An issue that I had will Mill came up with the Trolley example, of whether it would be best to save five people or one. The problem I had with this example, and the way it encouraged us to think, was that it made people into numbers, or simply into things. For example, if the situation was that there was on one train track five iPods, and on the other one, it would seem obvious that the person manning the switch would choose to sacrifice the one for the others. Even after training down one iPod, there would five left to take its place, which would all still be useful to the person at the switch. They all have the same function, they all have the same worth, they are all entirely equal.
Just like the iPod, the trolley example encourages us to think of humans as having a similar function, as all having the same worth, and of all being entirely equal. Unlike the iPods though, where this is actually the case, for people I would argue that these are hardly ever exactly true. If the point of Mill’s example is to help our considers of which brings the maximum amount of pleasure, or least amount of pain, for the most, I wonder how accurately this could be measured. In class one conclusion seemed to be that the grief of five persons being killed would be more than if one person were killed, simply based on the numbers.
Why is it assumed though, that sacrificing one person for five is better? Just based on the numbers, five is more than one, and so we lose more if we sacrifice the five. If the five are killed in Mill’s situation though, why is that more of a loss, or a worse situation, than if the one is killed? Unlike the iPod, persons do not have certain functions such that saving five would help us most. Their lives could be argued to not even have a set amount of worth to us- what does it profit us to save five instead of the one? And the only thing making them equal in this situation is that they all have the equal potential to die by train. In Mill’s example, having removed all context that could possibly make this decision relevant to us, does it matter which switch is pulled?
I think our reaction to this situation reflects these issues. When we started discussing the example, there were lots of questions about whether the people were criminals, whether they had families, whether there any other ways to stop the trolley. This all seem the natural response we should have to this example. With a decision like this, we want and need more of a context to decide it in. I think this shows that whatever decision is made in Mill’s empty example that it isn’t really an accurate measure of the pleasure and pain scale, since the lack of context also takes away the reference points by which to judge which decision will bring the most pleasure and pain.
Even if there was context though, I’m not sure I like this example any more. If the context was that each person had a loving family, the look in class is that it would bring more pleasure and less pain to save the five persons on the track instead of the one. Doing so would decrease the potential amount of pain by decreasing the number of persons who feel the pain. I really wonder if it does though, and find it hard to quantify pleasure and pain like this. One person’s pain at losing a loved one to me is not less than the pain of five person’s pain at losing loved ones. I guess in other words I believe that all the suffering in the world can be felt from one death, and that increasing the numbers of dead does not equal an increase of the suffering felt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the issues you have with the Trolley Problem actually point toward the thought experiment's true purpose. The way I see it, it serves as a sort of metaphor for every action that you take. Think about everyday decisions: You are put into a position where you must make a decision between two or more options. You have some information, but rarely (if ever) are you 100% positive about all of the consequences of your actions. Based on the limited information you have (ie- you don't know whether they're criminals, have families, etc), you have to make a choice. The Trolley Problem just does you the favor of removing the option of inaction.
ReplyDeleteThe Hedonistic/Felicific Calculus we discussed serves as a tool to help you caluclate the consequences of these actions.
I agree with you completely about the purpose of the trolley example, but I don't think the choice in the trolley example matters at all. If this choice is meant to bring into deliberation how much pleasure and pain will be afforded by a decision, I still think that the pleasure and pain in this case are incalculable. It is like life in that you are forced to make a decision without knowing the full consequences of any action that you take, but as an example of helping you consider the difficulties of deciding which action is better, which brings the most pleasure and the least pain to the most people involved, I think it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess this is life, and when consequences are unknown all a person can do is make a decision that seems the most right and hope it goes well, even if the most right decision is just a guess.
The Trolley Problem does present some serious issues for utilitarianism but what philosophy that we've looked at could make satisfying decision in this case? I agree with you that each person on the tracks would have a different worth to the person doing the switch but Kant on the other hand would say each of them was equal because of their capacity to be rational beings. The Second part of the trolley problem where you have to push one person is often altered to have some sort of discriminatory element in the person you're pushing. This is to challenge the person in the experiment, do you save five people by actively pushing someone who you have no vested interest in? I think the experiment serves its purpose but I doubt anyone can come up with a solid foundation that we'll all buy into to explain why you should do one thing over the other.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we regard each person as entirely equal though, what does it matter if the trolley runs over the five or the one? Having five people doesn't make their lives worth any more than the one. I don't know. I agree that maybe so far the philosophers we've looked at don't provide a satisfying decision. I haven't thought about it in the context of them all very much, but if it is the case none provide a satisfactory answer, I would be more inclined to keep looking than to just take what they say should be applied in this situation to be the best way of making the decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chad, but still believe there is a level of rationality used. But in the sense of impartiality, as opposed to looking at the emotional values of human beings. I speak more to it in my post.
ReplyDeleteI'd like propose a different example just to shake things up though. There are two boats loaded with people. On one boat there are only criminals and a few guards. On the other boat are civilians. Each boat is also wired with explosives and ready to blow. A madman challenges each boat and gives them opportunity to detonate the explosives on the other boat. If neither destroys the other boat, then the madman will kill them all. What should be done? Mathematically, we'll call the boats even. Morally and in regards to their ability to contribute to society, you decide.
If this example does not sound familiar, you should probably go watch The Dark Knight right now.And if you have seen the film, there is no Batman so one or both boats will get destroyed.
Brendan- "...as an example of helping you consider the difficulties of deciding which action is better, which brings the most pleasure and the least pain to the most people involved, I think it doesn't work."
ReplyDeleteThe structure of the Trolley Problem intentionally denies you the ability to perfectly weigh all of the pains and pleasures involved. Instead, you have to anticipate what you think will happen in either case and make a decision based on this limited information. This leades to the idea that saving the five is better than saving the one. The numbers may not reflect the actual "value" of each life, but quantifiable information like this is what most decisions are based on.
Waller- The Joker is not a philosopher, no matter how much you like The Dark Knight. Marvel is better than DC. Duh. I don't know what "should" happen, but I would either jump off of the boat or hit that switch.
Hey Chad,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I get the point of the example and the limited information bit as well. I'm not just trying to argue around it, but I don't understand why having this quantifiable, limited information of the five and the one makes saving the five any better than saving the one. How would you quantify this? Just in terms of the numbers? If it is just in terms of the quantifiable numbers of those involved, it still seems arbitrary to me. Why is it that saving the five is any better?
I definitely agree with you this is how most of our choices are made. We can’t know the full consequences of our actions, just like we can’t know beforehand with trolley example whether we are happy with our decision to save the five and kill the one, or the other way around. I was just thinking that as far as measuring pleasure and pain of the people that may be killed, that I don’t think I can quantify that. I think of killing the one person as generating the same sadness that killing the five would have. Taken out of that context of the possibility of this action actually causing sadness though, I think this example is even harder to decide. I have to have a context to base my judgment in or else my decision feels and is completely random, which is how I feel and think I would decide with the trolley example.