[Music] This video is sponsored by a new book from the YouTube channel Carnedies.org. More about this at the end of the debate.

Hello and welcome to Philosophy by the Channel, where we discuss and debate different philosophical ideas. Today we're going to be looking into an

ethical thought experiment known as the trolley problem.

Interesting. Now, the trolley problem is a hypothetical moral dilemma devised by the philosopher

Philippa Foot. Essentially, the moral dilemma is around sacrificing one person in order to save

a larger number of people. But the purpose of the thought experiment is to really get you to question your ethical

principles and beliefs and think about how they would come into play if you are ever faced with a dilemma like this, or

similar. We are now going to run through the thought experiment and approach the dilemma with some ethical principles.

Great. Let's begin. Very well. So let's set the scene: There is a railway construction site. Five engineers are working on a

particular track, and adjacent there is a lone engineer working on another track. You are the site manager and controller,

sitting high up in the tower. One day you spot a train in the distance shooting down the tracks at a phenomenal

speed. This is a runaway train that is out of control. It just so happens it is heading down the track where the five engineers

are working. Now, the engineers are drilling and hammering; they have noise-canceling headphones on and their backs are turned.

They have no idea the train is coming and they cannot hear it. Very shortly this train will be flying

through this track and will undoubtedly kill all five engineers. However, as the site manager and coordinator, you have a lever, and when

pulled, this will redirect the train to another track, but this is the track with the one engineer. This is where the

An engineer is working again. This engineer cannot hear the train and will not see it in time. So, if you pull this lever, the

train will definitely kill this engineer. And so here lies the dilemma: Do you do nothing and let five people die, or do

you intervene and directly cause the death of one person, but save the lives of five? And so here we have the trolley

problem. Interesting thought experiment. Yes. So then let's discuss what you would do. I would pull the lever and save the five

Well, I will take the utilitarian ethical perspective and say that the moral choice is that which generates the greatest good for the greatest number. In

this situation, it is pretty straightforward, providing we do not complicate the scenario. So I'm assuming we know nothing about each of these six

Yes, let's go with that. Fine, then it seems straightforward to me. I am saving five

lives over one. Five is greater than one. If five people die, then that is five times more death than if one person dies.

So I would pull the lever. But think about this properly: By pulling the lever, you are actively causing the death of

one person. This is not letting one person die; you are directly the cause of their death. You are effectively killing

them. Does this not play a part in your moral decision-making?

Sure, it does. But if I don't pull the lever, I'm letting

Yes, but we are talking about action versus inaction. By letting the five people die, that is a case of

inaction, whereas you pulling the lever, that is a case of action, meaning you are responsible for the death of that person.

But surely, if you can prevent the death of someone and you choose not to act, you are responsible for their death. If for

Example: I walk past someone drowning in a lake, and there's a life vest on the side, and I just walk past and leave them.

I don't throw them the life vest; I don't jump in to save them; I don't even call

for help. Surely this inaction is responsible for that person's death. Hmm, so I would say yes, pulling the lever

makes me responsible for the death of the one, but not pulling the lever would make me responsible for the death of the

five. And so here I am, in a very unfortunate position to be in, but here I am nonetheless. I can either be responsible

for the death of five or of one, and as a utilitarian, I will choose to save the five lives, as it is greater than one.

That is what I believe; that is, I believe the morally correct thing to do. I can also lean on the doctrine of double

effect here. The doctrine says it is okay to do something morally good, even if it has unintended bad side effects.

So what I am doing is saving five people, although I am causing the death of one. This death is not intended; the intention

is to save five people. The one engineer's death is just a bad side effect, but still, according to this

doctrine, this is the morally right thing to do. Okay, I have to disagree here. Really? Yes, I will take a deontological position

rather than a utilitarian position. A deontological position values duty very highly. We have a duty not to take a life.

This duty is more important than any consequence or outcome. Our actions are the most important things; it is our

actions that are inherently right or wrong, not the outcome. It is about what we do, not what the end result is.

So, as a moral duty, I believe we should never actively take a life; we should never actively kill people.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant would call this a categorical imperative; it is something we must always follow, no

matter what. Breaking a categorical imperative, no matter the situation, is always morally wrong. And so, if I

pull the lever, I am killing—I am actively responsible for the death of a human being. I am taking a life by

killing someone; I am acting immorally. So I cannot pull the lever. As a deontological ethicist, as soon as I pull

the lever, I am acting immorally, and so I would not pull the lever. So you will be

responsible for the death of five people. I'm not responsible for their death, as I did not do anything to cause their death.

But you did not act to save them. Yes, but if I did act to save them, then my actions would be directly causing a

death. So inaction is not causing a death; action is. I completely disagree. If you refuse to pull the lever, I would say you

are responsible for their deaths. Inaction bears responsibility just as much as action. Okay, so you agree pulling the lever is direct action that directly

causes the death of one, but you would still do this to save five people over the one? Yes, I would. Fine.

Let me change the hypothetical scenario slightly. This was brought forward by the philosopher Judith Thomson.

Similar situation: five engineers are working on the railway line, and there is a runaway train. However, this time there

is no track you can divert the train to. This time you need to stop the train. As the train approaches, there is a large

engineer working next to you, and you know if you push this big engineer onto the tracks, his body will definitely stop

the train and will save the five people, but of course he will die. So what do you do now? We are not talking

About a lever here; we are talking about actively pushing a human being onto the train tracks in order to save five

people. Are you still holding on to your utilitarian principles? No way! This is different. You are asking me to actually

kill someone here. Yes, but why is that different from pulling the lever? Because with the lever, I didn't directly have

contact with the one engineer. I just pulled a lever. I feel a bit removed from that death.

That doesn't matter, though. You agreed pulling the lever was a direct action that caused the death of the one engineer, so what difference does

it make what that direct action is? Whether it's pulling a lever or pressing a button or pushing someone, because the

lever just redirects the train, and it is the train that actually kills them, not the action of pulling a lever.

That's not a good argument. A push by itself wouldn't kill you either; it's just that the push redirects the position of the

engineer. It is still the train that kills them. Hmm, okay. I suppose to be a true utilitarian,

I would have to push the big engineer in front of the train and save the five people. That's a very bad thing to do. I

can see that, but I am still saving the lives of five people. Surely that is the morally right thing to do. I can also put

this down to the doctrine of the double effect: killing of the one person is not intended; the intention is to stop the

train. Their death is just a bad side effect. So, according to the doctrine, this is still the morally right thing to do.

Interesting. Okay, based on this, I'm going to go slightly off the trolley problem and give you another hypothetical

dilemma, but I think it's still very relevant.

Need emergency organ transplants, or else they will die. Do you find killing and taking the organs of one innocent person to save the lives of

five okay? This is different, why? Because now we're on to actually murdering people. So what? It's still an action to save five

people, right? You were willing to actively pull a lever and kill one person to save five. You were willing to

actively push one person in front of a train to save five. Why then would you not kill one person and take their

organs to save five? Surely this is allowed by the doctrine of double effect, and surely the utilitarian principle

would say it is the morally right thing to do. So I ask you, in this hypothetical ethical dilemma, would you kill one

person and take their organs to save the lives of five people?

When you put it like this, no, I wouldn't. Okay, so I would

argue that you are not a true utilitarian. You do agree that some actions should always be followed or never permitted by

a sense of duty because they are right and wrong in and of themselves. So it doesn't matter what the outcome or the

consequences or the results are; we should never take a life out of duty, not because of net worth or utility. No, no,

that's not the case. I wouldn't kill an innocent person for their organs, but I would say this would still be following

the utilitarian principle. I do not think anyone wants to live a life where they could be legally kidnapped and killed

for their organs at any time. This would cause so much fear and anxiety among the whole population that it would, on a

holistic scale, cause more pain and suffering, and so, as a utilitarian, we should not be permitted to kill innocent people for their organs,

lest we want to live in a horrible society full of panic, fear, and anxiety. Hmm, good point.

This video is brought to you by a new book on the philosophy of economics from the YouTube channel Carneades.org. The

book is *All Lives Equal: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Values Rich Lives More, and How Philosophy Can Fix It*. It critiques

The Trolley Problem - Explained and Debated

Philosophy Vibe

이 동영상은 트롤리 문제로 알려진 윤리적 사고 실험을 소개합니다.

필리파 풋이 고안한 이 문제는 많은 사람을 구하기 위해 한 사람을 희생하는 것을 핵심으로 합니다.

이 실험은 윤리적 원칙과 신념에 도전하는 것을 목표로 합니다.

이 동영상에서는 윤리적 원칙을 사용하여 이 딜레마를 살펴봅니다.

폭주하는 열차가 소리를 듣지 못하는 다섯 명의 엔지니어를 향해 가고 있습니다.

레버를 누르면 열차가 다른 선로로 방향을 바꾸고 대신 기관사 한 명이 사망할 수 있습니다.

딜레마는 아무것도 하지 않고 5명이 죽게 둘 것인지, 아니면 레버를 당겨서 1명을 죽일 것인지입니다.

공리주의적 관점과 덕론적 관점

공리주의적 관점은 최대 다수의 최대 이익을 우선시하며, 레버를 당기는 것을 제안합니다.

이 토론에서는 행동(레버를 당기는 것)과 무행동(5명이 죽도록 내버려 두는 것)의 차이를 고려합니다.

공리주의적 관점은 의무와 행동의 내재적 옳고 그름을 강조하며 레버를 당기는 것에 반대합니다.

범주적 명령(임마누엘 칸트)의 개념이 소개됩니다.

행동과 비행동의 책임에 대한 논쟁은 계속되고 있습니다.

대형 기관사를 선로에 밀어 넣으면 열차가 멈춰 5명의 생명을 구할 수 있는 새로운 시나리오가 제시됩니다.

이제 논의는 레버를 당기는 것과 누군가를 직접 밀치는 것의 차이로 옮겨갑니다.

이러한 맥락에서 공리주의적 관점이 재평가되고 있습니다.

5명의 생명을 구하기 위해 장기를 기증해야 하는 가상의 딜레마가 제시됩니다.

이 토론에서는 다양한 시나리오에서 공리주의 원칙의 일관성을 탐구합니다.

장기를 위해 무고한 사람을 살해하는 것을 허용할 경우 발생할 수 있는 사회적 결과를 고려합니다.