Seems to me that curing cancer swamps out everything else in the story. Supposing that World War 2 was entirely down to Hitler, the casualties came to about 60-80 million. By comparison, back of the envelope calculations suggest that around 1.7 million people die from cancer each year* in the U.S., E.U., and Japan taken together. See the CDC numbers and the Destatis numbers (via Google's public data explorer) for the numbers that I used to form a baseline for the 1.7 million figure.
That means that within a generation or two, the cancer guy would have saved as many lives (to speak with the vulgar) as the Hitler guy would have killed. Plus, the cancer guy would have improved quality of life for a lot more people than that. Maybe we have to go another couple of generations to balance life years if the Hitler casualties are all young and the cancer savings are all old. But under the assumption that a solution to cancer is very unlikely without the cancer guy, the right decision seems clearly to be to steer the trolley left.
* Things get more complicated if we suppose that the Hitler guy will bring about a new world war and attempted genocide, which might involve full-on nuclear war, rather than a sort of repeat of real-Hitler's consequences. I am choosing to understand the Hitler guy as being responsible for 60 or 80 million deaths -- or make the number a bit larger, like 100 million, if you like.
It's also conceivable that with his compelling story of kidney failure with his life saved by transplantation, Hitler gets admitted to art school, creating beautiful landscape paintings for the rest of his life. At the same time, the person who cures cancer may also accidentally create a virus that destroys every single living cell on earth within one week after its accidental release into the environment. The only person surviving would be a brain emulation prototype which copies itself, rebuilding human society such that nobody dies or feels pain anymore.
I feel like criticizing this as a moral dilemma would be somewhat missing the point, so I'm just going to say that as a joke, it tries too hard.
I don't get it. Is the joke that Philosophical thought experiments are sometimes overcomplicated? If so that's not exactly a deep or controversial insight.
Ok. if this is getting a thread, I really can't resist promoting the trolleyology t-shirt my roommates and I made. Ever wonder whose running all these ethically problematic trolleys? It's the Metaphysical Transit Authority!
Left, because that would kill the author of the example. :-) (Does this comment fall within the scope of the new censorship policy?)
If he goes right, he'll spare lefty, who will kill five men including the author. If he goes left, he'll spare righty, who will kill the same five men. The author dies either way.
This is stupidly contrived. Normally i try to actually answer the question and engage the problem at its heart, but this is too much. You won't be nerd-sniping me today.
ie. flip a coin
Least convenient possible world: if you try to make a non-deterministic choice, Omega kills the discoverer of the cure for cancer and the inventor of the pop-top can, kill 3^^^3 kittens, and an unjust war fraught of war crimes will ensue, on top of whatever else your decision causes as described in the scenario.
Just saw this on another forum. I figured I'd repost it here, since it'd be interesting to see you guy's answer to it.