Existential Comics | Website

Alt Text“At the heart of Batman’s being, like all theater kids, is a boundless narcissism that eats away at his core.”

ExplanationMany versions of Batman have a strict “no killing” rule, which is exactly the kind of intuition the Trolley Problem is attacking. Why is it different to actively kill someone vs passively letting five people die? In particular, Batman’s version seems to be a sort of “honor code”, which something close to a moral system, but it is entirely inward looking. In other words, fulfilling the honor system doesn’t do good for the world, it elevates the status of the honorable man. In a sense it’s the worst possible way to answer a moral question, “I want to kill the five people because I personally would lose something (my honor)”. Also its pretty showy to dress up as a bat. One might even call him a weirdo.

Transcript8 Panel Comic

Panel 1: The Riddler stands at the lever explaining his setup of the classic Trolley Problem. Tied to one track are 5 people, and tied to the diverted track is 1 person. A trolley is prepared to mow down the 5 people unless the lever is pulled, diverting it to the path with one person.

Riddler: Alright Batman riddle me this. A trolley is moving down this track and is going to kill five people, but if you switch tracks it will only kill one, do you pull the lever?

Panel 2: Batman shakes his fist at the Riddler

Batman: Curse your implausible games, Riddler!

Panel 3: Batman hesitates in front of the lever, his hand shaking.

Batman: The right thing to do is save five people, but I have sworn to my code of ethics to never kill!

Panel 4: The Riddler exults in the devious dilemma delaying Batman’s decision.

Batman: I cannot do it! I cannot be the one to kill directly!

Riddler: Looks like the Batman has failed Philosophy 101! HAHAHAHAHA!

Panel 5: Batman watches as the trolley splatters 5 people across the track as the Riddler continues in his exultations.

Panel 6: Batman now sits in his Batcave as his Alfred arrives with his dinner on a covered tray.

Alfred: But what I don’t understand Sir, is how upholding your moral code can have more value than their lives?

Panel 7: Batman smoking a cigarette puts on his best grizzled and hard boiled face.

Batman: Because I’m a narcissist, Alfred. I value my own ego above everything, and I didn’t want to lose the “no killing” thing, because I like bragging about it. That’s all.

Panel 8: Alfred is shocked at Batman’s response.

Alfred: Really, I never thought so…

Batman: I dress up as a bat to fight crime. Of course I’m a narcissist. Your kind of a moron, Alfred, honestly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 day ago (24 children)

But the trolly problem doesn't have a correct answer.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)

    in my opinion It does so long as you keep additional information away. If you start to ask questions about the people on the tracks then everything gets messy.

    5 people are going to die. Or 1 person will die. Up to you.

    Two boats are sinking. You only have time to save one. Do you save the boat with more people or the boat with less?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    But what if there are 3 sinking boats, 1 has a person you must save but the other 2 boats only have a goat on board, and you don't know which is which. You chose 1, and it's revealed that one of the other 2 has a goat. Do you stick to the boat you chose hoping that it has the person, or do you change to the other unknown boat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    You always switch for reasons I forget. Stupid fucking doors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It is a math thing.

    It starts with a 1/3 chance and they only show you the door if it is the wrong answer. So your first choice was 1/3 and stays that way but the other door becomes a 2/3 chance.

    I still think it is weird that it works that way, but that is how it goes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    This one becomes very intuitive if you change it from 3 doors to 100.

    You’re on a game show with a bag of cash behind one door. You pick #42 because you’re a geek. Then your host, who knows where the money is, walks down the line of doors, opening door #1, #2, #3, all the way up to #100, only skipping #54.

    So which door is the money behind? The one you picked as a shot in the dark at a 1/100 chance, or the one the person with real information chose to avoid out of the 99 others? Pretty obvious now, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Here's the way I see it. At the start, there are three scenarios. The person is equally likely to be on boat 1, boat 2, or boat 3. Say you pick boat 1, you have a 1/3rd chance of being correct. Then, the goat revealer comes along. They only reveal a boat with a goat that is not the boat you've picked. Which means they're never able to eliminate the possibility of the person being on your chosen boat, but can do it for the other two. When boat 2 is revealed to have a goat, the possibility of a person being on boat 2 is eliminated, and the possibility of a person being on boat 3 is not eliminated when it could have been. The possibility of the person being on boat 1 remains unaffected. The 2/3rds initial chance of the person being in another boat remains unaffected, so the probability pools into the remaining unpicked boat. At least, that is how it works in the monty hall problem.

    It's different if the goat could be revealed in any boat (including the one you picked) or if the goat is not always revealed, or so on. The goat reveal has to have other information behind it for it to not collapse the possibilities to 50/50.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 22 hours ago

    It doesn't have a correct answer because it's a thought problem, to get you thinking about morality. No one is responsible for the 5 deaths, but you would be for 1 if you pulled the lever. On the other hand 5 lives vs 1.

    Does your answer change if the 1 person is a child, someone you know, or any other changes. It's a way to show everyone has different ethical and moral beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Is it ethical for a doctor to kill one healthy person in order to harvest their organs to save five people in need of a transplant?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago* (1 child)

    People tend to bring this up as a gotcha against utilitarianism, with the premise that it's the same situation as the trolley problem rephrased and therefore should have the same answer, even though it "feels" more wrong, but I'm not convinced that these situations are actually equivalent and that the organ harvesting is actually the choice with the most utility. The reason being that, realistically, there are more factors involved that affect the utility of one's choices than just the six people who live or die.

    For example: the operation is likely to be somewhat traumatic for the doctor, diminishing their quality of life, the people involved are not necessarily likely to live the same amount of time following the transplant because we haven't said anything about their age, general health (beyond that they need a transplant and are therefore likely to be rather ill), lifestyle (these factors can push utility in either direction as they apply to the donor as well), and the fact that transplants are not always successful. These people also all have friends and families whose lives will be impacted by what happens (this factor probably pushes for the transplant because more people probably have more people close to them). And finally and perhaps most consequently, if you set the precedent that you both have the ability and willingness to do this, you will likely create a fear in the general population that they or someone they know might be next on the donor list, because people have self preservation instincts and it's difficult to keep things secret forever. That kind of fear is a reduction in the well-being of all who learn about your operation, and though the amount is small, especially compared to a death, a small number multiplied across a significant chunk of the population that eventually learns about this results in a large net harm. It gets worse if anyone prone to paranoid thinking comes to the belief that they're "next" and attempts to sabotage their own health to make themselves a less appealing donor, or if people begun to mistrust doctors and avoid going to them when they would benefit from it- it's not difficult to imagine those last couple things ultimately causing some deaths, and it doesn't take more than a handful of those to counter your initial lives saved even without considering everything else I've just mentioned.

    Now, something a bit similar can be said for the original trolley problem: those people are unlikely to have tied themselves to the track, so there's probably someone who has done it, and now people are going to be scared of some sadistic murder who goes around tying people to trolley tracks, as well as maybe distrustful of public transit infrastructure. However, in this case, this has occurred before the person at the lever arrived, and that damage has therefore already been done, and isn't relevant to their choice. With the organ harvesting scenario, it hasn't, and only occurs if the "kill the healthy person to save the sick ones" option is chosen.

    This gets at a problem I have in general with these kinds of questions though: they usually either ignore the wider context of the scenario, which I believe is always going to be relevant to the answer, or they attempt to ensure it isn't relevant by modifying the scenario into one where no consequences exist except for the lives of the people involved, at which point the scenario can probably be contrived to make any ethical system result in counterintuitive choices with careful question design, but which also renders the hypothetical a bit pointless, became "your system leads to a result you probably don't like" doesn't mean very much anymore if the situation in which that happens is sufficiently unlikely to occur in real life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago*

    I actually agree with that analysis completely. If you really press me, I would say yes, pull the lever in the trolley problem. But the problem is trying to take that as a principle to be applied to other situations. When we actually look at practical situations, there are all sorts of other factors specific to that situation that need to be evaluated, and it's rare that the difference actually comes down to whether or not you're applying a utilitarian framework. That sort of thinking also limits what kinds of solutions we're prone to consider.

    The actual, real world solution to the trolley problem would be first of all tracking down whoever's tying people to tracks and making them stop, and implementing better safety mechanisms to prevent trolleys from getting out of control. These solutions are things pretty much everyone can agree with, regardless of their moral framework. And I would expect that even if someone in that situation made the wrong decision from a given framework, people would see them as faced with an impossible choice in a traumatic situation, and even if they made the right decision, it wouldn't be considered "problem solved."

    What is more useful in informing our actual moral decision making is to pull examples from actual reality, in cases that are actually relevant to the decision in question. Because of the doctor example, you cannot just say, "This is like the trolley problem so we should do this," in practical cases, because real life is more complex.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    You kill one to save five.

    It's the same reason we vaccinate. The risk from vaccination is possible but statistically tiny. So everyone vaccinates so that 1 dies and 100 million are saved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    These are definitely not analogous arguments, but your conclusions do both fall under a utilitarian moral umbrella. By this reasoning every individual is morally required, like the other commenter says, to do whatever is necessary to bring about the greater good for the greater number. Sounds nice on paper until you start visualizing the actual implications of the theory. Take a look at the "no rest" problem that utilitarianism leads to.

    The trolley problem itself is designed to have no specifically correct answer, merely to be a vehicle (pardon my pun) for evaluating various moral frameworks, such as utilitarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    What are you even talking about. Vaccinations don't kill people. Unless you are counting severe allergic reactions. Which can happen from any medication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Ya know, if we butcher you for spare parts, we can save a few people on the donor waiting list.

    What the hell are you waiting for? Seven pounds yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (5 children)

    That's not the trolley problem. That's Batman jumping in front of the train to save 5.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

    You misunderstand, from my perspective it's the trolley problem. You're just the guy tied to the other tracks.

    The main difference is that I can't actually sacrifice you to save people on the organ donor waiting list, I can only tell you that that is the correct solution and hope you act accordingly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children)

    A healthy person isn't at risk of immediate death.

    This is a choice between 1 dying or 5. A healthy person isn't about to die.

    The equivalent medical situation would be if you were seconds from absolutely certain death and someone took your organs without consent a moment before death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children)

    Yep. This is a choice between allowing five people to die, or killing one to save them. The trolley problem doesn't talk about healthy or not healthy. It's a very simple equivalent: do we let people on the organ donor waiting list die, or do we kill you to save them?

    The correct choice is to kill one person to save five, as you pointed out. You just happen to be the one person who must be killed. If I had a switch that I could flip, and you would die and your organs would be given to people that need them, I would be flipping that switch. Unfortunately, I do not have that switch, and you must carry out the dying part yourself by your own free will.

    Do you no longer think the correct answer is to kill one to save five? What happened?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    . The trolley problem doesn’t talk about healthy

    But you introduced healthy or not healthy by changing the trolley problem into sacrificing a healthy person to save 5 unhealthy people.

    In the trolley problem one person is going to die if the switch isn't thrown. In your organ donation problem, the healthy person is not going to die. It's no longer the same trolley problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment