The Trolley Dilemma II

[devin]

What a wonderful idea this Plato's cave is. I look forward to airing my prejudices. To start, here is the trolley dilemma as filtered through the cards.

The Trolley Dilemma: Divert the course of nature and kill one to save five or let nature take its course and let the five die?

Here is the full scenario:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

What do the cards think?



Moon/Hermit/Temperance

From a point of splendid isolation the old man ponders his illusions while ignoring the angel on his shoulder.

Yes, I like this. For one thing, the 'dilemma' is most certainly an illusion for it is a pure, free-floating abstraction. It is not reality. I think the Hermit's association with isolation works well to reinforce this angle (perhaps it is also a good fit for representing philosophers, in the contemporary sense). And I am inclined to read the Hermit in a negative light here owing to its proximity to the Moon. Also, I think the Hermit's focus on the Moon and his disinterest in the angel of Temperance is a strong sign that the trolley dilemma represents a real danger to our better natures (Temperance). On this front, I worry that such abstract moral exercises or 'thought experiments' are a perfect tool for sucking one into the tyranny of rationalist utilitarianism - an ideology that encourages the committing of barbarous acts in the pursuit of some imagined or future, thus abstract, good. To back this up, it is interesting to note that, in such exercises, a large majority choose to murder the individual. However, when the scenario is changed from flicking a switch to psychically pushing a person onto the track, the vast majority do not elect to kill the individual. This highlights both the rigged nature of such scenarios and the importance of psychological distance in the committing of unpleasant acts. Abstraction is a distancing technique par excellence.

To the best of my knowledge, variations on such 'moral' problems are taught to school children.

What fearful dreams are made for use to dream.

Peace,
Dev.

P.S. I found this a hard one to articulate, so I hope it makes sense.

[devin]

I was unaware that this topic had been previously explored. If anyone wishes to compare readings and conclusions, they can do so here: viewtopic.php?f=232&t=2079

[Diana]

On this front, I worry that such abstract moral exercises or 'thought experiments' are a perfect tool for sucking one into the tyranny of rationalist utilitarianism - an ideology that encourages the committing of barbarous acts in the pursuit of some imagined or future, thus abstract, good. To back this up, it is interesting to note that, in such exercises, a large majority choose to murder the individual. However, when the scenario is changed from flicking a switch to psychically pushing a person onto the track, the vast majority do not elect to kill the individual. This highlights both the rigged nature of such scenarios and the importance of psychological distance in the committing of unpleasant acts. Abstraction is a distancing technique par excellence.

The whole utilitarian business bothered me a lot when I did my reading on this Trolley Dilemma. It brought back all the debates we used to have in the animal rights movement when I was active in it. Peter Singer, the Australian utilitarian philosopher, wrote the seminal book Animal Liberation. The bitter and acrimonious discussions we used to have between those who opposed Peter Singer and those who didn't were legendary, although he's less spoken of now as others have come along since then to give a different slant on animal liberation, like Gary Francione whose principal theory is that animals should not be considered as property. I'm of the Francione camp. Singer once gave a talk once in a university on animal liberation, and he was heckled by people who called him a Nazi. That's how deep the feelings lay for some people.

I was interviewed once for a newspaper once on this topic, and I remember saying that utilitarianism leads to horrors such as as eugenics. It sounds like a good philosophy - for the greatest good for the greatest number. But it's makes me horribly uneasy. I was in the camp of those who opposed Singer and I think one of the reasons I left the group that I had co-founded, as most of the people who joined were pro-Singer. I felt I couldn't condone it.

No-one wants to be responsible for killing one single person on the tracks. It's just choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea, entre la peste (plague) et le choléra. And whatever choice is made, most I expect would be haunted all their life as to whether they made the right decision.

My sister and I had to make the choice to let my mother die - either the doctors cured her of her double pneumonia and she lived a few months or a year longer after having been 18 months paralysed with about 4/5ths of her brain dead due to multiple strokes. The ethical committee or whatever they call it gave their go-ahead if we chose to let her die which we did. But I'll never know whether she would have agreed or not. She was in no state to make any decision.

I think personally if the Trolley dilemma did happen to me, I'd let things take their course and not intervene.

[devin]

The whole utilitarian business bothered me a lot when I did my reading on this Trolley Dilemma. It brought back all the debates we used to have in the animal rights movement when I was active in it. Peter Singer, the Australian utilitarian philosopher, wrote the seminal book Animal Liberation. The bitter and acrimonious discussions we used to have between those who opposed Peter Singer and those who didn't were legendary, although he's less spoken of now as others have come along since then to give a different slant on animal liberation, like Gary Francione whose principal theory is that animals should not be considered as property. I'm of the Francione camp. Singer once gave a talk once in a university on animal liberation, and he was heckled by people who called him a Nazi. That's how deep the feelings lay for some people.
I was interviewed once for a newspaper once on this topic, and I remember saying that utilitarianism leads to horrors such as as eugenics. It sounds like a good philosophy - for the greatest good for the greatest number. But it's makes me horribly uneasy. I was in the camp of those who opposed Singer and I think one of the reasons I left the group that I had co-founded, as most of the people who joined were pro-Singer. I felt I couldn't condone it. No-one wants to be responsible for killing one single person on the tracks. It's just choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea, entre la peste (plague) et le choléra. And whatever choice is made, most I expect would be haunted all their life as to whether they made the right decision. My sister and I had to make the choice to let my mother die - either the doctors cured her of her double pneumonia and she lived a few months or a year longer after having been 18 months paralysed with about 4/5ths of her brain dead due to multiple strokes. The ethical committee or whatever they call it gave their go-ahead if we chose to let her die which we did. But I'll never know whether she would have agreed or not. She was in no state to make any decision. I think personally if the Trolley dilemma did happen to me, I'd let things take their course and not intervene.

I am very sorry to hear of the situation you faced with your mother - awful on so many levels. To the main point, while I admit its place, I am always wary of, and sometimes terrified by, efforts to simplify and neaten life by the process of reduction. It often, in my opinion, functions as a fig-leaf for monstrosity.