• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Trolley Problem

Ok, so you're jsut trying to say that the doctor scenario is a transplantation of the train scenario?

its supposed to be the same correct?
 
Ahhh ok, I looked up the trolley problem on wikipedia.

Now, I think I can answer the question.

The doctors scenario. Its immoral because the stranger has absolutely no relevance to the situation. Hes not *involved* to put it another way, he is literally an innocent bystander.
Whereas in the trolley problem the options are that X amount of people are tied down on track A
and only 1 person is tied down on track B.
So you make the choice to either kill 3 or save 1. They are all tied down to tracks though.

Now, unless you have some other stipulation regarding the doctor scenario, I think its definitely immoral for the doctor to harvest the organs from a stranger. The situation is different, but similar to the trolley problem.
Death is a certain outcome for the people on the tracks in the trolley problem..
and I know you can apply the same logic to the doctor scenario.. but theres something about the idea of having to find an unknown innocent bystander, kill him, and take his organs in order to save the 3.
Whats the best way to say it... its not moral for the doctor to do this because the stranger isn't involved... not associated?
Hrm
Also there is the question of intent right?
In the first scenario you didn't wish the death of anyone, but in the second you actively seeked the death of one to save the 3 in need of organs. Thats a major difference as well I think

Interesting topic though, I'm enjoying thinking about it!
 
The basic idea of sacrificing one innocent to save the lives of three other people is the same, yes. The difference is that in the first scenario, our action is to divert the train, killing the unfortunate as a result. In the second scenario, the death of the donor is not just an unfortunate consequence of our saving the three, but a prerequisite. Also, in the first case the action is an impersonal and easy lever-pull, while in the second the action is a cold blooded butchering.
 
Death is a certain outcome for the people on the tracks in the trolley problem..
and I know you can apply the same logic to the doctor scenario.. but theres something about the idea of having to find an unknown innocent bystander, kill him, and take his organs in order to save the 3.
Click to expand...
The man tied to the tracks is assumed to be unharmed if we do not kill him. So, though he is tied to the tracks, he is in no danger, and can essentially be seen as an innocent bystander. He may be vulnerable to having a train diverted over him, but no more than the man on the street is vulnerable to abduction by rogue surgeons.
 
Yerg said:
The man tied to the tracks is assumed to be unharmed if we do not kill him. So, though he is tied to the tracks, he is in no danger, and can essentially be seen as an innocent bystander. He may be vulnerable to having a train diverted over him, but no more than the man on the street is vulnerable to abduction by rogue surgeons.
Click to expand...

Right, sorry. Philosophy often means that one needs to make sure one is absolutely clear, but I'm watching star trek and posting on message boards at the same time so sometimes I'm not as clear in expressing what I mean to.

My point being is that death is going to occur, whether its for the 1 or the 3.

You didn't intend for any of this to happen, but the doctor certainly caused the death of the organ donor.

I think we're going in circles now.
 
neither the trolley nor the doctor scenarios are realistic in any way. you know why the former isn't. now the latter isn't in that there is always hope that those three people can find organs through legitimate donations in time to prolonge their lives.

therefore, you can compare two absurdities all you want, but the endeavour is pointless. If you want to compare the moral conundrum to a real world case, then the rules don't apply since life isn't so black and white.
 
^they are ment to be. these 'problems' are designed to have no definitive 'right' answer. its about the question itself, in that it keeps you thinking. philosophy is not about answers, its about theoretically deepening all sides to an issue. learning to look at sometimes radically different or opposite angles all at once, if you will. shifting perpsectives. much like psychedelics do actually, only consistently, and (attempting to be) systematic.
 
but it's arbitrary and has no real world application, relevance or purpose.

this is not philosophy.


it's akin to asking one of them stupid drunken philosophical questions about whether one would have sex with their own mother if it meant a starving indian kid gets an all you can eat at krispy kreme 1 hour voucher.


oooooh teh dilemmaz
 
Impacto Profundo said:
but it's arbitrary and has no real world application, relevance or purpose.
Click to expand...

it just seems that way. not directly no. it has a theoretical purpose. they serve as an attempt to reveal and explore the different (many times unspoken) decision-making systems we do employ in the real world. especially the weaknesses of some ways of reasoning are of interest. one of the goals of this one is to reveal the foremost weakness of ethical calculus. these weaknesses are applicable and of relevance to any real world issue where the type of reasoning is employed, and where these (fundamental) weaknesses may be far less apparent/transparant.
 
are you kidding? for ethical calculus? any allocation of resources. be that state resources, hospital staff and resources, humanitarian aid... . knowing its fundamental weakness; the slippery slope, generally ethical relativity, we must be on guard that the calculus cannot be applied when certain 'sacred' things, such as an innocent life, poorly-understood ecosystems, etc. are at stake. the calculus may be especially seductive in certain 'risk-situations', where the 'sacred' thing is placed under a certain risk, though huge benefits can be reaped if all goes well. for example, issues concerning genetic engineering. can we really relativise our ecosystem? our human bodies in their given form? if we do so in a minor way, what are the limits of this relativation? if they are relative, why stop at some arbitrary point instead of throwing it completely in the calculus? or say we engineer some kind of retro-virus to deliver a piece of genetic code that prevents cancer. suppose there is a *very* minor risk that it mutates and does the opposite, in some people. should do we employ it? should we invest resources in its development and dispersement? or this very real one (yes this one happens right now): there are salmons that are minorly engineered to grow extremely fat in a short time. they do so to the point of all kinds of deformities, and at times end up unable to breath properly anymore and suffocate due to their fat. however, this results in very cheap salmon feeding many poor families. yes or no?
and i mean, thats just for genetic engineering. the list is endless...

[edit] or this one: should we sterilize every couple after they had their first child until world population reaches an optimal level?
 
Last edited:
each example sets it own possibilities and boundaries and none of them are as black and white as the "kill one person to save two?" nonsense. none of the examples you mention have anything to gain from the question in the original post. reality is infinitely more creative and complex.

the question is just verbal masturbation.
 
erm...

it has a theoretical purpose. they serve as an attempt to reveal and explore the different (many times unspoken) decision-making systems we do employ in the real world. especially the weaknesses of some ways of reasoning are of interest. one of the goals of this one is to reveal the foremost weakness of ethical calculus. these weaknesses are applicable and of relevance to any real world issue where the type of reasoning is employed, and where these (fundamental) weaknesses may be far less apparent/transparant.
Click to expand...
 
lets leave it at: IP doesn't like trolley problems.

tbh, i thought the very same thing you are thinking during my studies when i first encountered such an unreal answerless problem.

makes good television though =D
 
Last edited:
Impacto Profundo, I agree with you life is never black and white.. but these kinds of exercises in philosophy only serve to test our thought processes/logic/whatever.

Just because say the scenario with the trolley doesn't occur in real life, doesn't make it any less valid a thought experiment.

Also, you really mean to try and tell us that in real life, never has there, not even ONCE been a scenario where the choices were save X (x being more than 1) to save 1 life?
Yeah, of course there are going to be other details that one would need to factor into the question.... but that's not the point in the thought experiment, its to boil it down, get at its essence.

Ugh, its still too early to be talking philosophy.
 
^yes never, not even once.

tbh, i really don't see any value in such absurd scenarios. azz, who is that quoted from and can you explain how such "experiments" related to real life decision making and prioritising? just saying that it does is no explanation at all.
 
I think your claiming that these absurd situations have no value at all is quite arrogant.
If these situations are just absurd, with no real life application whatsoever, no value, nothing able to be learned from them, then a large part of philosophy is bullshit according to you.
I'm not going to debate that issue, but to say something like that is a very bold statement if you think about what it means exactly to say such a thing.


Some of the greatest thinkers in history, and even contemporary thinkers have employed such "absurd" thought experiments to many different fields.
Whether it be philosophy, physics or any number of other disciplines.


And if you think that a scenario has never occurred in human existence such that the scenario was Either Save X lives (x being more than 1) or save Y lives (y being less than X).............

I can think of several.
Think terrorists.
Think abortion.
Think battlefield in any war.
 
Last edited:
i'm willing to discover some value in it, if it would only be explained. just claiming that some clever people like employing it is not really enough, you know?

And if you think that a scenario has never ocurred in human existance such that the scenario was Either Save X lives (x being more than 1) or save Y lives (y being less than X).............
I can think of several.
Think terrorists.
Think abortion.
Think battlefield in any war.
Click to expand...

the options under those scenario are immeasurable. the simplistic 2 choice scenario is what i see no value in. if anything i see that it encourages UNcreativity and rash (ill informed) decision making.
 
Impacto Profundo said:
i'm willing to discover some value in it, if it would only be explained. just claiming that some clever people like employing it is not really enough, you know?



the options under those scenario are immeasurable. the simplistic 2 choice scenario is what i see no value in. if anything i see that it encourages UNcreativity and rash (ill informed) decision making.
Click to expand...



How has it not been explained? We're talking about the trolley situation and the doctor scenario right?
"some clever" people? That's really an understatement.


Also, its not a simplistic choice, simplistic only on the surface. If you think its simplistic I think you should give more thought to it. You could write quite a bit about just the trolley situation alone, plus there are many other variations on that specific thought experiment, each giving a slightly different scenario, and thus (sometimes) different expected solutions.

How does the trolley situation encourage uncreative and ill informed decision making? Its a thought experiment man. I really do think you're missing the fundamental idea behind all of this..
 
If we were to take into account every possible option the question becomes unanswerable. If you can't decide the right course of action in such a simplified, binary situation, what chance do you have of tackling a real world ethical decision? The problem has a real world application in that, having determined what our intuitions concerning the morality of killing people vs. letting people die, we can apply these principles to more complex, realistic scenarios. And if this thought experiment is pointless, are all others? Laplace's demon, Lincoln's axe, Gettier problems, the classical Greek paradoxes, even Descartes's evil demon, all worthless? I think that's a pretty radical revision of what counts as philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top