You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:
1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Dont touch the lever and proceed to kill the one on the rails. So no one can blame me for murder.
Nathan Johnson
Well cuz if you chose to pull the lever and kill one person it means you value lives of those 5 more than a live of a single person and deliberately chose to kill that person. I know this problem doesn’t have a solution cuz either way you end up killing someone
Adrian Murphy
Inaction is action brainlet
Connor Myers
I would need to know what my relation to the people involved is. For example if the one person is of my family/tribe/nation and the five aren't, I'd choose the five to die.
Jacob Harris
Those five are trump supporters, that one is Walt Disney
Any action that i take will be measured (by myself and others) against some form of reason, so wathever end up doing will be mediated and constrained by moral evaluations and also by the expectation of practical consequences. The agential realist response would be 'who's pulling the lever? me or a whole network of actors?'. So the whole case doesn't make much sense to me as it puts the individual decision as the crucial element of the experiment. As a being of this world i'd need more information on the subjects so i could do an arbitrary moral judgement about 'who deserves to live and who doesn't', whitout that information, it doesn't matter if i pull the lever or not. Might as well switch it back and forth at random.
Anthony Russell
>As a being of this world i'd need more information on the subjects so i could do an arbitrary moral judgement about 'who deserves to live and who doesn't', whitout that information, it doesn't matter if i pull the lever or not. Might as well switch it back and forth at random.
saving 5 people is objectively better than saving 1, assuming you know nothing about them
>saving 5 people is objectively better than saving 1, assuming you know nothing about them Why?
Noah Ortiz
Multi track drifting
Daniel Collins
i don't do anything because for all i know those people could be tied there for a very good reason
Gavin Gomez
>What do you choose and why?
Let the tram run over the five and then slit the throat of the other guy to leave no witnesses.
Ayden Watson
rather obvious assuming you accept that the average persons life has value and that saving people's lives is a good thing
Colton Barnes
That's assuming many things. As long as i share my moral beliefs with a humanist utilitarian doctrine. >the average persons life has value I'm not a humanist. Nothing has 'value' in itself. if something 'value' derives from what something 'does' and not from what something 'is'
Asher Garcia
Why should we have to assume that?
David Butler
The only correct answer would be to allow the trolley to kill the people on the track. Afterwards making sure the five people on the main track are dead, one should smear the blood and the gore on the skin,specifically the genitals and move on to strangle the sole survivor while furiously masturbating, feeling the coagulating blood slowly hardening and stiffening, then at the orgasmic event horizon, one should gnash the tongue and slowly bleed and finally evacuate the soul from the Keromal realm.
Hunter Gonzalez
if you don't you are a dumb edgelord, sorry. Most people do
Christopher Cruz
Option 1
We are projected to reach 8 billion soon and wre woefully unprepared so the more people die now the better for the rest, simply having more people isint going to change anything for the better in any way in fact our problems are going to get worse.
Lets say the so called AIs (no i dont mean its going to be a human controlled hoax please dont get me wrong what I mean is that a set of logic parameters paraded as intelligence is an abomination and an isult to human cognition) choose to kill the 5 people instead of the one with the logical data ive provided as basis of intention, they try to cull the human populace to "save us from ourselves" (as per sci fi writers wet dream per se) the first instance of this actully happening humanity would ban AI controlled cars out right.
"BUT user WE ALREADY NEW THAT YOU PSEUD" *proceeds to get an erection fueled by self perceived superiority and self importance*
FINE
lets say the so called AI chose the other path and kill the one person the same BLOODY THING WILL HAPPEN
Fox news will make a big story about how Mr Jacob Aiden the loving father of three and husband to a loving wife got mutilated at the hands of a a so called artificial intelligence with references to terminator and a vague reference to some AI terror in a movie (or if its far enough forward series)
How the president is deeply saddened by this grisly grey unfortunate slaughter paying the 3 young Aiden girls and one boys college and school fees and giving there mother his deepest regrets and being remembered as a caring father figure.
Everyone sells there pre ordered self driving cars and buy the hottest new car model and car makers and fuel owners laugh al the way to the bank as people gr4eqave over poor John Aiden and the so called AI which killed him at the whims of democratically made programing ie the test this this pseud thread is based on.
So for edgelords that are not like most people saving 5 people is not the correct choice? I guess it wasn't objectively right after all.
Ryder Thompson
depends on your stance on the world's overpopulation and competitive society
Jeremiah Rogers
How is this even a question? When confronted with two evils you must pick the lesser evil. It's better to kill 1 person than 5.
Josiah Miller
That's not as obvious as it seems. There's more chance statistically speaking that any of the 5 you saved will turn out to be a rapist/murderer, resulting in a greater 'total evil'
Luke Johnson
Some free will bullshit here imo
Jonathan Nelson
that's like a 5% chance compared to the much higher chance they will bring happineess to people and if you kill them their family will be sad
Mason Scott
lole'd
Kayden Morales
Introduce all the possible variables of what you define as 'evil' and repeat the equation. Sadness and trauma is most of the times a very valuable learning experience, why would i take away that opportunity from those poor people.
Luis Wright
This is the stupidest thing I've heard on Yea Forums for a while. The implication is that being a serial murderer is a good thing because maybe one of the people you killed could have become a rapist at some point.
Oliver Parker
We need your can do attitude over in the "You can't see the act of seeing" thread.
Charles Carter
According to the trolley problem you're already a murderer. And it has a limited extent. It's 5 people vs 1 person. It's not about what's 'a good thing' it's about what's the 'good thing' in this exact case. Don't take your analogies too far.
According to your utilitarian '5 lives are worth more that 1 life' because the 'sum of total happines is higher' (which is to already assume a lot of things) a serial murderer that kills accidentally another much worse serial murderer would actually be a benefactor to humanity as the resulting total sum of happiness would remain higher. Do you see how retarded the utilitarian position is?
Matthew Powell
Honestly, I hate the trolly problem. The idea is that you would be too afraid to pull the lever for some kind of moral reason, when in reality it'd be because of all of the legal bullshit you'd have to deal with
