# Philosophy Trolley Problem + MBTI



## musiclover3467 (Feb 25, 2016)

I thought this would be interesting. Can you reply with what you would do in the philosophy trolley problem, your reasoning, and your MBTI type. Thanks! 

If you're not familiar with the trolley problem, here is a description of the situation and choices: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem


----------



## pjmohr33 (Mar 7, 2016)

Pull the lever slightly, hoping it kills everyone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

This INTJ would pull the lever.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

I remember doing this for a few philosophy tests/thought exercises, and every time, I pull the lever and push the guy regardless of variation.

Were I placed in the actual situation or given a monitor, I can't speak to my reaction. I'd _like_ to say I'd have the same reaction, but researchers find clever ways to influence results lmao


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

INTP









The right choice is not necessarily moral, but can be amoral, so while both choices can be correct (right) it does not mean that they are moral. Not saving a person is not immoral, because no rights are violated, but it may be the consequence of an immoral maxim to never help anyone in need unless it benefits you somehow (including feeling good about it). In the first scenario there is not enough information to determine neither the correctness nor the morality of the choice. Consider for instance if there is 10 people to be saved elsewhere, but would not have time to do so if you tried to save the 5. Consider also that the 5 would all be murderers and the 1 would be a saint who would help others and save them. Consider the intent of the choice is to actually kill the 1, and didn't care about what happens to the 5. In this case it is obviously immoral. 

In the second scenario there is enough information to determine that it's wrong, because you are using the fat man as a mere means to an end. 
In the third scenario you might say that the villain deserves it, but did he get a fair trial? 
The fourth scenario, the loop variant is immoral exactly for the reason explained in the wiki article, that it's wrong to use one person's death in order to save others.
M.Costa is incorrect in saying that not pulling the lever is using them as a means, since that implies an action is taken wherein the 5 are part of the plan to save the 1, but no action was taken. Even if that was the outcome you wanted, it does not become immoral until you device a plan and act on it, and in this case, it's not clear that was a desired outcome.
Unger fails to recognize that the standard trolley problem is inconclusive but depends on the motive, which may or may not be interpreted into the scenario. The same holds true for the last scenario in other words. The reliance on psychological effect is just a strawman argument.


----------



## aubreyospaghettio (Feb 15, 2016)

pull the lever cronk


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

I would not pull the lever and count on the trolley driver's training not to mess this one up. Maybe he wont brake in time and 5 people die but all this is his problem, tough shit people die all the time. Im not about to get involved in a train accident, besides Im not _trained_ to operate complex machinery such as a lever, especially while intoxicated. Who knows what could go wrong, my reaction time could be so slow that I pull the lever just as the train is passing me and derailing the whole thing and thats not a risk Im willing to take, a train is quite expensive


----------



## Yu Narukami (Jan 14, 2016)

ENTJ.

Assuming that I can escape any legal liabilities, I would take the more utilitarian approach regardless of how I feel morally about it, since, in my perspective, morals are subjective, but the number of lives saved is not. This makes utilitarianism in this scenario a more reliable metric.


----------



## Silent Theory (Nov 1, 2014)

INFJ. There are too many questions I have regarding the scenario to answer accurately. For example, how much time do I have to make this decision? Why can't the trolley driver stop the train? Is there a chance he/she could stop the train? Is it possible that I could pull the lever, thereby directing the trolley to the single individual yet make it in time to untie them before they are killed? It really depends on the extenuating circumstances.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

pjmohr33 said:


> Pull the lever slightly, hoping it kills everyone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk



That's an INTP response. An ENTP would try to figure out a way to save everyone.


----------



## pjmohr33 (Mar 7, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> That's an INTP response. An ENTP would try to figure out a way to save everyone.


Not true... this entp just got off work when he said that.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

pjmohr33 said:


> Not true... this entp just got off work when he said that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


This ENTP is still in the middle of a 12 hour shift at work. 

I hate only having two choices. I want a "win-win."


----------



## pjmohr33 (Mar 7, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> This ENTP is still in the middle of a 12 hour shift at work.
> 
> I hate only having two choices. I want a "win-win."


Nah...

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

pjmohr33 said:


> Nah...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


You sure you're not an INTP in disguise?


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Multi Track Drifting


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

I'd probably look for a way to rescue the single guy and then pull the lever, if I had the time. Else I'd just leave and feel a huge trauma.


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

Is the one person watching the one who tied the people up lol? Well. :X flips switch. (ahah I kid, really IDK I hate this problem, I always think there is an ultimate solution more to do with the trolley car itself--but by the time I would have figured it out, well, people be dead).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I wouldn't intervene, nature was built this way for a reason.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

not this thread again [sighs]
place C4 on the track and blow the mother fucker up


----------



## confusedasheck (Jan 8, 2016)

ISFJ

If this were to occur, I would not intervene because all of the possible scenarios will have an unfortunate outcome. I would feel better because I wouldn't be praised by the people/person I saved and would not feel as guilty because I would walk away from the scene, not knowing who died.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Which variant are you taking about? If you are talking about the simple form where you just pull a lever to save five people and kill one then of course I would do so, that's just simple utilitarianism.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Because I'm a believer in fate, I probably wouldn't do anything. It doesn't matter if you save 1 person or save 5.. You still end up being an involuntary killer. So, I would just stand there & grieve..while being reminded how much of a b***h life can be. I'd also probably carry guilt but would eventually get over it because at the end of the day, it's not MY fault those people died. If I chose to save either or though, I'd have a hand in it.. - ENFP


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Although doing nothing would save the 1 person, choosing to save the one person over the 5 wouldn't have been my intention.. Intent is very important.. It's all fate's fault. *sobs*


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

ENTJ i'd pull the lever half way hoping the train derails. If not then it'll kill the one person who might can move rather than the five tied up.


----------



## Wolf (Mar 20, 2016)

INTJ

I'm just going to leave the situation as it is, not pulling any levers. 

It's not my job to play "god" and decide who lives and dies, I'll leave it up to fate.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

musiclover3467 said:


> I thought this would be interesting. Can you reply with what you would do in the philosophy trolley problem, your reasoning, and your MBTI type. Thanks!
> 
> If you're not familiar with the trolley problem, here is a description of the situation and choices: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem


Logical thing is whatever create the least casualties. IF one of those people is important like a doctor you wiegh that against the citizens so which one is worth losing. If its children vs adults you save the children since they have not lived thier lives yet meaning they have more potentiol. 

Im very good at this game.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

The switch - I would like the theory to explain my relativity from the lever from the 1 guy on his own, if it was a short-ish distance I would pull the lever then sprint to the 1 guy and help him loose from the tracks. However lets say the distance from the lever to the victims is too far for me to run there and help him out then I would still pull the switch. I think this theory would of been better if it had involved the 5 people being poor or living in poverty and the 1 guy being someone high in power or being a respected figure to society, then that would lead to a better debate. Otherwise everyone would pick the one guy to die, unless your'e just an annoying idiot who isn't taking this theory properly for satire.

The fat man - How are you certain that the "fat man" will even topple in such a way of blocking the tracks? What if you was to push him over the bridge to only just land close to the tracks and not on it entirely, meaning you've just killed/hurt and innocent man for no outcome and that would look awkward to the judge "I was hoping the guy would land on the tracks." good excuse. Also I like how your first initiative to stopping the trolley is a fat guy, another thing is that realistically any person no matter how fat wouldn't be able to stop a trolley so which would just make it 6 people dead. My answer to this would be to just let the five people die, if I was to use the man to "save" these people I will have to go through the whole process of explaining and justifying my reasons to lots of judges.

The fat villain - Obvious answer here. Yes I would push him over. What is there to lose from this action? If I do nothing, then I gain no acceptable outcome that is deserving.

The loop variant - Previous to "The Fat Man" I would do nothing. If we look at it realistically then all 6 people would die (I've explained why above) so doing nothing means that at least one person lives. However if we are saying that the 1 guy will indeed stop the train then I will just walk away and pretend it never happened. Or if 1 guy can stop the train, then i'll just find something relative to the mass of the guy to stop the train entirely.

The man in the yard - I will indeed proceed to kill him, perhaps I should kill him myself with my bare hands to ensure he is indeed dead, would the theory like that? Then I won't have to worry about if the trolleys would actually fall down a hill to just kill him, I have to make sure the job gets done.

Conclusion - These theories are too open minded to annoying people like me that would create more possibilities out of it since it is so vague in it's options by not including more detail on the situation making the reader create an alternative outcome. Meaning people are not looking at the outcomes in a morally justified way, but an alternative way (which kinda shows how kind and nice the person is to be willing to think about saving every body).


----------



## TG1 (Aug 23, 2012)

Pull the lever.

Before becoming aware of the situation, I believe the correct act would be to do nothing. 

But once I have observed the situation, I become part of the context of the scenario - having the ability to observe, to consider, and to act, imposes upon me an obligation. 
That obligation is to act in accordance with my principles.

And all other things being equal, pulling the lever achieves the outcome most in accord with my principles.

INTJ.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

TG1 said:


> That obligation is to act in accordance with my principles.


I hope that was satire, otherwise that made me cringe.
Do not reference your MBTI type to be your principle of your personality, you should be referencing your personality as a principle to your MBTI type. Please, people can't take you seriously by doing that and makes it like you're really trying hard to be an INTJ.
If that wasn't your intention, then rephrase it. It looks bad.
Also I'm bored, fight me.


----------



## TG1 (Aug 23, 2012)

narcissistic said:


> Do not reference your MBTI type to be your principle of your personality,


I did no such thing. I appended the MBTI type incidentally at the end of the post.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

I hate questions like these, these unwinnable scenarios.

It's not fair, it's set up so that there's no way I can kill all 6!


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

TG1 said:


> I did no such thing. I appended the MBTI type incidentally at the end of the post.


I'll let you sly this time, but I'm watching you, TG1. Always watching. Always.


----------



## TG1 (Aug 23, 2012)

narcissistic said:


> I'll let you sly this time, but I'm watching you, TG1. Always watching. Always.




On that note. It would be an interesting discussion in itself: Given a person who has travelled through life looking for their real "self" and identity, allowing it to be shaped by circumstances. Having that person discovering their MBTI-type (or enneagram, or...) and recognizing something in the description of that type that harmonizes, something they feel is right and true. And having that person adopting traits that are dictated by the type, and in the process finding that those traits fit them like a tailor made suit.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

TG1 said:


> On that note. It would be an interesting discussion in itself: Given a person who has travelled through life looking for their real "self" and identity, allowing it to be shaped by circumstances. Having that person discovering their MBTI-type (or enneagram, or...) and recognizing something in the description of that type that harmonizes, something they feel is right and true. And having that person adopting traits that are dictated by the type, and in the process finding that those traits fit them like a tailor made suit.


You mean. 
Person is not fully self-aware of themselves which leaves them to feel empty/unsolved puzzle.
They go do a MBTI test, get lets say ISFP.
See a couple of similar traits, but would rather feel part of something instead of been torn on if they are ISFP or perhaps something else. So they adopt that whole personality type to feel complete and understood.
Leaving them to be something else to which they may not of been before the test.
Is that what you was imposing? 
Well if so, what is the "self". Would a person who seems ISFP to go and adopt (not just act, be feel and be. There's a different between acting and being) INFP because they see it as being more something they would rather be, would that be fake of them? Since obviously people change through personal experience, would not changing your MBTI type be also some what a personal experience. Is that seen downed upon or not? Because I'm certain when you was younger you may have been a different MBTI type if you was to have done it say 5 years ago.


----------



## Pernida (Jun 9, 2016)

In the first case, how do you know that the trolley can't stop? Who knows what the conductor will do? Why can't I just warn those men to get away from the rail? That aside, I don't see how pulling the lever or not makes you do the "right" thing. Either way, people will still blame you for your inability to save the other. I think what is more important is to do something your are willing to be responsible for. So in the first case, I will not pull the lever because I don't want to get involved and bear the responsibility of killing one man. 

Regarding the second one, it will be immoral to push the fat man because I don't want to violate his right to live. Hell, even if I want to push him, I doubt I'm strong enough to do it any way. 

Regarding the fat villain, it's not as simple as he is an evil guy and therefore need to be pushed as we don't know anything about this villain yet. How do we know if he's truly "evil" guy? What if the guys that are tied up to the train are actually asshole victims? I don't think I can answer this one. 

The loop variant is basically the same as scenario 1. You know that you need to sacrifice 1 in order to save 5. So my answer in scenario 1 still stands.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

Isn't there a way to move the trolley? 

If not, don't do anything. 

"I didn't see anything officer; I was too busy picking my nose."


----------



## coconut sharks (Apr 26, 2015)

Pernida said:


> Either way, people will still blame you for your inability to save the other. I think what is more important is to do something your are willing to be responsible for. So in the first case, I will not pull the lever because I don't want to get involved and bear the responsibility of killing one man.


I agree. I wouldn't pull the lever.
And I would do the same if that one person was someone I knew.


----------



## merryangela (Jun 16, 2016)

ENTP, if I HAD to kill someone pull it, if not I would yell pull it and yell to the guy I pulled or do something else.


----------



## WildBlueSkies (Jun 17, 2016)

I read the first one and thought, "Easy; I pull the lever, because 5>1." Then I read the second one with the fat dude and thought, "Nah, that feels closer to murder." Then I questioned the difference between the two thought experiments and my different responses. 

At that point I felt like I was at work rather than killing time online and decided to stop thinking.


----------



## pjmohr33 (Mar 7, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> You sure you're not an INTP in disguise?


Pretty confident on that. 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------

