The Trolley Problem
Debate Rounds (3)
The scenario goes like this:
There is a trolley (or train, tram, etc.) that is on a collision course with ten people. The people cannot move, and they will die, unless you, seeing a lever that will turn the vehicle away from the ten people, but will strike only one person standing on the opposite track, killing him. By doing nothing, you allow ten people to die, but by doing something, you intentionally and knowingly kill one person.
I, as Pro, will argue that it is right to sacrifice the one person to save the ten people.
Con will argue that it is wrong to murder the one to save the ten people.
Con is stating that the deaths of the ten wouldn't be the fault of the decider, but it am arguing that, since the decider knows the ten people will die, and has the means to prevent that, with the causality being one instead of ten, then it would be the decider's fault.
A) A doctor has a moral obligation to save the person, whereas a normal trolley passenger does not, and
B) The passenger isn't refusing to save the people when he has the option, he is simply not doing anything to stop their deaths
None (This is a philosophical debate, not a factual one)
To try to illustrate my point, I hope my opponent will forgive me for using another scenario.
A captain of a nuclear submarine sends ten mechanics to fix a broken engine. The engine room houses a nuclear generator that is about to leak, and he sends the mechanics in to attempt to stop it. Beforehand, he could have jettisoned the engine room, but he wanted to see if he could fix it (call it human error). During the repairs, the engine goes critical, and the captain has a choice: to seal the engine room, saving the entire crew of a hundred men, by sacrificing the ten mechanics, or to do nothing, letting the mechanics try to escape the engine room, but therefore allowing the leak to destroy the entire ship, killing everyone. The captain, must choose the first one, since the deaths of everyone outweigh the deaths of the mechanics.
To relate back to the original scenario, the captain is essentially the decider of the fate of where the trolley will go.
The engine is essentially the trolley.
The mechanics are the one person.
The crew are the ten people.
Sealing the engine room is basically similar of alternating the track so the ten people live,
Letting the mechanics escape is similar to letting the trolley hit.
It is my understanding that the person deciding the fate of the people in The Trolley Problem, has a moral obligation to the ten people, since inaction leads to their death, and I believe inaction must be judged as importantly as action; a bystander to a, let's say an act of bullying, must be judged as well as the bully, because the bystander could have taken means to stop it, but for whatever reason, refused to.
Thank you for the debate.
I appreciate you taking the time to write your arguments.
Secondly, I apologize if what I assumed you meant was wrong.
Now onto the debate. I see what you mean in your likening of this to a bullying incident. However, I must point out this: in the trolley problem, taking action would result in the death of a human being. Taking action in the bullying situation would only help people. I am all for helping others, so long as it is not detrimental to someone else. Also, I would like to bring into the debate a common issue in our society today: suicide in subway stations (bear with me here). You see, many people in urban settings who wish to commit suicide throw themselves into the way of oncoming trains. Now the conductors of these trains have an option. They can slam the breaks, possibly injuring or killing those aboard the train, or they can let the train hit the person. No operator has, to my knowledge, risked their passengers to save the person on the tracks. I would say this can be likened to my non-willingness to harm someone to help someone else.
I would just like to once more thank my opponent for their time. It is rare to find such a mentally challenging debate, and I enjoyed this one thoroughly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct/S&G - Tie. Arguments - Con. Pro presented a case where inaction was equivalent to action. From this position, it seemed easy to justify inaction as an immoral act. Unfortunately for Pro, Con presented rebuttals that countered both examples presented by Pro. Con overcame these examples by showing that the moral duties differ between doctors and regular humans. I don't necessarily agree but Pro failed to flesh this issue out any further. Additionally, Con showed how the second example also doesn't hold because of the difference between death and bullying and thus showed how the example isn't necessarily applicable here. Due to these rebuttals presented by Con, I believe Pro failed in showing how his position on the Trolley Position is the correct position. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize any sources for further validating his contentions. All in all, this was a well-fought debate. I would truly enjoy seeing you two do this again in a 5 rounder. Cheers!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.