The Trolley Problem - Explained and Debated

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the trolley problem. A fascinating moral dilemma, do you divert a train to kill one person in order to save five people. Watch as the thought experiment is explained and the ethical complications that arise.

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook available on Amazon:

[PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook available on Amazon:

[Conorize]

As a freshman in college enrolled in an intro to ethics class, let me say your videos help me tremendously! The dialogue format is incredible.

[SunenaSharma]

Very interesting
The best part is how amazing the arguments were
I didn't felt bored at all

[scoogsy]

The one difference I can see with the lever vs pushing the engineer, is that it is in the act of *pushing* the engineer that the five engineers are saved. In other words, it is the body of (and incidentally the murder of) the engineer that stops the train. In the case of redirecting the train, it seems more like an unfortunate side effect that there was an engineer there.

Another way of looking at it is if the train were heading towards 5 engineers, and you could redirect it with a lever pull, but would then hit one big engineer, you might do it not based on the fact that the big engineer would stop the train, but that only one is dying.

In the scenario where the engineer is pushed, you are treating the engineer as an object. In the scenario where you pull the lever, you weigh up people’s lives more directly.

If the one engineer miraculously jumped away in time on the lever pull, that is even better. In the case of pushing, you don’t want the engine to get away, you need them to get hit.

[manishpingale]

I would like to propose a slight variation of trolley problem
" Would you pull the lever and sacrifice one of your close relatives to save five other people?"
When the person is unknown to us being an utilitarian seems easy, but not so much in this case ha?

[rivivuel]

If I went to court because I was in this situation and I had to deal with these guys I'd probably not make it out sane

[blackstreek]

For the organ donation dilemma, the scenario assumes that the only way to get healthy and viable organs is to murder an innocent person. We have built systems that allow people who have died from accidents, violent crime, injury or harm to donate their organs into a network. This is how we avoid murder for life-saving donations, and avoid the state of anarchy and paranoia suggested. The scenario is also a classic example of how someone taking a deontological position essentially keeps moving the goalposts so that the original dilemma fits their philosophical standpoint. Note how the utilitarian did not feel the need to modify the original scenario to make their stance clear.

[studlord]

If the lone engineer saw you going for that lever, and knew he would die if you moved it, and he had a gun, would he be justified in shooting you to protect himself, killing not only you, but also the other five engineers?

[mickm]

The original trolley problem is a simplified "or" logic statement while the other supporting arguments are a risk assessment/ cost benifit problems.
There is not 100% certainty that pushing an "big" guy in front of a train will stop the other 5 being killed and killing a person for their organs has a relatively low percentage chance of giving 5 people a full helthy life.
It's a straw man agrument to replace a well designed "or" logic statement with more ambiguous risk benefit problems.

[JumboH]

I love this channel now this is my 3rd video and the arguments are incredible.

[Thunderbolt_T]

what you SHOULD do: pull the lever while the trolley is halfway across

[thelaughingphilosopher]

The difference between the first and second/third scenarios, is that the lone worker is killed as an UNINTENDED consequence of pulling the lever and so the principle of double effect holds, and hence the deontological principle, thou shalt not murder is maintained. But pushing a man in front a train, or cutting a man up to save other people's organs, is a direct and INTENDED consequence of our actions. And as both actions, if executed efficiently, will end in death of an innocent person, then both are deontologically impermissable.

[Reza]

Interesting. I think the roles of the two people in the two scenarios are different and not quite comparable. One is at his job (which is not clearly defined) and the other one is a bystander.
What happens to the nature of the lever handlers’ job and responsibilities? What he thought before signing up for it?

[TurdCentral]

In the pushing the engineer scenario, he argues the doctrine of double effect makes the choice to push the guy on the tracks ethical because killing the person wasn't the intent and led to saving five lives which was the intent. That argument doesn't hold up, in my opinion, because in that scenario, both the man dying AND the five saved is the intent. In that moment, you intended to sacrifice a life to save multiple lives. I think it really does come down to action vs inaction and I think I wouldn't do anything to affect what was going to happen even if I wasn't there.

[maousama]

the best answer to this question is : just sit on your chair with sweet tea and buiscits, and watch the natural course of action while eating sweetness, its much more satisfying.

[darkira]

I think there's different view in this ethical debate. let's call it Idealistic view. it's almost like utilitarian, but you yearn for the best outcome no matter how small the chances is, but by valuing others more than yourself. So The person with this view will still move the lever, but because saving 1 person is easier than saving 5 and when the case about pushing people, well it's kinda depends. like forcing other to sacrifice their life is far from idealistic, so if there's enough time I won't push them, that person with idealistic view will ask what they want to do, if they don't want to do it, that person is going to jump and hope his sacrifice can stop the train, same thing if there's not enough time.

[petermeyer]

At 3:50 the explanation given hints towards a form of moral or rather ethics, that I found in 3rd grade to be an alternative way of looking at things and defended against the tought topic "denial of assistance" to most resentment of my teacher, as I had the majority of our class on my side, as they were following my rule unconsciously up to that day. So far I havent found any philosophical branch that argues in such way, as allmost all of them argue in some way towards a "greater good"-principle. I call mine the "lesser guilt"-principle and I have found it to be what allmost all of humans act upon by some form of (even non-verbal) neural network learning until any outer source actively forces them to change their behaviour to align with the prevalent ethics given by religion or law or whatever the social environment pressures them into.

The lesser guilt principle:
1. Any action has a result.
2. Any result can be judged on a moral scale.
3. The moral scale is usually given by parents/family during (early) childhood.
4. Independent from what the moral scale actually looks like, its clear, that the causation of morally negatively judged results, forms a value called "guilt".
5. Guilt cannot be deleted/erased, its summed up over a livetime.
6. Positive results are a nice bonus, but "positive guilt" if one wants to call it that way is something that dissipates into joy and cannot be held to be summed up but still remebered.
Here is where the ought comes in:
7. "Try to accumulate as least guilt as possible within your lifespan."
And here is where the "ought "is excluded from anywhere else:
8. "Be free to do or not to do anything, just as you want, but face the result."

That little list could be shortened as some steps seem self-explaining, but I wanted to display the principle here in a form of an unambiguous program.

Another thing to mention is the trivial conclusion:
- No guilt is created whithout an action.
and the further, maybe not so obvious conclusion for some religious people :
- There is no such thing as a thought crime.

If we use that principle for the above trolly problem (and to all variations of it out there), it follows:
- Just touch the lever if a) you are willing to collect the selected/caused guilt or b) you find an alternative position, where no guilt is caused.
- The trivial solution is allways: No guilt is caused without touching the lever.
In any way, you are free to choose any action but bound to face the result.

So, guys from "Philosophy Vibes", have you come accross any philosophic branch that has this?

[shitslammer]

this channel really is such a gem. loved this video

[philipanderegg]

The difference between the pushing of the engineer and the pulling of the lever is that both the 5 people and the 1 person on the tracks are both fair game. You have to choose a path for the train to go on so one group over another has to die. In essence all 6 people are involved. In the pushing case, the 5 people already on the track are already involved, whereas the one person not on a track is not already involved in until you involve him by pushing him

[heliabaharloo]

This is the best video I've ever watched on YouTube!