Mother Forkin' Morals with Dr. Todd May - Part 2: Utilitarianism - The Good Place (Exclusive)

[@eduardoarmenta9232]

Now I understand Chidi a bit more. Making a decision it's a moral stand by itself.... Maybe that's why he and Eleanor make such a great team. She complements his knowledge with her action, his arguments with her confidence (he's the boat and she the paddles).

[@nbartlett6538]

And not making a decision is also a moral decision. Often worse than making a decision, any decision. Which is why Chidi is in the Bad Place I guess.

[@yevgeniyaleshchenko849]

@0 0 Not really. Just pointing out the obvious.

[@GerarGear]

Nice insight!

[@boydrewboy741]

Ty for using complement correctly :)

[@ab7dasker]

One of the many problems with utilitarianism is that decisions tend to have unintended consequences. Many formulations of utilitarianism assume perfect information, which is almost never the case in real life. Maybe you throw the switch to hit the 1 person instead of the 5, but the 1 person you kill was actually going to later go on to cure cancer (saving millions of lives). The old adage about "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is often misunderstood as a shorthand for not trying to proactively do good things. Rather, it is about this limitation of utilitarianism in the face of a reality which forces us to try to live moral lives with imperfect information.

[@ShadeSlayer1911]

Not just perfect information, but perfect implementation and execution.

[@cScottD]

I think the difference is that in the trolley problem you're already an active participant in the deaths. If you throw the switch, you will kill one person. If you don't throw the switch, you will kill 5 people. The only choice you have is whether to actively kill 1 person or actively kill 5 people. In the organ harvesting scenario, the 5 people are going to die from their various ailments, and you are not an active participant in their deaths, whereas if you choose to cut up a healthy person to save them, you would be choosing to kill that person. In this case, your choice is whether to actively kill 1 person or not. Yes, killing that person will save 5 people, but that's still a very different choice than murder 1 or murder 5.

[@mikkirefur]

thanks for that... saved me typing time :)

[@FoxyAlphaRogerTango]

Exactly! It would be like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. Not the best analogy, but similar.

[@FrancisR420]

Not really You're still killing 5 people in either scenario if you can understand that imagine you ruptured their organs

[@asterismos5451]

And the second one is an issue of bodily autonomy: where it is a person's own choice whether to give their body to help others rather than being forced to by someone else. (Not that being killed is good because that's going to happen in either scenario, but this introduces a new factor.)

[@moridain]

Actually both are the same. Keep in mind that in the first problem the trolly is heading toward five people, but you didn't put it on that path. Those five people are going to die through no action of your own, just like the five people who need organ transplants. If you weren't on the trolly or in the surgery those people would die anyway. However if you flip the switch OR murder someone for their organs you are now taking active part in someones deaths. While the other people might have died without your action or presence, you are involving an innocent person who would have been totally fine. The only real difference between the two is that in the trolly problem you have the vehicle acting as an intermediary. You just 'flip a switch' and it is done. In the surgery scene you are more of an active participant, and without that intermediary allowing you to disassociate yourself with the results things get a lot harder to justify.

[@SailorDrew]

Yes! Love these morals vids w/ Dr. Todd May! Also, can't wait for the show to come back in the spring!

[@JoseMendoza-JAM]

When in Spring

[@blindleader42]

Very early spring: 10 January. 😃

[@JoseMendoza-JAM]

Yeah, A New Year Miracle

[@SailorDrew]

Ah, yeah, despite having spring like weather here in Arizona, that's not technically spring I guess, haha. Yeah, we don't have to wait long, which is nice. :)

[@sterregeertsema3355]

I actually rewatched the good place to study for my philosophy test, maybe it was just me procrastinating..😅 but I passed the test🎉. So thank you the good place for making a show that is really fun to watch and just forking brilliant we’ll still making it learn you something

[@mar-o5473]

Sterre Geertsema That’s great! I’ve got my ethics exam in January and i’ve just been watching the good place to help me 😅 i don’t know if that’s a sane response but if you passed so will i! 🎉🎉

[@sterregeertsema3355]

Mar-o good luck with your exam!

[@mar-o5473]

Sterre Geertsema thankyou! It’s tomorrow 😆

[@Peaslepuff]

@@mar-o5473 dude, how did your exam go?

[@mar-o5473]

Peaslepuff really well thankyou! 9 months ago i didn’t think there would only be 1 more season of the good place, how things change 😭😭

[@andrewmakesthings]

0:24 was sure he was about to say “Jeremy Berimy”

[@고란이-v7u]

Andrew E hahahaaha

[@__dav__]

Bearimy* tho

[@netclips4k]

My thoughts exactly 😂😂

[@vaylonkenadell]

It was an excellent idea to have these series of videos discussing philosophy further, although I do wish there were slightly fewer cuts back to the show and more of Dr. May talking.

[@reinehahaha000]

yes! more Todd May, please

[@telectronix1368]

It's part of Mike Schur's veeerrry long game to build his cult........of greater philosophical and ethical awareness and general benefit. #Insidious

[@tmage23]

Ultimately, it's a promotion for the show so it's going to be heavy on that content.

[@vaylonkenadell]

@@reinehahaha000 Maybe one of these days I'll get around to reading Todd May's book on death!

[@LadyLyme]

Psychology explains this with the Milgram experiment. This shows that the more involved you feel physically/empathetically to a situation that involves harming another human being, the more repulsive it becomes.

[@cScottD]

Good point. It makes me wonder if being further removed would change the equation... What if you weren't going to perform the actual surgery? What if you were just making the decision? Would that make a difference?

[@KenMathis1]

@Ash Disler While I agree directness is a component, I don't think it is a major one. For example, even if you were totally removed from the surgery situation, like writing rules for an AI to apply to some distant possible future event, the outcome would remain the same. The real difference is in the conceptualization of what the act is actively doing. In the trolley example, it is viewed as saving five people, while in the surgery problem it is viewed as killing one person. It is our fundamental disdain for killing that is the difference. Unjust acts stand by themselves. They can't be made just with positive side effects.

[@brettknoss486]

That is defiantly true, but there are things that should be done even if they seem rrudive, such as allowing the sale of organs.

[@programmersurfdude]

Damn I was sitting here for a while thinking about. I think you're right! Great point

[@BigDungeonEnergy1]

Utilitarianism gives a good foundation for many decisions of our lives, because considering the consequences of our actions is often more important than considering the intention behind our actions. This is not to say that intention is meaningless, only that if you intend to do good and end up causing harm, you ought to revise how you consider your decisions, rather than getting defensive and doubling down on how good your intentions were. But, utilitarianism can't account for every problem in our lives, and can't provide a good solution to everything. No single moral philosophy can. You need a mix of deontology, virtue ethics and utilitarianism to live a good life.

[@Shadethewolfy]

Wear a mask, no matter which one you follow. XD

[@curranfrank2854]

The thing is, at least to me, while all of the philosophies have strengths utilitarianism( or maybe more broadly consequentialism) should be the core foundation of your approach to life morally. Duty/obligation and moral virtues are broadly effective as forms of rule-based utilitarianism, where following these philosophies tends to result in more positive outcomes, both on an individual and societal level. However, I don't view them as a value in and of themselves, and at a point I think they start to become counterproductive. If duty or moral virtues lead you to pursue a course of action that doesn't lead to a good outcome, or makes a bad outcome much more likely, those moral philosophies shouldn't be followed. There's some room for them, especially in the context of a rules-based utilitarian philosophy where an action might cause more harm than good but is worth it for maintaining an effective moral rule that long term creates the greatest amount of good. But still, utilitarianism should be the default and overall guiding philosophy, in my opinion

[@falnica]

The difference is how you choose the one person who dies. In the trolley problem the 1 death is a by product of saving 5 people, in the transplant problem it is a direct requirement

[@zyaicob]

Woah. This is actually the best argument I've heard so far

[@gladbutterfly]

I agree with C. Scott Davis. The difference is that in the streetcar you are trapped into making a decision. You have no choice about the death of at least one person, given that you cannot apply brakes or otherwise stop the trolley or warn the workers. In the second case, you are outright choosing to kill someone, in a situation in which you have a choice not to be directly involved. Perhaps others may die if you choose not to kill, but their death is not linked to something over which you have no other option, as in the streetcar example. In the first case, you are a victim of circumstances, forced into deciding on which harm would be less, although you don’t really know that for sure either. Your decision is based simply on the number of lives, and not on the good the one might do if he or she lives as opposed to the five. There’s no way to know either in the trolley case, but you are supposedly forced to choose. In either case, you don’t really know the consequences. They are always unforeseen because humans are finite. So its not the easy decision that utilitarianism takes it to be. In the second case, you are deciding that five lives are worth more than one, even though you know nothing about the actual consequences of killing the one; nor do you know the consequences of saving the five, if in fact they will all be saved as a result of the death of the one. You might think of it as the Butterfly Effect of ethics. Even very small choices can have significant effects over time. But we don’t know what they will be. Utilitarianism is not, by itself, a sufficient ethical basis.

[@steliokantos9428]

The difference is the urgency in each situation. It takes time to kill someone and take their organs. The trolley is an immediate crisis and the surgery isn't.

[@terra2ban]

When asking, I like just saying “Let 5 people die or kill 1”, instead of “kill 5 or kill 1”, because it makes the view on the problem so much more interesting

[@bluesystemjackson]

Four and a half minutes and he explains more than my ethic Prof in ten lectures.

[@alexislou9404]

Just finished your book, Todd May. A Significant Life is the most engaging and "meaningful" work I've read about the place of meaning in a human life. Would that everyone could read this book. Thanks and I look forward to following you on The Good Place videos.

[@tnttiger3079]

I'm a Utilitarian, and for the hospital dilemma, I'd say you shouldn't kill the one person. Because your actions have consequences outside the scenario. Sure, in isolation, it's ethical, but in the meatspace, if everyone followed Utilitarianism, no-one would feel safe at any point, as they could be murdered, and so society would break down- and that would hurt way, way more people than all the deaths from organ failure combined.

[@FrancisR420]

Translation: because what if you get murdered and your organs harvested

[@jkfecke]

This is actually one of the Utilitarian defenses - if the goal is to do the most good, the consequences of killing people and harvesting their organs ultimately are negative, while the consequences of throwing the switch are at worst neutral.

[@tnttiger3079]

@Drinker_Of_Milk So what would you argue in stead?

[@tnttiger3079]

@Drinker_Of_Milk ok then, where the hell do the imperatives necessary for both approaches stem from?

[@tnttiger3079]

@Drinker_Of_Milk But how do you justify the existence of Deity? Or if not, where do these 'inborn imperatives' derive from themselves? Either those themselves are predisposed on Deity or some other metanatural system, or they are derived from nature itself, which again would be committing a naturalistic fallacy if we were to say that the existence of these laws designates that we should follow them.

[@gingerscholar152]

the thing that bothers me the most about the organ version is that killing someone to harvest their organs doesn't automatically mean you can save those 5 people. Bodies reject foreign transplants all the time, infections could occur, blood types differ, and so many other variable that make it that person is going to die anyway. in the trolley problem your actions will affect the world, either 5 will die, or 1 will, full stop. in the organ version, all 6 could easily die, meaning your actions to save those 5 sick people could easily been for nothing

[@madiunknown5013]

Maybe time sensitivity and certainty of the choices have something to do with our answer? In the trolley problem, I accept that these are the only two choices: kill five people or kill one person. In the hospital problem, I don't. It might be the only solution, but to me, that seems somewhat improbable. And in the hospital problem, if you have time to operate on all the people, you have time to think hard about your decision, and also time and resources to try to find another solution. I would want to be make use of every possible second of that time. By contrast, in the trolley problem, with a train hurtling towards the people, you have to make a choice very quickly. Knowing what I know about human psychology, an understandable response in the trolley problem is to panic and be unable to pull the switch (As Chidi does in the first iteration of it), and while that would be tragic, I would not call it morally wrong. There's also a rules portion. The hospital is part of society, and we have a rule against murder. The trolley is separate from society. When Chidi is placed in the hospital, he is immediately calmer, because he has the Hippocratic Oath to fall back on. Finally, a lot of people mention that killing the one person isn't as active or 'real' in the trolley problem as in the hospital problem. I would argue that killing the five people isn't as real in the hospital problem (see other solutions point above). In the hospital problem, I think it's assumed/felt that we won't have to watch these people die. In the show, in the trolley problem, Chidi immediately gets blood in his mouth. In the hospital problem, he doesn't even see the faces of the five-- they're covered largely in sheets. It's not until Michael says, "tell their families" that these people become 'real'.

[@asiarahman6033]

The difference is that in one case there is an uncontrollable trolley that cant be stopped. Someone is gonna die. On the other hand u have to use a healthy person organs to save others. It is the healthy person decision to make. Both cases someone has to die. But its not the same person's decision in both cases. Thats how i see it.

[@asiarahman6033]

No on the trolley the controls were not in the one healthy persons hand. It was in chidi's. Also the other four people on the track are also healthy workers. Chidi has to chose a path of least collateral damage. It doesn't make it okay that one person should die. I just think both cases are very different. The problem is that people in hospital case use the trolley case to justify their actions.

[@campkira]

There are no justification of letting one person. to died.

[@tahraethestoryteller6079]

You’re so much better than my introductory ethics professor

[@jakeekiss]

I can't believe it, but my love of comics kind of gives me insight here. The difference between the two (trolley vs medical) is reactive versus pro-active, or, put another way, the former is the choice a supervillain gives a superhero to prove a point, the latter is a justification a supervillain uses for doing a bad thing. First scenario is classic, Spider-man bridge standoff (Raimi movie version). Do you save the bus full of kids or the girl? All the potential victims were already in this trap. Fate, or the Green Goblin, or something put them there, and you (the hero) are in the position of damage control. The second scenario, carving up a healthy person to save others, that's more akin to Watchmen's Ozymandias. That's ends justify the means thinking. That's the anti-villain (as opposed to anti-hero) archetype, a person who is willing to do horrible things, horrible things that would not have otherwise occurred, pro-actively, to prevent a worse thing they see coming. This is also the foundational moral question in comics like The Authority (when it's written competently anyway). The reason they're different is that *everyone* will die eventually of medical issues, whereas most people will never die of trolley. The "trap" in the second scenario can only be defined as "being alive in such a way as you will ultimately die of a failing body". In the Trolley problem all victims are equally "terminal" at the start. In the medical version, that is not true.

[@OmicronChan]

This is a good articulation of the problem. Underrated comment.

[@markfrellips5633]

Awww got to the interesting part of the discussion about the problems of philosophy, such a tease!

[@Tozmiov]

The difference is the situations the potential victims are in. And I mean that literally. In one case, it’s 5 people on a track or 1 person on a track. It’s the same situation, just different numbers of people. In the other case, it’s 5 people who are sick, and 1 person that is healthy. Different numbers of people that are in different situations. For that problem, the different situations that those people are in holds more weight than the number of people.

[@brynnmcdonnell2260]

I had a fish named John Stuart Mill...he made me a better person. RIP little buddy.

[@aaroncade1136]

I love these vids. Really educational!

[@TheOMGJames]

I think the issue is you don't have the full calculation. In the surgery conundrum, the problem is that it has greater impacts. You don't want to be in a world where we kidnap people off of the street to harvest their organs. You do want to be in a world where people will flip the switch in a train crash to reduce loss of life

[@ruoya6556]

Oh, nice! I think you just independently came across the idea of Rule Utilitarianism, a branch of utilitarianism where instead of evaluating an action based on the amount of "good" (utility) it would produce, it's evaluated based on how "good" the rule governing that action would be, when generally followed.

[@siddhantbanerjee3328]

Ooooh this is using the Kantian way is it not?

[@curranfrank2854]

@@ruoya6556 Yeah, Rule Utilitarianism ftw. I understand no philosophy is perfect but it really feels like any of the criticisms made towards Utilitarianism in general are mostly solved by Rule Utilitarianism

[@MsLindaluu]

I loved this! Please keep going with these!

[@thegreatcheesedemon]

Some notable differences that I ultimately cannot see making a rational difference in the ethics: -Dying of organ failure is seen as not as tragic as dying of blood loss. -The timing of the deaths does not seem as urgent in the organ failure scenario. -The trolley problem typically implies that the one person sacrificed is more a part of the situation already, while the surgery problem can feel like dragging somebody into it.

[@joesr31]

all these are assumptions, you can imagine a scenario where all of these are equal in both situations, ie. dying of organ failure hurts like crazy, the organ failure patients only have a few seconds to live, would you make the same choice for both scenarios? I don't get your 3rd point, both are "dragging" someone into it, the railway single guy may just be doing his job, he followed protocol, worked only when his lane is not in use, why does his sacrifice mean any less than the surgery scenario?

[@jamest2606]

I think the difference is that the trolley workers are all in a equally risky situation, while the healthy person is in a less risky position than the dying people.

[@FrancisR420]

No they're not the five Charlie workers are in a risky position in the One Trolley worker is in a completely safe position and you would decide to kill the one to put the others in a safe position

[@jamest2606]

@@FrancisR420 Since the switch could be in either position, I think both groups are in an equally safe position. Not moving the switch is as much of a decision as moving the switch. That's just my opinion though.

[@campkira]

Only fool assume your decision impact on the result on the first place.

[@ellielindsey7454]

I love this series!!

[@bump0005]

I think the main reason people would save the one heathy person but run over the one person is simply having to kill the person yourself. I mean, it could easily be argued that purposefully ly running someone over is just the same as stabbing someone, but in the trolley scenario you’re unlikely to have to come face to face with the person and tell them you will kill them. At the root of it, our own selfishness comes in to play, as it would be infinitely more terrible to have to tell someone they will die and kill them yourselves than to run someone over, even if morally it’s better to save 5 and kill one, we couldn’t bare to have the blood on our own hands (doctor) literally, even if it means we have the blood on our own hands figuratively (tram).

[@asterismos5451]

I definitely agree, but for me the second one is also an issue of bodily autonomy: where a person gets to decide for themselves what they do with their body (donate organs after death, etc.). If the surgery one were another active killing, like if I was forced to choose between five or one person to shoot, I'd pick to harm the fewest people. But in the surgery one I would let the five people die, because for me bodily autonomy is paramount and whether to give their organs to save people is the choice of the health person to make and not me. It's tough, though.

[@Soupie62]

This reminds me of a question once [supposedly] posed to trainee military officers: You are on a raft, in charge as your crew struggle to stay safe in a fast flowing river. Ahead lie rocks, as the river splits into 2 paths and you can hear the roar of a waterfall. What do you do? THE TRICK: The waterfall could be on the left, the right, both, or neither. Any choice you make has 50% chance of being right. BUT - if you delay making a decision for any reason [hoping to get evidence on which path is safer] your crew will not be able to move the raft in time, and you WILL get crushed on the rocks straight ahead, 100% guaranteed. Cheedy's indecision would see him and his crew smashed to pieces.

[@JohnFrazier]

PLEASE MORE OF THESE!

[@ChristopherPayneMUA]

These are really cool, keep them coming!

[@earth9564]

Personally speaking. I think the difference is that the rail workers knew the risks of their job. While the chances of a worker being hit by a trolley are exceedingly low, the risk is there and by showing up to work every day the workers accept that risk. But pulling some random person off the street to slice up; that person did not know the risks at all. They were just walking to their next step of the day when we more or less abduct them.

[@Ganurath]

The difference is that, in the case of the trolley, you can project part of the blame to the machine, so that you don't feel (as) guilty for the death inflicted. There's no such cognitive defense with the surgery scenario.

[@cisalzlman]

I have one thing to say about this Jeremy Bentham : Jeremy Bearimy

[@Crochetique424]

ThE 'I' BrOkE mE

[@neptunecentari7824]

I'm loving these! Keep'm coming!

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

In the Trolley problem, the single person on the other track is, in a sense, already involved. He is on the tracks, and by being on the tracks, he is in the sphere of influence of the problem. You have only two options, and you have no control over who is in the sphere of influence of those choices, only which choice to make - flipping the switch or not flipping the switch are your only choices, you have no choice of whether to bring in some third choice, or seek a third option, and not making a choice *is* making a choice. In the Doctor problem, the single healthy person is *not* already involved. They aren't 'on the tracks', they are living their life outside of the sphere of influence of the problem, and only become involved because of an *optional* decision you as the doctor can make. You no longer have only two choices, but *billions* of choices - any single healthy person could, in theory, be a valid choice, and there is nothing that puts *this* healthy person within the sphere of the problem any more than any other. As such, choosing them is is arbitrary and wrong; they don't belong here, they aren't involved, and involving them is causing them harm. There is an unspoken corollary in Utilitarianism that needs to be acknowledged - it isn't merely a matter of increasing total happiness/utility/pleasure, but also to have *as little negative impact as possible* in the process. Never make a problem bigger than it has to be. To create the most pleasure is good, but to do so while causing the least hard is also good, and there is no obvious balance point between those two imperatives. In the Trolley Problem, your options only involve harming 5 people or 1 people. You don't have any meaningful way to cause the least harm, except to switch the track In the Doctor Problem, bringing another person *into* the problem causes more harm than is happening in the problem already. If you are a doctor, and there are 5 people who are dying, but each need different organs, all of whom would be compatible with a single donor, you don't have a problem of killing one healthy person to have five - you have a problem of having five dying people, and needing to find a way to save as many as possible. The 6th healthy person is not a part of the problem. The Doctor Problem is really "Which of the five dying people do you have to let die to save the other four?", and there is something in us that knows that involving a 6th healthy person for no reason is wrong. In a variation of the Trolley Problem, there is a large man standing on a bridge over a single track. The trolley is out of control and will kill five people on the tracks without your intervention, but if you push the large man down onto the track, he will stop the trolley with his mass before it reaches the five. This is perhaps a better formulation of the intent behind the Doctor Problem - is it ethical to kill one person to save five, when you have to actively bring them into the problem to do it, but you have no other means to save the five? You only have two meaningful choices here, you don't have time or means to save the five any other way, but it still 'feels wrong' to push the large man off the bridge - he isn't involved in the problem, he hasn't chosen to stand on the trolley tracks. In both the Doctor and the Bridge problem, we also find a common element - choice. The other common thread between them that isn't shared by the basic trolley problem is the agency of the one person who will die for the five to live. We would all agree that it would be extremely noble and morally upstanding for the healthy person to volunteer to die to save the five sick people, but we would also agree that they are not ethically bound to make that choice, we would not call an innocent bystander immoral for *not* stepping forward to volunteer. Likewise, the large man on the bridge would be lauded a hero if, on seeing the situation below, he were to jump to his own death to stop the trolley, but nobody would call him out as evil for *not* doing so. You cannot make the choice for them as to whether *they* should make the ethical decision - it is immoral to remove their agency to decide their own moral action. Conversely, in the Basic Trolley problem, the one person on the switched track does not have any agency. They have no ability to choose one way or the other, in just the way way the five on the main track have no agency to choose. Your action does not take away the agency of any participant, it does not make an ethical decision *on their behalf*, removing their ability to decide - none of them had the ability to decide to begin with, and all you can do, being the only active Agent in the problem, is to do the best you can.

[@razordu30]

I love that he gets a cameo

[@ryfreedman]

Right on. Loved it. Thank you!

[@starbunny7301]

0:23 Jeremy Bentham? What about Jeremy Berimy?

[@cameronspalding9792]

I love this moral philosophy professor

[@vishbhai6607]

The difference is obvious. To kill the guy on the train tracks you just have to flip the switch and you can close your eyes, cover your ears and ball up on the floor and it will be over before you know it. While to kill someone for their organs you have to go out on the street, choose someone, look them in the eye and then fight them and drag them inside with your own two hands to kill them. If it was a matter of flipping a switch...

[@FrancisR420]

In this scenario not to mention organ transplants are a Gamble it's a fundamentally flawed question but in a perfect world I think people make the same decision either way unless they had to as you said do more work then flipping a switch but that's just selfishness

[@cScottD]

Vishvan Bhairosingh - Good point. What if both scenarios were just flipping a switch? Scenario 1: Runaway trolley headed towards 5 people. You can flip a switch to change tracks, in which case it will kill 1 person, or do nothing, in which case it will kill 5 people. Scenario 2: 5 people dying from fatal diseases. You can flip a switch and someone will kill 1 healthy person and use their organs to save the 5 dying people, or you can do nothing, in which case the 5 sick people will die. To me they still feel different, for some reason. I would feel that I'd have to flip the switch in scenario 1, but I wouldn't be able to do so in scenario 2.

[@vishbhai6607]

@@cScottD Yes very good but thats kinda obvious for me too. The trolley problem gives you a few seconds to decide. In the hospital problem you dont exactly know how much time you have but its definitely more than a few seconds. Also, the trolley is already in motion. While in the hospital you literally have to set things in motion. And you filled in some things yourself, they didnt say anything about fatal diseases, they could be dying of other causes. But fatal disease is a natural cause while being run over by a trolley is not. And "someone else will kill 1 healthy person" is worse than a construction worker on the tracks being run over by a trolley. So many reasons.

[@campkira]

Jump out of that trolley and ignore the problem or just jam something to slow down so the impact won't kill the person. You can not force me choice.

[@blamb42]

I may be out of my depth but in my opinion the trolley problem IS different in that it assumes that the trolley has no brakes. Presented is the binary choice of killing five or one by switching tracks. Stopping the trolley isn't an available option.

[@daniyalqureshi4649]

also chidi kinda explained the difference btw the two problems in the show, in one ur killing one or 5, in the other ur killing 1 or letting 5 die. those 5 patients are going to die anyway and ur not involved in the death until u choose to kill the 1. where as in the trolley problem u are already involved, either ur killing 5 or 1. (the more i thought about it the less i made sense to myself, i would have to write an essay to fully explain my thinking lmao).

[@joesr31]

nah, thats just a "loophole" you found, what would you do if instead of being in the trolley, you are at the side with a switch. So you are also "not involved" in the death in the trolley problem as you are just a bystander with the ability change the lane with a lever beside the tracks. You are an innocent bystander if you let that 5 people die, you are "murderer" if you choose to kill that one person. Would your choice be different if this is the case?

[@mirrorreflex]

The difference to me is that the first scenario would probably be considered manslaughter as you have to flip the switch very quickly and you will probably also be yelling at the first person to get off the tracks and ringing the trolley bell to get their attention. Whereas in the second scenario you probably wouldn't have to do the organ transplants instantly and would have time to think about your actions, therefore, in that scenario would be considered a planned murder. Also in the second scenario you obviously are not trying to save the one persons life at the same time, as you are trying to save the five people.

[@i-am-linja]

I have my own idea of the difference, and I'm surprised to not have seen it mentioned anywhere: it's about the *perspective* of the one person. If I'm the one person on the track, I'm either a railway worker or someone has tied me to the track. So, if the rule is we pull the lever, I have to expect to get run over in either of those situations. That sucks, but it makes sense. On the other hand, if I'm the one healthy person, I might have just walked in. So, if the rule is we harvest organs, I have to expect to get cut up every time I'm in a hospital for whatever reason. That's utterly insane. Pulling the lever is permissible (and hence correct) because if observed universally, it introduces a fear of death in only a few reasonable situations; organ harvesting is not because it introduces that fear far beyond the bounds of sense. We choose rules to maximise utility when applied universally, but making the world a terrifying place to live is an automatic disqualification. What school of philosophy is that? I'm certain it has a name, but I don't know it.

[@spiros7m]

The difference is that in the trolley problem you have no choice. The trolley is either going to roll over five people or one person. There's no stopping it. If you choose to kill one person, you're just trying to minimise the harm caused by an inevitable tragedy. In the other case, the one person will only die if you choose to kill them. They're not in immediate danger.

[@joesr31]

it depends how you see it, in the trolley case, that one person will only die if you choose to kill them as well, that one person wasn't in immediate danger, he could have survive the entire thing if you didn't pull that switch

[@abimaisie9573]

I think you need to apply situation ethics as well to that last one

[@MiauxCatterie]

in the trolley problem, the trolley is already veering down the track. it's going to continue in one direction regardless of whether people are there or not. you can't stop it, but you can be aware of the consequences and choose to shift it to only harming one person. in the doctor scenario, you are not faced with the same time constrained forward momentum/kinetic difficulty. you are choosing to take a person, which requires some amount of time and foresight, and use their organs. this isn't something you are forced into reacting to in an instant, unless someone has a gun to your head or something. that is the difference. in my mind at least. more of this class please.

[@q-tuber7034]

The difference is that in the surgery case the (one) victim must be actively selected. In the trolley case the (one) victim is predetermined.

[@ohnen6426]

Typical definition of pleasure/suffering utilitarians go by is "what is desired when experienced" and vice versa. Also, in the trolley scenario, we are more removed from the situation, allowing us to think more rationally about what harm/good we are causing, whereas in the organ scenario, our compassion for the five is overcome by vivid imagination of the torment of the one and the ickyness of killing them. This likely reflects on the pleasure machine: Even with this more refined conception of pleasure, many will stress their current value of experiencing a sense of control they believe they'd lose in the machine over all desires they would have while in the machine, because ofcs I cannot experience desire I'll have down the line, making it much more abstract to me than my immediate desires. And ofcs even a diehard utilitarian may reject the machine out of a moral obligation to increase pleasure for others

[@sabs5754]

Yes! Utilitarianism is absolutely crazy and there seems like there's little ways to escape it unless you realize society's game is this problem and anyone who steps out of it and notices these issues will realize-- uh oh we've constructed the good place and the bad place to live at the same time in the same space

[@romanski5811]

A utilitarian would never say it's okay to slice up the one person to save the five because of how much agony, fear, pain and suffering it would produce in society. Imagine living your life being in constant fear of suddenly getting killed for your organs. Such a world would truly be horrible and a utilitarian would suggest such a notion. Slicing up the one person to save the five is bad because of how much negative utility it produces. Utilitarianism is absolutely not crazy.

[@curranfrank2854]

@@romanski5811 Exactly. I will say a hard act-based utilitarian might agree with slicing someone up, but otherwise utilitarian's wouldn't support it because we're aware of the fact that the consequences of the situation would spread to more than just the 6 people involved in the hospital operation, and of the fact that it's generally better in the real world to follow logical rules to produce the best outcome rather than looking at each situation in isolation

[@ShadeSlayer1911]

@@romanski5811 As a former utilitarian, I absolutely thought this in the past. I grew out of being a utilitarian, fortunately. Utilitarians, in my experience, in practice do not often consider the human aspect of managing...humans. It's something I've seen when interacting with other utilitarians as well, so it wasn't just me. There was this appeal of being a cold and calculating ruler who runs society with maximum efficiency, with no consideration for those useless human emotions that only serve to weigh us down as a species. On paper, you might be right that utilitarianism doesn't call for this. But based on my numerous interactions with utilitarians both in person and online, that's not how it is in practice.

[@romanski5811]

@@ShadeSlayer1911 I'm sorry to say that there is literally nothing that I could say to that. I can't do anything with personal anecdotes. Whenever personal anecdotes come up to bolster some point, I always think of homeopaths who swear on the efficacy of their """medicine"""" because they and so many in their lives experienced first hand the effectiveness of it. What am I supposed to say to those personal experiences? Good for you? That says nothing about the actual effectiveness of homeopathy, though.

[@ShadeSlayer1911]

@@romanski5811 Seems like you ended up having a whole lot to say to that. Look, when the topic of the discussion is "what are utilitarians like?" and someone comes in saying "I was one, and I was like this, and every one I knew was also like this," and you go on to just dismiss that because it goes against your position, it just doesn't seem like a good practice to me. It's like if you were trying to get an insight into the experience of Asian Americans, and then an Asian American tells you his experience and that of other Asian Americans in his life, but you dismiss that by calling all of that an anecdote. But beyond that, what I was really trying to get at was that there is often a big difference between how the ideology is on paper, and how it is after being filtered through the minds (and actions) of human beings who hold them. Like on paper, utilitarianism would consider every factor to find the optimal choice, which includes the human factor. But in practice, based on my experience at least, that's not how people who hold that ideology actually think. And you are free to dismiss my experiences all you want, just as you did. But if I were you, I'd at least try to learn something from what I said, rather than just trying to dismiss it completely. I'm saying this for your benefit, honestly, because it really doesn't affect me one way or another what you decide to do with what I've said. When discussing an ideology or philosophy, I struggle to understand why a person would so easily dismiss the perspective of someone who holds (or held) that ideology or philosophy. Like if I'm trying to figure out why a communist believes what they believe, I'm not going to just dismiss it when a self-identified communist comes up and offers me his perspective. It doesn't mean I take it entirely at face value to represent everyone who is of that ideology. But it does mean I greatly value such a resource.

[@BlazinTre]

Ok, so correct me if I'm wrong, but in the "Chidi chops up Elenor to save 5 random People" example, there's an emotional bias that skews the original scenario of "End one Life to save Five. " If the question was placed in front of a doctor who needs to to use the one person's organs to save 5 lives, wouldn't the doctor assume that the 1 person volunteered ?

[@garimasingh4426]

The difference is the context we as human beings are always affected by the context and eliminating them is never the solution. Also with the trolley problem your choice is to kill five people or kill one person i.e., you choose to kill. However in hospital scenario, you can save 5 people by killing one person. It might seem same but the question is are you willing to kill? With former you have no choice you have to kill 5 or 1 with the latter you can choose not to kill and let things be. Both the problems have same consequences However the situation or the context is different and so your response to them is different.

[@jeffreywang1824]

According to utilitarianism it doesn't matter if you are personally the one responsible for the death. The morally correct outcome by utilitarian principles is that the most number of people survive, regardless of what would happen if no one acted on it. Killing itself is not a morally wrong act without context. Alternatively if say you were to follow Kantian principles, you could argue that flipping the switch or harvesting the organs would be the morally incorrect thing because killing is ALWAYS a morally wrong thing to do, regardless of the consequence. Honestly though I think Michael was right with the dangling the sharp blade idea.

[@vicenteisaaclopezvaldez2450]

Maybe the difference between the two scenarios is consent: The workers on the tracks would be aware of their involvement on the trolley itself, they know there's a degree of danger to it, and to die because of the trolley they're working on is, for better or worse, a known possibility to them, but for the person who'se organs would be harvested, they're not being given a choice to donate their own organs, a 3rd party is being asked in their stead, the victim of this problem is, by default, unaware of the situation. Same reason why having the trolley kill a civilian vs workers puts a different lens on the situation, the civilian never agreed for this possibility, so having a civilian die for any number workers stops being much of a "was it right or wrong?" situation and more like "So how can we save this company?" situation.

[@The1Dragonprincess]

Another thing to consider is how psychologically the people were affected before making the decisions. In the case of the Trolley Problem the driver could be in a panicked state as the trolley speeds up and recognizes someone could die if nothing is done. Literally Michale put them is a speeding trolley that’s was already ruining towards the crossroads. Where as the Surgery Problem could, arguably, involve more careful consideration because the surgeon needs to have a calm mind in order to remove the organs. Otherwise he could mess up and the organs removed may not be good for the patients and the person’s life is lost for nothing. So where as one decision is made in the heat of the moment, the other could be made after more thought process.

[@ms.rstake_1211]

I love this series.

[@benzur3503]

Maybe the Trolly limits us into a binary, whereas killing a healthy person forces us to pick, by whichever method a specific person out of all non 5/(doesn’t truly matter how many people) to kill. By choosing between 1 and 5 the choice should be one, but by choosing between 5 or 1 or a different one or another one or yet another one you are obligated to each of the one’s moral well-being, when it’s binary its simple, when it’s one of many harming one over another demands moral judgment on further grounds. Did I evade the question well or did I stray to the wrong train-track :o)?

[@FrancisR420]

When you say killing a healthy person do you mean the trolley problem or the hospital problem because you kill a healthy person either way

[@FrancisR420]

You basically just said "with one you killed 5 or 1 and with the other you kill 1 or 5"

[@lenadahling]

The difference is, in the trolley problem, they are all equally healthy, and all equally at risk. You can't stop the trolley, deaths are inevitable. So you are not actively *choosing* to kill one person, but to reduce deaths. In the surgery, they are not all equally healthy. The 5 are dying, and you are murdering an unrelated, innocent, healthy person, for the *possibility* of saving 5 already sick, compromised people. That's not the same at all... or we'd all be slaughtering each other. The other question to take into account, besides potentially knowing some of these people, is the quality of these people: Shakespeares, Santas, Trumps, parents, young, old, redeemable, irredeemable; now we start playing God. That's why we have the court system, and not summary execution.

[@dreamcanvas5321]

What is the philosophical position of "why didn't someone install an e-break on this damn trolley?" Fun fact: San Francisco trolleys have a special emergency break that's a slab of metal that jams into the ground. It's used as a last resort, and requires welders to remove. While the 1 vs. 5 is an interesting philosophical question; the smart engineering choice is to design better failsafes than track switching.

[@bonnie.duncan]

DreamCanvas - those are cable cars, not trolleys. cable cars have no motor, they’re pulled by a moving cable bellow street level...and a trolley has a motor that’s powered by overhead wires...in an emergency, that steel slab gets wedged between the cable and the slot...not the ground...the potholes alone would make that a terrible idea...lol and chidi is clearly operating a cable car...

[@jeffnewton4184]

So you can essentially do anything, whatever you like, as long as the outcome is better than when you started?

[@Arkaeas]

For me, the clear and obvious difference between the standard trolley problems and its extensions is UNCERTAINTY. The healthy person would likely live a pretty full life of average length. But the people who need transplants: a) Might not survive because surgeries aren't 100% successful b) Are more likely to have shorter lifespans due to their previous medical issues c) Are likely to have lower quality of life due to their previous medical issues In the base trolley problem, saving the five is pretty solidly guaranteed. I find, in extensions of the problem, additional UNCERTAINTY is introduced, and that separates responses by those able to keep it abstracted as a thought experiment (a guaranteed 1 for 5 trade) from those who start to go "but you can't be sure anymore..."

[@FrancisR420]

Not to mention the uncertainty that the one person is even going to be killed by the trolley I mean 5 people need to get off the tracks and you can flip it switch to make it so only one person needs to get off the tracks which you know I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure that reduces the odds that anyone gets killed where is with the surgery thing as you said you're definitely killing one person and digging around in their guts to maybe help some other people what is the success rate of heart transplants?

[@daniyalqureshi4649]

can someone give me a good starting point or a just a good way to get into moral philosophy, like where do i start how do i start etc.

[@Nicciolai]

When is season three coming to Netflix South-east Asia?

[@lloydtan4428]

Which episode is this? I don’t think I have seen the 2 scenes mentioned at all and I’m at season now

[@EliStettner]

The difference between the trolley and the medical problem can be illustrated well with a variation to the trolley problem. Instead of standing next to the track within the switch box, you instead are standing on a bridge which crosses over the trolley track. Five workers stand down the track, facing the other way, with hearing protection. There is a trolley coming down the track, and there is not enough time to warn the workers. There is however, a fat man who is walking across the bridge at this time. If you push him over the edge of the bridge, it will stop the trolley, saving the five workers. Do you push him? For me, the answer is no. In the OG trolley problem, both groups have accepted some risk of mortal injury as per being tramway workers. But throwing an innocent bystander who hasn’t accepted this risk into a straight (lives saved - lives cost == action) doesn’t match up for me.

[@cynthiaquigley230]

The difference is that on the trolley you are choosing the lesser of two evils. There is no third choice. You cause the death of five people or of one person. In the second scenario you have a choice to rationalize a bad act ( killing a healthy person) or not act at all. Either you cause an innocent person's death, or no one's death. Different thing.

[@LauraSeabrook]

I liked the idea of how much they'd be willing to pay to send the trolley down the other track! :P

[@Vairogslv]

Im sorry, what episode are these scenes from? Please, help! I must have missed some!

[@ravenclawrules4640]

When is the show coming back??? 😫😫😫

[@kinyutaka]

I know the difference. With the Trolley Problem, you are almost definitely saving the five workmen by switching tracks, even if you end up still killing the one guy, who technically might be able to save himself. With the Operation Problem, you are absolutely going to kill the one healthy person, but the five transplants might not be successful. It's "maybe killing one to definitely save five" vs "definitely killing one to maybe save five."

[@lofidog3245]

Can we have Chidi saying this please 😂

[@NatrinaLawson]

Difference is that medical practice use the Creed "do not harm" so harming one to save 5 is still harm and breaks the Creed.

[@hayali8578]

What episode is this

[@ninegeorge]

I love the Good Place. But Chidi has never asked which of those philosophers made it into the Good Place

[@joevictor53]

He appeared in the final episode!

[@raceytray3963]

Reasons why they are not identical scenarios: 1) The trolley scenario is a one time event and is unlikely to happen again or at the very least is not happening every day. If there are 5 people and 1 person on the tracks, they should know better than to be on trolley tracks. And if it's a matter of the brakes failing, once the problem happens, you better believe there would be outrage and the regulatory agency would investigate the problem and implement a solution to ensure this would never happen again. You can't do that with organ transplants. People need organs every day all over the country and world. It's not a one time thing and you can't do anything to prevent the need for organs in the future. Though fingers crossed science comes up with artificial organs so no one has to die to provide organs. 2) Even if you did kill one person to save five people who need organs, there's no guarantee those five people would live. There could be complications and they die after the surgery. So you killed one healthy person and in the end you didn't even save 5 lives. 3) Which healthy person do you kill? It's not like you can kill any random person and save 5 pre-identified people. They have to be matched based on medical criteria. So the question becomes, who do you kill? How do you decide? With the trolley problem, it's whoever is on the track and you couldn't (or at least very unlikely that you would) know who that person is. 3) Finally, where do you draw the line? If you're okay with killing one to save five, why not one to save four, or three, or two? And what if you had to kill two to save five? It becomes a slippery slope. So Todd May, if you're reading these comments, that's why they're not identical scenarios for these thought experiments.

[@jhart6764]

This then makes me ask what part of philosophy is the multi track drift answer a part of.

[@tommo1stoessel]

I’m only watching this because my ethics final os tomorrow and I want to pretend like im actually making an effort

[@WiGgYof09]

I see a lot of comments from people trying to say the trolley problem is not the same as the surgery problem. Also a lot of people trying to out think the problem instead of accepting the basic premise. They are the same problem. In both problems there are 5 people who are going to die if you do not act. I see people saying that with the trolley problem you are some how acting by driving the trolley, but that is the whole reason it is a trolley. It is on a track. The trolley will remain on that track if you do nothing. Same with the dying patients. You did not cause their illness, but they will die if you choose not to act. In both case you have only one choice to make. To act or not to act. If you act, you actively kill one person and save five. If you do not act, five people die due to your inaction. To the utilitarian, this is the exact same problem and has the exact same solution. Yes, in the real world MAYBE the trolley won't kill everyone. MAYBE everyone in the surgery version could die. These are real world applications of a thought experiment which kind of highlight what is wrong with utilitarianism. The end result is not all there is. Now, to the utilitarian, there is no way to explain why it is potentially wrong to kill the one healthy person in the surgery scenario, but potentially right to kill the one person in the trolley scenario. Frankly.... I don;t think I can actually explain what the difference is either... I thought I could make an argument that it is wrong to over ride the healthy person's free will, but you are basically doing to same thing in the trolley problem.... in both cases, you have to act or not act and in both cases your action has the same result just as your non-action has the same result. If anything... in both cases it is morally right to not act and allow five people to die in each instance. Is it not morally wrong to actively kill one person as opposed to allowing five people to die through inaction? That would, I suppose, be the exact opposite of utilitarianism where the intent and action are more important than the outcome... Is it more important for you not to be the cause of one person's death if it means five others die?

[@RagingAcid]

I think the difference is throwing the switch, the one is still on the track, he's putting himself in harms way, while the medical problem, she's completely innocent in this scenario.

[@liminal_fruitbat]

What if the person on the track is tied to the track?

[@TheCarebear202]

I think the answers are different in the trolley and organ scenarios because in the trolley problem you don't know anything about the people. It is just kill 5 or 1 and you choose 1. But in the organ scenario it is leave 5 sick people to die or kill 1 healthy person. These 5 people are already sick and dying, you don't even know why they need the transplant, maybe they were alcoholics, maybe they were smokers. So why kill this one innocent person just to save 5 people.

[@rudysantayana4252]

Anyone got any theories on the good place

[@diarmuidp9]

The difference is between killing someone, and allowing someone to die. In the trolley problem, you’re arguably allowing someone to die, whereas in the organ problem your actively killing someone. Plus your intention is important. In the trolley problem, your intention is to save five people, not to kill one, whereas in the organ problem your intention is to kill one in order to save five. Another problem to think about is; you have 100ml of a lifesaving drug. Person x needs 100ml, and you’ve promised him it. Just as your about to give it to x, 5 people are rushed in who only need 20ml each to live. So you probably prioritise the 5 new people over person x. But what if it’s not a drug these people who are rushed in need? What if they need a heart, a liver, a lung, etc. Can we harvest person x for their organs? In both scenarios person x dies, but again one scenario seems right and the other absolutely wrong. Again, it’s down to our intentions.

[@uneek35]

I'm pretty sure the Experience Machine is a critique of hedonism, not utilitarianism.

[@ms.rstake_1211]

you know more than the expert?

[@uneek35]

@@ms.rstake_1211 Fair. Just think it's kinda weird since I'm used to hearing that thought experiment used for something different.

[@maksim_tak]

Probably works for both

[@ms.rstake_1211]

+uneek35 😊 I get that👍

[@axlrio]

But what if Chidi didn’t know the person who had to be killed in the OR to save the five? He knew Eleanor but didn’t know the single person on the track.

[@HeyNonyNonymous]

The trolly problem and the doctor problem are two different problems for one reason: If doctors started going around killing people to harvest their organs, people would distrust doctors. And if people distrust doctors they would avoid seeking medical help, they would use what power they have to limit doctors' ability to work, etc. Millions would die as a result, all for the possibility that killing one healthy individual MIGHT save the lives of 5-6 others (assuming they survive the surgery and medical complications). But if trolly drivers make this choice, it won't change the way we view trolly drivers. Doctors rutinely deal with life and death situations, and organ transplant is a common medical prosedure. But the breaks failing on a trolly that happens to be on its way to hitting 5 people, who can't get away in time, and with the only other option being hitting another person? That's purely theoretical.

[@tooday1365]

you have to choose the lesser death in the trolley, while in the operation room, you have to choose to kill.

[@Megamean09]

>14 out of 15 life sentence inmates wouldn't take the pleasure chamber Why the fork not? Literally none of this bullshirt matters. Thinking is a cosmic accident, just like life. The pursuit of "meaning" only exists because people are too weak to accept that fact. If you can feel good, do it.

[@Amabor]

Isn't the difference that in one case we use people as a mean while in the other they are just at the wrong place at the wrong time ? We could still save the five workers without that other person but we can't save the 5 patients without that healthy person

[@jonbonbru]

So Jason is actually practicing virtue ethics by acting in way that would be consistent with his idea of Blake Bortles

[@Sussington]

If the thought experiment was instead that five sick people could be saved by one sick person’s organs, I bet more people that said they would pull the lever in the trolley problem would agree to kill the one sick person to save the five. I think the difference is that the person alone on the track is already involved in the dangerous situation, and the sick person would be too. The healthy person would be brought into a situation that they were not otherwise involved in.

[@NeilSonOfNorbert]

contradictory right answers, part of why i like virtue ethics.

[@lxndrlbr]

Wouldn't current laws be able to inform us as an average morality measure: it would be illegal to kill one healthy person even if organs are needed by 5 sick persons, and it would arguably be criminal to NOT take action and switch the street car's tracks and kill 5 persons instead of 1 person?

[@FrancisR420]

No it's not criminal to not murder someone to save other people you would almost certainly be tried for murder if you flip the switch knowing it will kill someone

[@campkira]

Law are man make, Only fool assume your decision impact on the result on the first place.

[@ElforTheLandstander]

It feels like the same situation to me. Without those organs, five people would die and one would live. I guess it depends on who's the one person.

[@kamronspencer4910]

The major problem is the one person was not involved in the scenario until you forced them to be. In the trolly version while yes he’s on the “safe” tracks initially the one worker is already on the tracks. You don’t have the ability to get him off them nor did you put him on them he’s just there. And your choices in a situation that has to involve these 6 people are let 5 die or kill the one. In the surgery scenario the healthy man you murder to save the 5 sick is not part of this until you drag him in. Instead of someone dying because circumstance placed him in a position where your only choice kills him you’ve decided this random man who was in no danger and not involved with these 5 men whatsoever now has to die.

[@777gpower]

The surgery trolley problem and the classic trolley problem aren’t the same though Classic trolley problem- someone is going to die either way, 3 or 1, I can’t stop the trolley, I have to do nothing and kill 3 or pull a lever and kill 1, no third choice. Surgery sure doing nothing kills the same 3, but the other 1’s life was never actually on the chopping block, it isn’t as binary, could be any old bum off the street. Both moral puzzles, and definitely related- but not identical

[@bethtorres5474]

Alguien q lo traduzca en español