Well, we've gotten great feedback to our pilot segment of Louis on morality, or also, as
I think we're going to be knowing it, Morality with Motamedi. Tons of emails about it, and
we'll get to them at the end of the show. But I want to... in the interest of giving
this another shot and seeing if people are interested, I want to present Louis with another
moral dilemma.
And this is, of course, the trollie problem, which we're all very familiary with... we
may be familiar with it. And the premise is this: a trolley is running out of control
down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.
You, Louis, could flip a switch which would send the trolley down a different track saving
those five people. Unfortunately there's one person tied to the track. That person would
die if you were to flip the switch, but you would be saving another five people. What
do you do?
Louis: Can I have like detailed character bios for all the people involved?
David: No.
Louis: Oh.
David: Is that what it would come down to for you?
Louis: Well...
David: In other words, are you saving five Nazis and killing an innocent man? That would
influence you?
Louis: It would, yeah.
David: OK, but let's assume that all people are of equal good standing.
Louis: OK. I think I'd have to flip the switch.
David: You would do it, and that would be a morally justified... it would be morally
right, you would not be doing anything wrong?
Louis: Well, if I don't flip the switch, I'm letting five people die.
David: Good Samaritan type of thing, you're not acting in the interest of saving those
five people?
Louis: I am acting in the interest of saving those five people.
David: If you let the train just keep going, I'm saying, without flipping the switch?
Louis: Right. Right.
David: OK. Let me modify it.
Louis: Because the switch is available to me, by not pulling the switch, I'm letting
more people die.
David: OK. Let me put it a different way. What if the trolley is hurtling down the track
towards five people, you're on a bridge over where the train is going to pass, there's
a fat guy next to you, and by pushing the guy off, he would land in front of the train,
derail it safely, make it stop, you would save the five people, but the fat guy dies?
Do you push him over the edge?
Louis: Yeah, I've heard this one before. That's tough.
David: Why is it different than before? Either way, you're...
Louis: Is it the same mad philosopher responsible for tying these people to the track?
David: Everything's the same, except instead of flipping a switch, you're actually pushing
a guy over the edge. Why is it different? It's the same scenario. You're acting to kill
one person.
Louis: Yeah. Right. Right.
David: You're not as sure this time.
Louis: Well, it's a bit more involved when you have to physically push the man yourself.
David: But the reality is that that's in your head. Flipping a switch that leads to the
killing of someone is really the same as pushing someone over the edge, morally, isn't it?
Louis: I think it's a little bit different.
David: You're not alone in this.
Louis: I... yeah. The act of doing it is different.
David: If you look at the studies, the number of people that will flip the switch is much
higher than the number of people that will push the fat guy over the bridge.
Louis: Yeah.
David: I mean, how... what do you think about this, Natan? What's the way to determine...
there are different opinions about what the right moral move is here. What's your sense
of what is the barometer that we should be using here?
Natan Pakman: Well, obviously, the studies show what people would actually do. It's much
more difficult to shove the fat guy down, because as Louis says, it's much more involved.
But...
David: But the reality is...
Natan: I don't know that there's an objective way to solve this problem.
David: My thought on this is by flipping the switch, you are acting in a way that is going
to kill someone that would not have died had you done nothing, OK? Whereas you aren't responsible
for those five people that are already on the track, you would be responsible. In other
words, you are acting... this is kind of like the would it make sense, if there's five people
who need organs and one healthy person, to kill that person and give the five sick people
the organs to save their lives? You're actively putting a decision...
Louis: Right, do you just let fate run its course?
David: Right. But you made the argument that is it really fate? If you're there and you
can save the five people, maybe that's fate, if you believe in fate.
Louis: Right.
Natan: What I would say is that I think the reason why people are less inclined to push
the fat guy off, it's really because after, they'll be traumatized and feel like they're
murderers. It's probably more related to the guilt of having committed a crime, whereas
with the switch, even though, like you're saying, it's morally equivalent, it doesn't
feel like you're committing a murder, because all you're doing is flicking a switch.
Louis: Yeah. Because you're somewhat detached.
David: But it seems to me like it's completely BS to convince yourself of that.
Louis: Yeah.
David: They either have to both be right or both be wrong.
Louis: Of course, you know, I... we can talk about this all day, but who knows what you
would really do if that were to happen?
David: That's right. That's right. All right, well, let's take a break. Make sure to like
The David Pakman Show on Facebook, www.Facebook.com/DavidPakmanShow. We'll be back after this. I want to talk about
new reports that are being considered by the "National Enquirer" that The David Pakman
Show was in some way cavorting with Osama bin Laden before his death. Back after this.
Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.
Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham and www.Subscriptorium.com. For transcripts, translations,
captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or contact Alex
at subscriptorium@gmail.com.