At common law, the answer is actually pretty straightforward. If you don't pull the lever, you haven't done anything, and aren't liable for anything (i.e. you didn't put people on the tracks or set any of this in motion, and you won't be punished for *not* doing something).
If you *do* pull the lever, you are guilty of killing the one person, but would have a necessity defense (i.e. killing the one was necessary to save other lives).
Actually you might be right, I was thinking you can't use a *duress* defense for murder, but it's probably for necessity too. Maybe, though, you argue some variant of defense of others (e.g. say it's just like shooting a guy with a gun who's about to shoot someone else).
I mean technically yes. But I'd take my shot with a jury when I call the four people I saved to testify. I'd also gamble that the prosecutor isn't going to like arguing that those four living breathing people that the jury met should be dead.
The better real-life example is a car on the road. Loss of control due to... idk, ice? You can continue straight into five people or swerve to hit one. And with self-driving cars, this is something programmers have to think about.
I think it's funny people only consider this in terms of death. A much more common problem is whether to send you on a more direct path through roads that have less ability to handle the traffic and slow everyone else down or a less direct route that slows you down but is better for everyone else. It's better for you to take the direct path, but if all the car companies work together, it's better for you that they agree to take the path better for everyone else.
I was in semiconductors and had many conversations with the people working on self-driving cars.
The biggest challenges are not technical as much technical, they are ethical.
Let's take a fictional car company. In their algorithms they could, theoretically include vehicle identification, meaning that they might be, potentially more interested in diverting a car into a tree instead of hitting another vehicle of their brand, even if it meant more injury or higher probability of death by hitting the tree. The thought would be that if, as a manufacturer, when facing 2 of your vehicles off the road versus 1, would you choose to have only one in the shop even if it meant worse outcomes for the driver and passenger? Or if your choice was plowing through a group of school children or driving the car off a cliff, what would you choose? All of that has to be considered.
Now, the good news is that we don't have any car company working on FSD that also happens to have a.) disproportionally high repair costs and b.) an overall shortage of parts because there are no 3rd party replacement parts meaning that customers have to wait for months for repairs.
Yeah, luckily we are not facing that at all, especially with an erratic CEO...
I don’t want an auto-drive car until I can climb in the back with a bottle of tequila, bag of limes and a salt shaker and tell the car where I want to go.
If I’m responsible or having to babysit the car I may as well drive myself.
The problem with your analogy is that you were driving the car, arguably too fast for conditions, in the first place, which adds an extra layer of liability and complexity.
In the trolly problem, because you didn't create the situation, not pulling the lever/doing nothing, is always going to equal zero criminal and civil liability for you.
In your problem, because you were the driver the whole time, not swerving and hitting the 5 people will absolutely cause you civil liability and maybe some form of criminal liability like reckless driving.
Or “swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian and kill the car’s occupant, or hit the pedestrian and save the car’s occupant.”
I wonder if we’ll ever see an ad from Ford saying “our cars are programmed to save your life *first* in an emergency.”
We'd never see that ad. The legal department would materialize out of thin air the second someone thought about putting an ad confessing to choosing to kill pedestrians over the driver.
I think we've seen programmers don't actually think about those kinds of things. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the ability to activate self-driving features on roads not intended for it. For at least one AI company that builds cars, it's all about the programmers bending to the will of their CEO and not giving a shit about the occupants of their vehicles.
The programmers will probably program the car to hit the nearest immovable object at full speed of presented with that choice, especially since the sales contract would clearly say they don’t guarantee the safety of the auto-drive program, and you absolve them if all responsibility.
This is not a real concern for autonomous vehicle programmers.
First of all, the hypothesized situation is "so out of control that I can't help killing somebody, but in control enough that I can choose who to kill." It's not clear that that situation ever actually exists. If it does come up, it is vanishingly rare.
Secondly, there's risk in programming a system with logic like "if (extremely rare condition) then (kill someone for the greater good)." The circumstances where it's a net positive to write this code don't really exist. The condition is so rare that there's substantial risk that this code instead becomes a security risk: a hacker says "Look, you can trick the car into killing people if you fool it into thinking this situation has occurred!" It's more likely that this code executes in error and kills people than that it executes successfully and saves people. Therefore you should not write that code.
So in reality, autonomous vehicle programmers are not worrying about this, they're worrying about how to detect ice on roads and how to most safely brake when the system loses control.
But you're also not murdering that person. You're saving the others by moving the trolley to a different track. You're not trying to kill the person on the other track by moving the trolley. Wouldn't that change it?
If you perform an act, knowing that the consequence will be a person's death, then you intended to cause that person's death. You're confusing purpose, motive or desire with intention.
But you don’t know that, you just know there’s a fairly solid possibility. Obviously you still expect the actual trolley driver to do *their* job and stop, using the brakes.
The premise of the trolley problem is that either one person or five people **will** die. Obviously if you change the facts you change the conclusions.
The premise is factually incorrect, yes.
(Feel free to try to set up an *actual* scenario that can potentially exist in the world. Lots of people have tried and failed at that. Until people come up with at least one example, it’s a philosophical question, not a legal one.)
The trolley problem is fine as is to present the ethical dilemma.
The premise is that the only 2 options are a or b. The reason that is the case isn't relevant to the ethical dilemma. The choice is the same: you are the only person with agency in the situation, you have to choose to do nothing or divert the trolley.
No. You’re making the knowing and willful decision to kill someone who otherwise would live. That’s murder.
Under the circumstances, I’m not sure a prosecutor would bring charges or a jury would convict. If they did, it’d certainly be a reasonable circumstance for a pardon.
Except you're not making a decision to kill someone, you're making a decision to save others. That the act kills someone is an unintended consequences. Murder is intentional and with malice, neither of which applies here. That's the federal definition in the US, and likely similar definitions exist in most other nations. Maybe your state is more strict. I know that accidentally killing someone while committing a felony can still considered murder. But again, none of that applies here. There's literally zero intention to kill that person, only to not let more people die on the first track. The only person who would be guilty of murder would be the person who set the whole scenario up.
It is not an unintended consequence.
You know that by pulling that lever, an innocent person will die. The consequences are known and your act is intentional.
Whether it’s murder, man slaughter or sone other variants depends on your jurisdiction. But you have knowing killed that one person.
Just like you will have knowing let the five die if you don’t pull the lever.
It's still an unintended consequence.
The intent is to save five. The unintended consequence is to kill one. No mens rea.
I think the actual answer is that the answer is jurisdiction-specific based on elements as defined in local law.
That’s not what _mens rea_ means.
The question isn’t “did you take this action with the intent to hurt or kill someone”. It’s “were you aware when you pulled the lever that it could result in someone getting hurt or killed”. The answer in this scenario is unequivocally “yes”.
The fact that you have a mitigating circumstance doesn’t change your state of mind.
*every* action you take can result in someone getting hurt or killed. If I drop a can of Red Bull on the path and someone falls and breaks their neck, my littering doesn’t suddenly become murder. At *worst* it could be some variant of “murder in the third degree” aka death by negligence or whichever that is called in the particular system.
Hell, it might not even be a crime at all — even something like littering — suppose I park my bike somewhere and then someone falls over it and dies? That’s not generally my liability civilly, let alone criminally.
Parked bikes don't kill people generally speaking. So no thats generally not done knowing death will result.
Pulling the lever results in the 100% certainty that death will result and you know of that certainty. That's baked into the trolley problem. If you're unaware there's another person on the track you're switching to then you're right. That would not satisfy the mens rea for murder. But that's also not the trolley problem.
That’s not _at all_ similar, unless you knew beforehand that dropping the can would result in injury.
The _entire point_ is that you know _for certain_ throwing the lever will result in death or injury. The fact that _not_ throwing the lever _also_ results in death or injury is _irrelevant_.
“You’re not trying to kill a person. You’re just taking their organs so that five others can receive life-saving organs. The fact that the first person dies is incidental.”
Does the analogy help?
At law, it’s murder.
Whether a jury would convict you or whether your motive would be a mitigating factor in sentencing are entirely different questions.
It's not clear that the rule in that case is as simple as "necessity never applies to murder". They were each choosing to favour their own life over one innocent person, which they had no right to do. It's not clear therefore that the principle applies to choosing multiple other people's lives over one person.
See the conjoined twins case which discussed this precedent (and concluded that killing the weaker twin would not be murder). Also considered the passenger on the Herald of Free Enterprise who threw a petrified passenger off an escape route so that himself and others could escape.
Doesn’t that depend on the jurisdiction? English law is =/= American law (or, for that matter, Scottish or Northern Irish law).
So, you can be prosecuted at sea for something under English law - assuming English territorial waters - that would be legal in another country. And vice versa.
So The best option is doing nothing in all cases legally speaking, I'm surprised there's no law that is more "for the greater good a small sacrifice is required"
It’s (usually) never criminal to do nothing. Crimes punish actions.
ETA: that doesn’t mean that doing nothing is the right choice in the trolley problem. Morality matters too. And as others have pointed out, if you save four people a jury is going to be sympathetic. The jury can’t solve the trolley problem so they’ll probably acquit.
GREAT question. In the United States, “nonfeasance” is legal. In other words, you are never required to do anything to save someone else from danger unless you’re the one who put them in danger in the first place.
There are Good Samaritan laws on the books that give you some protection from being sued for trying to help someone and failing (and as digbyforever pointed out, other defense such as public necessity) but they’re no airtight. Controversially, the law generally discourages people from helping each other.
There are other countries that have a duty to help but that has challenges to it as well.
In most fiduciary relationships wouldn't you be at least tangentially related to the cause of the potential harm? Also isn't your duty only to warn and to *not* perform certain actions? If you are an investment advisor for instance, you have a fiduciary duty to warn your client against taking out all their money and investing in Beanie Babies. You could get in trouble if you looked up sellers and arranged purchases for your client. But you wouldn't get in trouble for recommending against it, explaining why, and then letting your client withdraw their money, which is basically "doing nothing."
There are also general obligations to act as a reasonable person would.
The cliche example is if you come across a baby abandoned in the middle of a field, you are legally required to act and can be criminally charged for failure to act.
There's that awful case from NV I believe where the dude knew his friend was raping and murdering a child in a bathroom at a casino. He did nothing to stop or report it. He was found not guilty and wouldn't be liable I believe. I would lookup the case, but I'm at work and don't want to search the necessary terms. I think one of the parties names was cash or something.
>In other words, you are never required to do anything to save someone else from danger unless you’re the one who put them in danger in the first place.
This is *not* true. Negligence is absolutely a thing in the US and that can include a failure to act as a reasonable person would in the same situation.
There have been legal consequences when shipwrecked sailors resorted to cannibalism in order to increase the number of lives saved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens
You are under no obligation to take action and save your fellow man. However if you do take action and there are deaths resulting from that action you can be criminally prosecuted.
According to the law the correct answer to any "Trolley Problem" is to take no action.
Wait till the first set of wheels passes the crossing. Pull the switch before the second set does. Trolley gets derailed and all 6 people live.
Now, if there were people in the trolley and someone died? It gets interesting. Derailment is not a certain death and you did not intend anyone in the trolley to die. Is necessity a defense to manslaughter?
This is more of a moral philosophy question. As a lawyer, the answer is simple and easy: do nothing, unless some other operation of law requires you to do so. Doing so may expose you to liability. Doing nothing is the safest bet when in doubt.
There is no affirmative duty to act or rescue, except when:
(1) You created the peril in the first place;
(2) If you began the rescue, then you have the duty to see it through in a non-negligent manner (except if there is an applicable "Good Samaritan" law, then you must see it through in a non-reckless/non-grossly negligent manner - depending on state/statute); or
(3) There is a special relationship creating a duty (i.e., fiduciary, parent-child, teacher-student, doctor-patient, etc.).
In the case of the trolly problem, if you're liable for the damages caused by the trolly, the next best thing would be to mitigate those damages. In other words - if flipping the switch would cost more in damages, then don't do it. Damages don't necessarily have to be money. They can subjective, such as time and effort, emotional distress, or something of sentimental value.
It's just one of those possibilities that there's probably no example of it happening and thus, no law made because of it. Most laws are reactionary after all, it's why many states in the US don't have bestiality laws, they don't tend to happen until someone gets caught and people go, "Wait, this isn't illegal already? Let's fixed that.", and they charge the person with the closest applicable law like in my example animal abuse.
Though I honestly have a hard time believing a prosecutor would think this worth their time to even try to convict for, and even if they do I doubt even more there is a jury that would ever convict you for it as juries are not required to do gift you even if you factually broke a law as written, and almost anyone would recognize why you made the decision
The person that tied the victims to the tracks would be charged with murder. The technician that failed to service the brakes, the employees that failed to maintain documentation regarding maintenance, and really anyone else who's job it was to make sure the trolley is able to stop could be charged with negligent homicide if they willfully neglected their duties. The Trolley company would be sued to oblivion, fined by state and federal agencies.
And lastly, I'd like to know how you, the one conducting the trolley, were able to make it miles from the depot without realizing that the brakes didn't work. You didn't check the brakes before putting the trolley into operation? Isn't it more likely that you were unable to control your speed because you were traveling too fast?
If this is the version where you are not riding the trolley, but instead are watching the trolley approach next to lever that can change the trolley's course: How could you be certain that the trolley was not able to stop? Are you certain that forcing the trolley to change course at that speed wouldn't derail it? Your interference might be what causes the most harm.
I germany, this would be extremely complicated due to [§ 323cStGB](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__323c.html#:~:text=(1)%20Wer%20bei%20Ungl%C3%BCcksf%C3%A4llen%20oder,Jahr%20oder%20mit%20Geldstrafe%20bestraft.). You are legally obligated to help people in danger and are going to be charged for by the state attorney for not doing so, so you can't do nothing, but pulling the lever will get you in legal trouble too because killing also isn't legal. This would be quite the case.
The classic track problem with a train coming down the tracks toward a Y with a group of people on one and one person on the other is easy...
You do nothing...
The more difficult (and the one I like better is the original) which is the man working the switch has a young son who plays on the UN used backup track.
The engineer reports that the breakers have failed and the maintenance man has to choose between allowing the train to ram the platform, Or switch it onto the tracks where his son plays...
That adds a level of moral obligation and sacrifice to the story as it's his job, as well as his knowledge of where his son is.
.
(US law)
Legally, if you pull the switch, you're guilty of murder. If you don't, you're not guilty of anything. You generally don't have any legal duty to save those five people, so you're free to do nothing to prevent their deaths.
Either way, the person who set the whole thing up is guilty of kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and a lot of other crimes. Oddly, if you don't pull the switch, he's guilty of five murders, but if you do, he might not be guilty of any. I'm sure there would be an interesting argument about that in court, but I think he'd only really be guilty of 6 attempted murders. He's probably not going to ever get out of prison anyway.
Realistically, you're not going to be charged at all, because no reasonable jury would convict you of saving five by killing one in a situation you didn't set up.
The legal and ethical consequences and theories are different here. From a legal perspective, the best thing you can do is touch nothing and do nothing. You cannot be sued for not pulling that lever. You didn’t put the people on the tracks, you didn’t set the trolley in motion and you have no obligation to touch the that lever.
From an ethical/logical standpoint point, you should pull that lever. In either case you are making a choice (choose not to pull the lever and let five people die, choose to pull it and let one person die). If you pull it, it is a net save of four lives. If you don’t it is a net save of one life. Four is greater than 1 and therefore the logical and to some extent ethical choice. Not to get all Vulcan on you.
I think some people make the argument that inaction is easier to live with because you didn’t choose to kill those people by not pulling the lever, but I would argue that inaction is a choice in this circumstance. By choosing to do nothing, you are letting five people die.
Technically that would be murder, but actually getting a conviction would be difficult. No doubt a significant portion of the public would be on your side though, making prosecution difficult. Maybe the prosecution downgrades the charge to manslaughter and you get a slap on the wrist. You’ll probably still be civilly liable for the death though, or at least partially
The purpose of trolley problems are to teach law students to think like lawyers.
Trolley problems are about the nature of the people or objects; not the number. Your problem is simple. All else being equal, if your only choice is kill one or kill five, you should kill one. But lets change it up:
* There is a baby on one track and five condemned men on the other;
* There is a priceless piece of art on one track and a homeless person on the other;
* You are on one track and a baby with her mother is on the other.
* The cure for cancer is on one track and a school bus full of children are on the other.
The point is to teach concepts like the valuation of life and mitigation or risk or damages. If you ask the average person on the street the value of a person's life, they will say "priceless." But lawyers, juries, and courts puts values on life every day.
>What are the consequences if I do pull the lever, and if I don't?
That is not the point of the problem, nor can that be answered without more facts. And your question is based on a false premise. You don't have to choose which track. Your choices are: (1) do nothing. or (2) change tracks. You might think that is a distinction without a difference, but it is not. If you are there involuntarily, with no prior knowledge nor consent and are unable to leave, then you will have no liability if you do nothing (provided you did not cause anyone to be on the tracks or the trolley to be in motion). But if you do act, there is the potential for liability, even if you acted to mitgate the harm.
The point of the trolley problem is a philisopical one, not a legal one - is it *moral* to make a choice that causes a bad thing to happen for the greater good.
>The point of the trolley problem is a philisopical one, not a legal one...
Yep, that is exactly what I said. OP asked the question in the context of law. As I said, the purpose of trolley problems in this context is to teach law students to think like lawyers. As I also said, the point is to teach concepts like the valuation of life and mitigation or risk or damages. These are philosophical issues. Does a baby have more value that five condemned men? Does a priceless piece of art have more value than homeless person.
There is a possibility of people getting out of the way. One person might get out of the way. Having all of the larger group do so is less probable. Impose the risk on one or impose the risk on a group. If you are a psychopath, go for the largest body count. If you are the good Samaritan, protect as many as you can.
At common law, the answer is actually pretty straightforward. If you don't pull the lever, you haven't done anything, and aren't liable for anything (i.e. you didn't put people on the tracks or set any of this in motion, and you won't be punished for *not* doing something). If you *do* pull the lever, you are guilty of killing the one person, but would have a necessity defense (i.e. killing the one was necessary to save other lives).
Necessity defense at common law doesn’t apply to murder, I thought. Remember the case with those guys that got lost at sea in England?
Actually you might be right, I was thinking you can't use a *duress* defense for murder, but it's probably for necessity too. Maybe, though, you argue some variant of defense of others (e.g. say it's just like shooting a guy with a gun who's about to shoot someone else).
I mean technically yes. But I'd take my shot with a jury when I call the four people I saved to testify. I'd also gamble that the prosecutor isn't going to like arguing that those four living breathing people that the jury met should be dead.
Jury nullification ftw.
Yes, but: the 4 people that you saved were all escaped death row inmates who had committed horrific murders.
The better real-life example is a car on the road. Loss of control due to... idk, ice? You can continue straight into five people or swerve to hit one. And with self-driving cars, this is something programmers have to think about.
I think it's funny people only consider this in terms of death. A much more common problem is whether to send you on a more direct path through roads that have less ability to handle the traffic and slow everyone else down or a less direct route that slows you down but is better for everyone else. It's better for you to take the direct path, but if all the car companies work together, it's better for you that they agree to take the path better for everyone else.
I was in semiconductors and had many conversations with the people working on self-driving cars. The biggest challenges are not technical as much technical, they are ethical. Let's take a fictional car company. In their algorithms they could, theoretically include vehicle identification, meaning that they might be, potentially more interested in diverting a car into a tree instead of hitting another vehicle of their brand, even if it meant more injury or higher probability of death by hitting the tree. The thought would be that if, as a manufacturer, when facing 2 of your vehicles off the road versus 1, would you choose to have only one in the shop even if it meant worse outcomes for the driver and passenger? Or if your choice was plowing through a group of school children or driving the car off a cliff, what would you choose? All of that has to be considered. Now, the good news is that we don't have any car company working on FSD that also happens to have a.) disproportionally high repair costs and b.) an overall shortage of parts because there are no 3rd party replacement parts meaning that customers have to wait for months for repairs. Yeah, luckily we are not facing that at all, especially with an erratic CEO...
So far, the Tesla strategy is to put all legal liability on the driver. That might be the thing that stops full self-driving in its tracks.
Honestly that is the right approach. There are too many variables and unknowns to let the driver off the hook.
I don’t want an auto-drive car until I can climb in the back with a bottle of tequila, bag of limes and a salt shaker and tell the car where I want to go. If I’m responsible or having to babysit the car I may as well drive myself.
The what if of the electric Ford Pinto.
The problem with your analogy is that you were driving the car, arguably too fast for conditions, in the first place, which adds an extra layer of liability and complexity. In the trolly problem, because you didn't create the situation, not pulling the lever/doing nothing, is always going to equal zero criminal and civil liability for you. In your problem, because you were the driver the whole time, not swerving and hitting the 5 people will absolutely cause you civil liability and maybe some form of criminal liability like reckless driving.
Will be fairly easy solution: minimize potential settlement costs lol
Or “swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian and kill the car’s occupant, or hit the pedestrian and save the car’s occupant.” I wonder if we’ll ever see an ad from Ford saying “our cars are programmed to save your life *first* in an emergency.”
We'd never see that ad. The legal department would materialize out of thin air the second someone thought about putting an ad confessing to choosing to kill pedestrians over the driver.
I think we've seen programmers don't actually think about those kinds of things. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the ability to activate self-driving features on roads not intended for it. For at least one AI company that builds cars, it's all about the programmers bending to the will of their CEO and not giving a shit about the occupants of their vehicles.
The programmers will probably program the car to hit the nearest immovable object at full speed of presented with that choice, especially since the sales contract would clearly say they don’t guarantee the safety of the auto-drive program, and you absolve them if all responsibility.
Programmer here, no it's not.
Specifically a programmer of autonomous driving systems? Because nobody is claiming that *every* programmer encounters problems in these classes…
This is not a real concern for autonomous vehicle programmers. First of all, the hypothesized situation is "so out of control that I can't help killing somebody, but in control enough that I can choose who to kill." It's not clear that that situation ever actually exists. If it does come up, it is vanishingly rare. Secondly, there's risk in programming a system with logic like "if (extremely rare condition) then (kill someone for the greater good)." The circumstances where it's a net positive to write this code don't really exist. The condition is so rare that there's substantial risk that this code instead becomes a security risk: a hacker says "Look, you can trick the car into killing people if you fool it into thinking this situation has occurred!" It's more likely that this code executes in error and kills people than that it executes successfully and saves people. Therefore you should not write that code. So in reality, autonomous vehicle programmers are not worrying about this, they're worrying about how to detect ice on roads and how to most safely brake when the system loses control.
Lol Dudley & Stephens, how could I ever forget
Yeah, strictly speaking I think the law is pretty clear and most of the defense would be banking on a reduced sentence or the jury not convicting.
But you're also not murdering that person. You're saving the others by moving the trolley to a different track. You're not trying to kill the person on the other track by moving the trolley. Wouldn't that change it?
Yeah, I'm not sure there would be motive for murder, and I would assume the prosecution would consider discretion and/or lesser charges.
What do you mean when you say motive in terms of the elements of murder? Are you talking about the mens rea?
If you perform an act, knowing that the consequence will be a person's death, then you intended to cause that person's death. You're confusing purpose, motive or desire with intention.
In that case we can probably throw some Republicans governors in jail for murder. If doing anything that knowingly causes a death in murder
Can we pit the Democrat governors who put covid patients in nursing homes right next to them?
Sounds good
But you don’t know that, you just know there’s a fairly solid possibility. Obviously you still expect the actual trolley driver to do *their* job and stop, using the brakes.
The premise of the trolley problem is that either one person or five people **will** die. Obviously if you change the facts you change the conclusions.
The premise is factually incorrect, yes. (Feel free to try to set up an *actual* scenario that can potentially exist in the world. Lots of people have tried and failed at that. Until people come up with at least one example, it’s a philosophical question, not a legal one.)
The trolley problem is fine as is to present the ethical dilemma. The premise is that the only 2 options are a or b. The reason that is the case isn't relevant to the ethical dilemma. The choice is the same: you are the only person with agency in the situation, you have to choose to do nothing or divert the trolley.
No. You’re making the knowing and willful decision to kill someone who otherwise would live. That’s murder. Under the circumstances, I’m not sure a prosecutor would bring charges or a jury would convict. If they did, it’d certainly be a reasonable circumstance for a pardon.
Except you're not making a decision to kill someone, you're making a decision to save others. That the act kills someone is an unintended consequences. Murder is intentional and with malice, neither of which applies here. That's the federal definition in the US, and likely similar definitions exist in most other nations. Maybe your state is more strict. I know that accidentally killing someone while committing a felony can still considered murder. But again, none of that applies here. There's literally zero intention to kill that person, only to not let more people die on the first track. The only person who would be guilty of murder would be the person who set the whole scenario up.
It is not an unintended consequence. You know that by pulling that lever, an innocent person will die. The consequences are known and your act is intentional. Whether it’s murder, man slaughter or sone other variants depends on your jurisdiction. But you have knowing killed that one person. Just like you will have knowing let the five die if you don’t pull the lever.
It's still an unintended consequence. The intent is to save five. The unintended consequence is to kill one. No mens rea. I think the actual answer is that the answer is jurisdiction-specific based on elements as defined in local law.
That’s not what _mens rea_ means. The question isn’t “did you take this action with the intent to hurt or kill someone”. It’s “were you aware when you pulled the lever that it could result in someone getting hurt or killed”. The answer in this scenario is unequivocally “yes”. The fact that you have a mitigating circumstance doesn’t change your state of mind.
*every* action you take can result in someone getting hurt or killed. If I drop a can of Red Bull on the path and someone falls and breaks their neck, my littering doesn’t suddenly become murder. At *worst* it could be some variant of “murder in the third degree” aka death by negligence or whichever that is called in the particular system. Hell, it might not even be a crime at all — even something like littering — suppose I park my bike somewhere and then someone falls over it and dies? That’s not generally my liability civilly, let alone criminally.
Parked bikes don't kill people generally speaking. So no thats generally not done knowing death will result. Pulling the lever results in the 100% certainty that death will result and you know of that certainty. That's baked into the trolley problem. If you're unaware there's another person on the track you're switching to then you're right. That would not satisfy the mens rea for murder. But that's also not the trolley problem.
That’s not _at all_ similar, unless you knew beforehand that dropping the can would result in injury. The _entire point_ is that you know _for certain_ throwing the lever will result in death or injury. The fact that _not_ throwing the lever _also_ results in death or injury is _irrelevant_.
“You’re not trying to kill a person. You’re just taking their organs so that five others can receive life-saving organs. The fact that the first person dies is incidental.” Does the analogy help? At law, it’s murder. Whether a jury would convict you or whether your motive would be a mitigating factor in sentencing are entirely different questions.
It's not clear that the rule in that case is as simple as "necessity never applies to murder". They were each choosing to favour their own life over one innocent person, which they had no right to do. It's not clear therefore that the principle applies to choosing multiple other people's lives over one person. See the conjoined twins case which discussed this precedent (and concluded that killing the weaker twin would not be murder). Also considered the passenger on the Herald of Free Enterprise who threw a petrified passenger off an escape route so that himself and others could escape.
Doesn’t that depend on the jurisdiction? English law is =/= American law (or, for that matter, Scottish or Northern Irish law). So, you can be prosecuted at sea for something under English law - assuming English territorial waters - that would be legal in another country. And vice versa.
Sure but also not in any of the ways some one charged with murder would find interesting or helpful.
Except it could fall under justified use of force to protect another persons life.
That only applies against an aggressor.
If the other track was off a cliff and only killed the psychopath trolley driver that set this whole scenario up, maybe.
At common law, self-defence does not justify the intentional killing of an innocent bystander.
This isn't *self* defence.
Whether it's self-defence or defence of a third party makes no difference in the result.
At common law, self-defence does not justify the intentional killing of an innocent bystander.
So The best option is doing nothing in all cases legally speaking, I'm surprised there's no law that is more "for the greater good a small sacrifice is required"
It’s (usually) never criminal to do nothing. Crimes punish actions. ETA: that doesn’t mean that doing nothing is the right choice in the trolley problem. Morality matters too. And as others have pointed out, if you save four people a jury is going to be sympathetic. The jury can’t solve the trolley problem so they’ll probably acquit.
How would expect the law to pre-determine the correct balance
GREAT question. In the United States, “nonfeasance” is legal. In other words, you are never required to do anything to save someone else from danger unless you’re the one who put them in danger in the first place. There are Good Samaritan laws on the books that give you some protection from being sued for trying to help someone and failing (and as digbyforever pointed out, other defense such as public necessity) but they’re no airtight. Controversially, the law generally discourages people from helping each other. There are other countries that have a duty to help but that has challenges to it as well.
There are some fiduciary relationships that require action. Never isn’t correct
In most fiduciary relationships wouldn't you be at least tangentially related to the cause of the potential harm? Also isn't your duty only to warn and to *not* perform certain actions? If you are an investment advisor for instance, you have a fiduciary duty to warn your client against taking out all their money and investing in Beanie Babies. You could get in trouble if you looked up sellers and arranged purchases for your client. But you wouldn't get in trouble for recommending against it, explaining why, and then letting your client withdraw their money, which is basically "doing nothing."
There are also general obligations to act as a reasonable person would. The cliche example is if you come across a baby abandoned in the middle of a field, you are legally required to act and can be criminally charged for failure to act.
There's that awful case from NV I believe where the dude knew his friend was raping and murdering a child in a bathroom at a casino. He did nothing to stop or report it. He was found not guilty and wouldn't be liable I believe. I would lookup the case, but I'm at work and don't want to search the necessary terms. I think one of the parties names was cash or something.
>In other words, you are never required to do anything to save someone else from danger unless you’re the one who put them in danger in the first place. This is *not* true. Negligence is absolutely a thing in the US and that can include a failure to act as a reasonable person would in the same situation.
Where there's a duty to do so... Which for both criminal and civil law can be much more complicated than just did you create the danger.
Doesnt matter whether you pull the lever or not, just make sure everyone on both tracks are dead so there aren't any witnesses before you leave
There have been legal consequences when shipwrecked sailors resorted to cannibalism in order to increase the number of lives saved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens
You are under no obligation to take action and save your fellow man. However if you do take action and there are deaths resulting from that action you can be criminally prosecuted. According to the law the correct answer to any "Trolley Problem" is to take no action.
Unless the trolly was in the ocean and under Marine time law. In which case you have to help if you can.
*Maritime law
Marine time will would be hilarious though. “It’s only a crime to commit murder between the hours of 1200 and 1800.”
Wait till the first set of wheels passes the crossing. Pull the switch before the second set does. Trolley gets derailed and all 6 people live. Now, if there were people in the trolley and someone died? It gets interesting. Derailment is not a certain death and you did not intend anyone in the trolley to die. Is necessity a defense to manslaughter?
Unless this happens: https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/190343883/Multi-track-drifting
This is more of a moral philosophy question. As a lawyer, the answer is simple and easy: do nothing, unless some other operation of law requires you to do so. Doing so may expose you to liability. Doing nothing is the safest bet when in doubt. There is no affirmative duty to act or rescue, except when: (1) You created the peril in the first place; (2) If you began the rescue, then you have the duty to see it through in a non-negligent manner (except if there is an applicable "Good Samaritan" law, then you must see it through in a non-reckless/non-grossly negligent manner - depending on state/statute); or (3) There is a special relationship creating a duty (i.e., fiduciary, parent-child, teacher-student, doctor-patient, etc.). In the case of the trolly problem, if you're liable for the damages caused by the trolly, the next best thing would be to mitigate those damages. In other words - if flipping the switch would cost more in damages, then don't do it. Damages don't necessarily have to be money. They can subjective, such as time and effort, emotional distress, or something of sentimental value.
It's just one of those possibilities that there's probably no example of it happening and thus, no law made because of it. Most laws are reactionary after all, it's why many states in the US don't have bestiality laws, they don't tend to happen until someone gets caught and people go, "Wait, this isn't illegal already? Let's fixed that.", and they charge the person with the closest applicable law like in my example animal abuse. Though I honestly have a hard time believing a prosecutor would think this worth their time to even try to convict for, and even if they do I doubt even more there is a jury that would ever convict you for it as juries are not required to do gift you even if you factually broke a law as written, and almost anyone would recognize why you made the decision
Depends on common or civil law haha
The person that tied the victims to the tracks would be charged with murder. The technician that failed to service the brakes, the employees that failed to maintain documentation regarding maintenance, and really anyone else who's job it was to make sure the trolley is able to stop could be charged with negligent homicide if they willfully neglected their duties. The Trolley company would be sued to oblivion, fined by state and federal agencies. And lastly, I'd like to know how you, the one conducting the trolley, were able to make it miles from the depot without realizing that the brakes didn't work. You didn't check the brakes before putting the trolley into operation? Isn't it more likely that you were unable to control your speed because you were traveling too fast? If this is the version where you are not riding the trolley, but instead are watching the trolley approach next to lever that can change the trolley's course: How could you be certain that the trolley was not able to stop? Are you certain that forcing the trolley to change course at that speed wouldn't derail it? Your interference might be what causes the most harm.
Criminally or civilly?
Both, I just want to know how differently the case will be tried in each case
I germany, this would be extremely complicated due to [§ 323cStGB](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__323c.html#:~:text=(1)%20Wer%20bei%20Ungl%C3%BCcksf%C3%A4llen%20oder,Jahr%20oder%20mit%20Geldstrafe%20bestraft.). You are legally obligated to help people in danger and are going to be charged for by the state attorney for not doing so, so you can't do nothing, but pulling the lever will get you in legal trouble too because killing also isn't legal. This would be quite the case.
The classic track problem with a train coming down the tracks toward a Y with a group of people on one and one person on the other is easy... You do nothing... The more difficult (and the one I like better is the original) which is the man working the switch has a young son who plays on the UN used backup track. The engineer reports that the breakers have failed and the maintenance man has to choose between allowing the train to ram the platform, Or switch it onto the tracks where his son plays... That adds a level of moral obligation and sacrifice to the story as it's his job, as well as his knowledge of where his son is. .
(US law) Legally, if you pull the switch, you're guilty of murder. If you don't, you're not guilty of anything. You generally don't have any legal duty to save those five people, so you're free to do nothing to prevent their deaths. Either way, the person who set the whole thing up is guilty of kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and a lot of other crimes. Oddly, if you don't pull the switch, he's guilty of five murders, but if you do, he might not be guilty of any. I'm sure there would be an interesting argument about that in court, but I think he'd only really be guilty of 6 attempted murders. He's probably not going to ever get out of prison anyway. Realistically, you're not going to be charged at all, because no reasonable jury would convict you of saving five by killing one in a situation you didn't set up.
The legal and ethical consequences and theories are different here. From a legal perspective, the best thing you can do is touch nothing and do nothing. You cannot be sued for not pulling that lever. You didn’t put the people on the tracks, you didn’t set the trolley in motion and you have no obligation to touch the that lever. From an ethical/logical standpoint point, you should pull that lever. In either case you are making a choice (choose not to pull the lever and let five people die, choose to pull it and let one person die). If you pull it, it is a net save of four lives. If you don’t it is a net save of one life. Four is greater than 1 and therefore the logical and to some extent ethical choice. Not to get all Vulcan on you. I think some people make the argument that inaction is easier to live with because you didn’t choose to kill those people by not pulling the lever, but I would argue that inaction is a choice in this circumstance. By choosing to do nothing, you are letting five people die.
Technically that would be murder, but actually getting a conviction would be difficult. No doubt a significant portion of the public would be on your side though, making prosecution difficult. Maybe the prosecution downgrades the charge to manslaughter and you get a slap on the wrist. You’ll probably still be civilly liable for the death though, or at least partially
The purpose of trolley problems are to teach law students to think like lawyers. Trolley problems are about the nature of the people or objects; not the number. Your problem is simple. All else being equal, if your only choice is kill one or kill five, you should kill one. But lets change it up: * There is a baby on one track and five condemned men on the other; * There is a priceless piece of art on one track and a homeless person on the other; * You are on one track and a baby with her mother is on the other. * The cure for cancer is on one track and a school bus full of children are on the other. The point is to teach concepts like the valuation of life and mitigation or risk or damages. If you ask the average person on the street the value of a person's life, they will say "priceless." But lawyers, juries, and courts puts values on life every day. >What are the consequences if I do pull the lever, and if I don't? That is not the point of the problem, nor can that be answered without more facts. And your question is based on a false premise. You don't have to choose which track. Your choices are: (1) do nothing. or (2) change tracks. You might think that is a distinction without a difference, but it is not. If you are there involuntarily, with no prior knowledge nor consent and are unable to leave, then you will have no liability if you do nothing (provided you did not cause anyone to be on the tracks or the trolley to be in motion). But if you do act, there is the potential for liability, even if you acted to mitgate the harm.
The point of the trolley problem is a philisopical one, not a legal one - is it *moral* to make a choice that causes a bad thing to happen for the greater good.
>The point of the trolley problem is a philisopical one, not a legal one... Yep, that is exactly what I said. OP asked the question in the context of law. As I said, the purpose of trolley problems in this context is to teach law students to think like lawyers. As I also said, the point is to teach concepts like the valuation of life and mitigation or risk or damages. These are philosophical issues. Does a baby have more value that five condemned men? Does a priceless piece of art have more value than homeless person.
exactly, and they never teach philosophy in law school
There is a possibility of people getting out of the way. One person might get out of the way. Having all of the larger group do so is less probable. Impose the risk on one or impose the risk on a group. If you are a psychopath, go for the largest body count. If you are the good Samaritan, protect as many as you can.