Discussion The Trolley Problem

[livefastdieyoung]

Sorry if this has already been asked before, I was bored and curious and wanted to know what others think.

The trolley problem is a hypothetical scenario of an ethical dilemma. A trolley (train) is heading towards five people tied onto the tracks. You can only watch, or you can pull a lever and actively direct the trolley to run over one person tied onto the other tracks.

What would you choose?

I used to think of the variation where the singular person is someone you know, but the five people are strangers. In that scenario, I would 100% let the trolley kill the five strangers, as I'd rather save someone I care about.

However, if everyone is a stranger, I still think I'd let the five strangers die because overpopulation is already an issue and also I would rather not be actively choosing the death of a stranger over other strangers.

I'm not sure if this would be better as a poll, as I wanted to have a discussion. I'll add a poll anyway. I added the picture too !

 

[Poiter1987]

Fuck the trolley problem iy just reminds me what an awful existence we live in. No offence intended to OP. We shouldn't have to live in an existence that asks th3se sort of questions. If God was the all knowing all lov9ng all powerful being people claim him to be shit like this wouldn't exist.

Existence is hell. We are in an endless cycle of hell.

 

[livefastdieyoung]

Fuck the trolley problem iy just reminds me what an awful existence we live in. No offence intended to OP. We shouldn't have to live in an existence that asks th3se sort of questions. If God was the all knowing all lov9ng all powerful being people claim him to be shit like this wouldn't exist.

Existence is hell. We are in an endless cycle of hell.

no offense taken, im sorry but i didnt realise this would upset anyone omg. i just like thought provoking questions. im not religious at all but i agree if god exists they are not good.

 

[Anonymousa]

if you haven't seen this when I suggest you to play this as some of the trolley problems are funny or interesting. especially as there are suicide aspects to some of them.

Absurd Trolley Problems

Every problem is the trolley problem.

neal.fun

 

[EternalShore]

if you haven't seen this when I suggest you to play this as some of the trolley problems are funny or interesting. especially as there are suicide aspects to some of them.

Absurd Trolley Problems

Every problem is the trolley problem.

neal.fun

hehehehehe~

 

[bankai]

hehehehehe~
View attachment 176137

No.I don't want to go that way. I let the trolley run over the five people. Then I'll get up and drink SN.

 

[foreverfalling]

If they were strangers then I wouldn't care either way. Mostly likely I wouldn't do anything as I'm too lazy, if I was feeling good that day then I might pull the switch for fun.

 

[Dejected 55]

It's really an absurd premise. There's no scenario in the real world where you'd be in this position and not be able to at least try to untie that single person and divert the trolley so that it hits no one. Also, why is the trolley engineer not slowing down/stopping the trolley?

It had to take a while to tie all those people down on the tracks... Who did that? Where is that person or persons? How come nobody saw that happening and tried to stop that? Why is it all on you to make this decision?

Whatever you do, it's not your fault. It's not really an ethical dilemma. It's an ethical dilemma if your choice involves ethics... which this one doesn't. No matter what you do the situation isn't your fault unless you are the one who set it all up in which case you are already unethical!

Why are you the only one there in a position to help anyway? Where is everyone else? Why can't others help? It's nonsense the more you think about it.

I don't know what I'd do in the real world, but if anyone ever asked me this as a question to solve so they could evaluate or judge me... I would just walk away from whatever interview situation it was a part of because I don't need to deal with such a person for more than a few minutes.

 

[WrathfulGloom32]

Try to get control over the trolley if it's possible; I don't like getting subjected to authority and I don't like dictating the lives of others either.

In fact I'd like to see the person who put me in this situation over the train tracks. (not talking about you)

I'd probably pull the lever to divert the trolley from hitting that person and hopefully they learn something but who am I kidding this is real life, you'd probably need to hit them since they will come back vengeful not having understood anything, wrap up any loose ends no?

 

[Dejected 55]

Alternatively... why not put something on the track before the junction that will derail the trolley before it can hit anyone? Whether it hits one or five there's a good chance the trolley derails itself, so why not derail it prematurely before it can hit anyone?

Also, what if you only pull the track switch lever part way so that the trolley will jump the tracks and fall between both track paths?

 

[DarkRange55]

 

[U. A.]

hehehehehe~
View attachment 176137

Who the fuck would save the goddamn Mona Lisa over five people?!



Okay I'm spoiling more of these so uh, spoiler:

Spoiler

I cannot believe this is nearly half-half jfc


I need to believe this is the result of trolling, but...11 million votes?!


"77% of people think five eldery lives are worth less than one baby's" lol


This is where I think everyone's brains broke...

 

[Eriktf]

Sorry if this has already been asked before, I was bored and curious and wanted to know what others think.

The trolley problem is a hypothetical scenario of an ethical dilemma. A trolley (train) is heading towards five people tied onto the tracks. You can only watch, or you can pull a lever and actively direct the trolley to run over one person tied onto the other tracks.

What would you choose?

I used to think of the variation where the singular person is someone you know, but the five people are strangers. In that scenario, I would 100% let the trolley kill the five strangers, as I'd rather save someone I care about.

However, if everyone is a stranger, I still think I'd let the five strangers die because overpopulation is already an issue and also I would rather not be actively choosing the death of a stranger over other strangers.

I'm not sure if this would be better as a poll, as I wanted to have a discussion. I'll add a poll anyway. I added the picture too !

View attachment 176131

that picture would kill all 6....


could i just lay down on the tracks??

 

[livefastdieyoung]

LOL I JUST REALISED I USED THE WRONG PHOTO thats so funny i guess it can be symbolic we all die anyways

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd kill the person making me choose if I could. Sadistic POS.

If not and, there was no other way around it, I'd probably feel compelled to try to save more life than less. If it was someone I knew, they would likely feel the same. So, hopefully forgive me in the seconds they have left. Depends on their situation too. Do they have children? Are they miserable and probably suicidal like me?

How about this? A possible serial killer in the making...

 

[d3m1g0d]

To be simple, saving 5 people is better, you can't say that I killed that person, I would kill 5 otherwise. As for how and who the people are, it really doesn't matter, since the problem never stated it. Personally, I would save the side who has smart people so they can advance civilization and one day we'll pass euthanasia law everywhere or something

 

[Hystearical]

Not that hard a question if you strip away emotional thinking. Saving 5 people would be better than saving one person.

 

[derpyderpins]

 

[Anonymousa]

How about this? A possible serial killer in the making...

btw that channel made a sequel to that video:

 

[sheeplit]

Depends on who the person I know is. If it's Gary, I'll definitely save the 5 people. Screw Gary and his family.

 

[Dejected 55]

Not that hard a question if you strip away emotional thinking. Saving 5 people would be better than saving one person.

Define "emotional thinking" though... What if the 5 people are complete strangers, but the 1 person is your mother, father, sibling, spouse, child, or friend?

If that is "emotional thinking"... then what if the 5 people are rapists or murderers and the 1 person is a nice person?

Or... what if the 5 people are just ordinary average people, neither good nor bad and complete strangers... and the 1 person is also an average person you don't know BUT is a scientist on the verge of curing cancer?

And if there's no "emotional thinking" involved, why are you motivated to do anything at all? Without some amount of emotional thinking why would you value a single life over 5 lives? That is emotional thinking right there to place value on the people. I mean, you aren't at risk either way, so why not just walk away. Who put you in charge of saving anyone? Just keep walking and without emotional thinking let whatever happens happen. It's not your fault after all. You didn't set everything up, you just happened to be there.

 

[derpyderpins]

Define "emotional thinking" though... What if the 5 people are complete strangers, but the 1 person is your mother, father, sibling, spouse, child, or friend?

Save the person I care about

If that is "emotional thinking"... then what if the 5 people are rapists or murderers and the 1 person is a nice person?

Need significantly more detail to choose anything other than save the 5. Niceness doesn't equal goodness, and maybe the murderers are rehabilitating. Actually the nice guy could be a murderer too.

Or... what if the 5 people are just ordinary average people, neither good nor bad and complete strangers... and the 1 person is also an average person you don't know BUT is a scientist on the verge of curing cancer?

Save 5.

And if there's no "emotional thinking" involved, why are you motivated to do anything at all? Without some amount of emotional thinking why would you value a single life over 5 lives?

5 is biggererer.

Most people want to live and enjoy life, so life more likely than not has value to them, at least, so you're taking 5 good bets instead of 1 to maximize returns.

That is emotional thinking right there to place value on the people. I mean, you aren't at risk either way, so why not just walk away. Who put you in charge of saving anyone? Just keep walking and without emotional thinking let whatever happens happen. It's not your fault after all. You didn't set everything up, you just happened to be there.

No one put me in charge, but I'd like to think someone else would help me so I'll do it just because I want to live in a world where we help each other and I'm part of "we" so I have no right to bitch if I don't do my part.

Honestly probably a little just to make me feel better about myself, too.

 

[U. A.]

I'd like to think someone else would help me so I'll do it just because I want to live in a world where we help each other

You know what forum this is, right?

 

[derpyderpins]

You know what forum this is, right?

Hey after I save those 5 people I completely support their right to kill themselves

 

[Poiter1987]

no offense taken, im sorry but i didnt realise this would upset anyone omg. i just like thought provoking questions. im not religious at all but i agree if god exists they are not good.

It's not your fault my friend. We are in this together.

 

[derpyderpins]

if you haven't seen this when I suggest you to play this as some of the trolley problems are funny or interesting. especially as there are suicide aspects to some of them.

Absurd Trolley Problems

Every problem is the trolley problem.

neal.fun

 

[U. A.]

View attachment 176360

Someone should make one with the Ship of Theseus.

 

[Hystearical]

Define "emotional thinking" though... What if the 5 people are complete strangers, but the 1 person is your mother, father, sibling, spouse, child, or friend?

Then you sacrifice the life of your loved one to save the lives of a greater number of people.

Just because the average person might not choose to do that or would have immense difficulty doing so doesn't mean it isn't the clear ethical choice.

If that is "emotional thinking"... then what if the 5 people are rapists or murderers and the 1 person is a nice person?

Or... what if the 5 people are just ordinary average people, neither good nor bad and complete strangers... and the 1 person is also an average person you don't know BUT is a scientist on the verge of curing cancer?

Well that's the flaw of this kind of philosophical problem. You want to add a lot of extra details to the scenario which makes it impossible to contemplate so as go arrive at any answers. Some internal consistency is required. But if we look at it ceteris parabis (all variables but number being equal) then the solution is clear.

And if there's no "emotional thinking" involved, why are you motivated to do anything at all? Without some amount of emotional thinking why would you value a single life over 5 lives? That is emotional thinking right there to place value on the people. I mean, you aren't at risk either way, so why not just walk away. Who put you in charge of saving anyone? Just keep walking and without emotional thinking let whatever happens happen. It's not your fault after all. You didn't set everything up, you just happened to be there.

Valuing preservation of human life for the sake of ethics doesn't have to come from an emotional place. It is hard to avoid the influence of emotional and you can specifically take emotional thinking as that which is clouded by emotions and which gives them disproportionate calculus when it comes to ethical analysis.

I mean, isn't that the premise of this problem? That you have to choose?

There are only two outcomes as described, one which leads to the death of one person and one that leads to the death of many. Inaction is tantamount to subscribing to one of those outcomes.

 

[Dejected 55]

Valuing preservation of human life for the sake of ethics doesn't have to come from an emotional place. It is hard to avoid the influence of emotional and you can specifically take emotional thinking as that which is clouded by emotions and which gives them disproportionate calculus when it comes to ethical analysis.

I mean, isn't that the premise of this problem? That you have to choose?

There are only two outcomes as described, one which leads to the death of one person and one that leads to the death of many. Inaction is tantamount to subscribing to one of those outcomes.

But if you aren't thinking emotionally... why does saving 5 lives seem better than saving 1? If you do nothing, the trolley is going to go one way or the other. Do you know which way it will go if you do nothing? And why is it only you doing nothing? What about the people on the trolley? They are doing nothing. And who is asking you the question? If there is someone with you to ask the question then they are doing nothing and pressuring you to make the decision, no? IF you are there by yourself and no one will know what you choose, then you can say or do anything and then tell people you weren't there so you don't know what happened.

But the crux... in the supposedly emotionless ethical problem assumes that 5 lives > 1 life. Assuming you know nothing else about any of the people except that one side has more of them than the other. Without processing it emotionally, why assume more is better? There are lots of examples in the world where more is not better. Too much of a good thing can be bad for you.

That's why I don't like these kinds of questions being posed as if they are some super-genius analysis of how humans think... you're going to be judged on how you answer, but are told beforehand that there is no right or wrong answer... so what's the point?

I'm not trying to just be argumentative. I like ethical dilemmas and thought-provoking questions... but this one contains so many unknowns that unquestionably would alter anyone's choice. To just say trolley, two tracks, one lever, 5 people vs 1 people. Heck, you don't even know for sure that the trolley will kill anyone. Maybe choosing the path with one man, he just gets pushed and is injured but not killed. Unless someone is somewhere doing these tests empirically to know what happens in either situation, we don't know what the outcome would be. OR maybe the combined obstruction of 5 people is enough to stop the trolley, only injuring but not killing the group of 5 people.

Or as I suggested, why not pull the lever half-way so the trolley can go neither way and as such it jumps the tracks and hits none of the people on the tracks.

 

[_Gollum_]

View attachment 176360

I got 60, I am clearly your moral superior :P