The Trolly Problem

[Unveiled Artist]

Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.

Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
- Eleanor Nelsen



Some say its better to save five peoples lives by sacrificing one.

Yet, they flinch if that same one sacrifice was pushed to save others rather than passively being "in the way".

Yet, they are both the same.

Not suprisingly

This made me think of the jesus sacrifice.

If jesus were alive today, would believers sacrifice him (push him off the bridge) to save humanity?

Or if that made you flinch

How is that different than letting jesus die as a "passive; in the way" to save humanity

If god supported both views?

In general, readers

Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Do you see the two video scenarios as the same or different?
Why or why not?

 

[Shaul]

The idea of bartering of human lives is disgusting. Trivializing the sanctity of human lives by creating hypothetical deaths of them is wrong.

 

[Cacotopia]

What about the option of letting all six die, to lower the burden on society by six people.

I'm just sayin' not all the options are present.

This is where my mind goes.

Dismally dark.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What about the option of letting all six die, to lower the burden on society by six people.

I'm just sayin' not all the options are present.

This is where my mind goes.

Dismally dark.

There are a lot of other options. I mean, when I took math I kept trying to figure all the ways to work the same problem. The tutor said of course there are many ways but your professor wants you to do it This way. So, I had to follow the OP and get a good grade than derailing the problem and get an F cause I did it wrong even if I got the right answer.

Aka. Which do you think is better?
Why or why not?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The idea of bartering of human lives is disgusting. Trivializing the sanctity of human lives by creating hypothetical deaths of them is wrong.

I can see that. Would you choose the passivity view then?

 

[james blunt]

Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.

Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
- Eleanor Nelsen



Some say its better to save five peoples lives by sacrificing one.

Yet, they flinch if that same one sacrifice was pushed to save others rather than passively being "in the way".

Yet, they are both the same.

Not suprisingly

This made me think of the jesus sacrifice.

If jesus were alive today, would believers sacrifice him (push him off the bridge) to save humanity?

Or if that made you flinch

How is that different than letting jesus die as a "passive; in the way" to save humanity

If god supported both views?

In general, readers
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Do you see the two video scenarios as the same or different?
Why or why not?

You think fast, switch the lever that changes track to half way , derailing the trolley.
The bridge example is not the same, but instead of chucking the big man off, jump on the trolley and hit the breaks .

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You think fast, switch the lever that changes track half way , derailing the trolley.
The bridge example is not the same, but instead of chucking the big man off, jump on the trolley and hit the breaks .

Without changing the probem, how are they not the same?

 

[james blunt]

Without changing the probem, how are they not the same?

The bridge one is murder, the big man had 0 chance of dying, where in the first example, all of the people were on the track and all had a chance of dying anyway .

 

[74x12]

Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.

Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
- Eleanor Nelsen



Some say its better to save five peoples lives by sacrificing one.

Yet, they flinch if that same one sacrifice was pushed to save others rather than passively being "in the way".

Yet, they are both the same.

Not suprisingly

This made me think of the jesus sacrifice.

If jesus were alive today, would believers sacrifice him (push him off the bridge) to save humanity?

Or if that made you flinch

How is that different than letting jesus die as a "passive; in the way" to save humanity

If god supported both views?

In general, readers

Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Do you see the two video scenarios as the same or different?
Why or why not?

i would not sacrifice Jesus. In my belief it was God that did the whole thing. God was manifest to take away our sins. God came to die. We had nothing to do with God's decision. God decided the whole thing by Himself. I believe if you murdered Jesus then you're guilty before God and will pay for it. No one can murder Jesus and get away with it. They can repent but otherwise are in trouble. God left the actual killing part of it to satan and his followers.

As for letting Jesus die in a passive way, we again had no decision here. God decided the whole thing and satan deceived people (such as Judas in Luke 22:3) to actually do it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The bridge one is murder, the big man had 0 chance of dying, where in the first example, all of the people were on the track and all had a chance of dying anyway .

Thats basically the point of the video. A lot of people choose passivity. Gets them "off the hook" because they didnt do anything to cause death just supported it. If you were driving the train would you run over the guy to save the five?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i would not sacrifice Jesus. In my belief it was God that did the whole thing. God was manifest to take away our sins. God came to die. We had nothing to do with God's decision. God decided the whole thing by Himself. I believe if you murdered Jesus then you're guilty before God and will pay for it. No one can murder Jesus and get away with it. They can repent but otherwise are in trouble. God left the actual killing part of it to satan and his followers.

As for letting Jesus die in a passive way, we again had no decision here. God decided the whole thing and satan deceived people (such as Judas in Luke 22:3) to actually do it.

Yes. I set it up with god supporting both so the question is which would you choose when god backs you either way.

 

[Skwim]

The idea of bartering of human lives is disgusting. Trivializing the sanctity of human lives by creating hypothetical deaths of them is wrong.

Pshaw! Hike up your trousers, gird your loins, and stop making up excuses. MAKE A CHOICE.

.

.

 

[james blunt]

Thats basically the point of the video. A lot of people choose passivity. Gets them "off the hook" because they didnt do anything to cause death just supported it. If you were driving the train would you run over the guy to save the five?

I would run over the guy to save five , if there was no other options. It depends though , let us say this one guy was in some way extremely valued, lets say he was about to write an article for the cure of cancer.

Then surely we run over the 5 instead?

Or lets say the one guy has a family at home but the five are just single and a bit rough .

The situation changes again see, there is many ways to view it to come up with the right answer.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

What about the option of letting all six die, to lower the burden on society by six people.

I'm just sayin' not all the options are present.

This is where my mind goes.

Dismally dark.

Or we could all jump in with them?

Sorry, couldn't help it

 

[Mox]

Seems crystal clear to me what I have to do in that scenario.
There are two options.

A. By inaction allow more than one person to die.
B. By action cause one person to die.

Since either is a conscious decision, I have no alternative but select option B.

Since for each person destroyed X amount of lives are dissaffected or harmed by the destruction, including the life of the person destroyed, obviously. Thus if more than one person is destroyed X will always be higher.

If X amount of 'harm' is quantitively reducible, pulling the lever, then I have no choice but act to reduce it.

My mens rea is one of damage limitation.

 

[Quintessence]

What about the option of letting all six die, to lower the burden on society by six people.

I'm just sayin' not all the options are present.

This is where my mind goes.

Dismally dark.

Nah, not necessarily dark considering that humans as a species are overpopulated. It makes the most sense to go with the option that removes the most humans from the equation, sadly. Not because of the burden on human society, but because of the burden on the rest of the world. I wish I didn't live in a world where this is the case.

It's rare that a non-anthropocentric perspective is considered in these hypothetical questions. It's always "humans, humans, humans... only thing that matters." That sort of thinking is why we're in this overpopulation mess in the first place - why our species is guilty of launching global ecological genocide and a sixth mass extinction. With that context looming over my head, it's really hard to give a damn about preserving human life. And I hate that.

 

[Sanzbir]

Pull the switch half way, thus derailing the trolly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seems crystal clear to me what I have to do in that scenario.
There are two options.

A. By inaction allow more than one person to die.
B. By action cause one person to die.

Since either is a conscious decision, I have no alternative but select option B.

Since for each person destroyed X amount of lives are dissaffected or harmed by the destruction, including the life of the person destroyed, obviously. Thus if more than one person is destroyed X will always be higher.

If X amount of 'harm' is quantitively reducible, pulling the lever, then I have no choice but act to reduce it.

My mens rea is one of damage limitation.

You'd have to rephrase the last part; but, in both scenarios a man does for the "greater good" of many. Yet, many people are more conflicted in option B (pushing the guy in front of the train) because it feels more personal. However, they are fine with option A since they are outside bystanders. Some see no difference between the two scenarios, others do.

I know you'd personally take a life to save many. I'd ask,

Which scenario makes sense, I guess morally, to support your views?

What makes many better than one person in regards to taking someone's life passively or actively?

(Thank you for actually answering the question)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Pull the switch half way, thus derailing the trolly.

Ha. Cheat. If the trolley went off the cliff killing all five people, would that be more worth it than killing one person either actively or passively?

 

[Sanzbir]

Ha. Cheat. If the trolley went off the cliff killing all five people, would that be more worth it than killing one person either actively or passively?

I dunno a. There's a chance no one dies in the derail scenario so good enough. I just like pointing out there's never a binary choice.