The Runaway Train Problem

Post Reply New Topic

I think its an unfair question. It is like asking a mother which of her two children she would save from a burning building.

You should be relieved to know that life isn't as logical as to be defined by the question.

Of course I am. And it is rare someone would be asked this.

What about the president who ordered the Japanese H-bomb? He killed many to save many.

I guess you could argue whether it was necessary. Everything I've read seems to point that it wasn't, so I'm not sure if it's in the same ballpark as the train question.

Perhaps not. But I sometimes wonder if these weapons have not been used since because we have all seen the horror of it.

I guess you could argue whether it was necessary. Everything I've read seems to point that it wasn't, so I'm not sure if it's in the same ballpark as the train question.

Wow, that's a whole other thread... (hint)

First, they were atom bombs not h-bombs...

Second, we killed more people with conventional bombs in Tokyo (at least initially)--the atom bomb raids were simply more efficient and had more psychological and political impact.

Third, considering what a treacherous bastard Stalin was proving to be, Truman had every reason to want to bring the Asian war to a rapid end rather than let Japan wither on the vine.

To the original question, it's really uninteresting moral calculus. All else equal, you choose the option that results in the fewest deaths. To do nothing is despicable, moral cowardice.

To make it more interesting we need a 3rd option: You can stop the train and save everyone, BUT there's a 75% chance that you will die in the process.

Doing nothing is not really moral cowardice. I just happen to be on the train, it doesn't say I am the driver or the track controller. I am under no obligation to do anything. But if I do, then through my direct action I have caused the death of an individual.

BTW - this question was done on BBC Horizon, the guy who ran the question said there is no right or wrong answer, it is a test to see how people react to the dilemma.

Some communities have Samaritan laws that compel people to render aid in many circumstances. That's not completely helpful here, but it is something to think about.

The question is redundant on a message board. The reason for the question is to check whether the person who is posed the question has an emotional reaction (stress) to the situation. It really should be done in real time using virtual reality.

If, like me, you had a moment of stress when thinking about the dilemma, then you show signs of having empathy. The course of action you take is not relevant.

Watch this:

http://youtu.be/u88lYs4FMTY

Foot's original formulation of the problem ran as follows:[1]

Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.

A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it. According to simple utilitarianism, such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).[6] An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit. An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives. Under some interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this were the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act if one values five lives more than one.

Here is an alternative case, due to Judith Jarvis Thomson,[3] containing similar numbers and results, but without a trolley:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor...

That's an interesting clip, but you do realize that this thought experiment is much older than that study...

Originally it's purpose was not to test for empathy under stress, but to illustrate/test utilitarian morals/ethics.

I would leave the train as is, better to kill through inaction than to kill through action.

I disagree. When the consequences of inaction are unequivocal, then one cannot, I suggest, avoid the responsibility (both moral and ethical) that flows from inaction. Mitigation of harm is a legitimate choice, and the failure to take that choice carries with it consequences.