The Trolley Problem

Joe,

There are things that are not moral obligations but still the better choice than an alternative.

then Edward should throw himself off the trolley to avoid his own injury or death.

We can argue he should do this or do that, but if the options are crossed off the list one-by-one what you are really asking is ... is it right to let one person die or five people die when only those two options are allowed.

I found The Book of Questions asks similar questions to what you are trying to get at here.

Joe,

You can't forsee a situation in which there's a preferable course of action for an individual that is not a moral obligation?

Certainly. But then it has to be "better" in some other sense.

For instance, if I am considering the purchase of a product, and brand X is cheaper than brand Y, then my decision to purchase brand X is "better" in terms of being more cost-effective (all other things being equal, paying less is better than paying more). In your example, my decision to sleep with the hot naked model is "better" in terms of some sort of hedonic calculus (all other things being equal, more pleasure is better than less pleasure).

But you can't simply say that his decision to kill one is "better" than killing five without giving some basis for determining why it's better. In other words, if the trolley driver's decision is not based on moral considerations, what is it based upon?

It's based on my personal criteria. The very basic part is the least suffering for the most people.

Well now, Craven, I must admit you have totally baffled me with this response. Your criterion of "the least suffering for the most people" looks like a traditional utilitarian approach to ethics, which is most definitely a theory of morality. Really, it could have come straight from the works of Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

But if, as you assert, your criterion is not a moral criterion, then how is it justified?

So? I don't think the driver has a moral obligation to act in your scenario.

Huh? Why does it need to be "justified"?

In the hot naked model example do you think Person A needs "justification"?

But you have suggested that the driver has some kind of obligation to choose, in that you've stated that the "right act" for the driver is to switch the trolley.

Yes, he definitely does in order to describe the option he chooses as "better" than the option he rejects. Otherwise, there would be no criteria for determining which is "better." If option A is identical to option B, then a person would have no basis for making a choice. In other words, if choosing the model is no different from rejecting her, then there is no reason to judge the former as being "better" than the latter in any meaningful sense of the word. In that event, a random process for deciding, like flipping a coin, would be as justifiable as anything else. If, on the other hand, Person A deems it "better" to choose the hot naked model over anything else, then he must have some basis for saying that his choice was "better" than another possible choice.

And "personal preference" is not enough -- at least not in the trolley problem

-- since "personal preference" is little different from a criterion based on a "sez me."

Thus, if you have a personal preference for the trolley driver to switch to the right-hand track, there must be some justification for that personal preference. Otherwise, you might as well say: "the driver should switch because I said so."

joefromchicago wrote:

But you have suggested that the driver has some kind of obligation to choose, in that you've stated that the "right act" for the driver is to switch the trolley.

Incorrect. I did nothing of the sort.

I have already told you why I have that preference. You are still looking for "justifications" for this preference. <shrugs>

I would swerve and hit the lone human, reflexively, as it would be the lesser of two evils (in my mind).