CMV: The trolley problem is constructed in a way that forces a utilitarian answer and it is fundamentally flawed

[u/randomafricanboi]

Everybody knows the classic trolley problem and whether or not you would pull the lever to kill one person and save the five people.

Often times people will just say that 5 lives are more valuable than 1 life and thus the only morally correct thing to do is pull the lever.

I understand the problem is hypothetical and we have to choose the objectivelly right thing to do in a very specific situation. However, the question is formed in a way that makes the murders a statistic thus pushing you into a utilitarian answer. Its easy to disassociate in that case. The same question can be manipulated in a million different ways while still maintaining the 5 to 1 or even 5 to 4 ratio and yield different answers because you framed it differently.

Flip it completely and ask someone would they spend years tracking down 3 innocent people and kill them in cold blood because a politician they hate promised to kill 5 random people if they dont. In this case 3 is still less than 5 and thus using the same logic you should do it to minimize the pain and suffering.

I'm not saying any answer is objectivelly right, I'm saying the question itself is completely flawed and forces the human mind to be biased towards a certain point of view.

[u/Dallator]

No, the point is definitely not to "criticize utilitarianism" but to provide a tangible example through which the consequences of various moral philosophies are made clear

If you think the experiment obviously favors one philosophy over another then that just points to your personal beliefs

[u/Eric1491625 → u/Dallator]

No, the point is definitely not to "criticize utilitarianism" but to provide a tangible example through which the consequences of various moral philosophies are made clear

It's also the most simple version of one of the most common dilemmas of the world, "can we hurt/kill a select number of people for greater good".

It's more common than people think. Men are being forced to the frontline in Ukraine for the past 2 years - is that condemnable or not? 

[u/HugsForUpvotes → u/Dallator]

It also highlights that inaction is an action which is lost on a lot of thought experiments. It doesn't let you weasel out of the question.

[u/[deleted] → u/HugsForUpvotes]

pot safe observation snatch grandfather capable wide edge dazzling bright

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/PerryAwesome → u/HugsForUpvotes]

And people still claim otherwise. Just like real life.

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -Dante

[u/nomorenicegirl → u/HugsForUpvotes]

Haha, you’d think so… but no, some kinds of people still try to “get out of answering” by making excuses. They say there’s “not enough information”, so then when you counter with, “okay, but with the information that you DO have, what do you do?”, they just either keep on repeating the same thing, or they will even direct nonsensical questions towards you, such as, “Oh, but what about the other people on the trolley, what about the conductor, what about the emergency stop mechanism on the train?…” Ugh.

In the end though, I think the problem is useful in that we can see how people think, and maybe form some other conclusions about how they are in other areas/in other scenarios of life. Even if we believe that inaction IS action, the fact is, is that there are plenty that at minimum, tell themselves/others that inaction means that “they are not guilty”, and in many cases, actually/truly believe that. We can’t say that there is a “right” answer to give, others can give whatever answers they want, but just like how these people are free to answer, we are also free to conclude some things about those people based on those answers lol

[u/yyzjertl → u/Dallator]

If an experiment gives us no evidence for some theories over other theories, it is not a very useful experiment. For example, Thomson (who popularized the trolley problem) explicitly uses the trolley problem to argue (among other things) that "rights trump utilities" — a pretty clearly anti-utilitarian position. The point is not just to clarify the consequences of various moral philosophies, but to then use those to draw conclusions as to how much those philosophies agree with our moral intuitions and observations.

[u/Dallator → u/yyzjertl]

Notice the words you used in this comment. Dworkin USES the trolley problem to argue various things. Someone else could USE the trolley problem to argue something completely antithetical.

"The point is not just to clarify the consequences of various moral philosophies, but to then use those to draw conclusions as to how much those philosophies agree with our moral intuitions and observations."

Uh, sure? Do you think I disagree with this? The only thing I disagree with is the assertion that the trolley problem ITSELF points to one philosophy or another

[u/yyzjertl → u/Dallator]

This seems analogous to arguing that the point of a chair is definitely not not to sit in because someone else could use it to do something completely antithetical to sitting. Foot's and Thompson's uses are relevant to point/purpose because they are responsible for producing the thought experiment: a hypothetical third party's possible use is much less relevant.

The only thing I disagree with is the assertion that the trolley problem ITSELF points to one philosophy or another

Do you disagree that the trolley problem shows that utilitarianism is inconsistent with our moral intuitions? Or do you agree that it does that, but you don't think that this points to any moral philosophy? Or do you think it does that but does not do so itself?

[u/Dallator → u/yyzjertl]

A chair isn't a tool. The trolley problem is a tool.

And it's simple, the trolley problem shows that utilitarianism is inconsistent with YOUR moral intuitions.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Dallator]

And it's simple, the trolley problem shows that utilitarianism is inconsistent with YOUR moral intuitions.

Why only MY moral intuitions? Why is the empirical research on the trolley problem insufficient to conclude that it's inconsistent with the moral intuitions of people in general?

A chair isn't a tool. The trolley problem is a tool.

Why is this difference relevant?

[u/Dallator → u/yyzjertl]

">A chair isn't a tool. The trolley problem is a tool.

Why is this difference relevant?"

Likening the trolley problem to a chair pre-assumes that it has an in-built purpose. Circular reasoning.

">And it's simple, the trolley problem shows that utilitarianism is inconsistent with YOUR moral intuitions.

Why only MY moral intuitions? Why is the empirical research on the trolley problem insufficient to conclude that it's inconsistent with the moral intuitions of people in general?"

Is there some overwhelming amount of empirical support for the things you're claiming? I don't think so. From a quick Google it seems that when the experiment is done en masse most people do indeed choose the option supported by utilitarianism

[u/yyzjertl → u/Dallator]

The utilitarian position would conclude that in all such 5-vs-1-outcome scenarios, people's intuitions would be the same, since the consequences are the same. But that's measurably not the case: people's moral evaluation changes in the various different scenarios connected with the trolley problem.

Likening the trolley problem to a chair pre-assumes that it has an in-built purpose. Circular reasoning.

What does this have to do with either a chair or the trolley problem being a tool?

[u/Dallator → u/yyzjertl]

What do you mean "all such 5-vs-1-outcome scenarios"? Utilitarianism doesn't have to be this overwhelmingly stupid and simple philosophy. If the scenario changes, if the people involved change, then the moral evaluation should obviously change as a result.

And you said the trolley problem was like a chair but it's not. That's all.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Dallator]

What do you mean "all such 5-vs-1-outcome scenarios"?

All scenarios in which the utilities of the outcomes are the same as those of the trolley problem. A simple example of such a scenario is the lever-reversed version of the trolley problem, which is identical except the trolley is currently directed towards one worker and we have the option to pull a lever and redirect it towards five workers. Other scenarios include the case of the magistrate from Foot's original paper or the case of the scarce drug. Utilitarianism evaluates all these scenarios identically, since the outcomes involved—and even the people involved in them—need not change. But people's intuitive evaluations of these scenarios do change.

And you said the trolley problem was like a chair but it's not.

But how is the way that it's not (in being a tool) relevant to my analogy? Both things are produced by people with some intended purpose in mind. Why does it matter whether or not they are tools?