Poll: The Fat Person And The Trolley (A Moral Question)

[JSDodd]

Needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, simple as.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Given how i would be arrested for causing the death of someone else, no.

If it was repercussion-free i still wouldn't do it because i dont want to have someone elses life on my consciousness.

... so you'd rather have 5 lives on your conscience?

That's not fair.
Throwing one person in front of a trolley is DIRECTLY killing them.
Not throwing someone in front of a trolley, which causes 5 other people to die, isn't directly killing anyone.

Not only that, but who are you to make that sacrifice for someone?
Why do you have the authority to commit that man to stop the trolley at the cost of his life?

Simple answer (And the correct one): You don't.
What if YOU were that fat man? Would you want someone making that choice for you? Regardless of whether you would choose to yourself or not, I'm sure no one here would want that choice made for them.

So you either murder someone to save 5, or you aren't a murderer and 5 people die.
That happens every day. You haven't killed anyone, and how many thousands died today because of starvation or preventable disease? And before you say "I can't help that", how many sponsor children do you have? How much have you given recently to third world charities to fight these diseases? How many homeless people have you walked past?

The trolley question may be far more immediate, but the final outcome is a complete parallel.

OT: I'd certainly sooner put myself in harm's way then volunteer someone else by murdering them. So, no. I wouldn't push him at all. That's not my decision to make.

I see things very differently to you. I'd say it makes no difference whether you murder someone "directly" or through inaction, so long as you willingly make the choice. If a man was hanging off a cliff, and someone chose not to help him back up (assuming they could do so easily and without personal risk), then in my opinion they are just as much of a murderer as someone who shoots another man.

In this situation it is a choice between allowing 1 death to happen, or allowing 5. It makes no difference if one is "direct" and one involves "inaction", at the end of the day it is within your power to choose either one, so why not choose the one that minimizes the death of innocent people?

The law, for one, dear reader. You don't owe the people on the trolly any standard of care. However, I do think you owe the fat person the standard of care not to kill him. It's not your choice to make. It is his.

I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is right. They are not always the same thing.

They are not. However, you could go to jail for this. And I am simpily not willing to kill someone AND go to jail in this matter

Guilt by action and guilt by proxy are two very different things. And saying that people should sacrifice others for "the greater good" is wrong. Simply put: it is the fat guys life. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide how it will end. If he wishes to do so, that is his choice. By killing him, you have commited a crime.

 

[AWDMANOUT]

No. While it would save a larger number of lives, who am I to decide who lives and who dies when I know nothing of the people involved? I might try (and fail) to stop it myself, but I wouldn't sacrifice another person without their consent.

 

[veryboringfact]

wtf ? The OP acts as if "fat person"'s weight is the only issue, refusing to give any background or credibility to the occupants of the trolley so i'll assume you dont know the person and never will nor do you know or relate to any of the 5 people in the trolley - you might as well ask "would you sacrifice an anonymous fat person either for some spiritual well-being or just for fucking lulz", in which case yes I would, who wouldn't ? The trolley could be full of nazis. There is no possible solution to your scenario that doesn't either indicate you want the 5 people to die, or that fatty was just in the wrong place and the wrong time and his death serves a greater good that is not your place to judge, i.e pushing him is the only "human" choice and you cannot truly be held personally responsable for doing what anyone would have done.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Yes, but that is not to save the people.

I just dont like fat people.

 

[michiehoward]

so dos that mean i have to jump in front of the moving trolley then?

 

[Hobonicus]

Given how i would be arrested for causing the death of someone else, no.

If it was repercussion-free i still wouldn't do it because i dont want to have someone elses life on my consciousness.

... so you'd rather have 5 lives on your conscience?

Yes, I'd do it, without hesitation. I'd probably feel pretty bad about it afterwards, but when it's a choice between saving 5 people or saving one the answer is obvious.

There wouldn't be 5 lives on your conscience (at least not in the same way as the one fat guy) because it's not you that caused their deaths. You would be intentionally killing one man, whereas if you let them go, you simply wouldn't have had anything to do with it. There's a biiiig difference between murder and being a neutral bystander. It's not a simple quantity problem.

For the record, I wouldn't push him. I don't know any of the people, nor how they got in that situation, and I'm not gonna sacrifice the life of an oblivious stranger to get them out of their own predicament.

 

[Dragonforce525]

For legal reasons, no I wouldn't, if my family were on that trolley, then yes I would.

 

[DEAD34345]

Personally, I'd say it's far more morally reprehensible to willingly cause the death of 5 innocent people through inaction, than it is to kill one and save 5. When you're making the choice to let people die, what difference does it make whether that choice is a physical action or not?

Well, then why aren't you off saving people right now?
People are dying all over the world and you are sitting on your ass discussing ethics over the internet. If inaction is so morally reprehensible you should be out helping people.

True, and I do. I help the people around me whenever possible, and I give money to charity. Not that that argument really applies in this situation anyway, because the situation in the question involves no negative repercussions either way. Helping people any more than I already do would cause harm to me, so I don't do it. This is very selfish of course, but what can I say? I'm selfish, so is 99% of the human race.

In the hypothetical situation on this thread you have the opportunity to stop the death of innocent people at no cost to yourself, so why not do it?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Personally, I'd say it's far more morally reprehensible to willingly cause the death of 5 innocent people through inaction, than it is to kill one and save 5. When you're making the choice to let people die, what difference does it make whether that choice is a physical action or not?

Well, then why aren't you off saving people right now?
People are dying all over the world and you are sitting on your ass discussing ethics over the internet. If inaction is so morally reprehensible you should be out helping people.

True, and I do. I help the people around me whenever possible, and I give money to charity. Not that that argument really applies in this situation anyway, because the situation in the question involves no negative repercussions either way. Helping people any more than I already do would cause harm to me, so I don't do it. This is very selfish of course, but what can I say? I'm selfish, so is 99% of the human race.

In the hypothetical situation on this thread you have the opportunity to stop the death of innocent people at no cost to yourself, so why not do it?

Because it would cause harm to someone else. Therein lies people's problems. I don't want ANYONE making decisions on my own life for me.

 

[MorgulMan]

No. Consequentialism is a monstrous crock and the ends do not justify the means.

As several of the morally saner posters above have noted, there is a difference between actively killing a man and allowing a man to die because you have no way (or in this case, no legitimate, morally acceptable way) of saving him. Just because you can, in the context of the thought problem, stop the trolley by killing the fat man, doesn't mean it is moral, any more than if the thought problem posited not a fat man, but an anti-inertia ray powered by the final gasp of a strangled baby.

 

[Hedonist]

Personally, I'd say it's far more morally reprehensible to willingly cause the death of 5 innocent people through inaction, than it is to kill one and save 5. When you're making the choice to let people die, what difference does it make whether that choice is a physical action or not?

Well, then why aren't you off saving people right now?
People are dying all over the world and you are sitting on your ass discussing ethics over the internet. If inaction is so morally reprehensible you should be out helping people.

True, and I do. I help the people around me whenever possible, and I give money to charity. Not that that argument really applies in this situation anyway, because the situation in the question involves no negative repercussions either way. Helping people any more than I already do would cause harm to me, so I don't do it. This is very selfish of course, but what can I say? I'm selfish, so is 99% of the human race.

In the hypothetical situation on this thread you have the opportunity to stop the death of innocent people at no cost to yourself, so why not do it?

So if you admit that selfishness is not immoral, as it is human nature, you must admit that it is not immoral to do nothing in the given situation. Because that is the selfish option. If you push the man in front of the trolley, you might have done something that is moral in your eyes, but you're going to jail for murdering your fellow man. So in this case helping the people in the trolley harms both you and the man you murdered. How exactly is it then moral to kill the man?

 

[Obsideo]

First off, forgive me if this is a common moral question, but I'd only heard about it today..

Sorry, did you say "pregnant woman", or "big black guy"?

Your discriminatory question is offensive.

What do you mean?

 

[DEAD34345]

They are not. However, you could go to jail for this. And I am simpily not willing to kill someone AND go to jail in this matter

Guilt by action and guilt by proxy are two very different things. And saying that people should sacrifice others for "the greater good" is wrong. Simply put: it is the fat guys life. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide how it will end. If he wishes to do so, that is his choice. By killing him, you have commited a crime.

So if you admit that selfishness is not immoral, as it is human nature, you must admit that it is not immoral to do nothing in the given situation. Because that is the selfish option. If you push the man in front of the trolley, you might have done something that is moral in your eyes, but you're going to jail for murdering your fellow man. So in this case helping the people in the trolley harms both you and the man you murdered. How exactly is it then moral to kill the man?

Ok, fair enough, if your concern is that you would get in trouble over it then I can agree. I was talking under the assumption that it was a strictly moral question, and that negative repercussions (other than your own conscience) would not come into it.

However, assuming that there is no negative repercussions on oneself for this, I would push the man. I agree that morally I have no right to end the life of the fat man, but I also have no right to end the lives of the other 5 innocents. In this situation I've been given the power to decide which of them lives and which of them dies, whether it is right that I should be able to do this or not, so why not minimize the innocent deaths?

After it's over, the only difference will be that there is one innocent corpse on the ground or there is 5. I consider choosing the 5 to be morally wrong.

Because it would cause harm to someone else. Therein lies people's problems. I don't want ANYONE making decisions on my own life for me.

Yes, but your inaction will cause harm not only to someone else, but to 5 other people. I'll bet the 5 people on the trolley don't want you to make the decision to end their life either.

(Being quoted way too much here, sorry if I missed out any.)

 

[Baradiel]

Wait. A trolley? As in a shopping trolley?

I'm presuming 'trolley' has another meaning in... I'm presuming the OP is American? (And before anyone goes insane at me, that is in no way a dig, or an insult, or whatever, towards America. Its a perfectly legitimate societal difference between language in the UK and the US)

^^ That might seem slightly heavyhanded for a defence, but I had to make sure someone didn't completely misinterpret.

Anyway, question still stands: what sort of trolley?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

They are not. However, you could go to jail for this. And I am simpily not willing to kill someone AND go to jail in this matter

Guilt by action and guilt by proxy are two very different things. And saying that people should sacrifice others for "the greater good" is wrong. Simply put: it is the fat guys life. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide how it will end. If he wishes to do so, that is his choice. By killing him, you have commited a crime.

So if you admit that selfishness is not immoral, as it is human nature, you must admit that it is not immoral to do nothing in the given situation. Because that is the selfish option. If you push the man in front of the trolley, you might have done something that is moral in your eyes, but you're going to jail for murdering your fellow man. So in this case helping the people in the trolley harms both you and the man you murdered. How exactly is it then moral to kill the man?

Ok, fair enough, if your concern is that you would get in trouble over it then I can agree. I was talking under the assumption that it was a strictly moral question, and that negative repercussions (other than your own conscience) would not come into it.

However, assuming that there is no negative repercussions on oneself for this, I would push the man. I agree that morally I have no right to end the life of the fat man, but I also have no right to end the lives of the other 5 innocents. In this situation I've been given the power to decide which of them lives and which of them dies, whether it is right that I should be able to do this or not, so why not minimize the innocent deaths?

After it's over, the only difference will be that there is one innocent corpse on the ground or there is 5. I consider choosing the 5 to be morally wrong.

Because it would cause harm to someone else. Therein lies people's problems. I don't want ANYONE making decisions on my own life for me.

Yes, but your inaction will cause harm not only to someone else, but to 5 other people. I'll bet the 5 people on the trolley don't want you to make the decision to end their life either.

(Being quoted way too much here, sorry if I missed out any.)

There lies a distinction between harm by action, and harm by inaction. Let me put it this way: if I don't stop two people from killing each other, I am not responsible for their deaths. I argue that you don't have ANY right to make a choice in the matter, because it's not your life on the line. But I can see we aren't going to agree, which is fine.

 

[Hedonist]

They are not. However, you could go to jail for this. And I am simpily not willing to kill someone AND go to jail in this matter

Guilt by action and guilt by proxy are two very different things. And saying that people should sacrifice others for "the greater good" is wrong. Simply put: it is the fat guys life. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide how it will end. If he wishes to do so, that is his choice. By killing him, you have commited a crime.

So if you admit that selfishness is not immoral, as it is human nature, you must admit that it is not immoral to do nothing in the given situation. Because that is the selfish option. If you push the man in front of the trolley, you might have done something that is moral in your eyes, but you're going to jail for murdering your fellow man. So in this case helping the people in the trolley harms both you and the man you murdered. How exactly is it then moral to kill the man?

Ok, fair enough, if your concern is that you would get in trouble over it then I can agree. I was talking under the assumption that it was a strictly moral question, and that negative repercussions (other than your own conscience) would not come into it.

However, assuming that there is no negative repercussions on oneself for this, I would push the man. I agree that morally I have no right to end the life of the fat man, but I also have no right to end the lives of the other 5 innocents. In this situation I've been given the power to decide which of them lives and which of them dies, whether it is right that I should be able to do this or not, so why not minimize the innocent deaths?

After it's over, the only difference will be that there is one innocent corpse on the ground or there is 5. I consider choosing the 5 to be morally wrong.

Because it would cause harm to someone else. Therein lies people's problems. I don't want ANYONE making decisions on my own life for me.

Yes, but your inaction will cause harm not only to someone else, but to 5 other people. I'll bet the 5 people on the trolley don't want you to make the decision to end their life either.

(Being quoted way too much here, sorry if I missed out any.)

But you have no obligation to the people in the trolley. Their death and live are not your concern or responsibility. It is therefor completely in your right to not help those people, but you do not have the right to sacrifice another man against his will. You do have an obligation to him, which is not murdering him. In one case five people you don't know die by no fault of your own, in the other case you consciencely and willingly murder a man.

 

[DEAD34345]

There lies a distinction between harm by action, and harm by inaction. Let me put it this way: if I don't stop two people from killing each other, I am not responsible for their deaths. I argue that you don't have ANY right to make a choice in the matter, because it's not your life on the line. But I can see we aren't going to agree, which is fine.

Yep, this is where we disagree. I think there lies a distinction between harm by choice, and unintended harm. I don't think there's a difference between harm by action and harm by inaction, so long as you choose to do it.

(Of course I wouldn't stop 2 people killing each other either, but that's due to concerns over my own safety. If I had a magic wand that would make them both immediately forget about each other and go on with their lives, I'd definitely use it.)

But you have no obligation to the people in the trolley. Their death and live are not your concern or responsibility. It is therefor completely in your right to not help those people, but you do not have the right to sacrifice another man against his will. You do have an obligation to him, which is not murdering him. In one case five people you don't know die by no fault of your own, in the other case you consciencely and willingly murder a man.

This is where we disagree. I think that by "consciously and willingly" choosing to do nothing, you are "consciously and willingly" murdering 5 people. Whether there is a physical action involved or not is irrelevant (in my opinion).

 

[Dags90]

Anyway, question still stands: what sort of trolley?

It's a form of light rail, fills a transportation niche similar to buses. Apparently they're also called streetcars (which you would think would just mean cars) or trams.

You've never heard "Clank, clank, clank goes the trolley"?