So, there's a runaway trolley hurtling downhill towards five people.  You are on a bridge under which the trolley will pass before it kills the five people.  You happen to notice that there is a very fat man standing on the edge of the bridge.  You realize that you can push the fat man off the bridge and the mass of his body will stop the trolley, saving the five people.  Or, you can do nothing, and let the five people perish. 

What do you do?

That man would have to weigh 9453789534758937584 pounds to stop a "hurtling trolley" but I would probably push him if I could to save the five other people, losing one is better than losing 5.

in reality, no....I could probably barely move, but if I'm imagining it, my fat would hopefully absorb most of the damage and I might live /cross fingers

I'm going under the assumptions that the deaths resulting from the trolley crash would be accidental, and that the person on the bridge actively wants to live, and that there's no way to get the five people out of the way, etc., etc.

That said: let it crash.

Causing suffering directly is worse than failing to prevent the same kind of suffering indirectly. Don't get me wrong: they're both bad, the latter is just less bad in my book. There is probably a limit to this (trolley crashes into nuclear bomb, vaporizing the town, but I'd then also be acting out of self-interest); I don't know where it is.

So to the "push him" crowd: how do you justify violently murdering one person to prevent the accidental deaths of five unrelated people? Is it a total sum of human suffering? Total loss of life? Something else?

Yes you can live with one lung. Smokers sometimes have to have a lung removed for example.

Also, by "boo hoo" are you saying that you now don't think that it's okay to push the fat guy in front of the train, or are you saying that in that case you don't need permission?

Finally, what if the doctor asks you? Are you obligated to comply?

The boo hoo part was to me contradicting myself in the other posts, my mother obsesses over it when I do that.

To the lung question, I have the right to decide whether or not to give him my lung or not. If the man was a heavy smoker and refused to quit even though he's losing a lung, then no....but if he made a commitment to quit then I would have to think about it.

P.S. great posts by the way, let's keep them coming! 

?

I thought you changed your position on pushing the fat man.

Or are you saying that it's okay for you to force someone to sacrifice himself, but it's not okay for someone to force you to sacrifice yourself?

You know what...you're right, I never thought of it that way. And now I feel like a total ass.

Anyone else have any more they would like to share, I'd love to continue this every friday, give me something to look forward to. 

The decision does involve you in that you are the only person standing on the bridge with the ability to push fatty over and save the five people. The fate of six people lies solely in your hands. By not making a decision you are essentially making the decision to do nothing and allowing those five people to die.

A strong ethical argument can be made in either case. I would argue that both actions are ethical and would not think less of a person regardless of which course they chose as long as they had the fortitude to accept responsibility for their actions. 

However, I think saying you do not have the "right" to make the choice is little more than dodging an ethical dilemma and trying to get rid of the responsibility. You have the right because you are there. No god, congress, dictator or...ahem....higher authority is going to come in and make the decision for you. Your ethical duty is to make a decision and then accept responsibility for the results.

As far as which decision I would make depends on who the five people are and what I think of the fatman. If they were kids he'd be over in a second, if they were bums the fat man would probably be in good shape. Average adults...well right now I'm thinking that if they don't have the sense to get out of the way themselves they probably don't deserve sacrificing the fat man's life. (I believe in darwinism) Of course, the decision would have to be made quickly so I would go with my gut. One way or the other, I would make the decision and would be prepared to live with it.

In summation, I will say that sometimes five people are worth more than one man but sometimes one man is worth more than five people. All people are born equal but fortunately some of us get over it. Sometimes you have to choose, even in real life. It might not be easy but it is your ethical responsibility to make the choice.

Son of a bitch, you're right.  That is so obvious I can't believe I missed it.  I'm ashamed. lol.

I suppose you're right to a degree. I wouldn't necessarily say that by claiming I don't have the right to make the decision of who dies is dodging responsibility.  Who am I to choose who dies? Then again, by doing nothing I'm still essentially choosing who dies.  Hmm.  

I still think that I don't have the right (perhaps that's not the right word?) to decide if a person lives or dies; in this particular instance no matter what I do someone is going to die.  I still wouldn't push over fatty. 

Unless of course the other people were friends or family or something.  Then fatty's going over.   

This is a utilitarian approach to the question, but it doesn't often pan out in real life. Most people would not actually push the fat guy, and would be able to justify their inaction. It's not just a blind equation in which lives are counted equally. Killing a man who would not otherwise die is enough of a taboo that most people would not do it, and would not see the five deaths as being directly their fault.

"What could I do? I couldn't kill that innocent man!"

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with the logic. It's perfectly reasonable. Human morality did not evolve from stictly utilitarian considerations, though. I'll post more about this later. It's a terribly interesting topic, I think.

The addition of mitigating factors changes the way people answer, further damaging the claim that morals are strictly utilitarian. Five kids, or five pregnant women (more people would push fatty to save pregnant women!) change the discussion considerably, as you mention.

There are two important things to note. First, this is a thought experiment, not a real life experiment. What people say they would do (after having time to think, and realizing that they won't actually have to choose) is often very different from what they really do. Obviously, there's no way to ethically test the trolley dilemma, but there's a ton of evidence that people profess different morals than they actually have. It's not that they're dishonest, it's that most people don't know what they will do under pressure, and they don't know what it feels like to actually have another person's life in their hands.

Second, contrary to what theists will tell you, there really is no such thing as universal morality. You and pariah might well share a minority view on this matter, and all it proves is that there really are different ways of guaging morality.

Consider an environmentalist who believes that all animals have exactly the same right to life as humans. He would naturally conclude that human overpopulation is extremely bad. If the trolley were heading for five children, he might well conclude that letting the children die is the best thing to do. After all, each of those children is likely to reproduce at least twice in their lifetime. Since none have reproduced yet, it would effectively end 40 lives in just four generations' time (assuming two children for all descendents).

"Good" and "Bad" are meaningless unless they refer to something. In other words, I must say, "This is good based on these criteria," if good is to be measurable.

Letting five children die would be good based on the goal of reducing human population. Letting five pregnant women die would also be good.

Based on the criteria that innocent lives should be protected, it would be horrible to let the children or the pregnant women die.

If you ask an evolutionary psychologist, he'd likely say that the vast majority of people would still save the children even if they professed a belief that reducing human population is a good thing. I tend to agree with that statement, although you could certainly find exceptions if you looked hard enough.

With enough mitigating factors, yes. However, years of testing indicate that with no other data -- just "Fat Man" and "Five People" -- most people will choose no action. I'm not telling you that it's right or wrong. I'm saying that's the fact of the matter.

Absolutely true.

This proves that morality is not absolute, at least not in the simplistic terms that theists use: "Murder is always wrong," for example.

I introduced some kids at a math camp to the trolley problems and ethical questions.

Hamby, I was a little sad that you started in the middle. You're supposed to pose the switch question first, where a lot of people happily flip the switch to kill one person instead of letting 5 die, but then they aren't willing to push the guy to save the five.

It got a lot of the kids thinking when I pointed out the disconnect. 

I'm of the mind of not doing anything in either situation. If the only thing I know is 5 people or one person, I'll let it go as is. There's not enough information to make a sound decision and the value of human life can't be judged on sheer numbers (IMNSHO).

-Triften

Regarding the whole "fatty/trolley" thing going on here, I've got TWO reasons for not pushing the fatty:

One, the whole murder vs. letting innocent people die bit. I'd much rather passively let innocents die than actively kill them.

Second, and I'm kinda surprised nobody's mentioned it yet, is that if the fatty is so fat that he could stop the trolley just by getting in its way, he's also too fat for someone to push him into its path in the first place. Of course, if I tell Fatty McFattington to stop the trolley by getting on the tracks and he does (and successfully stops the trolley) then he's more of a hero than me.

Am i the only one who wouldnt push Fatty over the bridge... to save the lives of 5 idiots to inferior to See/Hear/Feel a train barreling at them... i mean come on! just walk 6 feet to one side of the damn tracks and they'd be safe. Survival of the Fittest, let the inferiors die...

Of course in an ideal world i would push fatty off after the train passed, in hopes he would die... as a man fat enough to stop a train dead in its tracks is a waste of Life/Space/Food on this planet... but then of course if i actually posessed the strength to actually pull off such a feat, i would be to busy being a Super Villian to notice the entire event ^_^ (man... im cruel)

Indeed...? i wonder what marks the proffesor would have givin me ^_^

Damn literalists.

It's a thought experiment.  Not a real situation.  Picture me making a kindergarten-style raspberry in your general direction.

*********

Triften, I started in the middle as kind of my own little experiment.  Get people's panties all in a twist, and then show them the difference when they hear the first one and realize how simple that decision is.

It's a damn thought experiment!  Not a real situation.

Damn literalists.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTT!

But, what if you knew ahead of time that the five people he saved were actually terrorists on their way to blow up Grand Central Station?

Or, what if you knew ahead of time that Fatty is the only person who keeps the battered women's shelter from closing because he donates all of his free time and money?

Is self sacrifice always good?

Stop stealing my thunder!  I was waiting for someone to come up with some sort of all or nothing statement about the value of what Fatty does for a living.

If there's anybody who hasn't seen it yet, that's the beauty of the trolley questions.  Any answer you give can be made "wrong" by the addition of a previously unknown piece of information.  Rather than prove the existence of some nebulous absolute morality, it illustrates that all moral decisions are based on limited information, and that what we perceive as good or bad is intrinsically linked to what measure we are using.  Good and bad can be different for different people.  If Fatty can't get laid, so he opens a battered woman's shelter and exploits a few of the women for sex, that's bad, right?  But... what if you knew that fifty women would not be killed by their husbands because the shelter is open?  It's consentual sex, after all, and it's only a few of the women out of hundreds that have come through the doors...

Here's a good one.

You work on the top floor of the Empire State Building. You go out for lunch and have Taco Bell, with chili, mexican fries, and baked beans.

When you return do you take the stairs or the elevator?

Just for shits and giggles, attempt this on my total annihilation version... entertain me, im bored

Sorry Hamby   I didn't realize that you were going somewhere with this.  I just came up with the only reason I could think of for helping battered women.  Obviously, any guy giving up all of his time and money in a place filled with women plans to get laid.  That's true of a bar, a battered women's clinic, or as the benefactor of a ballet company....

Pff... after a meal like that? i think its in all our best interests if i did not come back to work ^_^

But if i must come back to work.... the stairs, as a small enclosed space, such as your elevator, is no good after so much Mexi food

You mean this?

 The trick is to know what measure of good the decision is based on.  It appears that you're coming from an evolutionary point of view (a very strange one... but evolutionary nonetheless).  That is to say, those who perish ought to perish because they are not the "best" genes and won't help the species by reproducing.

So, I tell you that as a matter of fact, one of the five is blind and deaf from a childhood disease -- a childhood disease that has previously been 100% fatal.

He is the first human to have survived the disease, and though he has been rendered blind and deaf (and unable to know that the trolley will hit him) his descendents will be able to survive the disease even better, and eventually, it will become as inconsequential as chicken pox.. all because of this man's ability to carry on his line... IF he is saved from the trolley.

Yes, but Fatty's child will develop the vaccine to fight three deadly diseases and keep Lowland Gorillas on the planet.  Furthermore, Fatty plans to gift much of his fortune to RRS if he makes it to the bank that day.

The fallout from the nuclear device is conveyed to the African continent by upper atmospheric winds.  It rains upon the gorillas and causes multiple mutations.  SOme of the gorillas die from the mutations, others become incredibly intelligent. 

Eventually, they rise up and take over factionalized Africa and brings about peace on the continent.  Humans study the new civilization and become peaceful and symbiotic with the gorillas.

Nothing bad happens ever again.  Never.  Ever.