Michael Sandel starts his online Justice course by describing the Trolley Problem and then proceeds to analyze it using various ethical theories and frameworks.
What is the problem? (Someone(s) needs to describe it here). What would you do (post by 5 May)? Respond to 2 of your classmates' responses by 8 May.
You are the driver of a trolley car and five men are working on the tracks. You are unable to slow down do to your brakes not working. You can turn down another track that only has one worker on it to prevent from hitting the five workers.
ReplyDeleteI think I would turn down the track to avoid hitting the five men but still killing the one worker instead. It seems like doing the best for the most people would be the right thing to do. It doesn’t mean that the one worker’s life was any less important than the other five workers.
Now you are standing on a bridge with a “Really fat” man. You can push him off the bridge and in front of the trolley to stop it.
I do not believe I could do this. It’s hard to explain why this is so much more different than if I was actually driving the trolley because it’s still one life instead of five lives. I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that the man will actually be dying at my hand instead of the trolley car. I also think it is different because when you are driving you have to make a choice but if you are on the bridge with the man you can choose not to become a part of what will happen.
Thank you for being the first to post on this topic describing the problem. I think being in the profession that we are makes this topic even more challenging to make decisions on.
DeleteI agree Elizabeth. Even though in both cases one man would die to save more, it just feels inherently wrong to push an innocent man.
DeleteIf I were the driver, I would lean towards going on the sidetrack where only the 1 worker was, avoiding the other 5. I would honk like crazy, hoping he would jump out of the way by the time the trolley reached him. I chose this because if I had survived this accident as the driver, I would be living with the guilt of 1 mans blood on my hands vs. 5, even though it was accidental. That is something that would weigh heavily on me forever. Considering the ramifications of killing 5 men and having all their friends and family upset would be worse than the 1. Not to take anything away from his family, but it was the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, I have known 2 people who have killed someone with their vehicle and the guilt they carry is tremendous. This would not be an easy choice. I would run off the track and kill myself if I had that option. If I were the observer, I would definitely not push the fat guy over the bridge. Even more so, that is morally wrong and would be intentionally choosing of who gets life and who doesn't. But besides that fact, why was he halfway over the bridge? Was he attempting suicide anyway? I still wouldn't push him, but was wondering why he was there to begin with. Of the 2 moral reasonings we learned about so far, I would say I based my decisions more on the Categorical (Kant) reasoning. I've always been a strong believer in the "Golden Rule".
ReplyDeleteI totally agree Carla! I am a strong believer in the "Golden Rule." He did make a strange point regarding the fat man. Why was he leaning over the bridge? Does stating the fact that the man in fat change what someone would do to him? How sad is that! Also, I was wondering the same, was the man attempting suicide? Would someone consider it okay to push him if he were attempting suicide anyway? I would still never push him, but it did raise some other points.
DeleteI totally agree Carla! I am a strong believer in the "Golden Rule." He did make a strange point regarding the fat man. Why was he leaning over the bridge? Does stating the fact that the man in fat change what someone would do to him? How sad is that! Also, I was wondering the same, was the man attempting suicide? Would someone consider it okay to push him if he were attempting suicide anyway? I would still never push him, but it did raise some other points.
DeleteI had the same thought Kelli when he described the second scenario and described the man leaning over the bridge was fat. How does it make any difference his size? It make you think about how our society and we too value characteristics of individuals.
DeleteThe way to speaker presented all the scenario’s really made you think. At first thought you know exactly what you would do and then as he continues to speak you start to question why you are choosing to do one thing and not another.
ReplyDeleteIn the trolley situation I would most definitely chose to take the side track where only one man was working and avoid the five other workers on the main track. With that being said I would be praying like crazy, blowing my horn, and slamming the breaks hoping to make enough noise so that the man could possibly get out of my way and survive. When the speaker changes the scenario to include the fat man on the bridge it really changed my thought. I would not be able to push him off to spare the lives of the men below. I would feel directly at fault for killing him, where if I was the driver I would have been doing my job while being involved in a tragic accident.
I think most people would base their decisions on how much guilt they would feel for purposely taking the life of someone even though it may be saving the lives of others. I don’t think I would be able to live with myself if I knew I directly caused someone to die versus being involved tragic accident.
I thought the speaker was great and made me rethink my decisions also. I also agree that most people would choose to kill less people. No matter what someone is going to die and I would want the death toll to be less instead of more.
DeleteI agree that quilt plays a huge roll in all the decisions. If you have to kill someone most people would ultimately want to kill the least amount of people possible. Who would want to live with knowing they have killed multiple people. Hard decisions, but you have to go with your gut feeling. In this situation more is never better!
DeleteEither way I'm not sure how I could live with myself but I honestly think I would feel more guilty if I chose to change the course of the trolly.
DeleteI too think guilt plays a major role in the decisions we make . It's difficult to explain why most of us would direct the trolley car toward the one individual and generally feel this is the best option versus actually pushing someone to their death. Even though in both instances we are directly responsible for both deaths, My thought is the connection between pushing someone literally means we put our hands upon them and physically touched them prior to their death. This makes it much more personal versus simply steering a trolley care toward them where there is no physical contact.
DeleteI want to go to Harvard now just to listen to sandal speak!!! I thought I would know what I would do when he presented the cases but by the end he had me questioning what I thought was right.
ReplyDeleteIf I was driving the trolley I would take the side track. Killing one would be better than killing five.but I would also be trying to radio ahead to try and get someone to get the man out of the way. I would also be blowing the horn, yelling or anything to get the attention of the guy on the track. If I were on the bridge I wouldn't be able to push the fat man over the bridge. It's something about actually using your hands and killing someone . You are both on the bridge observing and your not actually involvred you are just watching from a distance. Where as when you are driving the trolley it is an accident.
No matter what the decision I would still feel guilt for killing the one person but it would be better than killing 5.
I enjoyed Sandel as well, I think he is a dynamic speaker and the time went very fast. I still think I would take the side track too, but he brought out different ways of looking at the problem that I had not thought of. It would be hard to have all those thoughts racing in our mind with only a split second to make our decision. I wonder if our minds would make that decision subconsciously before we really thought about it and if it would be the same as if we had pondered it for hours?
DeleteI agree Sherry! I did also enjoy him and his speech. I also agree with not being able to push the fat man over the bridge. I could never intentionally push someone over a bridge to kill them even though ultimately it would be saving 5 others. this would be something very hard for me that I can not see myself able to do at that given time. I have to be honest. This is challenging. Makes you dig deep to find your true feelings and true morals.
DeleteI too enjoyed Mr. Santel's lectures. I found myself wanting to watch all of them. When I'm not so busy. I like that he gives so many examples of the theorist's ideas so that we can better understand.
DeleteSherry you are right. I too thought oh I would do this or I would do that, but after you listen to the whole conversation and the different scenarios and opinion's of the people who were listening to the lecture it could sway your decision on what you would do.
DeleteI also thoroughly enjoyed listening to Sandel. He really makes you stop and think. Listening to all the scenarios that lead to different options that are all different but also kind of the same. I could never push anyone off a bridge. I can't imagine intentionally taking a life.
DeleteI think the only saving grace during this scenario is you wouldn't have time to think. It would have to be a split second decision based on the information you had at that time. I am not certain you would have time to weigh all of the options.
DeleteIn this scenario, I would choose to drive on onto the side track where the one man is standing with the intentions of trying to slow down the trolley to avoid an accident. It would be difficult for me to push the obese man down in front of the track with the intentions of sacrificing his life to save others or choosing to hit five people. I would try to minimize the amount of harm to others to bring about the greater good such as in normative ethic theory of consequentialism. The significance of outcomes that are good for the community outweighs the importance of an individual’s pain.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you chose the consequentialism reasoning. I can see now how that applies. It is hard to get a handle on the differences of moral reasonings! After reading more, I think that definitely applies to most of our responses to the first scenario about the 5 vs 1 worker. For the obese guy, I can see how that would be a good example of Kant's ethics. We recognize that pushing him over would be morally wrong.
DeleteInteresting that you chose the consequentialism reasoning. I can see now how that applies. It is hard to get a handle on the differences of moral reasonings! After reading more, I think that definitely applies to most of our responses to the first scenario about the 5 vs 1 worker. For the obese guy, I can see how that would be a good example of Kant's ethics. We recognize that pushing him over would be morally wrong.
DeleteIn the scenario given there isn't an easy decision here. Out of the two options whether to drive the trolley and kill the five workers or to drive the trolley down the other track and kill just one worker, I would have to choose the track with only one worker. Of course I do not like either option and would not want to live the rest of my life knowing I had killed someone but in this actual scenario, you have to choose. This speaker is great at given you different scenarios to see if the same thought process would lead you to the same kind of answer given a different situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree Andrea that no matter what we choose it is a hard decision. Do we kill 5 or 1. I think the majority of us have chosen Bentham's utilitarianism view, the killing of 1 benefits everyone more than the killing of 5.
DeleteThe speaker does make valid points. It was interesting hearing the different approaches to the same moral concept of causing no harm, or as little harm as possible.
DeleteThe speaker does make valid points. It was interesting hearing the different approaches to the same moral concept of causing no harm, or as little harm as possible.
DeleteIn the scenario given there isn't an easy decision here. Out of the two options whether to drive the trolley and kill the five workers or to drive the trolley down the other track and kill just one worker, I would have to choose the track with only one worker. Of course I do not like either option and would not want to live the rest of my life knowing I had killed someone but in this actual scenario, you have to choose. This speaker is great at given you different scenarios to see if the same thought process would lead you to the same kind of answer given a different situation.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I would take the track with only one worker so to avoid the track with 5 workers. Making the choice to send the trolley car down the track to 1 worker would be an awful and a life changing event. There would always be the thought that I made the decision that the single worker would be the one to die. Even though the 5 lives are saved, a life is still lost. Regarding the ability to push the fat man into the tracks, I could not. When you look at these 2 examples, the first you are steering the trolley car away from the five. In the second example, you have to physically push the person into the path of the trolley car. That is actively making the decision that he will die.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started watching this video I too picked to turn my wheels on the runaway trolley and avert killing the five men and just killing one. And then I got to thinking about fate. What if there was a tree that was about to fall in the tracks if I stayed moving forward towards the five and they would be saved and making this switch would have killed one vs none. So as we cannot predict the future, I would still have turned and hoped that there would still be some type of external intervention that would prohibit me commiting this horrible act. Just saying the word I and killing in the same sentence is so wrong. It goes against everything I/we believe in as nurses.
ReplyDeleteI also think that instincts also play a part here. Most people would instinctively swerve to avoid a collision even though the consequences would be somewhat the same. As nurses we are trained to save lives so that makes this decision even harder to commit to.
And then Mr. Sandel offers another view of the situation with regards to an observer on a bridge. As for the other person on the bridge I difinitely could not push him off. We as nurses save lives not take them! I believe we follow the theorist Mr. Kant as we, as nurses, use duty as our motive, autonomy with our determination of will, and the formula of humanity as our categorical reasoning. I think those qualities define nursing.
Neither scenario is ideal. Both are difficult to justify. Killing 5 men or 1 man by staying straight on the track, or making a turn to only kill the one. If I had to choose, I would probably make the turn in order to save 5 lives and spare 1. It is not okay to do, however at least only 1 life, 1 family is affected, instead of 5 lives, 5 families.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the fat guy on the bridge, I would not push him off. I think the act of pushing him involves harming a human being that would otherwise not have been involved at all. That would be murder. The act of the out-of-control trolley car is something completely out of my control, I did not cause the brakes to fail, therefore I was not ultimately responsible for murdering someone. The majority would generally follow Bentham's theory of benefiting the majority.
Seems like most people have the same opinion on this topic. This is something I hope that I never have to experience personally. The speaker did describe in one of his scenarios about triaging trauma patients, and in our profession especially those of us who work in the ER may be faced with decisions similar such as choosing which patients to work on first while the most critical ones may die.
DeleteI agree Shelley. As scary of uncomfortable it is to think of being placed in these drastic situations, I think as nurses we deal with prioritizing our patients' lives more than we realize. At times that could have a catastrophic outcome. Simply choosing which patient to assess first. We like to think we always know who needs the most or our immediate attention, but there are times when something unforeseen occurs. Or we think we can handle a situation instead of calling a rapid, these decisions affect the lives of those in our care.
DeleteNeither scenario is ideal. Both are difficult to justify. Killing 5 men or 1 man by staying straight on the track, or making a turn to only kill the one. If I had to choose, I would probably make the turn in order to save 5 lives and spare 1. It is not okay to do, however at least only 1 life, 1 family is affected, instead of 5 lives, 5 families.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the fat guy on the bridge, I would not push him off. I think the act of pushing him involves harming a human being that would otherwise not have been involved at all. That would be murder. The act of the out-of-control trolley car is something completely out of my control, I did not cause the brakes to fail, therefore I was not ultimately responsible for murdering someone. The majority would generally follow Bentham's theory of benefiting the majority.
I agree that the trolley car is out of our control, but if we choose to steer towards the one person then we are taking control. I see pushing the fat man off of the bridge and steering towards one person as the same thing.
DeleteI really enjoyed watching Mr. Sandel, he is a great speaker. If I were in the trolley car predicament trying to figure out to go straight and kill 5 people or turn the trolley and kill only one person I guess I would have to turn and hit the one person. As far as the fat guy leaning over the bridge, I would never push him over. That is horrible and cannot even begin to imagine doing that. I agree with the audience member who said pushing him over would be intentional and you would be facing murder charges. Whereas the trolley car was a freak accident and there was no intent on killing anyone.
ReplyDeleteI could never chose to push the fat guy off the bridge either. I could never make a decision to intentionally kill a bystander for the sake of saving others. I would feel too much direct responsibility for his death.
DeleteI enjoy listen to Sandel as well. He was easy to listedn to and kept me thinking the whole time. I however would not be able to turn the wheel and kill one to save five or push a person over to save them. I would feel that I kill someone and step into the world of fate.
DeleteIt was very interesting to watch Professor Sandel do his lectures. This was a very tough question, but in the end I would not change the course of the train. Who are we to play God and choose who dies? I believe it is up to fate. As for pushing the fat man over the bridge...never! That would be intentionally killing someone. The lecture did bring up a lot of interesting points but I still wouldn't change the course.
ReplyDeleteI am with you I would not change fate. By pushing someone over to save five is making the decision to kill someone. I could never do that even with this scenario.
DeleteThis is an interesting point you make , Sarah, and one I hadn't considered. What part DOES fate play in the scenario. I've never been a big believer in it , but I could see the validity of your decision as one who does. It is never up to us to change what God's ultimate plan is so fate is definitely something to weigh.
DeleteI agree fate would play a big part of the outcome. Who are we to try to predict who should live or die. For all we know the workers could hear the Trolley coming and jump out of the way, but have a heart attack and die from being scared to death. Now that would be fate. What ever is meant to be will be.
DeleteI did consider the route of staying on track and the trolley killing 5 people. Yet I changed my thinking based on the loved ones left behind. I think fate plays a big role in life. I think God has a plan for everyone.
DeleteIf I had time to think it over it may have crossed my mind to stay on the same track, but changing track feels like swerving to miss a someone who fell crossing a street even it means hitting an oncoming car. It's an instinct and I don't know if I could think beyond the initial thought that "I can't hit this person" to "what will happen if I swerve?" Scary stuff to think about in my opinion!
DeleteI agree Monica it is scary stuff. It made me wonder how this applies to our lives as nurses. In the ER and on the floor we prioritize our work on a daily basis. We could be faced with this type of scenario if there were a natural disaster or a local large scale accident. Trying to decide who to render medical aide to and who not to based on their injuries. What type of moral questions would we pose to ourselves. Would we save mothers or children? Would we let the elderly perish and save teenagers who have a life ahead of them? Lets hope this never comes about!
Deleteunfortunately there is no easy answer here. the problem is how do you justify the decision to take the life of one man versus five? Like most everyone here, I would likely steer toward the one man , sparing the lives of the five. Is this a good decision ? most likely , no. But is seems much more justifiable when you think of affecting one life versus the lives of five others. I think Professor Sandel broughtup an excellent point when he changed the scenario to the five patients needing organs and the one healthy patient . DOES that change our thinking - we have to assume that the one vs the five in the trolley car incident are all healthy. how does that change our perception when you change it to a patient scenario/ That question make me really think about how I can so easily decide to steer the wheel to save the five , but I wouldn't kill a healthy human for his organs.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point...we are assuming points in these scenarios. This class has made me want to write different things when thinking about how many different possibilities exist. But this class is about just that...getting us to think!
DeleteThis lecture was great to listen to. The speaker Sandel was very enging and he really pulled me in. The scenario of killing one to save five was easy for me. I want not turn the wheel of the train or push someone over. By doing either of those actions would make be a killing. I would not step in the way of fate.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine being faced with such a horrific split decision to make. I would not want to be the driver of the runaway trolley that would have to make the decision to take 1 life to spare 5 or 5 lives to spare 1. A life is a life and no one life is any more valuable than that of another. The one worker out there by himself could be the sole provider for his large family whom has nothing or anyone else they can depend on. The 5 workers may have all been single with not a care in the world. Does either scenario make the other any less important? No it doesn't. In that moment you do not have time to analyze anything, I don't know that any of these thoughts would have even come to mind for me. I would imagine I would be thinking about my own life and family and praying for my own safety. Kind of sounds selfish but I don't know that I would be thinking about the workers on the track.
ReplyDeleteThen when it comes to pushing the "fat guy" over the rail onto the bridge to save someone would absolutely be immoral to do. You would have to make that conscious decision to do such an act.
Donna I so agree. There are times when even thinking about needing to make a decision makes me almost nauseated. It is not selfish to think about yourself! You as do all of us have much to contribute not only to those we know and love, but to those we have yet to meet. I truly believe that we have something to contribute either actively or passively until we draw our last breath.
DeleteI think I would continue down the main track. The chances of one of the five works seeing the danger coming and getting everyone to safety is greater.
ReplyDeleteI could not push the large man off the bridge. I could not cause harm to someone that had no potential of being danger. This is another reason why I would change tracks to go after the man working on the side track.
I enjoyed Michael Sandel's lectures. He is an engaging and dynamic speaker. One question that kept running through my mind, "is there really only the two options?" I suppose it seems inconceivable to have to make a decision like that at all, let alone without being able to mull it over or discuss with a trusted friend. My gut reaction, like many was opt to do the least harm and steer toward the single worker. But then the thought crossed my mind that he may have been younger and stronger and that is why he was working alone. In contrast the other workers may have been older and required more assistance from each other. Not that an older person's life is less valuable, but possibly with less potential.
ReplyDeleteI kept thinking I would have loved to be able to make him stop to answer a few questions. Questions like who had families? How old were they? Who depended on each of the workers? Had they been able to fulfill their dreams or goals? My faith keeps leading me the a realization that God has a plan for each of us and as cliché as it sounds, when it is our time, we have no choice in the matter.
I would steer toward the one worker. I think collectively the five workers have more life left than the one.
As far as pushing the "fat guy" off the bridge, I could not do it. Again, I cannot make myself believe that his body would be able to stop the wreck. This scenario seems different in that neither the "fat guy" or me are directly involved in the situation and to push him would seem like murder.
I find this class very interesting so far. I like the fact that we able to absorb lectures from different speakers and perspectives. The lecture provided by Michael Sandel was intriguing. After listening to Trolley Car dilemma, I believe the answer is clear. I would steer towards the one worker. I believe in the greater good. Saving five lives by taking one makes moral sense to me.
ReplyDeleteAs the lecture progressed another scenario was offered. To physically push a man off a bridge to save the five lives. I do not agree with pushing the man off the bridge to save the lives of five people. This scenario to my understanding was not an either/or situation. This man was not going to die if he was not pushed. Just as killing a person to harvest their organs to save the lives of five other people is not an option. If the scenario was presented as the man was going to die or the five people then I would have pushed him off the bridge. To me whether I hit him with a train or push him I am still ending his life.
After thinking through this scenario further I asked myself when would I sacrifice five people to save one. The difficult, yet honest answer I came up with was in the case if my children or family members were at risk. I would sacrifice five lives if I could save my child.