Trolley problem

Imo the choice should be handed over to the one who isn't being run by train initially

I'd kill the 5, statistically I'm more likely to kill someone who's evil.

100%

And my example was: if the single man was a doctor and the other five were murderers with no family would you still kill the single one? So the quantity criteria would fall in this case
Or would you still support it?

I dunno what the whole trolley thing was supposed to show when it was first invented, but it seems obvious to me that the outcome makes no difference (be it in terms of quantity or in terms of doctor/baddie/baby etc.) since in one case you're responsible (if you pull it) whereas in the other case you're not (you can't be held responsible if you don't do anything - you're not the one that cause the people to die)

The purpose of the exercise, or one way to look at it, is to expose some cruelty inherent in whatever moral system tries to analyze it, as it were, to say, "oh, so you would kill such and such and feel justified?" It is an exercise which seems to defy a systemized approach, as if to condemn ideology a priori. We really want to say that *no* approach is satisfactory, no morality can not be convicted of a crime against humanity.

This leads to an interesting possibility: that the creator of the problem was spiteful himself. He dreams up this horrific scenario (and who would absolve him of at least some degree of sadism) in order to present it to his colleagues, as if to inflict a wound, as if to put them down and temper their scholarly ambitions. But he is a hypocrite, for he has presented the issue, an issue of humanity and right action, as something to be addressed inhumanely, that is, with some theoretical, systemic approach--for no one, if really presented with such a situation, would stop to consider theories. He would do anything in his power to stop the train. He would not stop and consider "options", since he would be too busy looking for a way to cause the vehicle to malfunction, or to use the lever to cause it to miss both tracks, or whatever. The presenter of the "dilemma" has a priori rejected the possibility of a solution, since he has divorced it, rent it as it were from real life, into abstract consideration where the purpose is not to save lives but to fill quotas of "moral value" and "human life" and so forth.

He is the one who first stopped to look, to think, to consider human life as some sort of problem to be solved; he is the one who first characterized the scenario as an "issue", as a "problem", not of action, but of abstract consideration, and that is why he never gets a satisfactory answer. He has a prior assumed some latent guilt in his interlocutors, as well as in himself, to think that, in such a moment, he would do something unjust, something irresponsible. A truly innocent man, a man of love and universal human spirit, could not be made guilty on account of the problem's insolubility, just because you cannot pin him down as an object of discursive consideration. His love for humanity defies categories, and he does not share the disbelief, the "conundrum" of the moralist, who, however he would behave in his scenarios, has already slaughtered them with vain fantasies and academic bloviation.

Even not doing anything is a choice in this case, you'd probably do less damage by killing one person

Based and redpilled

Statistically it's also more probable to kill someone who's not evil
So it's better not to consider that aspect in my opinion

>Even not doing anything is a choice in this case
I don't think so. If you can save someone without doing any harm, then you'd be held responsible if you don't do it. If you can save someone but it implies harming anyone else, like in the trolley problem, or like if you can't swim but you could save a few kids from drowning at the price of drowning yourself, then doing nothing is acceptable. It would be accepted in a trial, and it is morally acceptable too. I dunno, let's say... there's people dying on the side of the road, but right now you're rushing to the hospital because your wife is bleeding to death - there's no way you would be held responsible if you don't care about the other people.
I still have to read Philippa Foot who invented the trolley problem, but imho it's nothing new compared the situation that Kant analyzed, when you can lie to protect a guy being chased after.

Woah

Au contraire, American law at least has a provision where if you're a spectator to a deadly beating you can be tried as an accessory because you did nothing to prevent the beating. This happens in cases of bullying and fist fights at the least.

What if it's a choice between killing 1000 people or 1, does the logic still hold

Utilitarianism produced the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never forget.

Post more pics frens!

Attached: train.jpg (1036x1536, 208K)

Yes, I think it still does, but then again I don't hold a consequentialist point of view at all.
It's like when a judge doesn't know who is guilty, and all he can do is sentence an innocent, and he knows that if he frees the innocent guy, people we get mad and there will be riots and violence and people dying - even then he shouldn't sentence the innocent guy. It may not be the exact same kind of dilemma, but what they share in common is that one choice consists in doing the 'right' thing, and the other one is the one that gives the better outcome. If you do the right thing, of course it will suck, but you won't be responsible.
I guess most countries have that kind of law, but it all depends on what you can actually do without harming anyone, including yourself. You should stop the bully for instance, but only if you don't harm him more than he was harming the victim (for instance, and that's only a guess) - more precisely only if your action is 'proportional' to the threat.

This kid knows.
youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

to really stretch the issue, what if it's killing everyone else on earth or 1 guy?

well I would probably kill one guy while knowing I'm not doing the right thing

Attached: 1555202798127.jpg (625x357, 29K)

They're both constants. Only the growth rate of death matters, which is potentially embedded in the decision to select 5 over 1 person because someone else could similarly select 25 over 5 on the basis of the same logic and etc.

name a situation in which you would have to pick between the entire population of earth or one innocent man

Jesus versus all Christians

you developed an incredible uncurable virus and captured a single person to test it on. you now realize you could also just kill him without destroying the entire world.
also iceland and madagaskar have been destroyed two weeks before so dont start with that shit.

There is an asteroid heading towards earth and the only thing you can do is send a spaceship at it to divert its course but you have to put a guy on the ship

>cutting off the experience of existence for 5 people who have lived lives and have memories and relationships and are something to someone out there is exactly the same as killing one
How would this possibly be true? Because you would feel guilt either way?

I NEED THAT FUCKING TENURE

Jesus is the fat man who jumped.

Damn...

A is the only correct option

That was the plot of Armageddon starring Bruce Willis.