This document discusses four scenarios involving a runaway trolley and a protagonist named Steve who must decide how to intervene. Research showed most people felt it was permissible for Steve to divert the trolley in Scenario 1 but not push someone in Scenario 2. Opinions varied more in Scenarios 3 and 4. The document goes on to discuss complications that arise from changing scenario order or involving loved ones. It also examines principles of the law of double effect and how emotional distance affects moral decisions before considering the moral standing of humans versus non-humans and different moral frameworks like utilitarianism and deontology.
2. What’s the right thing to
do?
The trolley problem and the nature of moral predicaments
3. 1. The trolley problem
It is a test of our moral intuitions. (X-Phil)
It comes in various versions.
Our version of the problem includes four
scenarios. Each scenario involves an out-of-
control train hurtling down a track toward four
trapped hikers — and our protagonist, Steve,
must decide what to do.
Researchers in Harvard conducted surveys
showing what people tend to think is the morally
right thing for Steve to do in these various
scenarios.
4. Scenario 1
Is it morally permissible for
Steve to flip the switch,
turning the trolley onto the
side track?
Yes: 89%
No: 11%
5. Scenario 2
Is it morally permissible for
Steve to push the large
person onto the tracks?
No: 88%
Yes: 12%
6. Scenario 3
Is it morally permissible for
Steve to throw the switch,
turning the trolley onto the
side track?
No: 44%
Yes: 56%
7. Scenario 4
Is it morally permissible for
Steve to flip the switch,
turning the trolley onto the
side track?
Yes: 72%
No: 28%
8. Complications
1. What happens when we
change the order in which
these scenarios are
presented, e.g. 1 &2,
3&4?
2. What if it is you who have
to decide what to do in
these situations?
3. Does it matter if your
beloved is among those
that are affected in the
scenarios?
4. Is there the right thing to
do?
9. 2. The law of double effect
Intention & consequences
Committing a harmful act (e.g., killing one person) is
generally seen as morally acceptable only if it is an
unintended consequence of a greater good (e.g.,
saving four people).
The psychological principle of “omission bias”
Means vs. side effects
Side effects: 1) those that can be reasonably
foreseen; 2) those that cannot.
10. 3. Emotional distance
Types of interpersonal relationship: parents-
children, friends, lovers, couples, co-workers,
etc.
These relationships make different claims on us,
requiring us to act differently in similar situations.
We are morally obliged in different ways toward
significant others than strangers.
The Confucius problem: partial or righteous?
11. 4. Humans vs. non-
humans
What among all things there are have a moral
standing?
Humans (neuro-normals vs.
psychopaths/acquired sociopaths)?
Animals (pets vs. wild animals)?
Inanimate objects (trees, birds, or the
environment in general)
