Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
thats the best, is the trolly in a population dense center?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Trolly Problem
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
I once heard an interesting study about this. It was a long time ago, but I remember the basics if not the minutia.
If you ask people the first question, throw a lever, the large majority say Yes. The second, pushing someone off the bridge, got vastly fewer Yes answers. Only a minority, maybe 20%, said that they would do that.
Apparently, the people who would do nothing didn't want to be a part of the tragedy. By pushing the lever the tragedy became their own personal tragedy, because they chose to kill. Otherwise, it was a result of the trolley company mismanagement and nothing to do with them.
The second question is less abstract. It's not just a math question. It requires the person to personally shove the victim off the bridge, actually touching them, physical contact with them.
The interesting part was this. When people were asked the questions while in some sort of brain scan machine, the three different groups showed a marked difference in brain activity. When asked, they were using very different parts of their brains to process the answers. Different sections of their brains lit up with processing activity while they decided on their answer. People just plain think differently, using different analysis.
Particularly when the question involved personal contact, as opposed to just making an abstract choice. Some people use a different part of the brain for certain kinds of decisions, and the results are different in predictable ways.
Tom
Mox
Dr Green Fingers
It's hard for me to answer this, basically, if I can reduce a death toll, I ought to.
Last edited:
Mox
Dr Green Fingers
i wouldnt be able to take any lives without it causing me profund and long lasting psychological harm.
However, in both scenarios, the only way to save a group of innocent individuals, is by acting to knowingly destroy one other innocent person. There is no morality here, in my mind it's about reducing a death toll, its purely a utilitarian decision, devoid of mercy, which unfortunately it has to be. In that otherwise impossible situation.
If I was a robot programmed with Asimov's three laws of robotics, violating the first law to protect the first law multiple times, would only be logical.
That robot would have little choice but chose option B too or encounter a system error/unresolvable paradox and shut down.
1st law.
1. A robot may not by action or inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This looks like a mix between your comment and the video's. Can you rephrase what you are saying?
Well unveiled artist, I think your argument makes sense in sacrificing one person and with Jesus. When you have to choose you should do so logically and be happy with your choice.Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
- Eleanor Nelsen
Some say its better to save five peoples lives by sacrificing one.
Yet, they flinch if that same one sacrifice was pushed to save others rather than passively being "in the way".
Yet, they are both the same.
Not suprisingly
This made me think of the jesus sacrifice.
If jesus were alive today, would believers sacrifice him (push him off the bridge) to save humanity?
Or if that made you flinch
How is that different than letting jesus die as a "passive; in the way" to save humanity
If god supported both views?
In general, readers
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Do you see the two video scenarios as the same or different?
Why or why not?
Also, in the Book of Mormon, Nephi sacrificed King Laban to save an entire civilization!
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Which do you feel makes sense?
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It is hard. Probably why some here bypsss the question. Instead of using death, if you were the refere at a skating rink, and a group of teens were on floor, and they are all friends....
Five out of six kids act up. The sixth kid did nothing. The rule is if you act up, you have to exit the floor and leave the rink.
The kids agreed the six kid will vouch for the actions of the five (he leaves the rink; the others stays),
Would you a. agree and let the kid vouch for his friends?
Or
Would you b. tell the innocent kid he has to leave for his friends to stay?
Assuming that you are not using the teen's guilty actions to make the decision, but soley on the logic whether you agree with the kids without decisions on your part or make your own choice in letting the kid go to spare his friends the consequences of their actions
Last edited:
Killing 1 instead of 5 makes sense. Just kill him. Of course if the 1 were going to kill 10 lives you would want to kill the 5 and so on and so forth.
Voting kills people but everybody votes right?
Last edited:
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
- Eleanor Nelsen
Some say its better to save five peoples lives by sacrificing one.
Yet, they flinch if that same one sacrifice was pushed to save others rather than passively being "in the way".
Yet, they are both the same.
This made me think of the jesus sacrifice.
If jesus were alive today, would believers sacrifice him (push him off the bridge) to save humanity?
Or if that made you flinch
How is that different than letting jesus die as a "passive; in the way" to save humanity
If god supported both views?
In general, readers
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Do you see the two video scenarios as the same or different?
Why or why not?
From a theological perspective, the Trolley Problem is not complete in the absence of a consideration of God.
It is not possible for the Trolley Problem to exist in the absence of it's metaphysical causes.
Utilitarianism is blind to justice.
According to the Bible, Pontius Pilate, the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, ruled on the trial of Jesus. He washed his hands of the affair: strictly speaking, he did not sentence Jesus to death, but rather allowed Jesus to be killed in an act of utilitarianism.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes.... do you think believers should choose to passively watch jesus die since they would not physically responsible for his death or would it be the same if believers condemned jesus themselves for the same reason to save humanity? God supports both views in this question
Which would you choose?
Why or why not?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Does it matter how the person you want to die; psssively or actively involved in his death?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not to mention illogical. Most people probably would have yelled RUNAWAY TROLLY!!!! Assuming everybody wasn't deaf.
I didn't really comment. I was just talking about a relatively recent development in the decades since I discussed this in university (late 70's)
You added the Christian theology in what struck me as an awkward way, so I assumed that was what the video was about. I didn't watch it then, but now I have. It's a very straightforward description of the discussions we were having back then. All I added was the recent developments.
Personally, I try to be a pragmatic utilitarian. I believe it's best to pick one tragedy rather than five. I do grasp the non-involvement choice. But I believe that I could pull the switch. I am also pretty sure I couldn't push the guy off the bridge, even though it's the utilitarian choice. I just don't think I have it in me.
What I like to think is that I am heroic enough to jump myself, instead of pushing someone else. I am not afraid of being dead, and it would be quick (although not painless). But I also think my animal instinct for self preservation would probably cause me to dither just long enough to watch the five people get smashed instead of being heroic.
Tom
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I agree with @robocop (actually) .
At its basic premise, its always going to be a matter of quantity. 5 saved is notably better than one saved and so forth.
The Bible reflects that assessment anyways, so the argument is actually kind of a moot point if you ask me.
At its basic premise, its always going to be a matter of quantity. 5 saved is notably better than one saved and so forth.
The Bible reflects that assessment anyways, so the argument is actually kind of a moot point if you ask me.
It doesn't matter. You are responsible for killing either way.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I agree. If it wasnt death, would you choose to let someone else foot the bill so the five who lost their money gambling would keep their money or would you foot the bill even though you didnt gamble?
Is it both wrong for someone else to pay who did not gamble or for you to choose who will outside the five?
Are they both the same, using someone else to pay the five out of consequence or letting someone pay who did not gamble, how so or how not?
Not an analogy for the trolly death just the same set up of logic and morality behind it.
Same question just rephrased
Just like you can't save everyone financially, you can't save everyone physically. But you can do your part to not end anyone's life yourself but your own, and you can take many steps to defend your own life if someone wants to kill you.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The question isnt about the trolly death but using the same logic and morality on a none threatening situation.
Edit
Would you let the one friend foot the bill as he said he would or would you make the decision of who pays yourself?
Last edited:
Are you saying it's about torture? - torturing the people who gambled by letting them be homeless for instance?
I believe the same rules apply with torture, but you can't do everything. You can warn people against gambling in your personal life and sometimes you have to leave the world's problems up to a higher power.