Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Trolley Problem
Today in class we had a very controversial discussion about the trolley problem and, at the end of the discussion, the bystander example was brought up. Although we talked about the decision of whether to change the track of the trolley as being completely up to the bystander, what if the decision could be up to the bystander or the trolley driver. This would change the scenario because, if the bystander were to respond, he/she would be intervening on the situation. Do you guys think that the bystander is obligated to intervene or should he/she walk away and leave the decision up to the driver?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think the bystander should intervene in this situation. It is the trolley drivers duty to drive the trolley, as it is what he was trained to do. It would be unfair for the bystander to intervene, because he/she does not need to be involved in the outcome of this scenario. If the bystander chooses to intervene, he/she will ultimately feel some type of guilt towards the people he lets die. On the other hand, if the trolley driver makes the decision, the bystander will still witness a horrible tragedy, but will not feel as though it was his/her fault.
ReplyDeleteI do see Molly’s point, but at the same time, wouldn’t the bystander feel guilty by not intervening? By witnessing the tragedy, the bystander could live with a sense of regret over the outcome, along with not taking an active role in the situation. Regardless of what choice the bystander would make, the easy way out would be to walk away and assume no responsibility. However, guilt would begin to fester inside this individual. Ultimately, I do not think this is feasible for most people as we often see it as our moral obligation to intervene when we are witness to a horrible tragedy, especially if we are the only person there. This is a very personal choice, but I think most people would try and alter the trolley’s course based on their perception of what would be morally right to do if the trolley driver was not acting in time.
ReplyDeleteI think that the question with the bystander becomes very difficult but I think two different things could happen. All of us would choose the one person to die over the five because that is "morally" correct. Now the guilt and responsibly that Larissa brought up will be something the person would have to live with. There was nothing they could do to stop the train so letting the one person die was technically the right thing. I am a strong believer that people do not know how they will actually act when they are faced with a situation. In regards to both the trolley problem and the surgeon, you never know what type of people you will get and the back story that accompanies each situation. Finding a specific general choice is very difficult because you will be surprised how each scenario can change your choice.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that whether or not the trolley driver is present would have no effect on the decision of the bystander. Even if the driver of the trolley is behind the controls, he or she may not be making the decision that we deemed was morally right, saving the five and sacrificing the one. Therefore the entire outcome of the scenario remains on the conscious of the bystander. In both instances the outcome of the situation can be altered by them in a somewhat positive way. Although dealing with the death of the one individual would be tough, choosing to walk away and doing nothing seems like it would be even harder. If the bystander were to choose that path then they would have even more guilt in my opinion. In this regard I think that due to the presumed guilt of the bystander, he or she will act the same way regardless of the presence of the driver because either way they still have a responsibility to act morally.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to agree with Larissa. Assuming the conditions surrounding the problem are the same and the trolley driver cannot control the trolley, I feel that the bystander would be obligated to act. If he chose not to act I feel as if there wouldn't be much difference between allowing the 5 people die and actively choosing to keep the trolley on its course so that it would kill the 5 people and save the one. Either way 5 people would still die and I think you could argue that choice to act and the choice not to act each bear a certain kind of weight. We could justify acting by analyzing the intent (as I believe Jonathan brought up in class the other day). If you chose to act you made the decision to save 5 people (if that was your ultimate choice) which you presumably did because it did the most good. In that decision there was a clear intent to do good while the choice not to act seems to carry no intent to do good.
ReplyDeleteI have to also agree with Larissa. I even think adding the driver into the situation would increase the bystander's sense of guilt if they did nothing. I think I would be more inclined to end up thinking "I was standing right there I should have saved five lives instead of one" rather than saying it wasn't my place. Just by being there I have the responsibility to do something. Whether the bystander decides to pull the lever or not and whether or not there is a driver involved they are going to have guilt either way because they are caught in an unfortunate situation.
ReplyDelete