How do you solve the trolley problem?

It’s very simple: do whatever will benefit you the most. If you save the 5 people, you are 5x more likely to be thanked/rewarded. And this is the case in which you actually do something. But when you “save” the one guy, you not only piss 5 people off (who will die of course), but the guy you “saved” probably won’t even think of you as a hero as much as any individual of the group would have. Put yourself in the place of the 1 guy. If the trolley is switched to your track, do you not feel that it was the best thing to do? You die for the life of 5 others. Now put yourself in the group. If the track isn’t changed, then wouldn’t you be furious at the guy by the lever?

With all this said, it is clear that you should pull the lever.

>projecting your morality to the rest of humanity
If I was that one guy that was saved I wouldn't feel bad for the other five and be grateful to the asshole manning the switch.

Whoever offers me the most money gets to live.

If they don't answer fast enough then I don't get involved and get to see my first, in person death.

Attached: jew-bags-of-money.jpg (1000x700, 293K)

If you’re the one guy and you’re saved, you’re relieved. If you’re one of the five, and you’re saved, you’re thankful. If you’re the one guy, and you’re killed, you are upset but you understand why. It’s bad to lose your life but you know that there are five people thinking the same thing. If you’re one of the five, and you’re killed, you will think the lever man is an idiot, a pussy, a killer, and you will be absolutely furious. You know it’s true.

If you can’t ask them questions, then you should save the five, since you’re more likely to be rewarded

Nope, fuck them.

"Might" is as good as "never". I'm not doing fuck all for anyone for "might".

>If you’re the one guy, and you’re killed, you are upset but you understand why.
No, if you are killed, you are dead and you can't understand anything anymore.

>It’s bad to lose your life
No. It sucks, but it isn't bad.

>but you know that there are five people thinking the same thing.
I don't presume to know their moral values. Nor do I care, I'm about to be run over by a tram, I don't have time to give a shit about what others think.

>If you’re one of the five, and you’re killed, you will think the lever man is an idiot, a killer, and you will be absolutely furious.
Stop trying to impose on me what you want me to think, it's not working.

>You know it’s true.
I don't fall for petty moralistic appeals to muh altruism.

Attached: 1559103687751.jpg (1080x1380, 769K)

you minimize your involvement and thus moral culpability by not acting at all (allowing the five to die)

Attached: D7xsUeqX4AEzdUN.jpg (670x646, 61K)

You should never pull the lever under any circumstances.

Interventionism brings you into the system and you're then accountable. There are clearly larger forces at play here and while you may switch the numbers of deaths around, the framework in which you're thinking of the problem is incorrect.

You're thinking of the problem in terms of minimising deaths AND minimising ethical "badness" which is where the conundrums come from. What you should be doing is minimising accountability. Twenty feet away from you at the lever may be many other people watching on. Regardless of the outcome, they will sleep easy tonight knowing it wasn't about them, and that these people got themselves into a pickle through cosmic mechanisms outside of their understanding. This is comparable to seeing car accidents on the news without being a victim, witness, or responder.

The solution to every trolley problem is to do nothing. You did not set this situation up. It is not yours to take responsibility for.

Attached: 1559272021959.jpg (600x780, 210K)

>If you’re one of the five, and you’re killed, you will think the lever man is an idiot, a killer, and you will be absolutely furious.
Why’d you leave out “pussy” ? Did you agree with me on that part?
>I don't fall for petty moralistic appeals to muh altruism.
Has nothing to do with altruism, but self-benefit. You are more likely to benefit by saving 5 than by saving 1.

Imagine you’re sitting in a stadium with 100 thousand people. On the ground, in the center, is a trolley scenario, and there are 50 people on one track, and 1 on the other. A man decides not to pull the lever. Does the crowd congratulate him, or do they boo him? Another man is placed beside the lever, and he switches the track. Does the crowd think he is good, or evil? You now find out that after every time the scenario occurs, 51 people are randomly selected from the crowd and placed on the tracks. But only one of those two men can stand by the lever. You cannot escape the stadium. When you are gathered with the 50 other people, and you don’t know what track you’re gonna be on, which man do you hope to see at the lever?

The villain here is the evil mastermind setting up the scenario and plucking random people out of the crowd. It is the people's responsibility to take up arms against their oppressor. You're adding in a causer/mover, which negates the coincidence inherent in the original scenario.

Such a cowardly response. Oh well, that’s a shame.

>you should take up arms against your oppressor

>such a coward

Hmm.

How much of a midwit are you? Do I have to spell it out for you? If you’re in the desert and you happen to see a trolley scenario, which man will you have more respect for? Which would rather have as a friend? Which would you rather be the majority in society? That was the point of the crowd. Do you really think people will respect the man that does nothing? And who can blame a man who saves 4 lives? You also add the assumption that my hypothetical stadium scenario could be escaped by somehow revolting and stopping the oppressor. Do you not realize that I could simply add the assumption that such a thing is impossible, and that everyone will inevitably end up on the tracks? What is your defense, then? And when I say your response is cowardly, that is how I meant it. In no way was I suggesting that trying to overcome such a horrible situation was cowardly. You’re an embarrassment.

A trolley problem in the desert could only be the result of powers outside of my understanding. To intervene would be to take sides without understanding the situation. What if the 5 guys to be saved were rapists and I've stumbled across the climax of somebody else's epic years-long revenge plot, and I go and free the rapists? The fact that the trolley problems are in manufactured scenarios says somebody set them up.

If you rephrased it as saving hikers from a landslip then it might have merit, but in such a contrived scenario I can only conclude that it's not for me to pick winners.

Was in response to

>Why’d you leave out “pussy” ? Did you agree with me on that part?
I must have missed it from copypastaing parts while editing. Pussy should be in there.

>Has nothing to do with altruism, but self-benefit.
Read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. Altruism is self-benefit with the self extended from the individual to encompass society or a group of people as a whole. I'm just aware of this and choose not to extend my sense of self past my individual being. The basic motivation is the same, however: self-preservation, whether it be of the individual or the group.

>You are more likely to benefit by saving 5 than by saving 1.
The post I replied to only posited me as one of the people on the tracks, not as the guy behind the level, and hence, my reply was phrased from that perspective. If I was behind the lever I'd choose whoever would benefited me the most. Exactly what counts as benefiting me is subjective to my own values and desires within the context of the scenario's particular details, so please spare us all your attempt at projecting your universalist views on what constitutes "benefit".

It's already been solved, you will be legally culpable if you switch the trolley to the individual, so it's best to not touch the lever.

You'd be morally culpable as well. By switching the trolley you are actively murdering an individual. You wouldn't kill a guy even if you knew that his organs will be used to save 5 lives, right? So why would you pull the switch?

There are infinite possible scenarios in which you can take an action to save the deaths of multiple people, while killing a single person that would have been alive had you not intervened. These scenarios can occur randomly and without purpose. You have to understand that what you’re doing here is cowardly and rude, or at least simply a sign of unintelligence. Is it better to kill one person to save multiple lives, or to do nothing and let multiple people die? If one man were recorded by a traffic camera, and he saved 5 people but killed 1 due to some building construction mishap, then will you respect the man or blame him? And will you respect or blame the man who does nothing?

>morally culpable
By what judge? Morality is a spook.
Law is a spook as well, but the hangman's noose is as real as anything can be.

>what you’re doing here is cowardly and rude

lol jesus imagine the autism required to think that

> morality is a spook
You are like a child.

It’s what Socrates would have said if his opponent were squirming and avoiding the inevitable.

You are like a dog that licks his own anus.

You are conflating hypothetical to real world scenarios.

If there are a bunch of people stuck in an endless cycle where either 50 or 1 dies each cycle, then eventually they will all be dead except the last guy randomly chosen to pull the lever. If anything in such a scenario it would be more humane to choose the 50 to be killed each time to reduce the suffering from the anxiety and fear of anticipating death for longer than needed.

This is why these hypothetical moral scenarios are horse shit, they force you to make decisions and derive your moral values based on situations that will never occur in real life, distorting one's perception of reality and how to behave morally in a pragmatic way within it.

You allow the trolley to run on its natural course so you only have to kill one witness.

>comparing yourself to Socrates

He would have thought of a less retarded scenario to discuss. I'm taking the Diogenes route and you can't handle it.

>then eventually they will all be dead except the last guy
If you’re saved by the man then you leave the stadium. Just see you cowering pedant

Wow you sure showed him.

>Let us fuck you in the ass
>Its for the greater good
>Come on don't be so selfish
>Wow you are just like a child!

Reminder that even dogs act morally. They have values such as loyalty that they hold onto even when it goes against their self interest.
What's the point of debating a toddler? Because that's what he is. Only children and men who are children on the inside lack morals.

t. thinks that taxation is theft and would have Atlas Shrugged under his pillow if it weren't so thick
You can have a nuanced discussion about striking a balance between individual rights and the good of the society, but of course this is impossible with your type. You hate nuance more than you hate you fellow man and almost as much as you hate yourselves.

>even when it goes against their self interest.
But their interest is to be loyal, since their owner benefits them and treats them nicely when they are loyal.

MORALITY IS JUST SELF-BENEFIT
MORALITY IS JUST SELF-BENEFIT
MORALITY IS JUST SELF-BENEFIT
MORALITY IS JUST SELF-BENEFIT

People like you are the cause we will be trampled by an avalanche of small concessions.

>even dogs act morally
Many dogs are more than willing to murder for no real reason at all, some for the high crime of being slightly inconvenienced in some way.
If dogs can be seen as moral that is because they have been trained and bred to be a certain way.

Attached: 1490156513017.png (743x635, 278K)

retarded image made by a midwit. They will die either way.

Pulling the lever would indeed bring you into the system. What you're describing is akin to looting shops in a hurricane because you may as well.

You claim to care about the board, yet ruin it with your tripfagging.

You're already a part of "the system" by being a by being there.

You never mentioned in , or that those on the tracks gets released after each cycle.

Given your lack of specificity my assumption on what happens after each cycle also has no grounds, but your counter argument isn't based on anything more solid.

Also, fuck off back to plebbit.

Attached: 1488284118550.jpg (1914x828, 251K)

>But their interest is to be loyal, since their owner benefits them and treats them nicely when they are loyal.
express.co.uk/news/nature/657826/loyal-dog-stays-owners-side-four-days-after-she-died
How about this then?
> we
Nice meme.

It’s implied, given that
1) The 51 are selected from the crowd
2) I asked which man you would rather be at the lever (implying you would benefit if, for example, you were saved by one particular man).

And it’s funny that now you don’t even take that as a possibility. You now disregard the hypothetical completely because you can’t respond to it. This thread is an embarrassment. You people are definitely atheists.

How do we know the dog knew that the owner was dead?

Tell me friend. When was the last time you made a significant decision about the laws that govern you?

I can admit my technical misunderstanding of the specifics of your scenario. My main point still stands, these scenarios are unrealistic hypotheticals and don't exist in real life, and hence, basing your sense of morality on them is basing them on things that don't exist.

Do I still need to point you to ?
No one ever responded to this.

Because she left her dead owner after the latter was found.
Never, but we are talking about the notion of morality as a whole.

You shouldn't sacrifice yourself for the greater good ever. If you don't feel like partaking in something you should be allowed to leave.

Dog morality and human morality have the same evolutionary psychological underpinnings: survival of the species over the individual. Many mammals exhibit this behavior.

I haven't gotten to it yet, but I will now. To be honest, name such examples? I have never encountered such a scenario myself personally.

Even then, unlike your scenarios where the only repercussion of the lever puller is people not liking the person. For starters, in the real world you would get arrested, or even lynched, for such actions, because vigilante justice is against the law.

This also doesn't address the assumption of equality. What if it is choosing between killing two people to save two people? Flip a coin? What if you have to choose between saving fifty clones of Hitler or one clone of Churchill?

(cont)
>If one man were recorded by a traffic camera, and he saved 5 people but killed 1 due to some building construction mishap, then will you respect the man or blame him?
That all depends on who was killed and who was saved.

All the people appear the same. All male hobos, all female hobos, all male businessman, all kids, all elderly, etc.

If they are all hobos then obviously the construction worked should only have saved one of them, not five.

> You shouldn't sacrifice yourself for the greater good ever
First of all, there is a vast chasm between saying something like this and
> morality is a SPOOK
because morality is far more than self-sacrifice towards the collective. It covers one's relations with other individuals as well as one's relation to society at large.
With that out of the way, I think that there is nothing wrong with sacrificing yourself for the good of society. I don't deny that sacrificing oneself for the collective is often irrational. However, humans are not entirely rational creatures, and you by denouncing this sort of behavior as a spook you're taking away a whole range of meaningful and profound experiences. Both our history and our legends and myths are full of heroics and bravery and frenzied, downright deranged, zealotry. You can look at it from a quite cynical point of view but by doing that you are ignoring the fact that the people who have undergone those experiences have went through something very real. From epics like the Iliad to relatively recent tales of heroism from WW1 and WW2, men have experienced incredible things thanks to moral spooks like the greater good, and those experiences have diffused and made their way into our wider culture and added something irreplaceable to the human experience.
> If you don't feel like partaking in something you should be allowed to leave.
Aren't the individualist types usually the ones so quick to point out that we live in a harsh reality? There's no escaping from coercion. Being forced to do shit is a fundamental aspect of our existence.

Attached: gup_mika_consider_the_following2.png (1040x1250, 344K)

whichever happens is right

Actually, the more dead, the better, we only need like ten or twelve people on this planet anyway.

>mfw plebs don't realize that the trolley problem itself is designed to just be an absurd exercise with no basis in reality whose only purpose is to troll and confuse ethics 101 students

Attached: smugly huffing paint.jpg (600x656, 71K)

>then will you respect the man or blame him
the perception of others is totally irrelevant to ethics

Many Muslims believe and practice that it is morally good to convert, kill, enslave and practice pedophilia. Just like how the crusaders believed it was morally good to kill heathens or to die in battle killing heathens. I don't know how many atrocities were committed by people that believed in some form of greater good, even if it was only for their own tribe or culture, but it certainly isn't enough to place "greater good" on some sacred untouchable pedestal without scrutiny.

You linked to my post as if you were responded to it, but you did not.

I hope the guy there will kill the other person instead of me. Alternatively if i'm the one i hope the guy will kill the other 50 instead of me. The crowd, before their turn, wants the other remaining crowd members to kill the one. Depending on their ratio of desire to live vs haunting by spooks their opinion may or not change if they are the one.

What retarded point do you think you're making you magically thinking faggot?

I don't know how I would act but the 'bystander' non-argument is so fucking retarded.
The situation is a clear dichotomy. There is no involvement that you only get with one option but not the other. This is a plebeian cope with not being able to make a choice. You can purposefully not switch and laugh at the guys being mowed down but you can't claim non-involvement.
If you kill a guy, you can still held accountable for criminal negligence. In the trolley problem, you can't even make that because it was a deliberate choice so it's purely criminal, plus you get to save five people doing it.
The opinion that only the switch choice brings involvement implies very primitive views of action (relating it to muscular exertion). 'Not doing anything' is as much an action here as pulling the lever. The man in the problem is not sleepwalking, missing information to make a choice or under an influence obscuring his mind he has not caused. Everything he does is deliberate and active and 'involved', whether he pulls the lever or not.
I would not condemn a man that doesn't pull the lever and offers as only defense that he just didn't care, because I don't think people are accountable for the lives of others outside of specific cases. In that sense the bystander is innocent. But the whole non-involvement cope is glorification of passivity.

So why exactly cant I take a rocket laucher to the trolley?

It doesn't matter morally whether you pull the lever or not, so long as you feel horrible afterwards about the situation, as the virtuous man would. You didn't tie them to the tracks, so you have no responsibility for their deaths, but you do have a responsibility to mourn for them due to proximity and indirect involvement.

>How do you solve the trolley problem?
You do not do anything, as switching the lever would make you a murderer.

Attached: induction trolley.png (960x619, 402K)

I really hope you kill yourself one day

I suppose a good Christian would do nothing, since you could consider switching the track to be murder and a sin.

well Yea Forums?

Attached: 1503294556654.jpg (1636x928, 125K)

The fact is that there is no objective answer, because it completely depends on the situation (those involved and their value in relation your your won values) and your internal state.

Robots will decide in the future. EZ

What would Jesus do. That right there is an objective answer that many Christians would default to in this situation

Okay so extract a solution dipshit

i think youre the midwit

>What you're describing is akin to looting shops in a hurricane because you may as well.
So does that make you part of the hurricane?

Well so long as no one sees you pulling that level, you can remain a bystander in the eyes of society. And even if someone does it's your word against theirs. So pull the lever and collect the money unless everyone is watching you

By this thread, we should see that Ayer's emotivism is the only answer

Why even people's eyes related to anything? Not only it is clear that either way they will dead, but also moral choice should be independent for people consensus. I won't salute Hitler because of the eyes of others. (If i did, I will do it for myself)

>How do you solve the trolley problem?
By weighing the potential rewards and consequences against each other. In any realistic situation, you shouldn't pull the level because you'd be committing murder. If you find yourself on an episode of Punk'd, then pull the lever.

I pull the lever once and then quickly again so as to become involved in the system but also to voice my belief that the people should have died by divine will

See >Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes. It is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory.

The lever breaks after it you pull it once - it is unable to move back to the original position. Great job, you are now responsible for fucking it up and killing the wrong person dumbass

If you walk by a drowning person and dont help them should you not help either?

Fuck off nigger. Accountability is irrelevant.

... why?
You can take that view if it is just not a moral realism. It does not have to be emotivist.

You don’t. This is not how you do moral reasoning.

Negative utilitarianism fixes that by saying that you should only account for pain caused. Also you not only have Michael's pain to worry about but the family's of those five people, which could be at least 100 people.