The trolly problem … do you save twenty, or kill one?

[Gorilla_Mama]

I'd have a panic attack and run away, saving myself from any liability on my conscience either way.

This is most likely how I’d react too.

[MrsDavidB]

Nobody is understanding the assignment lol

[Slimshandy]

I know, lol. Ethics classes too and it invariably gets the same response, saving the many for the few. I just think it's kind of lame and has absolutely no relatability for a real-life decision. I mean, a trolley!

So my answer would be since a trolley only moves on average of 2.5 miles per hour, I'd assume that the people on the track would just step off themselves when they noticed the trolley was coming toward them. I would probably give a shout of "heads up".

You guys are messing it up lol… there’s no third option, you have to pick one of the two.


It actually does relate to real life issues, albeit only theoretically…

Are we messing it up or is it simply an inherently flawed hypothetical with no basis in reality to begin with?

It’s not flawed, it’s a hard decision. There are instances in reality where this answer comes into play, it can be a good conversation starter…

[mommy_jules]

Nobody is understanding the assignment lol

Are you sure they didn’t understand? The point of the “trolley problem” isn’t for people to simply answer the question. It is to provoke discussion/thought. That’s precisely what some are doing…discussing, questioning, etc.

[Slimshandy]

Nobody is understanding the assignment lol

Are you sure they didn’t understand? The point of the “trolley problem” isn’t for people to simply answer the question. It is to provoke discussion/thought. That’s precisely what some are doing…discussing, questioning, etc.

The point is to discern between right and wrong when an extremely hard choice is in front of you…

If people say “I just wouldn’t choose” that’s indicative of something… right? If the choice is between A or B, but most people answer “neither, I’d run away or make it worse”, is that something we should discuss on a philosophical level since that mind-frame does lend itself to real life issues in our society?


What would you say the consequences of that kind of problem solving tendencies could be, and could it be damaging to our futures?

[WellPreserved]

Nobody is understanding the assignment lol

Are you sure they didn’t understand? The point of the “trolley problem” isn’t for people to simply answer the question. It is to provoke discussion/thought. That’s precisely what some are doing…discussing, questioning, etc.

The point is to discern between right and wrong when an extremely hard choice is in front of you…

If people say “I just wouldn’t choose” that’s indicative of something… right? If the choice is between A or B, but most people answer “neither, I’d run away or make it worse”, is that something we should discuss on a philosophical level since that mind-frame does lend itself to real life issues in our society?


What would you say the consequences of that kind of problem solving tendencies could be, and could it be damaging to our futures?

Discerning right from wrong is the not the point of the Trolley question and it's not a hard choice. The Trolley Question is intended to prove Doctrine of Double Effect (at least in ethics). The idea that it is permissible to cause harm as an unintentional side effect to bring about a good result but it is not permissible to intentionally cause harm to bring about the same result. In the case of the Trolley Car, it is permissible to cause harm to one or more to save the other(s) by switching the track but it is not permissible to physically throw someone or people in front of the trolley to save other(s).

This question is often discussed when dealing with end of life care or assisted suicide. It's also currently being discussed (at least in Germany) with regards to programming autonomous cars.

I'm not saying that the Trolley Question isn't worthy of discussion. Just saying that we should be aware of what the question is and the question isn't about right and wrong.

[Slimshandy]

Are you sure they didn’t understand? The point of the “trolley problem” isn’t for people to simply answer the question. It is to provoke discussion/thought. That’s precisely what some are doing…discussing, questioning, etc.

The point is to discern between right and wrong when an extremely hard choice is in front of you…

If people say “I just wouldn’t choose” that’s indicative of something… right? If the choice is between A or B, but most people answer “neither, I’d run away or make it worse”, is that something we should discuss on a philosophical level since that mind-frame does lend itself to real life issues in our society?


What would you say the consequences of that kind of problem solving tendencies could be, and could it be damaging to our futures?

Discerning right from wrong is the not the point of the Trolley question and it's not a hard choice. The Trolley Question is intended to prove Doctrine of Double Effect (at least in ethics). The idea that it is permissible to cause harm as an unintentional side effect to bring about a good result but it is not permissible to intentionally cause harm to bring about the same result. In the case of the Trolley Car, it is permissible to cause harm to one or more to save the other(s) by switching the track but it is not permissible to physically throw someone or people in front of the trolley to save other(s).

This question is often discussed when dealing with end of life care or assisted suicide. It's also currently being discussed (at least in Germany) with regards to programming autonomous cars.

I'm not saying that the Trolley Question isn't worthy of discussion. Just saying that we should be aware of what the question is and the question isn't about right and wrong.

The question is posed so that people can think about what is right and what is wrong…


It’s not meant for you to draw a conclusion, it’s meant to show the grey area, and get people to think about what they would decide as right or wrong in that area.


That’s why it’s discussed within end of life care and abortion debates in psychology classes, because it’s not black and white right or wrong, it’s grey area.

[cgd5112]

I think in the context of one life vs multiple (20 in this case), it’s like I replied earlier- greater good. Kill one person to save 20.

Now, if it was a question of save my loved one vs 20 people, then I’d choose to safe my loved one.

[WellPreserved]

The point is to discern between right and wrong when an extremely hard choice is in front of you…

If people say “I just wouldn’t choose” that’s indicative of something… right? If the choice is between A or B, but most people answer “neither, I’d run away or make it worse”, is that something we should discuss on a philosophical level since that mind-frame does lend itself to real life issues in our society?


What would you say the consequences of that kind of problem solving tendencies could be, and could it be damaging to our futures?

Discerning right from wrong is the not the point of the Trolley question and it's not a hard choice. The Trolley Question is intended to prove Doctrine of Double Effect (at least in ethics). The idea that it is permissible to cause harm as an unintentional side effect to bring about a good result but it is not permissible to intentionally cause harm to bring about the same result. In the case of the Trolley Car, it is permissible to cause harm to one or more to save the other(s) by switching the track but it is not permissible to physically throw someone or people in front of the trolley to save other(s).

This question is often discussed when dealing with end of life care or assisted suicide. It's also currently being discussed (at least in Germany) with regards to programming autonomous cars.

I'm not saying that the Trolley Question isn't worthy of discussion. Just saying that we should be aware of what the question is and the question isn't about right and wrong.

The question is posed so that people can think about what is right and what is wrong…


It’s not meant for you to draw a conclusion, it’s meant to show the grey area, and get people to think about what they would decide as right or wrong in that area.


That’s why it’s discussed within end of life care and abortion debates in psychology classes, because it’s not black and white right or wrong, it’s grey area.

95% of respondents pick switching the track. This doesn't mean that 95% of respondents are "good" or "bad", it just means that switching the track is the most people's immediate response and really, is there grey area? Is it thought provoking? What kind of conversation would we have regarding this question if all of us respond that we would pull the switch?

Where the discussion takes place is in the follow on problem (and there is always a follow on problem), for example, would you throw someone off a bridge to stop a train from running over a group?

The question gets more mixed answers but the majority choose "no". This is because of Double Effect - causing harm as an unintentional side effect is okay but intentionally causing harm is not even if both have the same effect (saving the people on the track).

In context of Abortion debate, abortion to save the life of the mother is morally just as the intent is to save a life, not to end a life, even if a life is ended in the process. It's essentially pulling the switch. Abortion for other reasons is throwing the guy from the bridge.

In context of end of life care: Hospice or withdrawing life support would be throwing the switch while euthanasia or physician assisted suicide would be throwing the guy off the bridge. Again, both have the same outcome yet ethically they are not considered the same.

There are really good discussions to be had when discussing the Trolley problem in context of Double Effect especially as it pertains to current debates. I just don't see the Trolley problem alone as a starter because it's never meant to be asked alone.

[Pjmm]

Nobody is understanding the assignment lol

I understand it. I just hate hypothetical questions like that. they don't take into account that the people could step off the track or that maybe the 20 are armed and about to rob the trolley driver. While most people would say save the 20, Ursula Le Guinn had an interesting story along these lines. In some magical world, everyone was happy and healthy-but at the cost of one lone child who had to live in horrific conditions. The people knew about the child and had gone to see it at least once; I don't think she mentioned the S*x. They can't save the child because then everyone would become ill and unhappy. The story ends with no real resolution except the narrator says some people see the child and leave the community. The narrator doesn't say why but "they seem to know where they're going." Given this Idk what I'd do. Probably panic and freeze up.