would prefer saving all eventually or atleast try to or explore other possibilities...
If someone (or any stupid philosopher) says what will you do in the trolley 'problem' and leave you with NO other options.... then just walk away and never talk to that person again.
I love his explanation at the end. This can also be applied to the government and guns. The government provides the foundational law that we are not allowed to murder. If the government chooses to take away our guns to prevent murder, it would impede on the citizens' basic rights. Exactly like the hospital example.
@Angry Combat Wombat except that is false. unsupported by the evidence. countries with a ban on guns generally have fewer murders
@Angry Combat Wombat that is completely incorrect logic. It reeks of someone wanting a certain solution and building a puzzle to achieve it.
- 6 out of every 10 firearm deaths in the USA were from suicide
- 3 out of every 10 firearm deaths in the USA were from homicide
- approximately 40,000 firearm deaths in the USA annually. That is more deaths every year than 22 whole country’s populations.
The only thing more guns do is sacrifice more lives. Innocent, guilty and everyone and everything in between
I still dont understand how does one has to choose one over five. If its upto me, i dont take a decision and let the things happen. In other words i have no power over someone's life. Be it track or hospital.
Imagine you are driving a car with a malfunction brake and with a speed of 120 km/h. In the distance, you spot some students who are crossing the pedestrian lane. Even if they do spot your car coming, they won’t be able to react and avoid the collision in time.
When you realize what is going to happen, you observe that there are four students on the right lane of the road and there is only one student on the left lane of the road. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa?
A. In the light of Natural Law Ethics, lists at least five things that you want to consider in this kind of situation before you decide and act. It must be in order according to importance/significance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Etc.
B. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa? Present your arguments/reasons. Minimum of 3 arguments.
1.
2.
3.
C. Is your decision and/or action morally justifiable? Explain, elaborate, or expound your answer?
Note: Again, understand the situation and the questions based on the standpoint of Natural Law Ethics.
WOW 😳 am impressed
Trolley and hospital scenarios are not the same. In "trolley" there is no real choice, it's a triage kind of situation, harm reducing strategy. Whereas in the "hospital" case, you would be actively killing the healthy individual to treat the other 5, which makes it morally wrong. There's a difference between choosing to kill and managing an accident so that it costs fewer lives.
You would be 100% correct
How is it different though? In the "trolley" you are killing the healthy individual to save other 5, right?
@@meciocio It's either or. The train is bound to run over either 1 person or 5 people. This is inevitable. It will happen for sure, you're harm reducing. In fact, you could argue that one person would be more likely to jump off the tracks instead of a group of 5. The train is doing the killing, not you. In hospital you take a person ans execute him or her so as to harvest their organs. This person was not the victim of a tragic accident, you're really killing them as in actually.
They are the same. Not killing is the right choice ethically. In other words my personal view is that not saving 5 people is ethically preferable to killing 1 person. It’s a hard choice but without emotion it is the right thing to do.
@@gman6862 "not killing," Is not always ethical, there are exceptions to that rule
what if the single person on the track is a family member? then the choice would be easier
Problem with these type philosophy questions is they keep constraining the problem more and more until you have to give the answer that matches they theory they are trying to justify. The scenarios are not real which is why they get conflicting answers from false equivalencies.
I studied for a PPE(politics, philosophy, economics) degree with the Open University , and I learnt that adding/changing parts of the thought experiment, gets us closer to what we really think .
For example, I presented the trolley problem to one of my classes
(I’m a history teacher in a UK secondary school), and most of the kids elected to switch tracks, with the justification being 5 lives saved is better than one saved(utilitarianism).
I then asked, what if the 5 people where convicted murders, and/or the 1 person was a 4 year old girl. Lots of them changed their minds. Many were happy for the criminals to die, and not willing to kill the 4 year old. This approach is the opposite of utilitarianism.
Changing the thought experiment (what I think you are referring to when you say “constraining the problem more and more”) helps us question and challenge our initial response to the question. A good thought experiment makes you have more questions than answers!
Sorry for the long post. I have spoken.
@@hornswoggle182 Your response matches my own experiences with my students (community college) in the US). Qualifiers change their actions.
I heard of a different scenario, where you can push a very fat person over a bridge to stop the trolley. No institution involved, but people still shy away from it. The difference is that somebody is actively killed. And i think that is the better explanation in my view.
thats the trolly dilemma 2
+Reece Cruz hold my pocket!
Pyriold Agree. Was even thinking similar thing. Diverting a train is less direct then grabbing someone and rolling them onto the track to slow the train down and give other people extra time to escape. Meanwhile clubbing them and removing their organs for hours even more so.
@@ibperson7765 when you know the consequences, no it isn't.
And pushing a man to his death is "indirect" in the same way as pulling the lever because it isn't the push that kills them, it is gravity, acceleration and hitting the ground.
Also the man is uninvolved and wasnt tied up doesnt feel right needlesly involving a bystander rather than someone who got tied up
I am torn. I would not divert the train because I would then be responsible for the death of 1. However, I allways felt dropping the bomb on Japan was right because the number of lives lost had we gone in on foot would have been 5 x greater than that of dropping the bomb. So in that I felt sacrifice the few was better. But if I was the one who had to drop the bomb, I don't think I could. What does this make me, a hypocrite?
This is an old question that still begs an answer. Doing nothing is very human but it's not the right answer. It should be simple math.
It's not that easy though
I think it would also be determined by where your "should" comes from. If something "should be" you are saying there is a moral foundation upon a universal truth that says the same thing the Russian Student states and that the Utilitarian nature of the good of the many, or math as you put it, is superior to any other ethic. Very fun thought exercise for sure.
He was a russian " incidentally "
I would pull the lever if I thought there was no one on the other set of tracks. If I knew there was, I would do nothing and let that person live.
In the trolley problem YOU have the responsibility of making a decision. In the hospital problem the donor has to make the decision. That’s the difference.
In the trolley problem, YOU are the one deciding whether to switch the track, thus passively allowing 5 to die and 1 to live or actively killing 1 person to save 5 lives.
In the hospital setting, YOU are the surgeon deciding whether to passively let the 5 critical patients die and the 1 healthy individual to live, or actively killing the 1 healthy individual to save the 5 critical patients.
In both scenarios, you're either passively letting a greater amount of people die or actively killing/murdering 1 person to spare 5.
The delivery person isn't a willing donor in the scenario.
@@MrSF247 Then the hospital version is worded badly, because it assumes that the doctor is evil and unethical as a default. In the trolley problem, people on both tracks are helpless and have no say in the matter as they are unable to do anything in their current situations unlike the healthy patient in the hospital setting. Of course I'm talking about the trolley problem without the man on the bridge, just the lever version.
Every child knows the answer until a certain age: Guilt can only result from actions. So, dont touch the lever and no guilt is created - the numbers dont mean anything!
But unfortunately, every child is tought otherwise sooner or later: "You have to help any a**hole you come across or you are guilty to societies standards."
The trolley problem and all its variants are only problems by societies standards and none by logical causal chains. Teaching logic instead of moral to children would help alot.
The Trolley-Problem ist within seconds, so kill the one not the 5,even if the 5 maybe could go off the track.and if the one who would give the organ couldn´t live longer and says ok yes it´s ok, but if he don´t you are are murderer and it´s fate if it´s early enough for the others
in a nutshell values trump reason . This works only with the right upbringing . Respect for the individual being paramount . Simply put looking after & respecting individuals leads to order in the group . The result being a cohesive respective society that benefits everyone
#Carol Alvarez
Thank you for that.
x
No absolutely not, let the chips fall where they may, no intervention. Easy answer no intervention period.
hospital scenario..the 5 are sick and dieing...saving the 5 will not necessarily make them live much longer.. the one is healthy..theres no guarantees for the 5..sorry..its totally different..
if you dont see it..youre nuts...doc johnny..
in the train scenario 5 healthy vs 1 healthy
Like he said earlier you have to remove other factors for the sake of the argument.
what if in trolley the 5 people are sick and the 1 person is healthy are u still killing the healthy one?
he says there is no any other way and it's all about 5 vs. 1. Then, why would he say he learned from the russian student saying there is always other way? self-conflicting!
Trolley problem: Do nothing. It is a problem of induction; the outcome cannot be guaranteed.
Hospital problem: Self-preservation (followed by reproduction) is the most important right each of us possesses. It should be respected.
Minimising murder: Aside from outlawing it, introduce a Universal Basic Income. Pilot studies have shown that it reduces crime and increases empathy.
David White, philosopher, Australia
The outcome is guaranteed because you are told what will happen after either choice.
You are introducing external factors and changing the problem to falsely solve it, just like people who say "I will shout to warn them" etc.
The answer is easy, pulling the lever is murder.
I pull the lever of train track towards the people who are wearing red coloured dress, so train stops by seeing colour red or colur white 😉
big brain
So in a hospital you should let 5 die? Hmm. But what is solution to trolley problem. Let one die there?
Let the 5 on the railway die to save 25 others with their organs. Clever, eh? the organs are already chopped up and ready to install!
Well, nothing new to me.
In the first instance, as the driver I would definitely steer the trolley onto the track occupied by only one person. That's not murder, since either way I'm not the cause of death, the trolley is. I'm simply doing the right thing by causing the least possible harm.
5:00 Personally I would check the contents of the package. It could be the organs I need. ;) If that failed, then as the Surgeon I'd give up and accept that it's not my job to murder people, even if it saves the lives of 5 other people.
People should stop thinking about these toy dilemmas, and face real life problems like covid-19!
This video was made 5 years ago...
in the Trolly problem both answers are logically moral. If you haven't given an immoral choice then you haven't asked a question about morality in the first place.
the trolley problem is solved by saving all 6.
if one killed five can save thats is demand of society when u hv no option
Or kill all 6
real republican less government 100% correct
theres no choice..even if its my child..GOD did it for us...
even if he has to be pushed off the overpass