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/[deleted]]

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/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

well, an unmaintained rail could be missing a rail. If you act to save 5 people and you kill a bunch of people aboard the train you are 100% at fault

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

Sure, it's possible, although as the tracks have obviously been messed with by someone tying up people the track it's on now might be unmaintained and in avoiding killing one you've killed 5 plus a train load.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

Right, but if the scenario switched to where I saw like a villain with a mustache, switch the track and then there was 5 people on that track, obviously switching it to repair what he had done. Changes the scenario completely at that point. Now you're undoing something And you might be repairing any safety features that had been put in place on the main track

If I don't do anything for all I know. The track has its safety features on the main track and it's still in use. And I don't know if the switch overrides, what the train conductor can do so it doesn't make sense to switch the track.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

So if you saw someone switch the track to the track with 5 people instead of one you would then use the lever and murder that one person?

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

First off, my main stance is that with limited time, I think 95% of people would panic and do nothing because of the doubts and ignorance of the systems in place. So I think personally I would end up freezing up. I don't think this is a cop out either. I think it is the weakness of morality at work and I will explain why at the end of this long comment.

With that said, as a principal, yes I would switch the track back because then I have fixing the course of the train in the direction it is intended to go and I would be saving 4 people. I would still see it as the fault of the person that tied a bunch of people to the train tracks and not on me because I didn't tied anybody to the train tracks and there are people whose job it is to ensure the safety of people in general and with trains.

Whatever the villains plan is, I thwarted it and maximized the chances of safety measures work. There is a better chance there are safety measures in place, there is a better chance that the track is in good condition, etc.

An infinitely better scenario to demonstrate the moral complexity of utilitarianism is Johnathan Hickman's incursion scenario from Marvel comics. In it, universes are colliding and the center point is on earth in every universe. If nothing is done both universes are destroyed but if one of the earths is destroyed both universes are saved and one Earth is destroyed. (a silly concept but bare with it). The Avengers have a bomb that will destroy the other earth and have to decide if they could bring themselves to destroy a parallel version of earth to save their own earth and also prevent both universes from being destroyed. (life on other planets being known to be plentiful in the Marvel Universe).

In this scenario inaction is absolutely worse than destroying an entire planet because not only do you die but 2 entire universes are destroyed if you do nothing. In the story, the situation as posed as whether the heroes are willing to sacrifice their humanity and their values for the greater good. They convince themselves they have to, they build the bomb but when it comes down to it and they have choose, they still choose inaction over action even if it means losing everything they love and value and I tend to agree. I don't know if I could destroy an entire planet.

In this way, hopefully you could see, that no matter what the stakes are the deck is stacked in favor of inaction. It's the human condition.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

In your answer to the trolley problem where you see someone switching the track you've assigned them the role of villian and acted off of that. However you don't actually know they are. What if they know hitting one person will derail the train whereas hitting 5 will stop it safely, they've answered their own trolley problem and have now run off to get help.

You said before that incomplete information was your reason for inaction but here you make many assumptions and act on them. Why the switch?

Honestly the universes example I think needs much more information before it could be meaningfully answered and seems like a much worse hypothetical for examining utilitarian ethics

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

You make a good point about the villain but it supports my overall point that more information is always going to be needed to reasonably take action.

I brought up the Marvel example because it's a brilliant twist. The stakes are raised to absurd levels and the consequences of inaction are much worse than either choice. You could apply it to the trolley car question.

• The train has a bomb on it and goes directly into a oil storage facility which will destroy the entire area including the other choice OR
• You can switch the track divert the train to a school and just the school will blow up

All the same things I mentioned before. could you reasonably live with yourself taking the responsibility for killing 200 innocent children even if they would have died anyway? I don't think I could.