The Trolley Moral Dilemma

[Katsuni]

Hit the 5.

Why?

Well consider, why would they be on the tracks? Tying 5 people up is kind of odd to begin with... one can figure the chances are they probably had such done to them as a punishment, as no villian ties up *FIVE* people. One usually, two tops.

The one on the other tracks is likely a diversion for people who are 'trying' to be just... the idea of having 5 murderers on one side, and an angel on the other, how better to screw with someone's mind than trick them into killing an angel of their own free will?

If they REALLY wanted that ONE person to die, they'd just put them on the same tracks as the other 5. The fact that there's not 3 and 3, implies they're not equally deserving of death by the mind of whoever put them there. The further fact that one is equal to five, implies that they are trying to guide yeur hand into hitting the one, and I don't like being manipulated like that.




As for emergency brakes? I think yeu underestimate how much stopping power a train needs. Generally it takes a train/trolley literally kilometers (or several miles) to come to a stop. By the time they see someone on the tracks, it's already too late. It takes minutes of braking to actually come to a complete stop.

The second question's just stupid though. If that person's 'wide' enough to stop the sheer power of a TRAIN, then there's quite literally no way I can move them at all, let alone push them off a bridge. In terms of morality, the question would be, why is that one person not tied up? They could be the warden or executioner, and the other 5 could deserve it.

Think the quote "there's many who live who deserve to die, and many who die who deserve life, can yeu give it to them?" kinda applies here... there's no way to know all ends. Value of life by raw numbers isn't that easy to do. Do yeu sacrifice a million to save a thousand? Or vice versa?

The examples here are some of the worst I've seen though, so I really don't think it's that good of a question on either case.

 

[Litvyak]

^ Yeah that's very clever and insightful and everything, it's just that you don't have enough time to think through that. You have one second to decide, and you are guided by your instincts and moral code, not your logic. You can rationalize later, but that's not part of the question.

 

[Ginkgo]

No, it doesn't. Indecision would still kill the others. Either way, people will die. And that's why they call it the dilemma.

If so, aren't we all murderers for not trying to save lives on a continual basis?

 

[Polaris]

If so, aren't we all murderers for not trying to save lives on a continual basis?

Interesting way of looking at it. We could all save lives; all we would have to is put ourselves out there a bit more--volunteer for rescue services, donate our extra money to charity, and so forth. Yet we choose not to do those things, and that puts an end to many lives. Since most of us don't hold ourselves responsible for those lives, why would we hold ourselves responsible for the five people tied to the tracks? In either case, your inaction will lead to death; the only difference is how directly you see this.

 

[Phantonym]

If so, aren't we all murderers for not trying to save lives on a continual basis?

Yes, and we also kill time occasionally. We're all born to die.

 

[Blank]

You know what, I'm just going to say that I'm going to be pragmatic and I'll run the bitches over; I've got a schedule to keep.

 

[krunchtime]

That's an interesting question. The logical thing to do would be to switch tracks and "save" the five people at the cost of one, but does quantity really matter more than the quality of the act? If I were to conciously choose this option, it would equivalent to an act of premediated murder. Alternatively, I could stand by and let five people die, but their deaths will weigh on my conscience, because I had the chance to help them.

I could have done nothing because 1. I'm afraid to take responsiblity for my actions 2. Respect for human life 3. Respect for limits of personal power. I could have chosen to save them out of 1. Rational cost-benefit calculations 2. Self-benefit 3. Compassion for human life.

There is no right or wrong option and you have to take moral responsibility for both choices. In other words, you're destined to be a murderer by provenence. My guess is that bold people will switch tracks, while conservative decision-makers will do nothing, in an attempt to abdicate responsibility.

 

[Oaky]

^ Yeah that's very clever and insightful and everything, it's just that you don't have enough time to think through that. You have one second to decide, and you are guided by your instincts and moral code, not your logic. You can rationalize later, but that's not part of the question.

This is why we have Ni.

 

[Unique]

Interesting how many people would save rather than let things play out

To me it really does seem like murder, you had nothing to do with the death of 5 but switching the tracks? Now your heading to hit this 1 person on purpose

Lots of people die from bad luck every day, the person you are about to choose to hit didn't have bad luck, he got you being a twat thinking you're a hero

 

[Litvyak]

he got you being a twat thinking you're a hero

That's also "bad luck", if we believe in such things.

 

[krunchtime]

Interesting how many people would save rather than let things play out

To me it really does seem like murder, you had nothing to do with the death of 5 but switching the tracks? Now your heading to hit this 1 person on purpose

Lots of people die from bad luck every day, the person you are about to choose to hit didn't have bad luck, he got you being a twat thinking you're a hero

If I had to put myself in the shoes of this unlucky guy, I would probably hate the "hero" with all my guts or bitterly complain that life just isn't fair. Isn't it similar to what we go through on a daily basis, where we get "sacrified" for being the unlucky minority? Democracy is tyranny of a majority and morality is also defined by popular opinion.