Trolley problem thread? Trolley problem thread. Bonus marks

Just roll the dice.
1: kill 5 persons
5-6: kill 1 person
That way everyone got a fair chance. All other solutions are biased, therefore unethical.

If you don't know any person you can reduce grieving relatives/friends by killing the one person.

If you know them, it should be an entirely personal choice.

The killing vs. letting die argument is retarded because unlike the random deaths happening everywhere in the world at any moment, you have the power to decide the outcome of this situation.

File: Lucifer-Morning-Star-Satan-Pentecostal-_1.jpg (11KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x300px

>>1746698
skilled artisans can manipulate physical chance tier outcomes

>>1746677
The picture does not give enough information for me to make a decision
What race and religion are these people? :^)

>>1746677

I don't understand why anyone considers this a problem - obviously, you switch and kill the one person.

>>1746823

... Could someone explain to me what is supposed to be difficult about this, as it's obviously regarded as quite the brainteaser, and I just ain't seeing it.

>>1746827
Basically: the train is going to stay on the same track, but you have the ability to switch the track. Would it be more ethical to knowingly commit murder by switching the track or stay neutral in the situation by letting the event take course?

>>1746747
no one on 4chan is skilled or an artisan

>>1746837

Commit murder by switching the track. Your inaction in this case would be manslaughter at least.

>>1746837
>>1746846

... You'd have saved five lives at the cost of one life.

File: tp2.jpg (29KB, 506x269px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 506x269px

>>1746823
>>1746827
This is a common reaction. Trolley problem studies usually go like this:
People are presented with the regular variation (OP), people are presented with the fat man variation (pic). Even though the problems are the same exact thing, majority of people will approve of pulling the switch to save a net of four lives, but will disapprove of pushing the fat man to save a net of four lives.

"You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy 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?"

Shit, looks like I solved the trolley problem. They'll have to update the textbooks.

>>1746846

If you're not constantly out feeding starving kids in Africa, your inaction is causing the death of others. So why aren't you, you track-switching pleb?

>>1746855
Okay. You're driving your new self driving car, when 5 little children suddenly (and illegally) run to the open highway. The only options that the self driving car has are:

a) kill the five children (who broke traffic law)
b) or kill you

Don't act as if utilitarianism is somehow "obviously" the right choice.

>>1746855
Then, let's pose a second question.

You are a doctor in a hospital, and you have 6 patients, all in dire need of working organs - one a heart, another needs kidneys, another a liver etc-, but otherwise healthy people, who will die if they don't receive the functional organs they need.
Now a healthy man walks in for a checkup. You could bring him under, and then transplant his working organs to the 6 recipients. This will save 6 lives for the cost of one. You could also just do the check-up.

What would you do?

>>1746861

You're saving a net of five lives, surely?

The problems aren't exactly the same - in one, the death of the man is predetermined by someone else's having placed him on the track. If I drop the fat man onto the track, then I'm not making the best of a bad situation, but proactively deciding that it's right to use a human that way. Not the same thing at all.

>>1746864

You're talking there not about a thought experiment, but about a real-world scenario, discussing which would derail (ha!) the thread.

>>1746869
6 to 5 obviously.

>>1746871
>the death of the man is predetermined by someone else's having placed him on the track
What? And this justifies your murdering him because.....

It is the exact same thing. You murder someone, to save 4 lives. You don't murder someone, and 4 other people die.

>>1746866

What? But my preferring to kill the five children there would be self-interest, an entirely different issue.


>>1746869

I'd just do the checkup. Why do you think this is analogous?

>>1746881

Because it's the only choice open to me in the circumstances. I save five lives if I switch, not four. Everyone is of value, they're not just figures in a math problem.

>>1746882
So, you only uphold utilitarianism if it doesn't affect you?

You think it is okay for you to murder someone to save 4 lives, but it is not okay for you to die to save 5 lives?

>>1746885

Yes, of course.

>>1746677
it's not really a choice between murder or accidental death or even the numbers
this is a no choice because the effect is the same other than 4 or 1

basically it is a hypothetical without context, an incomplete situation without explanation

it's only a dilemma because there is nothing to go on other than the difference between 1 and 4

>>1746885
>>1746890

... And again, I'd be saving five lives, not four.

>>1746883
>>1746883
>Because it's the only choice open to me in the circumstances
No it isn't.
>I save five lives
? There is no scenario where you save five lives.
>Everyone is of value
So, you're an utilitarian. So I am going to assume that you'd agree that you should be killed in >>1746866 because more lives saved = the better.

>>1746894

But why does anyone find it a dilemma? The solution is obvious, in the absense of anything else to go on.

>>1746905
it's not a solution because there is no question or rather the choices makes no difference

>>1746901

Yes, in this scenario I save five lives, unless you believe that human beings have no intrinsic value, which may be true for the purpose of the exercise, but doesn't map onto real-world ethics usefully in my view. Five people are saved. You don't subtract the guy who died, I don't understand how that view of the situation would be arrived at.

Of course I wouldn't agree that I should be killed, my survival is of paramount importance to me. Survival first, then ethics, to paraphrase Brecht.

>>1746906

But there is one obviously preferable solution.

It appears that thought experiments in ethics classes are like specious versions of Zen koans, and the students are meant to just nod a little and look impressed. In reality, once you add in the emphasis the police and the media would place on your action, you might have some tense moments but you're not going to be charged with manslaughter in those circumstances.

>>1746919
hence why it is only a picture with no background and no words nothing recognizable except the immediate

it's not an exercise in ethics or value of humans or guilt because it would have been presented in another way, what if it was 1 man on the trigger and baby seals on the tracks, the emphasis at least I see it is not man versus man but 1 versus 4

then again there is the obvious answer sure but it's only to minimize the action, not because it's better to kill less

>>1746929

Surely it is an exercise in ethics? I thought it was an ethical thought experiment?

Why is everyone changing the five to four? Five people are on the track you're changing from, five lives are saved.

>>1746941
it seems like an ethical thought experiment or you want to make it into an ethical thought experiment by adding things that's not in there
that's what i am saying at the purest it is not killing because they didn't die, you assume they died because of tracks and being tied and and so forth but that's not what it shows it's hypothetical to the point of letting you decide what this problem is about

>>1746871
Let's say you're a surgeon, a very talented and skilled one.

A terrorist releases a biological weapon that randomly destroys people's vital organs. Thankfully it is stopped quickly but 5 people were infected by this terrorist, all down a different organ each.

Let's say theoretically you have a patient in your care who has the 5 organs you need and is a perfect match for these five people. You will not face any trouble, legal or otherwise (the media, etc) for your action.

Is it morally justifiable to kidnap this backpacker and take his organs to save these 5 victims of a terrorist attack?

And if not... why kill the fat man?

>>1746947

Then why does my answer to it classify me as a utilitarian?

>>1746956
you have to show me

>>1746953

No, it isn't. I wouldn't proactively kill anyone, which this would involve. If you look back, I was also against killing the fat man.

File: Smug Sakura.png (605KB, 1428x777px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1428x777px

>>1746823
>Being this plebeian

>>1746855
All you are doing is actively ending someone's life

>>1746885
>Implying this anon knows the vaguest thing about Utilitarianism

>>1746973

My action is saving five lives.

The real problem is how to kill all six at once.

>>1747014

/thread

>>1746963
Ah, my mistake.

>>1746963
One could remove the organs without killing them first. People can live for long without heart and kidneys. Then the death would become an unfortunate byproduct of saving the five, and not something intentionally done

>>1746838
>autisan

>>1747066

>People can live for long without heart and kidneys.

I think this is probably inaccurate.

>>1746698
> Just roll the dice.
> roll

0-4 you pull the lever
5-9 you don't
Dubs and everyone get killed

>>1746677
>implying random innocent people dying isn't inherently bad rendering any decision irrelevant

File: wvLgZ3b.png (198KB, 435x543px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 435x543px

>>1747014

Would you rather kill five commies or one proddie?

>>1747001
>Treating human life as a means to end
Kant would like a word with you

>>1747189
Definitely the proddie, we need all the men we can get for the revolution.

>>1747200

This was an ethics discussion, not a philosophical discussion. I have no interest in philosophy except as literature.

>>1747213
What if they are mensheviks?

>>1747214
And conveniently enough Kant created his own ethical system

>>1746864
As stated earlier, this argument makes no sense. You're not in a position of power to save those kids in Africa, while you are very much so in a position to save those 5 people.

Now, imagine that instead of 5 people you're letting die 500 instead of 1 and that's where your logic hopefully stops making sense to you.

>>1747185
Came here to post this

>>1747200
Kant is a bitch nigga who can suck my nuts.

File: The Trolley Solved.webm (293KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1280x720px

>>1747014

>>1747593
You are in position to save kids in Africa. There is nothing stopping you from joining the red cross and going to Africa RIGHT NOW.
They will accept any halfway useful volunteer.

>>1746677
It's immoral to take part in it. You can't with clear conscience pull the lever. How is that so hard to understand?

>>1746861
They're not really exactly the same. The fat man one doesn't offer certainty of outcome for one thing.

>>1747641
You can't with clear conscience not pull the lever either.

>>1747628
There's not certainty of outcome in that matter, and just volunteering willy nilly can wind up costing them money in the long run.

>>1747647
I didn't set this up. Those people are in God's hands now.

>>1747657
Nah, they're in your hands.

>>1747628
>>1747652
There's also no guarantee that that particular choice will be more beneficial in the long run compared to an alternate career path.

>>1746861
In that situation the only potentially moral answer is to do nothing or sacrifice yourself. Hell, there's no real guarantee the fat man will stop the train, so you potentially just murdered a person and, hell, could even have injured or killed the people in the trolley in addition. And what is to say you can even push the fat-ass? Maybe he weighs so much you wont be able to budge him? Maybe he takes offense and throws you over instead? Maybe there are emergency break sensor on the trolley that stop it before reaching the five people. Maybe the five people are suicidal cultist that might go on doing more heinous things by saving them, etc.

>>1747641
I agree it's okay to not pull the lever. But what do you think about accidentally pulling it, is it okay to pull it again to get everything back to how they originally were?

I think it's acceptable to pull it again, do you agree?

>>1747687
>alternate career path
Are you talking about your benefit or the benefit of the needy?

>>1747652
>There's not certainty of outcome in that matter
Sure there is. You can guarantee that your aid will help someone. It's entirely possible that some other event will kill them later, but that is true for the trolley problem as well.

>volunteering willy nilly
If they accept you then they will find a use for you. You might just wind up passing out pamphlets, but you're doing something to further the cause. You could also volunteer a soup kitchen or some other place like that.

>>1747692
This is a thought experiment. The fat man WILL stop the train. Any extraneous circumstances are avoiding the point.

>>1747733
In this context, the "greater good" or "society".

An engineer or scientist is better of researching shit than being a random volunteer.

>>1747797
Research takes quite some time. You cannot guarantee that your research will save anyone. Thousands could die before your work bears fruit.
You can guarantee the survival of specific individuals by passing out rations etc.

>>1747250

Fine, I won't be reading him.

>>1747833

This is the thinking that leads to the bloat of Big Charity, where everyone is expected to throw reason aside and randomly throw money. Africans have pointed out the flaws in these plans. Europeans have pointed out the flaws in these plans. Americans have pointed out the flaws in these plans. But still, they always attract plenty of well-meaning idiots.

>>1746677
Killing vs letting die is retarded because you're implying the person pulling the lever matters

Detach your ego

>>1747859
So what you're saying is that it's not wrong to leave the people on the track alone as long as you decide to research automated trolley braking systems? Interesting.

>>1747881

I'm not entering into the thought exercise thing, I'm talking about the real world.

File: 1478639276087.jpg (85KB, 953x923px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 953x923px

Last thread this one was posted and no one solved it. Can we do better this time and get a real solution?

>>1748038
pull right

>>1748038
>random anime song
What's the point if i cant really chose my own beats?
All star all the way.

>>1748038
Kek

File: 1464283180002.jpg (96KB, 1133x809px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1133x809px

>>1748038
All Star of course. Hopefully it'll be playing the first line of the song when it hits the people on the track.

>>1748073
clever

anybody got a link to the last thread, I love these

>>1747779
But any extraneous circumstances is the point. A limited thought experiment like that is of no inherent value, because it fails to account for just as valid nuances that are more common in real life than an absolute decision between two evils.

File: trolleymech.png (116KB, 500x349px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x349px

the trolley has now become an unstoppable trolley mech

you can choose not to pull the levers but you’ll miss out on the opportunity to hit stuff with your sick-ass robot arms

>>1747833
1. That would literally be choosing the one instead of the five

2. There's no guarantee you'll be a good enough volunteer. You may be less efficient than another volunteer who would have taken your place, or you may be incompetent enough to jeopardize people's lives (like inadvertently spreading disease, for instance).

Bottom line is, since both paths are uncertain, the situation isn't really applicable to justify a decision in the thought experiment.

>>1748281
You don't even have to volunteer. You could just send all of your excess cash and sell off all of your unneeded possessions.

>>1747611
Truly a clear sighted individual.

>>1746882
It's analogous in the way that you kill one to save 5.

>>1748038
What kind of stupid question is this. A good song vs. random cancer?
Gee I wonder

>>1746953
Because I dislike fat people, the lives saved by my decision were just a side thought

who the fuck makes all these trolley memes

>>1748481
9gag

>>1748729
I am getting tired of you, t*rk.

>>1748342
You're still in conflict with the original thought experiment, because both pulling the lever and leaving it alone mean little inconvenience to the subject of the problem.

A better argument against pulling the lever would be: would you be okay with dying in a similar fashion to save other 5 people? If you aren't, then pulling the level would be hypocritical.

>>1747079
R'holl

File: Trolley Problem.jpg (91KB, 656x367px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 656x367px

>>1746677

Let the trolley run over the five, then wrench the lever out and use it to beat the other guy to death.

Only perfectly just solution.

>>1746677

>Bonus marks if you actually discuss the killing vs. letting die debate

If you don't pull the lever, then you're just letting the situation happen. You're not in any way responsible for anybody's death.

However, if you pull the lever, you are inserting yourself as a participant into the situation, which makes you responsible for whatever happens after that point.

File: 1474858101602.jpg (385KB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1280x1707px

But how would Joseph Joestar deal with this situation?

>>1749077
>implying someone isn't responsible when they had a direct opportunity to influence an event

>>1747185
came to post it but beat to it.

>>1746838
I'm actually very skilled with a bow and make them, they fetch decent prices at my range, 400 bucks was my best sell. So you could call me one, the other, and both.

>>1747645
For the sake of the experiment, it is always assumed that the large man would save the five others.

>>1748073
Underrated post

>>1749077
That argument is bullshit.

Try this one: You're on the passenger seat of a truck. The driver has just died from a heart attack, but luckily the truck wasn't going to fast, the gas is not being pressed and the road is clear of other cars. However, a person is just crossing the road and will get hit if the truck runs it's course. You can save that person by moving the steering wheel to the other lane. Whatever happens, the truck will stop safely a few meters later with no harm done to yourself.

Do you then decide to let the situation run its course?

>>1749279

Not comparable because action in this case costs no-one their lives.

>>1749298
Except it is, because you've been put in a position to act and your action or inaction will determine the outcome. If you truly believe you have no responsibility due to not pulling the lever, you won't try to steer the truck either.

And here's the catch: you don't even know if and towards where the person will try to dodge the truck. You can only make the best assumption and try to get the best out of the situation you've been put in.

Non-intervention for the sake of non-intervention is just a cop out answer.

>>1749279

You've completely changed the situation to one where it is possible to take action without causing somebody else to die.

>>1749343

Choosing to act in either case makes you responsible in some measure for the outcome. In the first case, choosing to act means condemning a person to death. in the second, it means saving someone from death. These are not at all equivalent, someone who may willingly save another person at no cost to himself is not then obligated to kill a person.

>>1749346
I didn't change it, I just didn't explicitly mention that he could dodge (but didn't mention that he couldn't either). You can treat it as a follow up question if you want.

>>1749356
The point is that inaction still makes you responsible once you're put into a position of action. Think about noticing by chance a drug about to be released may actually cause cancer (or maybe not) and not reporting it.

Now think about that situation if you're absolutely sure the company will go under if you do report it (you don't work for that company, but hundreds of other people do).

The law will probably render you innocent in either case, but your action or inaction is still directly affecting the situation and thus making you as responsible for the outcome as the trolley problem.

>>1749444
>The point is that inaction still makes you responsible once you're put into a position of action.

No, it doesn't. Choosing not to act carries exactly zero (0) moral weight, morality is about actions, not lack of actions. Otherwise I could argue that you are a murderer because you haven't prevented any murders.

File: 6a00d83451cdc869e2019101c46a5f970c.jpg (271KB, 1400x835px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1400x835px

>>1746677
>Bonus marks if you actually discuss the killing vs. letting die debate

Doing nothing is literally the only valid choice. Just because some cunt puts you in a fucked up situation doesn't mean you have to make a choice.

There is not enough information available to answer this question. I mean, it implies you were magically teleported and know what you are doing (need to do). Until we get the variables surrounding the experiment itself, you cannot make a moral choice- past doing nothing.

>>1749462
I wouldn't be a murderer, but I would indeed be responsible if I consciously decide not to stop a murder I could have easily stopped, as my decision directly had an effect on the situation. Murders that happen outside of my knowledge and power have nothing to do with me, though.

File: improves song trolley.png (478KB, 953x923px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 953x923px

>>1748038

Heres a harder one.

>>1749498

Legally, perhaps, but morally? Nope, even assuming you somehow knew that you would be fine if you intervened.

Morality can't be applied to inactions, or else I'm a saint because of all those children I haven't raped and murdered. Those children would have gone unraped if I had never even existed, it's the default outcome, I can't claim credit for that any more than I can be blamed for it.

>>1746677
>Only five people.
I wouldn't pull it, but I would pull it if were five hundred people. It's a matter of haggling.

>>1749513

What if the five were doctors and the one was a hobo?

>>1749524
Pull because fuck hobos.

>>1749530

Okay, what about the other way round, five regular guys (not hobos) vs one doctor?

File: MultiTrackDrifting.jpg (60KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x361px

>>1746677

>>1749536
Don't pull. I'd compromise my "thou shall not kill" morale to kill a doctor at about six laypersons.

>>1749507
It's pointless to think about what if's, the reality is that you exist and you're put in a situation such as this. And yes, you're (obviously partially) responsible that all the people around you are unraped and alive, because you could easily kill and rape them if you wanted to. You're just not a saint because that's the expected behavior for people and nothing exceptional.

>>1746677
Am I a railroad operator somehow already holding the lever? If yes, then I have duty-of-care and have to minimize deaths.

Am I a regular person who has to walk over to the lever? Then no. It is not my responsibility.

>>1749578

Eh, I'm fine with All Star.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZYgIrqELFw

>>1749593

You're a normal person standing right next to the lever.

>>1749600
I'll have to question how I got there in first place. Still no. Unless the railroad operator tells me to, thus deputizing me..

>>1749612

So for you, pulling the lever is not a moral choice so much as a legal one?

>>1749569
>You're just not a saint because that's the expected behavior for people and nothing exceptional.

That's my point, not acting is the default and as such is morally neutral. Once you decide that not acting can be considered a moral act, then you throw the door open to absurdities like my saint example.

>>1749554
>a doctor at about six laypersons.

Is it wrong that I want to do science to establish a complete table of "trolley problem one doctor equivalence" for every combination of class, occupation, ethnicity, religion etc etc?

>>1749103

If you see somebody starving to death, and you have an extra sandwich in your backpack that you could give him does that make you responsible? No, of course not.

Now, if you stole his sandwich, then you'd be responsible, because then you're inserting yourself into the situation. But otherwise you're just an observer.

>>1749617
Laws are little more than codified morals. The concept of duty-of-care did not come fully formed from the ether, after all. Think of it as a context-based deontological approach grown out of human interaction instead of sheer a priori reasoning.

>>1749619
Except I don't, did you just ignore the whole post?

And I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about responsibility (which is the argument being thrown around in favor of not pulling). Everyone is responsible for a society not turning chaotic, because by avoiding or committing actions such as killing they are directly affecting the state of that society. They are not to be heralded as heroes for doing what everyone else does continuously (such as not killing), but that's not to say they're not responsible for that. If you have a society in which no one steals, everyone is responsible for not having stolen anything, but there won't be any hero that stands out because everyone is doing the same thing (the society as a whole could be praised, though)

Likewise, even if you raise the stakes by creating a concrete situation such as the trolley problem, the same rules apply. You're equally responsible of the outcome if your action or inaction determines it.

I'm not stating which is the moral action, I'm just debunking the responsibility argument often thrown around.

>>1749624

Gamification of the real world?
Yeah, I dream with it a lot as well.

>>1749652
>I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about responsibility

What possible sense of "responsible" can you mean, other than moral responsibility? Do you even know what morality is? Legally? Causally? How can an inaction be a cause?

>>1749656

I once got the urge to leap from a balcony, thinking "I'll just reload afterwa- oh right".

>>1749659
Causal responsibility if you want to go that way, but I fail to understand why you would like to narrow the sense of responsibility being used. Just because I'm not arguing for or against the morality of a certain action doesn't mean that I think that action wouldn't imply moral responsibility.

If inaction can't be a cause, then being negligible should never be a crime.

>>1749665

I just wish things, including my own body parts and organs, had a health bar. It would make a lot of things so much clear and easier.

>>1749692
>If inaction can't be a cause, then being negligible should never be a crime.

See this is about legal responsibility, which you just said you weren't talking about.

> but I fail to understand why you would like to narrow the sense of responsibility being used.

Because it's a meaninglessly wide word and a waste of my time to argue about an aspect of responsibility such as morality that you in fact aren't talking about. How do you manage to communicate with people without understanding this?

>>1746677
Name the Trolley Schrodinger and simply walk away.

File: 1280px-Memphis_trolley_car_1979.jpg (281KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x852px

On each side, only one person is tied to the tracks.
On the tracks that the trolley is following, it's your father. On the the other tracks it's your son.
Do you pull the switch ?
It's adapted from a story I read once but that I can't find anymore.
I think it went like this :
A woman is brought before the King, who is holding her father captive. The father is to be executed for some sort of crime.
She begs for his release.
The King refuse to pardon the crime, but offers to exchange her father for her son, to suffer the death penalty.
To his surprise, the woman accepts. He asks her to explain her choice, and she says that she can always have another son, but can't have another father.
To reward her wisdom, the King lets the father go free without taking the son:

Does anyone remember that ? I'd like to find the original version again, and see in what context it was written.

>>1749703
Responsibility is indeed a wide word, but I think this situation applies to most meanings of it, hence my confusion.

>See this is about legal responsibility
No, it is not. I just proposed an example of how inaction is used as a cause in certain contexts.

>>1746677
I'd be surprised if no one posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4&i

>>1746953
>the 5 organs are perfectly compatible
Wait for the first patient to die & give his organs to the others.

>>1746677

You are back in school and another student is struggling in a subject that you know very well. He approaches you "Anon, I need help studying for X!" If you agree to help him, he will pass the test with A+ score, but if you don't help him he will fail.

Are you morally responsible for his failure if you refuse?

>>1749969
Hey man, many think the world exists to suck their cock & complain that they don't have things they don't deserve & aren't entitled to. Some would say yes & then proceed to bitch how gravity prevents them from flying.

Jump in front of the trolley. No longer my problem.

>>1749969
No, because in the real world he has agency and is able to seek out alternatives.

>>1746861
To be honest, if anyone was put in a situation like that, they probably wouldn't think to push the fat man into the path of the trolley.

>>1746677
Move the one guy to the five person track, then switch the train to the five person track and jump on the track yourself.

Maximum death = maximum reduction of suffering = the best ethical answer.
Think about all the PTSD and gore flashbacks you're creating for the people involved.

>>1750002
I would probably think myself insane if I thought the fat man could stop the train.

>>1750002

And in the real world the fat man wouldn't stop the trolley anyway.

>>1750017
>>1750025

This must be what it feels like when doves cry!

File: index.png (47KB, 874x332px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 874x332px

>>1746874
>>1746869
>>1746855

>>1750507
If I'm not getting on I have no reason to pull the damn lever.

I'm not trusting the guy, either, so I'd probably just walk away.

Non of this matters, they were all predisposed to die from the moment they were conceived.

>>1750713
>If I'm not getting on I have no reason to pull the damn lever.
selfish cunt

Choosing to do nothing is an action whether you fucks like it or not.

Pulling the lever has a better outcome but both choices are defensible and justifiable.

>>1746677
Being a moral person I do whatever I chose to do at the moment given the circumstance, knowing it would be a moral decision because the only moral decision in this scenario is a decision made by a moral person. Not actually being in the situation right now I can only speculate whether or not I, a moral person, would pull the lever. But whatever decision I make, it would be moral, by virtue of me being moral, and that the only moral decision is the decision a moral person would make.

>>1746677
If action or inaction are chosen, human beings will come to harm. Therefore, the solution is to stop the trolly with your body to prevent human harm.

>>1750977

fag

>>1750801
I can be as selfish as I want, it doesn't affect me if I'm dead.

>>1751719
you'll be singing a different tune when those guys realise you won't pull the lever so they jump out of the rocket and beat the life out of you before the meteor hits

What if you add a third option:

Move the lever halfway and dismount the trolley, giving the 3 passengers on board a 50-50 odds of survival.

>>1751763
1. If they can just jump out of the rocket, I'm better off trying to fight my way into it to begin with. Still not pulling the lever though, as I can't trust them.

2. If they have to get down from it (not a jumpable height, which is why I'd expect), there's no way they're catching up to me. Even if they do beat me up, I'll have the last laugh, as I single-handedly killed every single one of them.

Not to mention that if they're such jerks I would feel even more justified in leaving them to their doom. You only made the situation better off.

File: 1234.jpg (212KB, 506x632px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 506x632px

The only real answer.

>>1748426
underrated post

>>1746677
The smart choice would be to not do anything and leave. The moment you pull the switch you become guilty of murder but no one can legally fault you for not pulling it but by god they will try.

It is better to avoid the stress of all that by not involving yourself at all. At the end of the day, you didn't know any of those people. Their deaths should not be a weight on your mind.

>>1747001
Is that what you'd tell yourself at night?

>>1747670
You're right. Like flies.

These are fun to think about when you're bored.
I think it comes down to one thing. How will the people feel after its over.
I know it sounds like female bullshit but hear me out.

If he chooses to save 5 people. That's 6 people going around with guilty consciences over the life of one person.
If he saves just the one. That's 2 people going around with the guilt of the five lives lost.
If he doesn't make a choice. He saves one person but kills 5 people.
This time the other person won't feel guilty because there was no decision made ultimately leaving him guilt free. But leaving one guy alone with the guilt.

To me the question is. Of the 3 scenarios which one would produce the most healthy members of society?
With their new found guilt added to the equation will they still be able to function with society?

>>1753644
Kek

>>1749343
No, you stupid fuck. This is the difference between mediated control and absolute control.

When I'm in the passenger seat, I have absolute control of my own conscience, and my conscience is telling me "Oh shit, I have the absolute power to take absolute action and thus, take absolute responsibility for this absolute bullshit."

Do you think I'd have that same absolute control the moment someone placed me in front of that lever? You clearly know the situation is NOT the same, you stupid, feckless asshole.

You clearly know the situation is not at all similar.

The problem with the problem is
>IF YOU PULL THE LEVER, YOU'RE ACTIVELY CHOOSING TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO DIE

THAT'S my motherfucking problem.

You want me to save 2 lives? You want me to save 5 lives? How could I possibly judge who is meant to die? Do I condemn a man to death just for being on the wrong side of the fucking field? Could I do it if he begged me not to take his life? How much are the other lives worth that I should take a man's own?

I might do it to save a hundred. Or a thousand. Hell, anybody'd do it for a million.But five people? FIVE people? Are you telling me FIVE people is enough to turn me into a murderer?

That man has a right to live just as anyone else. You're not saving five lives, you're taking one.

>>1749536
I thought the whole point of the experiment is that you come in with literally no bias for these 6 people.

The moment you introduce some possible origin, people begin to rationalize, and this exercise is not one in humanity, but in ethics.

>>1754235
I didn't think I'd trigger an autist this much.

The situation is exactly the same, you have to actively make the choice of acting or not acting. Choosing to save the 5 people isn't necessarily more moral, but leaving the situation alone definitely doesn't absolve you of any and all responsibility. Sure, you may feel more responsible if you pulled the lever, but not pulling it is also the active decision of letting the other five people die to save the one (and possibly your conscience).

I presented the better argument earlier in this thread: Would you, in the position of the one man, be okay with dying if it meant saving the other five people? If yes, then pull the damn lever.

I'd pull the lever even if there were only two people in the other track, assuming all of them are complete strangers.