Trolley Problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the right answer.
There is a question to answer,
Then explain your reasoning.

The fact that so many people don't believe there is a right answer to this question is very disturbing. 1 person dies, or 5 people die, you choose. It really isn't more complicated than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. Th is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

It’s not the same thing.
On the first case I am passive onlooker.
So, I let it happen.
On the second case I am driving the trolley so I will pick for less damage and go to the one person.
I make distinctions between active and passive participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the right answer.
There is a question to answer,
Then explain your reasoning.

The fact that so many people don't believe there is a right answer to this question is very disturbing. 1 person dies, or 5 people die, you choose. It really isn't more complicated than that.

No,
This is the way I look at it,
Do you actively kill one person to save an accidental death of 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. That is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

If it were the same choice, why are you proposing another scenario?

[Anonymous]

Five people will die without organ transplants. Do you kill one and harvest their organs so the five can live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. Th is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

It’s not the same thing.
On the first case I am passive onlooker.
So, I let it happen.
On the second case I am driving the trolley so I will pick for less damage and go to the one person.
I make distinctions between active and passive participation.

So the mother who turns a blind eye to stepfather molesting her child is passive. Does that make her participation more moral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the right answer.
There is a question to answer,
Then explain your reasoning.

The fact that so many people don't believe there is a right answer to this question is very disturbing. 1 person dies, or 5 people die, you choose. It really isn't more complicated than that.

The fact that you think there is a right answer is not surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sitcom "The Good Place" had this as a plot point. Worth watching. Real life is always messier than hypothetical.

Be prepared to make quick decisions. Know your own values in advance.

I am religious and opined that show.

I want to read the book written by Michael Schur (creator and cowriter of "The Good Place"): “How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question". It explores moral philosophy and ethical dilemmas in an accessible and humorous way.

I don’t think any of us really know how we will react in life and death situations that depend on split second decisions until we are in them.

I also don’t think the ethics are straightforward as some are suggesting. For example, it might not even be legal for people who do not work for the trolly company to touch the levers. The family of the one person inadvertently killed to save the life of five others might press manslaughter charges placing the well intentioned intervenor to out their own family’s well being at risk (if the person is a primary bread winner)

I loved the way that the Good Place highlighted how our daily lives involve so many seemingly subtle moral decisions that can have major ripple Effects on others.

Life is so complex. This is why I pray for guidance and wisdom especially when making decisions that affect others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sitcom "The Good Place" had this as a plot point. Worth watching. Real life is always messier than hypothetical.

Be prepared to make quick decisions. Know your own values in advance.

I am religious and opined that show.

I want to read the book written by Michael Schur (creator and cowriter of "The Good Place"): “How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question". It explores moral philosophy and ethical dilemmas in an accessible and humorous way.

I don’t think any of us really know how we will react in life and death situations that depend on split second decisions until we are in them.

I also don’t think the ethics are straightforward as some are suggesting. For example, it might not even be legal for people who do not work for the trolly company to touch the levers. The family of the one person inadvertently killed to save the life of five others might press manslaughter charges placing the well intentioned intervenor to out their own family’s well being at risk (if the person is a primary bread winner)

I loved the way that the Good Place highlighted how our daily lives involve so many seemingly subtle moral decisions that can have major ripple Effects on others.

Life is so complex. This is why I pray for guidance and wisdom especially when making decisions that affect others.

Should say loved that show - it was brilliant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. That is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

If it were the same choice, why are you proposing another scenario?

To try to clarify the issue for congenitally stupid, or willfully blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. That is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

If it were the same choice, why are you proposing another scenario?

To try to clarify the issue for congenitally stupid, or willfully blind.

It’s a different scenario. One worth considering as part of this thought experiment, but not the same as the original question. And different people can and do choose differently and aren’t (necessarily) sociopaths. Do you always see things in black and white? Is there ever any gray in your world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. Th is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

It’s not the same thing.
On the first case I am passive onlooker.
So, I let it happen.
On the second case I am driving the trolley so I will pick for less damage and go to the one person.
I make distinctions between active and passive participation.

So the mother who turns a blind eye to stepfather molesting her child is passive. Does that make her participation more moral?

You don’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. Th is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

It’s not the same thing.
On the first case I am passive onlooker.
So, I let it happen.
On the second case I am driving the trolley so I will pick for less damage and go to the one person.
I make distinctions between active and passive participation.

As I said above, that is a distinction without a difference (an extraordinarily facile one at that), and one that is used solely to make yourself feel better. If your chief concern here is your own conscience, and not the four lives you have decided to sacrifice to assuage it, that says something about you. And it ain't good.

Put another way, since this is the Religion forum, if you are standing at the pearly gates with someone who did pull the lever, the Almighty is going to view them a lot more favorably than you. The person who was willing to make a very hard choice to save four lives, versus the person who was willing to - decided to - sacrifice four lives just so she could hang her hat on the "I am just a passive onlooker" facade. What a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Five people will die without organ transplants. Do you kill one and harvest their organs so the five can live?

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, it will kill five workers. You the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever ?
Why or why not ?

I turn around and walk away. I am not responsible for the 5 people's death. If I pull the lever, I am responsible for causing a person's death. I could live with the choice to do nothing and comfort myself by saying there was nothing I could do. I couldn't live with pulling the lever.

You absolutely are responsible for killing the 5 people.

In the immortal words of Neal Peart,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice . . . I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill.

- "Freewill" by Rush

What kind of logic are you using?
Doing nothing in this case is not killing.
Death happened by accident not by pp.

Neither pulling the lever nor not pulling the lever is "killing," in the moral sense. All the deaths are by accident - there's a runaway trolley. None of it is on you. But absent any knowledge about the six people involved, choosing to let 5 people die instead of one is, in my mind, unquestionably evil.

Think of this variation. You have the same lever, and the same 6 people tied to the track. But there's a third position in the lever - the center position. If you push the lever to the left, the trolley kills 5 people. If you push it to the right, it kills one person. You HAVE to push it one way or the other. You have no choice. (If you prefer, assume that the entire earth would cease to exist, or explode, if you don't push the lever in one direction.) You don't know anything about any of the people.

You have to choose - does one person die, or do five people die? Unless you are a sociopath, you choose the one person. But that is exactly the same thing - you made the choice. Th is the part of this to which morality applies. Moving the lever is just implementation.

It’s not the same thing.
On the first case I am passive onlooker.
So, I let it happen.
On the second case I am driving the trolley so I will pick for less damage and go to the one person.
I make distinctions between active and passive participation.

As I said above, that is a distinction without a difference (an extraordinarily facile one at that), and one that is used solely to make yourself feel better. If your chief concern here is your own conscience, and not the four lives you have decided to sacrifice to assuage it, that says something about you. And it ain't good.

Put another way, since this is the Religion forum, if you are standing at the pearly gates with someone who did pull the lever, the Almighty is going to view them a lot more favorably than you. The person who was willing to make a very hard choice to save four lives, versus the person who was willing to - decided to - sacrifice four lives just so she could hang her hat on the "I am just a passive onlooker" facade. What a crock.

That’s why this isn’t a religion question. What would be your argument if the person is an atheist?