Talk:Trolley problem

The Non-problem

I'm not sure why this problem should occupy philosophers at all.

(1) Trolleys do not steer themselves. If you are operating a runaway trolley, you follow the track for which the switch is thrown and are limited to using the brake (or the power reverse).

(2) Trolley and railroad sidings have derails installed to prevent cars on the siding from wandering onto the main line. The derails also would force a runaway trolley off the track were a switch tender able to throw the switch to the siding. No one on the track down the line would die, and the only people endangered by someone throwing the switch would be occupants of the trolley (which would derail or be thrown from the track by the sharpness of the curve into the siding).

(3) Of course, anyone in a position to throw the switch also is in a position to shout a warning to anyone on the track to get off the track. Since trolley tracks are private property, it is illegal for anyone not employed by the company to be on the track in the first place, and railroads have to employ extreme care to protect workers they send to work on tracks. Procedure here is set by the railroad's operating rules, which every employee must read, know, and keep with him.

(4) To get around this problem and maintain what after all is a silly dilemma, philosophers always add that some Simon Legree has tied people up and left them on the tracks (so they cannot move). But, that obviously changes the entire problem because now we're dealing with a criminal enterprise inflicted by a third party. To answer the question, one therefore needs to consult the criminal law (which says you cannot sacrifice one person to save another, even yourself).

(5) Finally, with regard to diverting the trolley into the derail, the railroad employee is bound by the law of contract and the civil law. He therefore has no authorization to endanger passengers on the trolley and in his care to save trespassers walking on the line. He can rush ahead to try to warn the trespassers (and certainly should try to do that); but, if he's unsuccessful, he does not thereby become the proximate cause of the trespassers' deaths. They had an obligation not to be on the tracks in the first place.

In short, the entire problem is a contrivance. The philosopher starts by imposing conditions which never would occur, precisely because railroads long ago had to answer to laws punishing negligence and therefore installed safety devices (like derails) precisely to prevent people from being run over by runaway trolleys.

We can, if we like, change the problem to eliminate the track (a runaway rig for example on a public road). But, the problem with a rig is that it can be steered in a multitude of directions. The truck driver would have additional options than to run over one to avoid running over several.

So, the problem is non-existent -- spinning castles in the air.

-- Robert Brian Crim

---

How have you made it this long into life without knowing what a thought experiment it? Sure this will never actually happen this exact way, but we deal with similar moral issues all the time, everything from deciding whether wars are justified, allocating limited resources, or even just considering the basic consequences of our everyday actions. It's just an example problem...

---

I've never understood why people are so hostile to these scenarios; it's like they trigger an emotional upset that causes the listener to completely miss the entire point of the exercise. The fundamental point is to address questions like "Would you let 1 person die to save the lives of 5 people", regardless of whatever story/scenario/mechanics are used to present the question. Arguing the mechanics of the scenario, rather than the actual topic question itself, shows a lack of higher comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.40.236 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Responsibility to Act The trolly problem seems to rely on the relative lack of action as a moral stance in and of itself. What if the train was forced to go one of two ways but neither by default - so as to make the station manager forced to chose - and a line either going over one or going over five people must be chosen? The point being, the lack of action is an action. Those who have the ability to do something have the responsibility to do something; else, what is the point of ethics at all when we can just ignore the problem at hand? (PS - would love to hear contrasting views and alternate schools of thought) Amizzo (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Suicide option

How about the variant where you can prevent the deaths by throwing yourself on the line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.6.127 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Trolley Problem, Transplant problem

The Trolley Problem refers to the initial ethical problem posed by Phillipa Foot in 1967, NOT the developed problem created by Judith Thomson MUCH later in 1985. DO NOT just casually rewrite the article summary to reflect your own opinion without citing sources!Jmackaerospace (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right that I should have added cites, but you're wrong about the problem. Read the first three pages of Judy's article: she explicitly introduces the problem in just the way I described. And note that the phrase "trolley problem" doesn't appear in Foot. (Also, fwiw, I'm a moral philosopher at MIT, and I've talked with Judy about this many, many times.)

--anon who made that edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.20 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ad hominem

The following sentence from this article is an ad hominem:

The main author, Marc Hauser, was subsequently sanctioned by his then employer, Harvard University, in eight (unrelated) cases of gross research malpractice and data falsification, which arguably makes the data in any case unreliable.

bse3 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)