Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Stopping the trolley
I haven't thought about the 'fat man/trolley' dilemma in a long time. I think I've decided that deliberately sacrificing another human for the greater good is not in my personal power or desire to do. I have to think that there are many accidents that happen without my witness, so this impossible situation, though in my sight, may be out of my control just like the others. That's not to say I wouldn't try as best I could to avert the situation in some other way; in other words I wouldn't just stand there with my mouth open and watch it happen. (I know the thought experiment doesn't actually allow for alternatives, but we don't actually live in thought experiments either.)
I always feel than whenever we consciously make great sacrifices toward a perceived "greater good", we begin to tread in dangerous territory; a place where we could be next, for one thing. Ursula LeGuin had a good analogous story pertaining to this called, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. For the unfamiliar, the basic premise is that there is a land where all things are perfect, no disease, hunger, crime, etc. The only stipulations are that one child must be kept in suffering, darkness, loneliness and any other awful situation imaginable, and secondly, everyone who "comes of age" must be shown the child and know of the whole situation. The question is asked, I guess; "Is it right to allow this child to suffer so much just so the rest of us can live a care-free life?"
RSS
Stopping the trolley
The only rational objection to stopping the trolley by means of the fat man is the degree of uncertainty involved in each of the options available to the motivated bystander (self). Throwing the fat man into the path of the trolley would create a 100% chance of ending one life, but what % chance of saving the other 5? If I am a trolley guru and an experienced fat man tosser who knows the toss will succeed, I don't have any moral objections to making the toss. It is certainly a significant step to take, killing through action rather than inaction, but a purely psychological boundary. Much could be improved in this world if this psychological boundary could be broken down.
If there's less than a 100% probability of success, one cannot make this call. Perhaps this is the subconcious qualm present in the study- that the action may not succeed. If the five men get nailed despite the improvised roadblock, then the tosser is on the hook (morally and legally) for an additional death. He can say he did the moral thing by doing everything in his power to prevent the disaster, but in the eyes of society he will be a murderer, regardless of his intent. So, the purely moral thing would be to make the toss, but the community morality will likely strongly oppose such an action, regardless of the actual outcome. In such a lose/ lose situation, I propose a third option: throw yourself in front of the trolley.
View Full Discussion