Even Harvard Profs get it wrong

[bikkuri bahn]

Last night I was watching a program on Japanese TV about elite education in foreign countries, including the U.S.  A TV camera crew visited Harvard University, and in addition to interviewing a Japanese student there, showed a clip from the most popular lecture course offered on the campus, Professor Michael Sandel's "Justice".  The TV studio panelists were impressed by the setting and discussion that ensued in the lecture, but the host of the TV program, noted TV comedian/talk show host Tamori, pointed out something I also noticed- the Professor's example scenario is flawed from the technical point of view- there are no "steering wheels" on trolleys.  I wonder if a student ever pointed that out to the professor...(also surprising as the Boston area is one of the more rail transit dense regions of the nation)

 

[Eliphaz]

oops, yeah, but in Boston, the famously discourteous motorpersons sit behind a black curtain, and bark at you if you try to get a look at their work station. 

[CaptOblivious]

Oh, god, not the "trolley problem". This is why I don't do ethics: I'm so sick of the 10,000 variations on this infamous intuition pump. I didn't listen to the lecture to find out what the variation involving a steering wheel is. (Sorry, we're now firmly into my own professional territory, within which I often have very strong opinions!)

 

But if you want a good introduction to the trolley problem I highly recommend RadioLab's. (RadioLab, being richly produced, is best heard through a nice set of headphones). (Just the first few minutes of introduction will suffice, although the entire show is quite good, if a bit off base from a philosophical perspective.)

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28

 

(Indeed, I highly recommend RadioLab generally).

[marknewton]

I know nothing of ethics or philosophy, but I know that this "trolley problem" is nonsense.

 

I once had to sit through a discussion of it as part of a course at work. When they asked me what I would do, I simply said I'd cock the points so that the trolley would derail before anyone got hurt/killed. Stoney silence followed! 

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[CaptOblivious]

Mark: nice.

 

The Trolley Problem was originally conceived to show that one ethical theory (consequentialism) failed to capture an important distinction (killing vs letting die) that a competing theory (deontology) could account for, and that therefore consequentialism was inadequate as a general account of our moral intuitions. Decades of utterly dull debate followed.

 

That people have tried to use the trolley problem for other uses is just as silly as the cases themselves. Its original purpose is abstruse enough!

[marknewton]

oops, yeah, but in Boston, the famously discourteous motorpersons sit behind a black curtain, and bark at you if you try to get a look at their work station. 

 

I can understand that up to a point. I hate having passengers peering in at me when I'm working a train.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[marknewton]

That people have tried to use the trolley problem for other uses is just as silly as the cases themselves. Its original purpose is abstruse enough!

 

Don, I did a bit of reading on the Trolley Problem, and I 'm still none the wiser! 

 

At the time I was doing a management course on workplace ethics, so I sort of understand why they used it. Sort of!

 

All the best,

 

Mark

[CaptOblivious]

There were two (well, three, but that's another discussion) broad ethical theories live in philosophical debate in the mid-twentieth century: Consequentialism and deontology. These theories are meant to be action-guiding: they tell you how to act in a given set of circumstances.

 

Consequentialism says that the consequences of an action matter more than anything else. You should take the action with the best consequences over all (that is, not just for your self, but for everyone affected).

 

Deontology says that the consequences are not all that matters: The motivation for acting matters too, and in particular, whether that action is in accord with some set of reasonable moral rules or guides. (Deontology is silent about which particular rules you should use, but does provide a method for evaluating a set of rules---this is not a relativist position! Not anything counts as a reasonable moral rule!)

 

The way philosophy tests moral theories to to compare the actions the theories tell us to take against our own moral intuitions. The basic idea is that we all share some basic intuitive sense of right and wrong, and we can calibrate our theories by comparing them to these intuitions. The Trolley Problem presents a pair of cases, polls our intuitions, and demonstrates that Consequentialism isn't calibrated very well against our intuitions, but that Deontology is. Therefore, Deontology is the better theory.

 

Trolley Problem part one: The Switch. One man on track A, five on track B, an out-of-control trolley, and a handy switch lever. The turnout is currently directed at the five. Given that your only choices are to pull the lever or not, is it permissible to pull the lever? (Notice that the question isn't: Should you pull the lever? but Is it OK to pull the lever? Bonus question: Is it permissible to not pull the lever? Survey says: Maybe.)

Survey says: Yes!

Consequentialism says: Yes! (it also says: it's not just permissible, but you must do it!)

Deontology says: Yes!

 

Trolley Problem part two: The Fat Man. Five men on track, one enormously fat man on a bridge over the track, and an out-of-control trolley headed for the five. Given that you know (you know!) that the fat man is so freakishly enormous that his body mass alone would be sufficient to derail the trolley and so stop it (and, amazingly, that you are strong enough to push this man!), is it permissible to push the fat man? Important point: The broad texture of part two is the same as in part one: Save five by killing one.

Survey says: No!

Consequentialism says: Yes! (it also says: it's not just permissible, but you must do it!)

Deontology says: Maybe: Depends on the rules in play.

 

The conclusion: Our intuitions tell us that it is OK to pull the switch, but wrong to push the fat man.

 

Consequentialism tells us that not only are both permissible, but that we are obligated to push the fat man! (Because the consequences are the same in each case: Kill one to save five). Diagnosis: Consequentialism isn't sensitive to all of the aspects of morality in play: Consequences aren't the only thing that matters, morally speaking. Therefore, Consequentialism fails to capture our moral intuitions, and fails as a theory.

 

Deontology doesn't give a definitive answer, but at least it doesn't flat-out contradict our intuitions, so that theory is still in play.

 

Bonus example: A doctor has five patients, all of whom will die unless they receive an organ transplant, and each needs a different organ. The doctor has a healthy patient in his office just now: Is it permissible for the doctor to kill the healthy patient to harvest his organs for the five unhealthy ones? Of course not! But Consequentialism appears to say that it is permissible—as, again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

I hate reading books on moral theory, because they often work by presenting a barrage of examples like that, each only a little different from the one before it. Aggravating

[quinntopia]

Don, that was fascinating...not just the recitation of the cases, but your commentary on them!  Good stuff!

[Guest ___]

Trolley problem, eh? I come from Pittsburgh which bad ordered trolleys cause the unionists bicker over who will change the burnt out headlight on a PCC. That's the 'Trolley Problem' back home.   :laugh: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

But, I will make a comment that I know Don will get, and that's all I'll say on the issue cause, I'm too hopped up on Vikoddin to get in to a discussion (to which I agree with Don on most all points, minus a small variation) on such matters. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

[quinntopia]

"You have been, and always shall be, my friend"