even a two-year old can reason that maximizing utility with toys is not portable to moralizing questions about a train wreck in real life, which he likely can't even really fathom. the only teachable moment here is that he doesn't understand the question.
fwiw, the right answer is to try and pull the train off the tracks. and, i'm not missing the point.
sm901ftw
But what about the guys in the train you just derailed?
jessica
i don't think that derailing the train decreases their chances of surviving an impact.
sm901ftw
If you're saying the right answer to the trolley problem is to forcibly derail the train while it's in motion, then the train will probably crash hard. There's a good chance some people on the train are going to die or suffer serious injury in the crash.
This of course assumes we're considering an actual train with passengers to kill.
jessica
i realize that derailing the train is going to cause it to crash hard. but, it's going to crash hard, anyways. that is a constant through all scenarios.
sm901ftw
Maybe. I don't think hitting someone would cause the train to derail. Idk but I imagine suicide/murder by train would be much less common if it also frequently derailed the trains.
Even then it still doesn't change the moral question much. The only difference in the new scenario is now you have to chose between total inaction, actively minimising the number of deaths (changing to hit the 1 person) or actively trying to save everyone but by putting the most people at risk to do so (forced derailment).
jessica
no, you're not...
the train is going to crash under all circumstances. what happens after it runs over the one person? it crashes. it's out of control. it will crash. so, derailing the train minimizes the risk of harm to only those on board, which is the best possible outcome.
i would actually argue that it doesn't matter if you pull the switch or not, because i wouldn't value six lives as more important than one. in the typical formulation of the problem, i would argue you should do nothing, say something about how shit happens and go smoke a joint. there's simply no positive course of action and you shouldn't pretend that there is. that's not rare, either.
but, if you can get the train off the tracks before it hits anybody, you're accomplishing something.
sm901ftw
Is the train definitely out of control? I've heard so many versions of this problem I can't say for sure which is the original anymore.
If you know it's out of control then you have a good point, but unless you're on the train you have no idea whether it's a runaway or the driver just hasn't seen the people on the track. Also I wasn't making any judgement on which action is best. I was just saying you seemed to be treating causing a crash as an objectively better decision than letting it hit anyone. There're moral implications no matter what you do.
Plus I think the point of the problem is to discuss whether actively causing a little harm is acceptable when the alternative is passively allowing a lot of harm to occur. In that sense derailing the train can still be regarded as actively causing harm, just to different people. Whether they're at risk regardless isn't the point so much as whether you pull the trigger. Or at least that's how I interpret it.
jessica
well, if there's a way to stop the train then there's no dilemma: you stop the train. that you can't stop the train is the basis of the problem. it follows that the crash is unavoidable, and i'm not measuring outcomes so much as minimizing harm.
i want to be clear: i'm not saying the crash is morally preferable. i'm claiming it's unavoidable. it's consequently the only way to interfere that is objectively preferable.
what you're constructing is what i'm rejecting, and why i'm not missing the point. the answer is no: it is not acceptable to play god. you are neither causing nor preventing harm. you are redistributing it. you don't have the right to make the choice to kill somebody to prevent the deaths of others. it's not up to you to make that choice. you should walk away from the situation altogether.
what i'm saying is that if you can't stop the train, you should do nothing at all. but, you should also try to stop the train, somehow.
sm901ftw
I'm not trying to drag this out, but I genuinely don't see why the crash is confirmed as unavoidable. Unless you're in the drivers seat you can't be sure the train is out of control. I was always told the problem in the sense that the train won't stop in time, but is still functional and capable of stopping at some point i.e. the train is fine but the people are around a corner and not in sight.
All you have control of at the switch is which way the train goes and supposedly a way to derail it. You have to work on the assumption that the train won't stop in time to prevent someone being run over. You aren't in a position to know whether the train is a runaway and can't be saved after it's hit someone.
jessica
you're not changing the logic of the situation. for the sake of argument, if i concede the point, even though i don't think it makes any sense, then the correct answer remains non-interference.