The train morality problem

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

The train morality problem

Post by DNS »

I don't think this has been discussed yet here, so thought I would give it a try here:

The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues)

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)

What would you do?

What would Buddha do?

Image
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Oh, the amount of time we spent discussing this in philosophy class....

I say flick the switch.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by DNS »

retrofuturist wrote: Oh, the amount of time we spent discussing this in philosophy class....
:) Yes, I remember this from class too and was just reminded about it from my son who just finished Philosophy 101 at the university.

And for the sake of this argument, we know nothing about the people in the above example, if they are good or bad, terminally ill, etc. And the train cannot stop in time and throwing yourself onto the track will not stop it either (I imagine that would be the Buddha's choice, but for the sake of this scenario let's say that you cannot throw yourself onto the track or even if you did, it would not stop and you know this for certain.)
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Jhana4 »

Ah, I remember this problem from philosophy classes in school.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by retrofuturist »

Don't worry, I wouldn't be throwing myself under that train, even if that would stop it.

:guns:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by christopher::: »

David N. Snyder wrote:
(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)

What would you do?

What would Buddha do?

Image
Have no idea what Buddha would do but I'd definitely flip the switch, and then run as fast as I can to try and get that one person off the track. If unable to help I'd have to watch the person die, which would be pretty horrible. Then would apologize to their family and pray for them to have a fortuitous rebirth.

In terms of "responsibility" inaction is often as much an action (in life) as taking action so it's be responsible for one death or five. Is there a "better" choice?
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.

You have the means to kill him, and by doing so, save the five.

Or do you not kill him, and let him kill the five.

Arguably, that's a much more difficult choice.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by ground »

Practice will lead to a state in which there will be neither doubt nor "thinking about" how to act or how not to act in all kinds of "situations".
Until this point is reached I will not engage in speculations that do just enhance my ordinary and deluded way of thinking and perceiving.

Kind regards
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Modus.Ponens »

I would let the train run over 5 people.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Reductor »

Since i am able to make the switch and know that i can make the switch, then both pulling or not pulling that switch becomes an intentional act does it not?

So what is my motivation? That is the heart of this for me. Presuming that i have no other criteria on which to base my decision then i can only choose to spare the greater number. I would flip the switch.

But this alone presumes that five deaths to be fives times greater than one death. That is, it presumes all six parties to be equally fettered by craving. Also presumed is that each death would create the same amount of grief.

However i doubt such presumptions would be true, so its obvious that my decision in even this simple hypothetical must be deeply flawed, and must be even more so in real life where there are many times greater variables.

Its a crap shoot.

I would just be sure to stay mindful in the act, spare the greater and observe the outcomes on my thinking process to minimize as well as able any unpleasent consequence.

... So do i win the 'Most Unnecessarily Long Post' award?
:tongue:
David2
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The train morality problem

Post by David2 »

David N. Snyder wrote: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Nearly the same problem is this situation:

Should you kill a dictator who is killing thousands of people to save these people?
Would the Buddha have killed Hitler to save millions of Jews?

The 1. Buddhist precept is: "Not to harm living beings." But every human being does harm living beings. We are killing thousands of bacteria every time we are washing our hands. We have probably already crushed hundreds or thousands of ants with our feet without noticing it.

So in reality the precept is more like: "Harm living beings as little as possible."

So the Buddhist answer would be in my opinion: "Flip the switch." and "Kill the dictator."
(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)
If you don't flip the switch, you are fully responsible for the death of the five people, too. (Because you have the chance to flip the switch.)
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by christopher::: »

David2 wrote:
If you don't flip the switch, you are fully responsible for the death of the five people, too. (Because you have the chance to flip the switch.)
Right, exactly.

Important here I think are what your intentions are in the case of each action, or inaction. And, what will the results be (of action/inaction) that you are aware of, or try to avoid thinking about (and acknowledging responsibility for).
example: The Murder of Kitty Genovese

Catherine Susan Genovese (July 7, 1935 – March 13, 1964), commonly known as Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York on March 13, 1964... The circumstances of her murder and the lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (or "Genovese syndrome") and especially diffusion of responsibility.
:spy:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Ben »

There are other options...

Neither one nor the other: place the lever half-way will cause the carriage to derail.

Or my favourite:delegate!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by christopher::: »

Ben wrote:
Neither one nor the other: place the lever half-way will cause the carriage to derail.
Into the crowd of innocent bystanders, including an unknown number of school children, not shown in the drawing?

(collateral damage option)

:stirthepot:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Ben »

Hi Chris,
christopher::: wrote:
Ben wrote:
Neither one nor the other: place the lever half-way will cause the carriage to derail.
Into the crowd of innocent bystanders, including an unknown number of school children, not shown in the drawing?

(collateral damage option)

:stirthepot:
If they're not in the drawing, they don't exist.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Post Reply