What If... Collected Thought Experiments In Philosophy

[Mellissa Sprock]

The purpose of philosophical thought experiments is not so much the specific answer to the question, but the reasoning it takes you to get that answer. Likely, you will never find yourself at the switch of a trolley car set to mow down people tied to the tracks (see Trolley Problem listed below). However, you might find yourself in a situation where you need to make difficult choices weighing complex philosophical and ethical dilemmas. These philosophical thought experiments help you to reason through such situations or come up with theoretical paradigms that give insight into the solving of complex questions. Therefore, as you progress through some of these questions, you are encouraged not just to come up with an answer, but also and more importantly answer the question of 'why?' you had come to that conclusion.

Original: You notice five individuals tied to some train (trolley) tracks. A train is coming right at them and you do not have the ability to untie them in time. However, you could pull a lever diverting the train to another set of tracks, but in so doing you would kill an innocent bystander who is tied to those tracks.

Variation #2: There is only one set of tracks bound to run over the five people. However, you notice a very large individual whom you can push in front of the train in order to stop it from running over the five people. This would kill the large individual.

Variation #3: You are a surgeon. You have a patient on your surgical table in for a routine surgery. However, you notice that the patient has organs compatible to several individuals needing transplants within your own hospital. If you harvest this person's organs, you can save five individuals needing transplants, but kill the patient on your operating table.

Real World Variation #4: You are programming a self-driving car. If five people run out onto the highway, do you program it to swerve off the road and kill the driver or run down the five individuals crossing the road?

What is the ethical choice in these situations? Take no action, or kill the individual to save the group? In these examples, we gave the example of five people. Would it matter if it was only two people, or was as many as twenty or twenty million?

Original: There is a very well-used boat. During the life of a ship, parts break down and are replaced. The mast, for instance, is lost in a storm and so they get a new one, some of the wood rots and is replaced with fresh timber, and the bolts and nails holding it together rust away and replaced with fresh nails. Eventually, none of the original materials that made up the ship are there. Yet, the boat still sails, same as ever. Is this the same boat or a different boat now?

Parfit Teletransportation Variation: A person steps into a transportation machine. The first part of the transportation machine scans the persons body and the vaporizes it, destroying it completely. The second part of the transportation machine then prints out an identical version of the person, using some bio-inks they had on hand. The copy has all the same mental and physical attributes of the original along with all the memories of their original. Is this person the same person, or a new and different person?

You are a doctor in the future. A patient comes into your office with several symptoms, and you quickly identify their ailment-- a failing heart. They could potentially die without treatment. In fact, they pass out in your office. Luckily, you know all that is required is a simple surgery in which you can give your patient a synthetic heart and they will be good as new. Yet, as you are preparing to take the patient into surgery, a small medical card falls out of their pocket indicating that for religious reasons, they do not want any synthetic organs. If you do not install the synthetic heart, the patient could die. But, if you do, you will be violating the patient's wishes.

Child Variation: Let us say the patient is a child with the same condition. The parents tell you that they do not want to give them a synthetic heart for religious reasons. You tell the parents the child will die without the surgery. They are not swayed. Let us say that in this example, you have the legal authority to do whatever you want. Do you perform the surgery anyway? Or do you respect the parent's wishes and let their child die?

You have just successfully launched a social media company that allows users to debate, discuss, and share information about a variety of issues. Initially, this seemed to go great and a lot genuine dialogue was generated. However, recently you noticed that a lot of people and even some organizations are either intentionally or unwittingly sharing information that is false or misleading. Moreover, these false posts seem to be generating a lot of interest on your platform. Some of these false posts are even being made by prominent politicians. Do you have a moral obligation to flag or remove this false information? Do you have a free-speech obligation to allow users to freely voice their views even if they are spreading misinformation? What should you do as a the owner of this social media platform?

There was a country invaded by a more technologically advanced population. The Invaders conquered this country and took the land and resources from the Original Population that lived there. For several decades, the Invaders continued to control the country and established a government ruled by a small minority of them, while the majority Original Population remained oppressed. Eventually, due to mounting international pressure and internal unrest, the tyrannical government was replaced with a democracy, allowing the Original Population to elect representatives that fought for their interests. After this democracy was established, it was discovered that the small minority Invader population still owned the vast majority of the land and resources in the country. What should the country do? Should they redistribute the land, taken unjustly, back to the Original Population? If so, should they reimburse the Invader owners for the land they take-- many of whom were born after the period of unjust rule? Or does the minority Invader population have a right to the land in which they claim ownership?

A mad scientist invents a machine that would allow you to live in a personalized simulation, similar to a video game or the Matrix. The scientist can guarantee that you will be happy in this machine as it caters to your every whim and fantasy, and while you are in the machine, you won't even know it is a simulation. All that said, every person and thing you encounter within the machine is simply a programmed simulation and nothing and no one you encounter will be real. The catch is this... if you choose to live in the simulation, you can never go back to the real world. What would you do? Spend the rest of your life where you are happy in a fantasy world? Or choose to live your life in the real world? Why?

A man wearing a thousand dollar suit sees a child drowning in the ocean and being pulled away by the currents. He doesn't have time to take off his suit and save the child. Is the man morally obligated to jump in the ocean and ruin his suit to save the drowning child?

Now, if you answered "yes" to that first question, consider this... A person is up late watching television, and an ad comes on stating that with a $1000 dollar donation, you can save a child's life in a poverty stricken village recently ravaged by floods. The person researches the charity and it appears to be legit. Is this person morally obligated to donate $1000 to save the child in a poverty stricken village if they have the money to do so? If not, how are the two examples different?

The last merchant vessel of the trading season is bound for home. During their voyage home, the ship encounters an unexpected storm and four of the crew members are thrown overboard and assumed drowned. Later though, these crew members all wash to the shore of an island in which crews frequently make pit stops during the trading season. Alongside the crew, several crates of food and other supplies, also thrown overboard, wash up beside them. After taking an inventory of the crates, it is discovered that only enough food exists for three of the crew to survive until the next trading season when help will finally arrive back at the island. If they attempt to stretch out the food for all four of them, every one of them will surely die. Should the crew accept the fact that one should die to save all four or hope for an unlikely miracle? If the crew decides to accept this fact... How should the crew decide who dies? Should it be upon age, merit, or some other factor? Or should they draw straws to make it random? Finally, if the person selected to die attempts to fight the other three or steal their food, would the three be justified in killing the condemned man? And would the condemned man be justified in fighting back against his would-be murderers?

A terrible pandemic is raging across the globe. A vaccine has finally been developed. However, production of this vaccine is slow and it will be some time before there are enough vaccines for everyone. However, each week new vaccines become available for distribution. In this scenario, you are in charge of distributing vaccines for your country. What is the most ethical approach to vaccine distribution in your country where there are not initially enough vaccines for everyone? How do you prioritize who will get the vaccine first? What factors do you consider and which do you not? How will you work to ensure vaccine distribution is fair, equitable, and reaches the maximum amount of people?

You are an independent scientist doing some research on the process of aging. During your research, you discover a means to create a pill capable of preventing aging for anyone who takes it. Moreover, those that take the pill grow physically no older than 25, and if they are older than that when they take the pill, it will revert the person to the physical body of a 25 year old. If you are not killed or do not die in accident, you will be effectively immortal. What do you do? Would you take it yourself? Would you destroy it? Would you make it available to others? If so, everyone or just a select few? Would it be ethical to make a profit off of it? Consider ethical, religious, societal, and ecological factors in your answer.

c80f0f1006