The runaway trolley problem from an AC perspective

slickpoppa · #1 03-24-2007, 06:17 PM

I'm sure you've heard at least some variation of this question before:

"One dilemma, known as the trolley problem, involves a runaway train that is about to kill five people. The question is whether it is appropriate for a bystander to throw a switch and divert the trolley onto a spur on which it will kill one person and allow the five to survive.

Philosophers compare this problem to a second scenario, sometimes called the footbridge problem, in which a train is again heading toward five people, but there is no spur. Two bystanders are on a bridge above the tracks and the only way to save the five people is for one bystander to push the other in front of the train, killing the fallen bystander."

I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

AlexM · #2 03-24-2007, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I'd flip the switch. Some ACists would say to let the 5 die, but I think more would agree with me. It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do. Even those on the "let the 5 die" side are bound to draw the line somewhere before say 1 vs. 5 billion.

tomdemaine · #3 03-24-2007, 08:25 PM

I'd try and stop the train.

slickpoppa · #4 03-24-2007, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you change the actor in the original question from bystander to the President of the US, and it becomes immoral for the President to flip the switch?

AlexM · #5 03-24-2007, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you change the actor in the original question from bystander to the President of the US, and it becomes immoral for the President to flip the switch?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't offer a scenario where there are no other options then compare it to one in which there are many other options. Whether the person at the switch is a government official or not is irrelevant. Now, if someone's job is to stand at the switch waiting for such incidents that's an entirely different story.

slickpoppa · #6 03-24-2007, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you change the actor in the original question from bystander to the President of the US, and it becomes immoral for the President to flip the switch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether the person at the switch is a government official or not is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who is saying that it is relevant. You're essentially saying that the ends can justify the means, except if the actor employing the means is the government.

AlexM · #7 03-24-2007, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you change the actor in the original question from bystander to the President of the US, and it becomes immoral for the President to flip the switch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether the person at the switch is a government official or not is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who is saying that it is relevant. You're essentially saying that the ends can justify the means, except if the actor employing the means is the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that no one has ever proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt a situation involving government where the ends do justify the means. Since no one can show me such a situation, my default belief is that one doesn't exist.

Secondly, even if I WERE saying that, the fact that it's a government official is still irrelevant. Just because someone works for the government does not mean that every single action of theirs is a government action. The President is an individual like anyone else.

slickpoppa · #8 03-24-2007, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see how ACers would answer this question. Based on my understanding of the first principles of AC, I believe that they would have to say that you should let the 5 people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible for the ends to justify the means, it's simply that there is no scenario involving government where they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you change the actor in the original question from bystander to the President of the US, and it becomes immoral for the President to flip the switch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether the person at the switch is a government official or not is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who is saying that it is relevant. You're essentially saying that the ends can justify the means, except if the actor employing the means is the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that no one has ever proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt a situation involving government where the ends do justify the means. Since no one can show me such a situation, my default belief is that one doesn't exist.

Secondly, even if I WERE saying that, the fact that it's a government official is still irrelevant. Just because someone works for the government does not mean that every single action of theirs is a government action. The President is an individual like anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I meant that the President acting in his capacity as President.

As far as example of the government means being justified, I would point to government intervention against the Holocaust.

AlexM · #9 03-24-2007, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As far as example of the government means being justified, I would point to government intervention against the Holocaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holocaust wouldn't have happened without government... also, our government didn't intervene because of the Holocaust, it intervened because we were attacked. Don't need a government for people to fight back when attacked.

slickpoppa · #10 03-24-2007, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as example of the government means being justified, I would point to government intervention against the Holocaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Holocaust wouldn't have happened without government... also, our government didn't intervene because of the Holocaust, it intervened because we were attacked. Don't need a government for people to fight back when attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one government caused the Holocaust has no bearing on the morality of another government putting a stop to it.