While I consider that the greater good is something one must consider if one is to be a serious person in the first place, the trolley will probably hit the bus at least a week before you come to your definitive objective answer, which will probably be wrong, because of sampling errors in the statistical methodology you used to figure out what the greater good requires.

The premise, that you are the person who happens to be in a position to decide who shall live and who shall not and with plenty of time to think it over is contrived, at best.

People who trot such arguments as examples of moral depth need to go back and finish adolescence.

And of course, there is always the question: "Well, what if you are mistaken", which is usually a very good question in the contexts in which this sort of "moral conumdrum" is used to justify killing the metaphorical fat guy, which IS, of course, the point of the whole thing.

Plus: you are going to be accused of murder.

You're absolutely right that this sort of thing is ridiculously simplistic.

But don't forget that generations of Jesuits and Quakers came up with this kind of stuff not so much to find answers as to find the right questions. It's the same as that God on the head of a pin thing-- just a mental exercise to get the brain ready for some real things. Or something to do in the priory after the ale was made.

Committing a morally abhorrent act of dubious value in preventing an inevitable tragedy I had nothing to do with... Had a lot of fun with this one at the "Should some one have killed Hitler? And when?" debates.

Last edited Wed Apr 1, 2015, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Morals and ethics is a thorny subject, especially in the hyped-up post-modern world we live in.

Nine times in ten these dilemmas have some ulterior motive behind them, the tenth is some fellow trying to look clever.

I've wandered all over math and logic and computing theory and some philosophy, and while those subjects are useful and illuminating I came to the conclusion that they represent the simpler and more accessible parts of how things really are.

In the meantime, it demands more than a set of abstract rules and simple-minded categories based on false notions of omniscience to deal with the messy reality of human life.

I chose 'do nothing' because the fat man's life is not mine to sacrifice.

I can ask him, given time, to sacrifice himself (Scenario prohibits this option). I can attempt to sacrifice myself (Scenario rules this option futile). There is no other moral option, to me. I can do nothing, and allow events to take their course, or I can murder the fat man.

The obvious connotation is, that saving those lives can outweigh the crime of murder.

as bemildred observed, rationalizing all the possibilities and weighing the virtues of every action would take far longer than you have.

One possibility is that the fat man is destined to find a cure for cancer next year and far more lives would be saved if he lives. Odds are against it, but the list is long. And you have to make a decision with the facts you have.

In the end, you are probably right that it is not a decision you should make. You would be playing God without the tools God is said to have to work with.

It just tugs at the emotions-- all those kids dying and you could have done something.

Our emotions balancing our reasoning... Perhaps that's a good thing in the long run, but in the short run it kinda sucks.

I think what people miss is that thinking takes time, lots of time.

In real life we run on heuristics and canned behaviors, as Kahneman pointed out, so the real question being asked is should you always push somebody in front of the trolley if you think it might save some other people?

You notice he is a fat guy too, someone more disposable, not a pretty girl or important banker, and the bus is full of kids, not convicts.

I can think of scenarios under which I would accept the idea that some must be made to die so that others may live, but damn few.

One of them would be where pushing an important banker in front of the trolley might save the kids. That I could overlook for the greater good.

Your link goes to an article on the Big Bang. I think this is the right link.

"There are no no-win scenarios" "There are always options"

and it's our job to come up with one.