October 29, 2013

Shoving a fat man under the trolley: abstraction or fiasco?

Konishiki: Less easy to push than the Trolley Problem assumes
A commenter objects to my having fun with a moral conundrum much mulled over by psychologists, philosophers, and behavioral economists: should you instantly decide to push a fat man under a runaway trolley to save the lives of five other people? One standard formulation is:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

I noted that very fat men tend to be hard to push.

My commenter scoffs:
Normally I object to the learned autism of most contemporary moral philosophy, but in this case the problem is clearly your and many of your commentators' learned retardation. Inability to abstract shouldn't be a point of pride. 
Here's the beginning of another thought experiment. To explain Newton's Laws, a physicist begins "imagine a frictionless world composed of a single billiard ball sitting motionless on an infinite plane. The ball is set into motion at a constant velocity of 10 m/s . . ." Would you have your nit-picking reaction then (why 10 m/s? Is the ball stripes or solids? I've never seen an infinite plane!)? Of course not, because you and every other 3-digit IQer would understand that it is a simplification intended to show clearly some essential features (in this case, why an object set into motion stays in motion along its vector). This, despite the fact that the frictionless plane is more alien to your experience than any version of the trolley problem. 
I chose Newton because his example is very influential. Like Newton, many scientists begin with simplified, unrealistic foundations, then try to build atop that more and more complexity until we have a reasonably accurate predictive model. It doesn't always work, but that is the fault of the scientist, not some flaw in reductionism. The Trolley Problem needs to be understood in this light. 
The Trolley Problem is obviously a simplified situation. You aren't the first person to realize that. Everyone knows it, philosophers and psychologists included. The simplifications are necessary, because even small details can change people's responses dramatically. Wright and Greene talk about this in their bloggingheads talk -- changing the scenario from one where you push the fat man to one where you drop him onto the tracks through a trap door by pulling a lever drives a lot of people into the sacrifice-fatty camp. But, the simplifications are ok because were left with a scenario that has, for most, a strong intuitive tug and that can be easily tweaked get different reactions. That last part is important, because by tweaking we can begin to figure out the (sometimes surprising) things that can affect moral cognition. 
Moral psychologists are interested in the responses for their own sake, and moral philosophers are interested for exactly the reasons Greene talks about -- if our moral intuition can be tossed hither and tither by something so silly as whether we touch the fat man or use a trap door, should we trust our gut reaction for any moral situation? Maybe we still should, but it's deep question, and one that gives only limited support to utilitarianism.

Before the trolley problem was invented, science fiction writers devoted much effort to crafting more airtight scenarios, such as Tom Godwin's 1954 classic The Cold Equations. Space travel scenarios involving shortages of fuel to boost everybody on board home have a couple of advantages over the trolley problem:

- Plenty of time to think things through logically.

- No outside resources available to offer easy win-win solutions. 

But I like the unintentionally comic Trolley Problem precisely because, when you stop to think about it, it raises what ought to be an important issue in moral philosophy: the "Law of" (or, better, tendency toward) Unintended Consequences. Even within the narrow moral imagination of the utilitarian philosophy, there are good reasons why it's usually a bad idea to decide to try to kill somebody with your bare hands even if it seems like the logical thing to do after one or two seconds of reflection. Having a general emotional prejudice against starting a lethal brawl because it seemed like a good idea at the time may not be as illogical as utilitarians assume.

If you try to shove a fat man to his death, will everything ensue exactly as the problem assumes? Very likely not. Instead, you are more likely to wind up with a lot of grappling, grunting, and sweating. Maybe in your struggle, both of you will eventually fall to your deaths, after the trolley has shot past, thus winding up with seven deaths, not five.

This helps explain why people tend to be less averse to less messy, more mechanistic -- indeed, more deterministic -- version of the Trolley Problem, like throwing a switch or opening a trapdoor that sacrifices one to save five. Among much else, being mechanical, these methods seem more likely to work than getting into a shoving match with somebody larger than yourself.

The messiness of trying to throw a fat man off a bridge shouldn't be conceived of as merely a unique, isolated issue in moral philosophy. It has broader implications for morality in the real world. 

Say there is an unlovable dictator who, after a long nasty career of attacking other countries, has settled down to more or less minding his own business. Should we invade his country to bring his oppressed people democracy? 

What could possibly go wrong?

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

if our moral intuition can be tossed hither and tither by something so silly as whether we touch the fat man or use a trap door, should we trust our gut reaction for any moral situation? Maybe we still should, but it's deep question, and one that gives only limited support to utilitarianism.

The problem with this argument is that our "gut reactions" evolved in the real world, not in a thought experiment in which the various details that always accompany real world experience can be simplified or reduced away.

Our "gut reactions" evolved to deal precisely with the kind of "messiness" that Steve describes here:

"If you try to shove a fat man to his death, will everything ensue exactly as the problem assumes? Very likely not. Instead, you are more likely to wind up with a lot of grappling, grunting, and sweating. Maybe in your struggle, both of you will eventually fall to your deaths, after the trolley has shot past, thus winding up with seven deaths, not five.

...

The messiness of trying to throw a fat man off a bridge shouldn't be conceived of as merely a unique, isolated issue in moral philosophy. It has broader implications for morality in the real world."

Two Things said...

(recycled from my comment at Marginal Revolution a few years ago)

Once you realize everyone is (or was) someone’s child, the trolley problem admits of fewer “moral” solutions.
For each person, it’s much easier to find five more strangers than one more child. The subjective value of a child to his/her parents greatly exceeds his/her market value (the value strangers put on him/her). Only a remarkable altruist (or a complete whackjob) would sacrifice a child for five strangers.

(Even weaker hypotheticals point the same way: would you sacrifice one stranger for five others, if the one stranger’s mother stood nearby and begged you to spare her child? No! It is better to avoid angering one mother who knows who you are than some unknown, possibly nonexistent relatives of strangers.)

Now, for you Golden-Rule fans, would you want a stranger to push your child into the path of a trolley to save five other strangers? No? So by the Golden Rule, shouldn’t you refuse to push stranger’s children in front of trolleys?

Natural selection will not favor either remarkable altruists or complete whackjobs, so after a while you end up where the human race is now: people “naturally” think it improper to push anyone in front of a trolley to save a few strangers. The parents of someone you shove are more likely to seek revenge (or if you prefer, less likely to cooperate with you in future) than the parents of some people you merely leave to their fates.

Biological systems have more complex rules than sophomore moral puzzles, so it’s easy to construct scenarios in which people will choose a different outcome. Many people would sacrifice one stranger to save a thousand other strangers. Why? Because the gratitude of the surviving mothers of the thousand will probably outweigh the anger of the one mother of the sacrifice. Trade one stranger for another? Depends on what they look like(!). Trade one’s own child for a thousand strangers? Probably not.

- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/trolley-problem-biases.html#sthash.auxY8qp5.dpuf

panjoomby said...

is a trolley similar to a special ed "short" bus?

Anonymous said...

Funny how real life always messes up abstract morality.

Anonymous said...

I think that the commenter makes some good points. It's also worth noting that philosophical thought experiments are often fantastical because philosophers like to have a little fun in their writing. Contemporary analytic epistemology is full of outrageous thought experiments about knowledge largely for this reason.

That said, the absurdity of thought experiments can be problematic when we're interested in people's -- especially non-philosophers' -- intuitions about them. Most people will be able to think more clearly about a case if it's somewhat realistic. Any good presentation of this case to non-philosophers -- whether in an experiment or from a professor to his students -- will stipulate that the kinds of factors Steve is worried about do not obtain. But people will then have difficulty responding to the scenario precisely because that's so unrealistic.

Dave Pinsen said...

Another problem with the trolley problem is the death of the fat man, if pushed, seems much more certain than the deaths of the workmen on the track. Conceivably, they might get away. And if not, you didn't cause their deaths by any action of yours.

candid_observer said...

Steve, you actually do raise an interesting point regarding our so-called moral intuitions. Namely, they may have built into them certain expectations as to likely outcomes that drive them in one direction or the other. Pushing a fat man = messy, uncertain outcome. Pulling a lever for a trap door = high probability effective result.

We likewise have the "intuitions" that it is harder to justify harming someone when we are most directly responsible than when that responsibility is indirect. It may be that the explanation of those intuitions is that our ancestors were more likely to have been blamed and punished if they were very directly responsible for a destructive act (even if that destructive act created a greater good).

Hence, one can certainly see how such "intuitions" might have evolved. The point is, while they may seem simply given and unanalyzable, they might easily be rooted in evolutionary consequences. When we lust over an attractive potential mate, we aren't -- or at least the males aren't -- exactly thinking about our baby popping out 9 months later: evolution motivates us do what evolution needs us to do, without informing us of the reason.

In this sense, it is evolution that doesn't care about thought experiments and abstractions: it cares only about average results, and gives us the intuitions that drive us toward the best average results.

Institute of Economic Understanding said...

Where do you draw the line. an out of control train is an obvious threat but what about more subtle examples like a person with a bad temperament. could preemptively killing him justified be because he may become a serial killer or shoot-up his workplace?

Anonymous said...

"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

If told to a Muslim, the Fat Man would be dead as he would take the script literally as true. A lot of Allah Akbars on the way down.

If told to a Socialist she would see the rules could be interpreted differently and that she would simply sue the Fat Man.

Anonymous said...

This helps explain why people tend to be less averse to less messy, more mechanistic -- indeed, more deterministic -- version of the Trolley Problem, like throwing a switch or opening a trapdoor that sacrifices one to save five.

Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

BTW, does anyone know why the Gareth Jones website is trying to remove all evidence of the interview with Meir Wallach Finkelstein?

Or is it just that the Google folks are trying to scrub all of the links to Finkelstein in the same way that they tried to scrub all of the links to Olof Aschberg?

Anonymous said...

The time tested Hippocratic oath says “do no harm” - emphasis on “NO” - killing the fat man is harm.

The fat man could have a new cure for cancer in his grasp!

a very knowing American said...

In the twentieth century, some of the major advocates of utilitarianism were Communists. While a soft-hearted, soft-headed bourgeois Kantian moralist might think torture or mass murder were just wrong, a sophisticated dialectical thinker would realize that they're OK as long as they're carried out by a revolutionary vanguard to hasten the advent of utopia for hundreds of millions. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

The history of Communism shows one of the big problems with utilitarianism. Even if you think it's OK in principle to sacrifice the few for the many, you have to be leery of the fact that somehow it was the guys doing the utilitarian calculus who seemed to wind up with the omelet, such as it was, and other people's eggs that got broken.

Robert Wright correctly emphasizes how much our moral judgements are likely to be skewed by self-serving self-deception. The commandment to maximize total happiness -- subject to no side constraints on avoiding harm, leaving well-enough alone, and minding one's own business -- may allow an especially wide scope for screwing people over in the name of Doing Good.

Anonymous said...

http://www.richardhartersworld.com/cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html

Jim said...

Assassination is preferable to invasion, especially if you have done your homework and allied with a dissident faction, ready for takeover and more to your liking.

Emma Zahn said...

The trolley problem and its infinite corollaries always make me wonder about the morality of asking people to contemplate under what circumstances they are willing to commit murder?

Harry Baldwin said...

This question resonates with me due to experience. When I was at summer camp there was a fat kid there who bullied everyone. He threw me into the camp's lake from its dock. When I got back on the dock I saw him sitting on its edge, and tried to push him off. I absolutely couldn't budge him. Maybe if I had grabbed him around the neck and jumped off myself I could have taken him in with me, but I'm not certain.

Trying to push around fat guys is not to be taken lightly.

bjdubbs said...

Sympotomatic of a larger phenomenon, the separation of moral philosophy from political philosophy. Philosophy departments don't read Thucydides or Machiavelli, they read academicized liberal Protestant morality like John Rawls and other forms of Kantianism. It's an occupational hazard of being the armchair business.

of course said...

In an old Simpsons ep Homer puts on exorbitant weight in order to go on disability; the denouement is scholastically superior to any of Greene's slapdash scenarios, as Lisa and Bart offer philosophical commentary in turn.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I think you have a point, but if the person posing the problem simply said "assume you're certain you can push the fat man onto the track and stop the trolley" then I think the issue would be negated. It's only a problem (for the moral psychologists) to the extent that people actually stop and thinking about the logistics of it all.

Modern Abraham said...

Sperg-burger alert, sperg-burger alert! Maybe this is why so few great French women were of the Left- intuitive understanding that in a hyper-rationalistic, utilitarian Leftist state, it would be sperg-burgers like Green and Wright (or, the horror!, Peter Singer) encroaching on the day-to-day contours of their lives.

Prudential considerations should of course be essential to moral philosophy, but I will skips these in showing more fundamental reasons why this is such an awfully bad thought experiment. Excuse the ad hoc terminology here as I am not a professional philosopher and do not know the academic terms for some of the following moral reasoning concepts-

1. Locality of risk/consequence- it is wrong to sacrifice someone external to a dangerous situation- i.e. an innocent bystander. The example is so awful precisely because the fat man is minding his own business on the platform. If he had been a passenger, it would be much more acceptable to most people to consider sacrificing him since he assumed the risks of that particular trip. And, yes, it does matter that he was not on THAT PARTICULAR ride while still being a trolley passenger in the general sense.

2. Authority for action- much more acceptable to most people if the one making the executive decision is in some type of "captain" position of authority. Sea captains vow to be the last off-board and even go down with their ship. Imagine the trolley has to not come to a stop, but jump a canyon and the only way to do that is quickly losing some on-board weight. Most normal people are more accepting of the conductor sacrificing the ON-BOARD fat man for the good of the other passengers than for a random passenger to take it upon himself to be the cabin sociopath- i.e. utilitarian moral philosopher. There are lots of very important prudential concerns here, of course, (e.g. chaos as everyone tries to throw everyone else off) but I think there is something much deeper here as well- basically a human sacrifice is only acceptable if the stakes are high enough (i.e. the lives of many other innocent people are about to be lost) AND it is a person in authority acting and being seen to act in a manner that is for the common good.

Anonymous said...

"The messiness of trying to throw a fat man off a bridge shouldn't be conceived of as merely a unique, isolated issue in moral philosophy. It has broader implications for morality in the real world."

The real overlooked issue isn't the messiness of grappling with the fat man but the gross messiness of what happens to his body on the tracks.
Anyone who has seen a bloodied highway after a deer has been run over knows this. A queasy sight.

For that reason, this can't be a purely abstract question. And it's not merely a matter of conscience of having pushed a man to his death. It becomes an issue of strong stomachs. More an issue of guts than guilt.

For example, if you have to cleanly shoot a fat man to save five people, it's quite different from having to skin him alive and kill him by pulling his guts out.

If I had to meet quick death to save a hundred people, maybe I would.
But if I have to be tortured to death, forget it.

Winston Smith was willing to die for the woman he loved.
But he couldn't when he was faced with the threat of having his face gnawed on by rats. He asked that the rats be diverted to the very woman he loved.

Likewise, the queasy-horror factor
of this train scenario cannot be overlooked.

Anonymous said...

The scenario is tantamount to torturing the fat man to death. Since he is super huge and will slowly stop the train--so that passengers won't be killed--, he won't die immediately.

Americans believe that it's justified to a kill terrorist suspect to stop an act of terrorism.

But many believe even a terrorist suspect should not be tortured even if doing so will prevent terrorism.

So, the issue is not killing a fat man but torturing a fat man to save lives.

Prof. Woland said...

In WW2 during the siege of Leningrad, the Soviet Government passed out rations based on the importance to the war effort. Soldiers got the biggest rations, (actually the Communists got the biggest rations) followed by Citizens doing vital work for the war effort, etc. The people who got the lowest rations were teenagers. Many of them simply starved to death.

David said...

>morality in the real world<

People who go on about morality are often the same people who deny the existence, importance, or reality of the real world.

The "phenomenal" realm is filled with crooks, hustlers, killers, et al., but who cares? Mr. Z one-upped Mr. Y in a status-jockeying exercise known as philosophizing, and that's all that counts. Z gets to strut, and Y has to sputter and type and flop-sweat. Yee-haw for Z.

David said...

>hilarious-unrealistic factor of this train scenario cannot be overlooked<

FIFY

Anonymous said...

They are not carrying it out enough.

What if it is a zaftig 30 year old woman?

Or heck, just any fat, but fertile, chick?

what about any woman?

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

I'm still interested in the question of at what point, or after how much consideration of the scenario, can we even say that "moral" reasoning has begun to take place.

The question (asked in a study) is almost certainly going to take a minimal amount of time to consider, making it almost certainly a different test than if the person were really put in the situation.

And then the variable of how long you get to take to answer the question is going to determine how much reasoning you do. It's not clear to me that you can reason "morally" in a short amount of time. It may, by definition, require a non-trivial number of cases, comparisons, examples, whatever to be analyzed.

Dai Alanye said...

What if the five potentially doomed persons happened to be fans returning from a Justin Bieber concert?

Anonymous said...

The 'trolley switching problem' is suspect too.

Basically, (in the UK at least), no individual autonomous person has any legal or moral responsibility to preserve the life of any other individual whom he finds in a dangerous situation, unless he is closely related (ie a parent) of that individual. This is not the same as saying that there *is* a responsibility to create 'safe working environments etc.
So, legally, no individual can be blamed for not making an effort to save the lives for people he was not responsible for in a situation not of his making - a situation which would have occurred anyway if he was present or not.
However deliberately taking the life of a person by intentional actions knowing full well that those actions will result in death, is a crime - for which there is no defence.
So if you want to stay out of jail, rather than engage in pompous debates, the answer is pretty clear.

Anonymous said...

I always like to ponder this example.
No one, absolutely no one in history was more deserving of the death penalty than Gavrilo Princep.
Yet he was never executed, because he was under-age when he committed the murders. The Austrian judiciary really showed their quality by cleaving fast to that rule, despite overwhelming pressure to violate entrenched laws, I have no doubt that the English judiciary, at that time, would have killed a similiar murderer.
Ironically, Princep died young in jail from disease.

Simon in London said...

The problem with the 'fat man problem' is not its _abstraction_, it's the _details_! Most obviously, many people are going to attach less moral weight to the life of a *fat* man!
Not many are going to want to kill a slim young woman to save five fat middle-aged man even in theory, while plenty will kill a fat middle-aged man to save five slim young women!

Michael Deloatch said...

I thought Mr. Fred Rodgers worked through all the implications of imaginary trolley scenarios decades ago.

Speaking as a fat man myself, I sometimes walk on my lunch hour across a bridge from which one can see an old streetcar shed, though the tracks were pulled up years ago. I may never be able to traverse that bridge again in light of this.

Callowman said...

Details, details.

A couple years ago, I was on a train that hit two pedestrians at high speed, killing them. Sitting in the rearmost carriage, I didn't feel a thing.

But the Gedankenexperiment involves a "trolley", not a train. A typical modern tram weighs maybe 30 tons. Even the dinkiest 110 year old veteran tram that occasionally runs on the line that goes past my place weighs 12 tons empty.

How big does this hypothetical fat man have to be to stop that little tram? Unless it's running on a flat surface at very low speed, I doubt even a 500-pounder would do the trick unless he were dressed in a reinforced Kevlar suit that would prevent the tram from mushing right through him.

Yet I'm supposed to abandon my "learned retardation" and accept that the two scenarios are equivalent, since they supposedly have the same outcome, and further accept that the only difference between my feelings about them is some irrational shit about agency or touching or whatever?

Sure. Clever argument, ducks.

NOTA said...

The problem isn't with the scenario, it's with generalizing it to real world situations.

You can spell out some extraordinary set of circumstances that justify doing almost anything, no matter how awful--murdering some fat guy, torturing a terrorist's children in front of him, framing an innocent man for murder to calm down a lynchmob, etc.

But when you try to apply those lessons, things get a lot messier. The fat guy pushes back, or you shove him onto the tracks, save the guys at the bottom of the hill, and go to prison for murder, or you shove him to his death and the people at the bottom of the hill still die. You torture a lot of innocent people or low-level nobodies, some bureaucrat outs the number of people he tortured to death on his performance plan, your enemies start fighting to the death rather than be captured. You frame the guy and the lynch mob still kills someone else, you get into the habit of framing people and end up hanging far more innocent people than the lynchmob ever would, etc.

My rule of thumb is this: If someone starts talking about how, in some extraordinary abstract case, it would be okay to cheat on your wife, he is probably not discussing morality so much as planning adultery.

Melendwyr said...

The real issue is that the motives of the person answering are what's vital - and the question doesn't really explore those motives.

A person who thinks the world is dangerously overpopulated, a person who is thrilled by the thought of death, and a person who believes they will only be responsible if they intervene may all give the same response to the question, but they'll do so for very different reasons. And those reasons are what we're concerned about when we evaluate moral/ethical decisionmaking.

AMac said...

To move the question out of the "let's you and him fight" mode, one could add back the obvious additional line: "Or, alternatively, you can stop the trolley by jumping in front of it."

What's the morality of choosing to sacrifice a (fat) stranger rather than engaging in self-sacrifice?

David said...

>If someone starts talking about how, in some extraordinary abstract case, it would be okay to cheat on your wife, he is probably not discussing morality so much as planning adultery.<

It is interesting how often "elite" moral reasoning revolves around the assumption of the necessity of murder (as Emma mentioned). Chomsky (I know, I know) had an interesting take on Niebuhr in this context.

"It's interesting to look at why [Niebuhr] was so revered. I went through his stuff once.[...] The intellectual level is depressingly low - you can hardly keep a straight face. But something made him appealing - his concept of the 'paradox of grace.' What it comes down to is this: No matter how much you try to do good, you're always going to do harm. Of course, he's an intellectual, so he had to dress it up with big words, but that's what it comes down to. That's very appealing advice for people who are planning to enter a life of crime - to say, No matter how much I try to do good, I'm always going to harm people. I can't get out of it. It's a wonderful idea for a Mafia don. He can go ahead and do whatever he feels like. If he harms people, Oh my God, the paradox of grace. That may well explain why Niebuhr was so appealing to American intellectuals in the post-World War II period. They were preparing to enter a life of major crime. They were going to be either the managers or the apologists for a period of global conquest." (How the World Works, pp. 124-125)

Don't many "moral philosophers" these days spend their time imagining scenarios in which killing or torturing innocent people is okay?

Udolpho.com said...

The hypothetical is an asinine lawgic trap and your commenter is severely afflicted with autism but is functional enough to communicate with others.

The hypothetical actually reveals something of the conditioned sociopathy of many nerds, who move on from pushing a fat man in front of a trolley to advocating the importation of another 300 million third worlders. You see, in sperg math, it all adds up.

Jack Amok said...

Since the new twist on this old chestnut was to do brain scans of the people being asked the question, the whole "why can't you just go along with the hypothetical scenario" schtick is particularly asinine.

Possibly you can rationalize your way past the obvious glaring holes in the proposition, like the one iSteve mentioned ("how on Earth am I going to shove a fat man off a bridge?"). But the brain scan isn't going to record your rationalized response. It's going to get the raw thought process.

Including thoughts such as "what kind of depressive, abnormal freaks sit around coming up with morbid questions like this anyway?"

Anonymous said...

I believe Fat Man was dropped on a city. Debate still goes on.

Dutch Boy said...

What's that line about hard cases and bad laws again?

Mark Minter said...

A priest, a boy scout, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are on a small plane.

The pilot comes running out of the cockpit, heads into the storage area in the back, and comes out wearing a parachute.

He opens the door to the plane and yells back over the incoming wind, "The plane is going down and there are only two chutes left back in the luggage area. I'm sorry but I have two small children and they need me." And he jumps out of the plane.

Elizabeth Warren wastes no time and immediately rushes into the back and comes out tightening shoulder straps.

She says, "I'm the smartest feminist senator in the Senate and the approaching Gaia order needs women like me. I deserve to live."

And she jumps out.

The priest turns to the boy scout and says, "My son, I have lived a long and good life already. God has a place for me. Take the last parachute, go and live."

The boy scout says "Heck, father, let's both go and live."

"The Senate's smartest feminist senator just jumped out of the plane wearing my knapsack."

Anonymous said...

No need to push a fatty.
Just step out of the way.

http://youtu.be/yDOHmX5W2wM?t=3m8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNupRTfpM9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN_y6TzkdIg

Anonymous said...

Remind me never to get onto a trolley full of neurotypical jocks.

Anonymous said...

The fat man has to be moved, the other guy was stupid enough to be there on the tracks, so we feel less guilty.