The Trolly Problem

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you saying it's about torture? - torturing the people who gambled by letting them be homeless for instance?

I believe the same rules apply with torture, but you can't do everything. You can warn people against gambling in your personal life and sometimes you have to leave the world's problems up to a higher power.

Where did you get torture from???

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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 played Life is Strange. Saved Chloe, and doomed the rest of the town.

The life of one dear friend is always more important.

I would rather have Jesus back than spoiled entitled people who believe he had to die for them. He already saved us, but now I want him to just be able to live a normal human life with no sacrifices. I would destroy the world to save its Savior.

Also, the word is "trolley" not "trolly".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I played Life is Strange. Saved Chloe, and doomed the rest of the town.

The life of one dear friend is always more important.

I would rather have Jesus back than spoiled entitled people who believe he had to die for them. He already saved us, but now I want him to just be able to live a normal human life with no sacrifices. I would destroy the world to save its Savior.

Also, the word is "trolley" not "trolly".

Who is left to save if you killed all and let one person live?

Who would benefit from jesus when everyone else is dead?

 

[Ponder This]

Yes.... do you think believers should choose to passively watch jesus die since they would not physically responsible for his death or would it be the same if believers condemned jesus themselves for the same reason to save humanity? God supports both views in this question

If God 'supports' both views, then why are you asking what believers 'should' do? The dilemma only exists for non-believers who must find some other reason beside 'God supports this view' to do what they would do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God 'supports' both views, then why are you asking what believers 'should' do? The dilemma only exists for non-believers who must find some other reason beside 'God supports this view' to do what they would do.

If you take it personally, I can see that. Since its a hypothetical to all RFers (no one is special), either you can answer it as a believer or leave it alone. The jesus thing was an observation I made when watching the video. The main question is whether you support unitarianism. If you do, explain. If you dont, explain.

Its not a personal question. None of my RF religious posts are.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Where did you get torture from???

People usually know they will likely lose money when they gamble. If they go homeless or worse it's usually their own fault. It's their own fault. What is your question about gambling?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People usually know they will likely lose money when they gamble. If they go homeless or worse it's usually their own fault. It's their own fault. What is your question about gambling?

Wow. You're way off. New perspective to my question but way off my and the videos point.

Four out of five friends are caught.
They ask the fifth friend, as a friend, could he vouch for them.

He says yes.

Or

You can tell the fifth friend if he wants to vouch for his friends, you will let him even though his friends did not ask

In both situations, the fifth friend is innocent

Which option would you agree with?
Why or why not?

Unless youre doing this on purpose?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Wow. You're way off. New perspective to my question but way off my and the videos point.

Four out of five friends are caught.
They ask the fifth friend, as a friend, could he vouch for them.

He says yes.

Or

You can tell the fifth friend if he wants to vouch for his friends, you will let him even though his friends did not ask

In both situations, the fifth friend is innocent

Which option would you agree with?
Why or why not?

Unless youre doing this on purpose?

This seems like it is not a serious matter that we need a law or rule about. I would say the fifth friend can do whatever he decides.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This seems like it is not a serious matter that we need a law or rule about. I would say the fifth friend can do whatever he decides.

True. The point of the OP was to answer either or. There are a lot of exceptions, but if we left OPs that open, it defeats the purpose of sticking on topic.

 

[Ponder This]

If you take it personally, I can see that. Since its a hypothetical to all RFers (no one is special), either you can answer it as a believer or leave it alone. The jesus thing was an observation I made when watching the video. The main question is whether you support unitarianism. If you do, explain. If you dont, explain.

Its not a personal question. None of my RF religious posts are.

I don't understand what you mean by 'take it personally' or what you mean by 'it's not a personal question.'

As for whether nor not I support utilitarianism...
Utilitarianism is blind to important metaphysical considerations such as justice. So sometimes utilitarianism happens to be right and sometimes utilitarianism happens to be wrong. Therefore, I do not support utilitarianism.