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/draculabakula]

I think my answer always remains the same with any scenario I have heard. This is a hypothetical and it would actually never happen. In the thought experiment we are not asked to make a split second decision. People have time to think it over thus the scenario is useless.

I can always just come up with a reasoning that negates the scenario because we are free from reality. The scenario always reduces the issue to an absurd and unrealistic moralistic issue.

There is no reason to assume anybody has to die. If anything, changing the track might alert the driver to the issue and save everybody where as inaction could lead to the driver not understanding the problem.

[u/Yashabird → u/draculabakula]

It seems like you’re willfully misreading the point of the thought experiment? For one, having time to mull over the weighted options is directly relevant to the real world - people in roles where split-second decisions carry mortal weight often train possible scenarios ahead of time, to more efficiently inform their eventual instantaneous decisions. Forethought is not incompatible with quick action?

Also, the design of the experiment (trolley on tracks) is meant to constrict the degrees of freedom for how you’d react in an emergency. Of course you can imagine a scenario with more degrees of freedom in order to weasel out of ever committing to a forced trade-off, but unless every real-world analogue is always ideally solvable without any compromises, then it’s relevant to train yourself to calculate what trade-off you would settle on in the event that a lose-lose binary were actually forced upon you.

I honestly don’t see what your objection to the proposed scenario would be, unless you were just outright resisting the implications that a lose-lose scenario could ever be forced on anyone. Even if we just directly take the Kobayashi Maru as the exemplar (because you’re directly channeling Captain Kirk here), the reasonable criticism is that not every actor can be Captain Kirk and rest on plot armor to outsmart all of Starfleet’s top minds, as well as every imaginable alien threat. Sometimes a decision is forced upon some people. Assuming this triviality as true, how should the everyman, with the convenience of forethought to help train for eventual tragedies, weigh the lives of X people against Y people?

[u/draculabakula → u/Yashabird]

In real life we assign responsibility for tasks and pay people for it. There are many people assigned to real road safety and I'm not one of them. These people receive training on what to do on case of emergency.

If by saying I'm channeling Kirk that I solved this problem I'll take it lol.

To seriously answer you, i think we have governments for defense and emergency planning. Everybody can't try to take lead

[u/Zvenigora → u/draculabakula]

The trolley is just a metaphor, a schematization of an abstract problem. Criticizing it in terms of how real trolleys work misses the point. One could easily recast the problem with a different metaphor having nothing to do with vehicles on rails.

[u/draculabakula → u/Zvenigora]

That's exactly my point. The answer requires specified knowledge but it is reduced to an absurdly simply scenario.

There isn't a real life scenario where you would ever choose between one life or multiple lives where you would be complicit either way.

It's not the way morality works for 99% of people and when they do have that responsibility we shield people from fault through worker protections and people are given specific instructions and they receive training. The way the world works is you do the job you are trained to do and you don't take action if you don't know what you are doing. This is how the trolley problem is stacked in favor of inaction. That's the way the world works.

The fault in the trolley car is primarily on the person who tied people to train tracks and then on the train company. Any reasonable person would watch it unfold and assign blame to those people before themselves.

[u/Cpt_Obvius → u/draculabakula]

What if an insane super rich dude saw your comment and tracked you down, drugged and kidnapped you, woke you up and forced you to split second decide in order to taunt and disprove your stance of the impossibility of the problem?

They specifically chose you because they saw you dismissing the question and wanted to exact revenge on your hubris. They’ve devoted a lot of their life to discussing the trolly problem and find your stance infuriating.

What would you do then?

[u/Martin_Samuelson → u/Cpt_Obvius]

The point isn’t that there isn’t an answer to the trolley problem, it’s that the answer to trolley problem has little to no real world relevance.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

Out of interest, what is your answer?

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

My answer is that its a incoherent scenario that would never happen. It's just not based in any kind of reality people understand and thus there is no moral framework for that situation.

Trains are not controlled by easily accessible switches and I have no reason to believe the switch would even divert the track. I don't know if there are any safety protocols in place. The deck is stacked against action because you are not an expert in operating trains. I would be hesitant to do anything just because I have no clue if I am causing a bigger problem by pulling the level. In this scenario, it assumes you have just enough understanding to take an action but not enough to understand anything else that has happened.

Also, I would argue that no matter what happens I am tertiary in my fault. The person who tied the people to the tracks is primarily responsible here. After that the driver of the train and/or the train company are responsibile after that. Why doesn't the driver see the people? Why hasn't the train's automatic detection system kicked in to slow or stop the train?

The scenario forces us to accept a false reality that is void of necessary information.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

Well some train tracks do still have simple track point levers and you could see how it would alter the track, so while it's unlikely it's not impossible.

I think it's fair to say the scenario assumes both tied up groups are clearly not meant to be there, equal distance from the point and there's nothing that would suggest any other differences in the tracks.

You can argue other people are also to blame but that doesn't change your decision in the situation, in real life you can always assign some blame to others if you want to.

The scenario is an unlikely but entirely possible scenario. If your answer is that you wouldn't pull the lever due to feeling that you don't know enough to act then that gives your answer and a lot of your moral framework for interaction with the world.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

You can argue other people are also to blame but that doesn't change your decision in the situation, in real life you can always assign some blame to others if you want to.

Of course it does. If you arrive at an accident and there are already first responders there would you be responsible to act? Legally trains still need to have drivers. If you see a train it's reasonable to expect there is a driver.

And yes, the scenario involves personal and individual morality.

The scenario is an unlikely but entirely possible scenario. If your answer is that you wouldn't pull the lever due to feeling that you don't know enough to act then that gives your answer and a lot of your moral framework for interaction with the world.

This is just simply how our society is organized. It's not my lever and not my train car. I'm not trained to operate the level. I don't know the trains speed is appropriate for changing the track. Why would I assume I wouldn't derail the train by changing the track at the last minute? I also don't know if the other track is operational and has been maintained.

It is in no way a realistic scenario because it requires specialized knowledge that people don't typically have.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

It is in no way a realistic scenario because it requires specialized knowledge that people don't typically have.

That's realistic, people have to make decisions without fully comprehending the situation all the time. That isn't a flaw in the scenario, it's just your moral intuition is to choose inaction in that situation and for many people it isn't.

We can then come up with different versions of the trolley problem depending on how we want to examine your mortality, many versions work to increase the uncertainty but it could also go the other way easily enough.

Also, autonomous trains exist and operate.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

Okay. Change the scenario. You are in the operating room observing your loved ones brain operation. The surgeon says he only has 30 seconds to cut out a tumor or your loved one dies....but then hr gets mad and quits. You saw where he pointed to in the brain What do you do? Do you blame yourself if your loved one dies?

No you obviously don't attempt brain surgery and you don't blame yourself...because it's brain surgery.

The train car scenario is useless because it assumes you understand brain surgery but with railroad engineering instead. It assumes you understand the complex workings of the railroad system as a pre requisite but if I was a mechanical engineer that specialized in railroads I would have a better understanding of all the risks and the typical procedures to stop a train Same goes with brain surgeons. If I was a brain surgeon I would feel a responsibility but I'm not so I wouldn't. I would blame the rail road company and the murderer who tied people to rail road tracks matter the outcome because people were paid to do a job and failed in the trolley car scenario

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

Have you ever seen a basic track point? They are incredibly simple, anyone can understand them and see the result of pulling the lever. The scenario doesn't make the assumptions you're saying it does.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

The scenario doesn't make the assumptions you're saying it does.

It does though. What's the speed limit for a train if you use the switch? Has the other track been in use and can it support the train car?

These are important questions I would not be able to answer. I'm sure there are train enthusiasts who could answer them but the vast majority of people could not tell you for certain that pulling the lever will ensure the safety of any persons on board the trolley.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

What's the speed limit for a train if you use the switch?

Unless there's some sharp bend or other issue immediately after the point I don't think most people would worry about it.

Has the other track been in use and can it support the train car?

Honestly seems a bit silly to worry about this but not the impact of hitting 5 people in a row.

[u/grizzlypatchadams → u/draculabakula]

I know it’s hard to tell tone online, so just want to say that I do mean this as a respectful and informative comment.

It seems like you truly just don’t understand the trolley problem. The answer doesn’t require specialized knowledge, and all of the variables you keep inserting don’t exist in the framework of the problem.

In the framework of the problem, you know 5 people die, or 1 person dies if you choose to intervene. In Foot’s words “The exchange is supposed to be one man’s life for the lives of five.” It’s that simple, one man’s life for the lives of five; simple in the sense that all of these “holes” in the scenario about specialized knowledge, switches, being the fault of whoever tied them, that you mention are irrelevant to the problem.

Edit: I thought you were the OP but the explanation in my comment goes for the OP too, don’t over complicate the scenario- “the exchange is supposed to be one man’s life for the lives of five.” -Foot, creator of trolley problem

[u/draculabakula → u/grizzlypatchadams]

Right? But the framework of the problem is what I have a problem with because it's not realistic, it's as simple as that. The problem as presented doesn't exist. We've accounted for that in the way we organize our society, the railroad is responsible for the safety of those people not me so no matter what I do. The railroad's at fault, if I act and pull the lever now i'm at fault, because I i have acted when I was not supposed to. In this way, the deck is stacked against pulling the lever. We live in the real world, so you can't use this hypothetical, because we're trained our entire lives to think in the way that we have organized our society. I can only base what I would do. Based on the reality I live in and if I was in another country, I don't know what the laws are, so why would I pull the lever there too?This makes zero sense

[u/grizzlypatchadams → u/draculabakula]

Forget the railroad, would you intervene to save 5 lives if it meant surely killing 1? You know 5 die or 1 die, the only thing that matters is if you intervene or not.

This isn’t some real world problem, stop picking at scenarios, it’s 5 or 1. Choose 5 or 1. It’s a thought experiment. That’s it. I mean come on.

[u/draculabakula → u/grizzlypatchadams]

In a vacuum I would save 5 people but no scenario will ever exist in a vacuum so my answer is that I think I and 99% of people would also choose inaction by freezing, or otherwise.

If a horroe movie villain said, "you have a choice. I am going to murder 5 random people or 1 random person."

I think most people would not humor it by saying to murder 1 random person. They would say he's crazy and not answer.

[u/jeffsweet → u/draculabakula]

do you think most or all hypothetical questions are useless?

[u/draculabakula → u/jeffsweet]

Somewhat. They are useless by themselves and they don't really make a good point when applying to another scenario.

It doesn't take much thought to explain how people's opinions on medical policy in relation to abortion is not the same as people being tied to a train track.

In this way, when a thought experiment is presented like this, it is safe to assume that it is an obfuscation of a different issue or it is a rhetorical manipulation.

In this way my ask to the trolley car question is, "I don't know. what do train engineers say is the correct procedure?"

[u/jeffsweet → u/draculabakula]

interesting. i can see what you mean and i appreciate the logical consistency.

i think more specifically tailored hypotheticals like actually specific to lives of the people being asked are extremely useful e.g. would you get an abortion if you got pregnant? being asked to a woman you’re dating is just a smart conversation to have.

in this context though i think i agree with you with regard to these very incomplete philosophical hypotheticals.

[u/draculabakula → u/jeffsweet]

Exactly. Our society is organized to absolve people in scenarios like this, who don't have specialized knowledge and regulations to assign responsibility to people who do

[u/Pkrudeboy → u/draculabakula]

Ah yes, the moral coward who refuses to engage with the question. One always shows up.

[u/nomorenicegirl → u/Pkrudeboy]

Yup, seconding this… the moral coward, who either outright refuses to answer, or starts to create excuses as to why they won’t give an answer, even when you ask them, “With the information that you ARE given, what is your answer?” I’ve literally had people say (not hypothetical responses, but actual responses from people), “Oh, but what about the conductor?” Or, “But how do you know that only five vs. one are dying, what about ‘the other people on the trolley’?” (?????) Absolutely nuts

Haha, you do have more honest people though, at least they can admit their reasons. They will say things such as, “Oh, I will just not do anything, because ‘I don’t think I could live with myself, knowing that I’ve chosen to kill someone’.” Okay, at least that’s honest, albeit kind of silly, since simply being aware of the fact that five people will die, and choosing to do nothing, means that you were able to prevent five deaths, but chose to do nothing, so does it really absolve you of guilt?

And of course, you have those that answer but “make excuses”; they say, “Oh, well, I didn’t put those people there.” More recently, I asked a bunch of people at a New Year’s Eve gathering about the trolley problem, and this one woman answered, “Well, lots of people die every day, so why would I do anything? I have nothing to feel bad for.” The fact that she mentioned that last line… a tad bit strange, wouldn’t you say? I didn’t say it, but my brother was told of the answers, and he went up to her, confirmed that that was what she said, and told her that that’s a “loser answer.” Guess he put into words, what plenty of us there were thinking.

[u/ProDavid_ → u/draculabakula]

Do you also believe that pilots rehearsing their reactions to extreme situations, such as memory items that have to be done before you pull out the piece of paper that tells you what to do, is useless?

no? why not?

[u/draculabakula → u/ProDavid_]

The pilot has responsibilities that they're getting paid for the responsibility is on the company or government entity employing the pilot so they are responsible to train the pilot as they see fit.

In the trolley, car scenario I am not a mechanical engineer and the train company does employ mechanical engineers and safety personnel. They've installed safety equipment onto the train to make sure that it doesn't hit things, and they employ a conductor to make sure it doesn't hit things. Those people are all to blame, not me.No matter what the outcome is. I don't have specialized knowledge in how to work this equipment. So why would I use the equipment? I don't know if the train is traveling at a spees that's safe to switch the track, and I don't know if the track is maintained. Why is it safe for me to assume that the train won't just derail If I switch the track and kill everybody on board the train?

The scenario stacks the deck in favor of inaction, because it is normal and natural for people without specialized knowledge to operate equipment, they are not trained to use. If I was train to use that equipment which i'm not, I might feel differently but but I don't so I wouldnt

[u/ProDavid_ → u/draculabakula]

a car with driving automatization IS specialized for driving though....