This is morally and logically identical to the fat man issue.

Which is also morally identical to flipping the switch.

Therefore you should not flip the switch.

I actually came at this from a libertarian viewpoint which was at odds with what I’d actually do (flip the switch) but using logic I have come to the conclusion that I shouldn’t flip the switch. Never said I wasn’t a hypocrite…

We find out that different parts of the brain function in the two situations and the proximity of the fat man that you harm is from an older part of your brain that doesn’t want to harm others. The switching scenario is simply from the cost benefit part of your brain.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4459,n,n

On the numbers you gave, there are many utilitarian answers — I think a rule utilitarian would say something a lot different to an act utilitarian. I think the intuition we have about the risk being “spread” amongst the 6 represents the fact that our intuitions don’t handle probability well. In theory I would follow Eliezer Yudkowsky and shut up and multiply (see this post on the intuitions of utilitarianism). But in a real situation I don’t think I have any idea what I’d do.

This situation reminds me of a hostage situation more than anything, but it is quite interesting. I would take the view that I would select the (statistically) greater harm of going towards the 6. Hence why I’m not a utilitarian. Why is a better question, but it resembles the reason why I wouldn’t kill a healthy individual to harvest their organs to save 5 dying people. However, there is a soft limit that I could not pass, e.g. I would not risk 100 people with a 20% of death to avoid killing one person. How I get to the number that is my limit requires a longer post than a comment here.

Also, would it matter if the chance of death was per person or for the entire group, e.g. the difference between a dangerous cable car (all die or no-one) and an infectious disease (everyone has an equal chance of dying)?

It is morally identical to flipping the switch.

The reason we are less tuned to doing this that to flip the switch is because of the unrealistic premise of perfect knowledge. We can never know, in the real world, if the fat man will stop the trolley, if the trolley was 100% definitely not stopping and all the other assumed knowledge.
In the real world it is more likely that we can know (to a reasonable degree) that the trolley would carreer into the 5 people killing them. We can know that flipping the switch will save the 5. We then use this knowledge to make a decision.
The discomfort over the fat man scenario is simply one of lack of knowledge. It is right that we are morally disturbed over a situation that we do not know enough about to make such a momentous decision. It keeps us from making life-altering, snap decisions with insufficient knowledge.

IF we knew all the factors then I would easily push the fat man, but as we don’t then it isn’t right to do so.

The trolley problem is dealt with in the first episode, along with eating a cabin boy…

The libertarian view is dealt with in the third episode which is the one I am most interested in.

I am actually conflicted, I intellectually agree with the minimal state and redistribution of wealth by taxation is theft, but I am emotionally pushed towards the idea that a collective fund should exist to help the least fortunate… But that is not in the scope of this post…

Which episode examines the trolley problem?

I agree that 9/11 is not a huge price to pay for living free in that comparatively there are 100s of 9/11s every day from malaria, cancer and car accidents in terms of death toll. The worst thing is that we don’t even have to pay the price of 9/11 since such things can probably be prevented without surveilling everyone.

http://justiceharvard.org

I highly recommend it.

I haven’t changed my mind.

The worker/person who is hit by the train is killed by accident at best, incidentally at worst.
The fat man is killed intentionally.

I guess one way to put it is:

It is okay to kill while avoiding a tragedy;
It is not okay to kill to avoid a tragedy.

That is not utilitarian. But I am not a utilitarian, as I have worked out from this. And also some other much more interesting things such as:
There is a price to pay for living in a free and open society that follows its own rules. If the price is an occassional 9/11 then so be it. It is cheap by any standards.

I understand you’re probably being a bit tongue in cheek (based on your previous comments) but a sentence like that seems like a very good argument for utilitarianism to me!

It is good to capture your thoughts in a raw form before you’ve had time to formulate them, just as an illustration of the process of moral reasoning. Personally I can “feel” both sides of the issue in pushing someone in front of the trolley — which is why it might make sense to let some form of reasoning decide between the two conflicting emotions.

Because our emotional “gut feelings” are VERY fickle and contradictory (actually I posted on the trolley problem ages ago in case you didn’t see it), which addresses exactly what you were saying:
http://anadder.com/is-our-moral-sense-lopsided

Unfortunately, for the utilitarian argument, morality does come down to ‘gut feelings’ as I believe all morality is subjective. While it should be a reasoned and rational opinion it will differ between people.

The hostage negotiator is a different situation. If the hostage in front of him is going to die if he doesn’t shoot then he has to do it, there is no change of outcome for the poor hostage anyway.

Hmmm… I am rethinking the fat man situation! Comparing it to flipping the switch on the track. A person was perfectly safe and by my hand they now die. I should probably post when I have formulated my thoughts, not as I am doubting myself I just can’t bring myself to the utilitarian viewpoint though.

Okay, new idea – sh!t happens. If you are an innocent bystander and you get hit by the derailed trolley, sh!t happens. If you are tied to the other branch of the track and someone flips the switch then sh!t happens. If you are near the trolley but fat then getting shoved in front of the trolley is not sh!t happens. Does that count as a new morality?