Who's here after watching the video of the toddler picking the guy on the first lane and placing him with the other five on the second lane and calmly run the train over the six people serving equality..
I know who used to caboose. Parking lot.. now there's a shitload of brakes and bullshit to tend to and I am trying to learn English, not French. Bitch!
The Psychology behind this is that switching a lever makes the act of sacrificing one life for five indirect. Pushing the man however, requires touch directly with the one we are sacrificing, and that touch activates a different part of our brain responsible for dealing with emotions.
No, you can't yell. God I hate people who make up a 3rd scenario with all my soul. But yeah, I also would not intervene. The dilema is not a dilema at all: the guy alone hasn't done anything wrong. I don't see who gave me the right to kill him. To me, it's the exact same scenario as this one: A car with 5 people is going to crash, has no brakes. You know if you push the guy next to you in front of the car you'll save the 5 people. Would you do that, just because 5>1? No, it's retarded.
I think people do not choose to push the man on the bridge because his life was not at risk at any point. it is similar to adding a new variable to an equation.Whereas the six workers on the track were always part of the situation
Jazzkeyboardist1: "another FINE mess" And the "narrator" is Max Sennet And the best option of diverting the train would have been in the hands of "Curly" and we know how that would turn out. So we also know that Stan Laurel would easily have pushed Olley (Oliver Hardy) over the bridge without knowing whether it would solve the problem or not. But is that Dino "Flintstone" and is everyone ignoring the fact that the car on the track is a "sleeper" and is not powered on its own so it really isn't a threat.
My school did a debate on this. One person said that he wouldn't do anything, and kill the 5 people. His reasoning was that if you do something, whether that's pulling a lever or pushing someone, you're killing someone intentionally, whether it's done directly, or indirectly. So choosing to do something would make you a murderer, even though pushing someone off a bridge sounds more like a murderer. I thought that his idea was understandable. After the debate, we talked about that this can be referred as a false dichotomy. This trolley problem is a good debate topic.
A fairly common argument. However, we must face the fact that, morally, doing nothing is just as consequential as doing something. If you fail to save the drowning man when you could easily do so, aren't you just as guilty as the guy who pushed him into the river? It's a difficult problem to think about. Incidentally, as far as the Trolley Problem is concerned choosing to do something would not be 'murder' as you state; the law recognizes extreme mitigating circumstances. Oddly enough, you might be considered more liable to prosecution if you fail to act. I'm glad to read that your teachers are facilitating this sort of debate with you; it's a very valuable thought experiment to experience.
@@ClarkKant1 To answer your first question: no. In addition, you'd have to risk your own life to save a drowning person. To your second point, you're obviously wrong. Unless you have any cases which support this ridiculous assertion.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 so you're brain can't think of another hypothetical to combat your arguement? Wow sad. So bascailly you're saying you would slap a falling pot that would hurt you or your hand to save a baby that was about to be crushed because it's causing you to act. . . That's bascially the arguement. Even though you're already involved in the situation your friend is trying to falsely distance himself from responsibility even though both are equal in being responsible for those deaths. Inaction is still action. Bringing the law into this is pointless tbh. I understand because it will influence emotions and actions strongly. But either way your buddies point is really weak.
@@ClarkKant1Terrible analogy, saving or don't saving someone from drowning is different from the trolley problem, because the trolley problem is all about sacrificing a life for "the greater good or choosing to not do so", while this drowning situation is about saving or not saving someone without the cost of other lives. Different situation entirely.
@@funkyreapercat5280 You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that action and inaction can have similar consequences, and they're often morally equivalent. If you fail to act when you could have and someone dies, aren't you morally as responsible as someone who kills another person? Your choice caused a person's death. Getting tied up in numbers of people is a blind alley. Of course, the real issue here is that the vast majority of people when they encounter the Trolley Problem can only think in two dimensions: they go on and on about "maybe I could jam a log into the tracks..." and totally miss the point of the problem. It's a thought-experiment, designed to make us confront the methods by which we arrive at moral decisions. We are led to believe that morality is black and white, right and wrong. The trolley problem forces us to re-evaluate that assumption, and then maybe think about other moral questions with a new perspective. And on a related matter... the plural of 'life' is 'LIVES,' not 'lifes.' A small thing I know, but it speaks to credibility.
Guys - there was never any 'solution' to this problem! The point of the exercise is to make us think about the MORALITY of the situation. It's a MORAL dilemma, not a practical one. If your mind immediately goes to "maybe I can shout to them to get off the track!" you're missing the point, and should go check out the amusing cat videos. As members of any society we need to consider situations in which our actions, however well-meaning, have consequences: and we must weigh our moral choices in response to those situations (and in this we might treat action and inaction as equivalent). There isn't meant to be a 'solution' to this problem. It worries me that so many people, when confronted with a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT such as this, are unable to THINK about it and appreciate the moral complexity of the real world to which the example alludes. Many of the commenters here seem to think that they must come up with a solution. These same people would no doubt propose stealing the cat from the box when Schrödinger isn't looking! Thought experiments seek to distill the essence of a problem, so that we can think about the ways in which we behave in the more complex world around us. For example, one of the interesting facets of the problem is that it forces us to consider notions of action versus inaction, and realize that in many situations, these two apparent opposites are morally equivalent. We make utilitarian decisions all the time - weighing the 'least harm' options. The Trolley Problem forces us to see those consequentialist decisions for what they frequently are: selfish, callous and arbitrary choices based on very little information and made with no real knowledge of what the ramifications might be.
Which is why people also fail to see how this problem is actually a real life problem too for autonomous cars. People want to act like there is a solution, but in reality, there is no truly desirable outcome, only an outcome with consequences and rewards. It also comes into play with the Coronavirus. We have to ask ourselves, which group do we want to sacrifice, those that are at risk, or those that need to work. People will die in both situations, it's undeniable that you cannot save everyone, but who should we allow to die.
I mean, they might be able to tell that the train is coming by the vibrations or noise. In which case, if they didn’t move that’s Darwinism in action. And to any anti-evolution believers... trust me, Darwinism is a real thing, and if it causes you lot to die trying to prove it otherwise by, say, jumping off a bridge believing some invisible sky daddy will catch you... you’ve proved my point.
If they insist on standing on some rails while trains are still operating, there's nothing you can do about that. People are responsible for their own choices
im sure others said the same thing but I'm not going to read a bunch of comments. However, I would do nothing. If I pull the switch, I am causing death. That makes me responsible and will land me jail time. If I do nothing, I am nothing but a witness to a terrible accident.
whether that weighs more than manslaughter is debatable and dependent on perspective. In my opinions, I would rather feign ignorance than hold responsibility. That is, I would redirect the train, but deny rational though based on imminent threat and instinct.
But there is also a girl who fought not to kill anybody and so she was ready to throw herself before the train to save the others! And she has just 20 000 views...
my perspective on the trolley problem is when the question is presented you were chosen as a (hero) that you need to save either 5 people or 1 but what you did not see is you are not a hero becuase it is a choice between you being a witness to an accident or you becoming a murderer. If you switch the leaver you would become a murderer because you are the reason why that single person died but when you do nothing and watch the five people die you just become a witness to an accident.
I honestly have no idea how I would react of this actually were to happen. Probably freeze up in fear (telling myself to do something) and regret not doing anything for the rest of my life. Because I don't handle myself well under pressure, if I'm being honest. However, I would like to think that since the track with only one person is closer to me, he would have a better chance of hearing me when I yell "GET OFF THE TRACK" and then pull the lever. But then again, there are many flaws in this plan. I don't know what I'd do if the tracks were reversed and the 5 people were closer. Honestly I really don't know so I probably shouldn't be commenting.
I think by touching the Lever no matter the situation, is failing the test .I think the true test is To Let nature run its course It's wrong for us to decide where to direct what is the natural , who are we to dictate who lives and dies that is not our right . Its always the Human reaction to want to change/have some control over what we think is right and wrong or the dosage of death we or others can handle , we measure Our value in Death and that is as unatural as pulling the lever . Life isn't about what you deserve it's a collective Experience shared by all forms of life no matter our decisions or walks of life .4 example Killing someone is killing apart of yourself .
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood Trolley taught me the trolley problem since childhood. Now, as an adult, I'm learning the trolley problem at a different level. :)
Did he really do an episode with the trolley problem, or are you joking? I loved Mr. Rogers and remember his awesome train layout/diorama very well, but my 2 to 4-year-old brain definitely couldn't comprehend this problem - and I was undoubtedly playing with my toys and/or eating while watching it. I'm curious now though; did he really do an example of this?
I asked my dad this question and myself. Both our choices was don’t push the man off, and the train will kill the single dude. My reasoning was that it has nothing to do with me and best outcome. My dad’s was that we don’t value them as people at that point, we value them as lives. 4 lives win over 1 and involving the man from the bridge would be in the same outcome of killing only 1 person, just that we’d be murderers in that case
@@daviddong9916 …which is why some say they'd do nothing, because regardless of what you do in this situation, you're a murderer - thus not _doing_ anything preserves one's own _personal_ morality.
My question is this: Do the five workers know that they can get hit by the trolley? If they are workers they should know to ONLY work on a track while it is not active or know when to look to move out of the way at least. Without this information, I'll assume they are negligent and say that they deserve the fate they get. If they did not know (I.E: The track was scheduled to be inactive during that time), and I knew this at the time, then I would switch, as it is 5 > 1.
I like how BBC has some obscure intriguing videos on random topics. never to be known otherwise. almost hard to make up your mind but you know you want to watch. thank you
If the trolley doesn't see the people and it plans on going forward, it probably has a greater speed than if it was going to turn. And the average person has limited knowledge of train tracks or switches. So pulling the lever could potentially derail the trolley, in which case one might not only injure/kill the initial 5 victims but also some of the passengers on the trolley or even other passengers not on the track. Don't get involved if the problem might require knowledge you don't possess. You may only make things worse.
People would rather pull a lever over pushing someone for the simple reason that the lever distanced themselves from the outcome: the death is farther away, and you would feel less guilt doing so. This is the same reason we have internet fights at such a magnitude of animosity towards one another.
The difference between the 2 scenarios is that: A) one is hands on killing of a person, which is unsettling. B) pushing the person is not going to stop the trolly anyway, so it's adding a death. I 1st heard this and the 2nd scenario was said to be a boulder (mistakenly), to which a really heavy person may/might stop the boulder.
It's a good thought experiment, but they would be a lot variables in a real life scenario. Workers can see the trolley coming, while you can't warn them there're others that might, pushing a large man in front of it might not stop the trolley.
The clarity and depth of this content are impressive. A book with related subjects enriched my cognitive skills. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
I bet that many people change their answer because, if this was a realistic scenario, the fallen man might not stop the trolley. So you have a chance of turning the death count from 5 to 6. If you redid the test with different wording, the answers might change. I'm sure that the point the "pushing" scenario was trying to measure is whether the pushing is seen as more intimate/evil/culpable/violent of an act than pulling a lever, but the question introduced a new variable (whether the trolley would really stop).
I agree with your reasoning that the wording needs changed to somehow pushing the man off the bridge would have the same level of certainty as flipping the switch. I’d assume I’d flip the switch; but, I may possibly also push the man off the bridge but only if I went with him so our combined size would further make certain the train stops. First, however, I’d try just yelling at all the people to get off the tracks.
What some people don't realize is that a person's inaction IS action. Simply standing there knowing you could have saved the 5 lives is just as bad as pulling the lever if the number of people on the two tracks were switched.
what's worse? standing by whilst someone drowns someone or being the person drowning that someone? you could easily help people in third world countries, does the fact that you don't mean you're a murderer? i would say not
Your drowning example has a totally different structure to the trolley problem hence you can't apply the same logic to it. Lorderick237 is responding to the problem from a utilitarianist perspective - since it is a problem of ethics. This is obviously far above you.
A runaway train is heading towards five workers on a railway line. There is no way of warning. But your standing near a lever that operates the points. Switch the points and the train goes down the spur. trouble is there's another worker on that bit of track too. but it is one fatality instead of five. should you do that. Many people think the right thing to would be to switch the points. to sacrifice one to save five. since that produces the best outcome possible. now imagine the train heading to the workers again. this time it can only be stopped by pushing a very large man of a bridge. his great balk would stop the train. but he died. should you do that. most people say no. but why not. both thought experiments are cases of sacrificing one to save five. what the trolley problem examines is whether moral decisions are simply about outcomes or about the manner in which you achieve them. some utilitarians argued that the two cases are not importantly different from each other both have similar consequences. consequences are all that really matter. each case one person dies and five are saved. the best option in each harrowing situation. but lots of people say they would switch the points but they wouldn't push the man of the bridge. are they simply inconsistent or are they onto something.
If there are 5 workers on the railroad line, they should be able to at least hear the train or see it coming (at least one should). It wouldn't be hard for them to get off the rail (it takes like 2 or less seconds). The video applies that we must choose between saving these people in a situation where they technically can save themselves if they realize what is going on (Hey, I hear/see a train coming, we should get off the rails and let it pass). A good worker is aware of their surroundings (through sight, smell, sound, etc). We can try to save the 5 workers (or lone worker as well), but in the end it really comes down to whether or not THEY realized a train was coming down the railroad. (I understand the main idea of the scenario being brought up, but logically people are smarter than to just sit on the rails when a train is coming, even without a warning. 2 seconds is all it takes). Possible solutions? Pull the lever, the train will go towards the 1 guy. Chances are the guy will hear/see the train and get out of the way. Everyone gets saved. (P.s, why even bother pushing off the big guy, let him do his own thing).
@@angels-haudenschild7791 Ah, yep, they did say that. (Which is an unrealistic scenario nonetheless, not sure how their world functions without sound too. [Like how they got their jobs or many other things that would more than likely require sound because communication is practically needed]. They still have their eyesight, at least 1 worker should have seen it coming). Then again, this video is meant to bring about an extreme example. The solutions or actions suggested in the video are meant to be your only options, but realistically that isn't the case. (But yes, you are right. In their world, sound ceases to exist until it is "invented.")
The simple fact is that the one guy down the railway might just notice the train and run away - whereas if you would push a heavy guy off the bridge for the purpose of stopping the train you are making a sacrifice on purpose, essentially killing a man. It is more unlikely that he would be able to withstand the fall and not hurt himself so that he could get away from the train, further damning to your actions.
This video reminds me of variations of the Milgram experiment - where, when people could see the subjects they felt more guilt and wouldn't obey as easily. Pushing someone off the bridge makes you feel more directly responsible for their death.
I wonder if the reason is because when you are pulling a lever, it’s different to PUSHING someone down to their deaths. Pulling a simple lever doesn’t feel as if you are doing something immediately wrong at the time and usually doesn’t make you think of what you are doing at first, maybe leaving the horrible guilt and realisation of what you have done for the end.
I think most people would choose to pull the lever because they can't help thinking of it as merely risking one life instead of five. After all you can't know for sure if they'll die until they die. While pushing the dude in front of the trolley is certainly murder or attempted murder
The reason for it is that, when you push a man off the bridge, he has no way to avoid dying, or getting seriously hurt at least. Whereas, when one has the option to direct the runaway trolley to the one man, he is given a better deal, where he can possibly notice it and get aside.
If you pull the lever, there's still a chance the single worker could get off the track in time, so you would save 5, but the lone worker may still survive. But pushing someone off the bridge, you're dooming him to death.
Either option will result in death. Are you less of a murderer because you didn't switch the lever? If the deaths could have been prevented by your decision and you failed to decide, is that just as wrong? Is that still murder? Quite interesting for sure.
yeah if you're right beside the level not pulling it could be considered complacency where you basically murder 5 people by doing nothing.. not trying to weigh to either side... this problem is made to tickle all areas of the brain considering wtf is ethical
@@jesusantispray i wouldn’t pull the lever. Because not doing anything isn’t the same as actively killing someone. Judging the value of human life by using numbers I horrible in my opinion and makes us less human
In any moral dilemma, it's important to think about your own morality, think about how YOU (not other people) would weigh the value of each subject. Only then you could see the right answer. Ex: In this case: do nothing (a), save 1 & kill 5 (b), save 5 & kill 1 (c). Choose a, or b, or c. Skip to the end for a single sentence solution. I (myself only) would experience a negative feeling much larger; when I choose (a), compared to all the consequences from individual (b), or (c). So, I (others may not) put (a) out of the equation. Between (b), and (c). To be honest, in case all of them are strangers; I feel like killing 1 or 5 has no significant difference. But the thing that affects my decision is that compensating for 1 family is easier than 5. So, (c) death to the one guy this will be. In the case of one fat guy, I would say "Even if the guy is replaced with a big rock, I still wouldn't push it." That is way too much "work" compared to compensating for up to 99 families. If any of these people is a person that I value different, the answer may vary. If you can end a day saying I do not regret it, I would say "you made the right choice".
For anyone who is wondering, the people are based on real famous silent film era comedians: The man sitting on the train at the top of the screen is Buster Keaton. The train is from his 1926 film The General. I'm not sure who the man sitting in the train cab is. The two men on the bridge are Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. The three men on the track near the bridge are The Three Stooges: Curly, Moe and Larry. The man next to them holding the mallet is Ben Turpin. The man on his knees is Lloyd Hamilton. The lone man on the other track is Charlie Chaplin. The man with the glasses is Harold Lloyd. (The three people on the platform with names below them are well-known philosophers.) I'm not sure who the other two men on the platform are, the man with the moustache might be Chester Conklin? The dinosaur is from a 1914 animation called Gertie the Dinosaur. There are several other famous silent film comedians, but I can't match them for sure to the three questionable ones. Any ideas?
When you had the option to push someone else down on the track to stop the train you could instead do like Black Widow and Hawkeye and fight each other for the honor of sacrificing yourself.
The answer is hope, if you pushed the man off the bridge he would have no chance to save himself if the directed the train towards the the guy on the track he would have a chance. Even if the outcome in this scenario is locked, hope still prevails
Another way to pose the trolley problem is this: would you be able to live knowing that you let 5 people die, or knowing that you're the cause of someone's death? Edit: shit my bad english is showing i meant rather, not be able to, fuck.
I think it would be morally wrong to get involved in both cases. The problem with utilitarianism (in my eyes) is that it fails to differentiate events happening naturally and human hand in things. If the train runs over the five workers it may be tragic, but no one can truly be said to be responsible, but as soon as you flip the switch you are directly responsible for killing the sixth worker. If you fail to see the difference between things unfolding naturally, and human action; imagine you're a hostage negotiator talking to a group of terrorists. The terrorists say they'll free five of the hostages if you give them a civilian. Would you consider it moral to put another innocent person in danger to save a greater number?
At an acting class I took, I was asked to make a film in which I play a man who is about to commit suicide. Since being dumped or losing someone seemed to clise to me I went for something more complex: not wanting to live with the guilt for the choice made in the trolley problem. So here's the trolley problem I created for my character: A helicopter gunship pilot is assigned to providing cover for a team trying to capture a terrorist leader. Suddenly the team is ambushed by several terrorists shooting rocked and heavy machine guns. The other gunships are shot down and the protagonist's co-pilot is also killed by machinegun fire, leaving the protagonist as the only gunship pilot still in the battle. Now that the terrorist gave away their position he can easily level the building from which the terrorist are shooting before more of his teammates are killed. But here's where the trolley (helicopter in this case) problem comes in: The building is a school filled with children. What's the right thing do here: 1. Kill the terrorists and the children 2. Let the soldiers die and the terrorists escape (and kill even more people in the future) but give the children a chance to live. The character of course makes the worst decision: he hesitates and 2 transport helicopters are shot down killing over 20 soldiers and only then he fires rockets at the building, killing everyone inside. It's things like this that the trolley problem really about, not literal careless people standing on the tracks.
Not sure how trolleys work, but what if you pull the lever and while the trolley is passing, find a way to have the lever cause the tracks to return their original position?. It will cause the trolley to derail and may mean all lives can be saved.
How I think about it is you are voluntarily pushing the man over deciding his fate . But the guy that’s on the railroad track was already placed there . But either way I’m deciding his fate . Damn this is hard .
Check if the single person is aware of the situation. If they are, pull the lever: They have a better chance of running away on time than the 5 people who have no clue (If they had a clue they would have ran already)
I wouldn't touch the switch, because then I have made an active choice to kill someone, valuing 5 lives over 1. The lever really is no different from pushing the fat man, except you do it from a distance, but either way it is still your action that kills the single person. If the people on the tracks are random strangers, how could you measure their lives worth? For me the quantity is unimportant, it is my action or lack of action which is important.
***** How is choosing to kill one over 5 or 5 over one a heroic act? it could be if there were specifics, such as "the one is a murderer, hated by everyone" but this scenario isn't easy like that. I guess there is no "moral" decision for me. Because If I do something, the act will be immoral.
+Khaz Goroth But if you choose not to do something you are ignoring the act on your consent thereby you are letting 5 person die so yeah....Its not a heroic act to kill one over 5 but it is the logical one.
Ok so lets increase the number of lives at stake. How far are you willing to go? Are you similarly unqualified to make a value judgement on the lives of 20 people? 100? 1 million? Tell me when it becomes immoral to just stand there like a dunce and not pull that switch.
it depends. do I get into trouble if I act? If I am a random bystander, than I have no responsibility over any of the things that are happening, hence cannot be taken accountable for not taking any action
+ferdzso To solve this "problem" with the problem, there's a variant where you are the conductor of the train, rather than a random bystander, and you're the only person who can redirect the train.
Simple. People feel disconnected from the consequences of an action if they just have to interact with a lever. But if you have to physically push someone off a bridge and murder them. The act becomes more connected to you. In short, the more an action with a morally bad consequence is disconnected from an individual, the easier it gets. Just like a lever in fact. Your Morales are like a lever, if you grab closer to the bottom of the lever it's harder to switch, but at the other end it's a lot easier. The only difference between people is where pivot point is.
I mean, if you have the time to push a man down the railway, and the time to switch the lever, why wouldn't you have the time to shout at the lone man while switching the lever? Then maybe the lone man can just directly jump out of the way. In that case wouldn't there be the slightest possible chance to save all of them if they were fast enough, and grab that slightest bit of possibility?
I think there will never be a solution to this problem. Deciding whether you should save one’s life or saving the life of the other five, is both evil. A person’s inaction is action. Even if you only let 1 person die, you would still bring the guilt for the rest of your life. You will tell yourself that you should have done everything. But what is there to choose if there’s nothing good about the situation? We must weigh our moral choices according to this situation. Simply standing there knowing you could’ve saved the 5 lives is just as bad as switching the number of people on the two tracks. But if I really have to choose, I would choose not to pull the lever because I would kill someone who didn’t even do anything wrong. I would not want to put his life in my hands. We can’t really distinguish the good from the bad but we can weigh our moral choices.
Well ye but that's why it's a problem to start with. People who say they'd let it hit five argue the rational that THEY aren't killing the five but they would be killing the one given that they'd be flicking a switch causing the train to hit him.
Okay, let's say a diabolical villain tied them all to the tracks and forced you to decide. That's essentially the position this thought experiment is meant to put you in.
The real solution is to swing the lever back and forth really fast. If you're good enough you'll get the train to derail, and take out both tracks simultaneously. Double points for the win!
As a centrist and someone that values life I can say this, the problem will most likely never arrive where you are forced and directly responsible for people's death. It really isn't about morals but about "what did you do to try and stop it". If you were working a train yard and a train was barreling down the track and fixing to hit 5 people or turn it and hit one, the most logical explanation would be to try and force the train to de-rail. Only half turn the lever to where its in between the tracks then either the wheels get get caught and you throw the train off the rails, or the speed forces the train into one of two positions and fate decides which side gets hit. Therefore you can say "I did what I could to save everyone"
Even though the man on the below section of track isn't seemingly in danger, he is still standing directly on a railroad track, his death would in some sense still be his own fault of unawareness. The fat man on top of the bridge, however, is not in danger and could not be faulted for having been pushed off, his death would not directly correspond in scope to what would happen to the other man. Trains run on tracks, they don't suck people off of overhead bridges.
I refer you to the TV show THE GOOD PLACE. In that there's about a dozen variants of this problem, including whether or not the man on the bridge offers you bribe not to kill him! ;)
I would push the guy and change the lever only if I knew beforehand that pushing the fat man would 100% save the lives of the five people. Some people have been saying utilitarianism is immoral because it treats an individual as a number that has only one value. The reason I would push the person AND pull the lever is because the likelihood of any one of the five people being a 'valued person' is higher than just the one person. You can never be sure who is a more 'valued person' but the likelihood that you saved a valued person is obviously higher if you save five people rather than one. In all honesty I cannot be sure what I would do if faced with such a dilemma in REAL LIFE but I think the best solution is the one stated above provided I don't think over-instinctively and react irrationally due to stress.
I believe I have an answer to this... at least for why people will pull the lever and not push the fat man. When one pulls the lever, the immediate result is 5 people are saved. This can be called the "resulting action". The consequence of this is 1 person is killed, but this occurs after the resulting action, so it can be argued that this tragedy was not the responsibility of the operator, since he saved 5 lives FIRST. Furthermore, it can be argued that the railroad track and train are responsible for the death of one man, since the tracks were shaped towards him, and the train would not stop. This saturates the responsibility of the outcome more than just that of the operator. Now, when one pushes the fat man over the bridge, the resulting action is a murder. The consequence, which occurs AFTER the murder is that 6 people are saved. Since this occurred AFTER the murder though, the responsibility of the murder falls solely on the operator, not the railroad track, nor the train. I believe this is why the dilemma results are the way they are.
1 man dying after the track switch would still be an accident but pushing a man off the bridge would certainly be a murder. So there's my justification.
I would probably just pretend that I don't see anything. I could get branded as a murderer by letting any of them die but if it seemed like I didn't know, then no blame is rested upon me.
honestly depending on the distance, and the speed of the trolley, I would pull lever towards the one man. It's not a guarantee, but what if I pull the lever, and rush quickly to the man? If it was a dire situation, I would be panicking obviously, and choose the one guy. As for trauma it's unavoidable, and because of it the blame not upon you. It's upon the situation. Now, that's to say that a third possibility may occur, where I boost the probability of saving the one man's life. Of course nothing is guaranteed, but you see that shovel on the railroad? It's a possibility that the shovel can get stuck, in between the wheels of the trolley. That is, if I do objectively take notice to it before hand, and account how much time it takes for that shovel to get caught , and derail the trolley. This is all theoretical, and many derivatives can come into play if I knew what was going on. Say I'm a worker who has experience with railroads, and trolley's. Would that make a difference in the way I would handle things? Absolutely. So what I'm getting at is it depends on the person, and their reactions to live situations. To be honest though I'm more interested in how the process of something occurs though. The outcome is too inevitable, and absolute. The problem is what to accept. From the mind of free will, or at the hands of fate. That REALLY depends on the views you portray of course. But I won't get too far into that.
I was thinking that also! Also if I had time to run from my position from next to the switch to the bridge to push off a heavy person would I not also have enough time to get to the worker and pull him off the trails after switching the lever? There are too many circumstances that could be different if you just time things right.
The trouble with this is that people automatically put themselves in that position and of course hesitate to choose pushing the fat guy for a number of reasons. If the question was posed, but caveated with the fact that you could watch this video before the scenario and understand completely that the push would be successful, his bulk would stop the train and their would be no legal ramifications for you, then a lot more people would be willing to push him.
It’s like the kobayashi-maru test from Star Trek Do you go into the neutral zone to rescue the ship but violate a treaty possibly starting a war and have your vessel fired upon? Or do you stay out of the neutral zone and keep the treaty in tact but 381 people on that ship die In both cases the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
Who's here after watching the video of the toddler picking the guy on the first lane and placing him with the other five on the second lane and calmly run the train over the six people serving equality..
im here from quite the opposite, Nora instead put the other on with the 5 and went on the track that then had none
Me lol
no im watching the toddler that moves one to the track with five and goes on the empty track
Haha me
Communism
The alternative solution is to get the absolutely random dinosaur at :30 seconds to block the trolley.
Lol. I was also wondering what it was doing there
lmao
Holy fuck, how did I miss the dinosaur?!
It's Gertie the Dinosaur, one of the earliest animated films in keeping with the video's theme of silent film.
Patrick Clarkin its Diego Brando obviously
Tokyo drift and get all 6. Make it 7 by jumping in front.
LMAO
I wonder if you know, how they live in Tokyo
hats off
@@justinkomninos608 r/woooosh
based
Here's what you do, walk away and pretend you never saw anything.
Albert Camus "The Fall" - the famous bridge dillema - or no dillema at all:-)
If sound hasn’t been invented then the only way to pin you there would be witnesses considering there aren’t any cameras or DNA technology
So option 1
I know who used to caboose. Parking lot.. now there's a shitload of brakes and bullshit to tend to and I am trying to learn English, not French. Bitch!
Pffft. Imagine that happening in the world of smart phones.
The Psychology behind this is that switching a lever makes the act of sacrificing one life for five indirect. Pushing the man however, requires touch directly with the one we are sacrificing, and that touch activates a different part of our brain responsible for dealing with emotions.
Swek Trek i dont see how it is indirect. You are pulling the fucking lever, youre killing that man.
No, you can't yell. God I hate people who make up a 3rd scenario with all my soul.
But yeah, I also would not intervene. The dilema is not a dilema at all: the guy alone hasn't done anything wrong. I don't see who gave me the right to kill him.
To me, it's the exact same scenario as this one: A car with 5 people is going to crash, has no brakes. You know if you push the guy next to you in front of the car you'll save the 5 people. Would you do that, just because 5>1? No, it's retarded.
I think people do not choose to push the man on the bridge because his life was not at risk at any point. it is similar to adding a new variable to an equation.Whereas the six workers on the track were always part of the situation
@@076657 You are still killing 5 people who have done nothing wrong, choosing not to do something it´s still a desition
Que Te Importa no, it’s not a decision. Since when a person who doesn’t work there is supposed to decide where trains go?
why is Charlie Chaplin working on the train in the first place?
Angelo G. Or the Three Stooges.
Or Laurel and Hardy... and why are we Harold Lloyd?
Jazzkeyboardist1: "another FINE mess" And the "narrator" is Max Sennet And the best option of diverting the train would have been in the hands of "Curly" and we know how that would turn out. So we also know that Stan Laurel would easily have pushed Olley (Oliver Hardy) over the bridge without knowing whether it would solve the problem or not. But is that Dino "Flintstone" and is everyone ignoring the fact that the car on the track is a "sleeper" and is not powered on its own so it really isn't a threat.
Respect the hustle
he just escaped prison
My school did a debate on this. One person said that he wouldn't do anything, and kill the 5 people. His reasoning was that if you do something, whether that's pulling a lever or pushing someone, you're killing someone intentionally, whether it's done directly, or indirectly. So choosing to do something would make you a murderer, even though pushing someone off a bridge sounds more like a murderer. I thought that his idea was understandable. After the debate, we talked about that this can be referred as a false dichotomy. This trolley problem is a good debate topic.
A fairly common argument. However, we must face the fact that, morally, doing nothing is just as consequential as doing something. If you fail to save the drowning man when you could easily do so, aren't you just as guilty as the guy who pushed him into the river? It's a difficult problem to think about.
Incidentally, as far as the Trolley Problem is concerned choosing to do something would not be 'murder' as you state; the law recognizes extreme mitigating circumstances. Oddly enough, you might be considered more liable to prosecution if you fail to act.
I'm glad to read that your teachers are facilitating this sort of debate with you; it's a very valuable thought experiment to experience.
@@ClarkKant1 To answer your first question: no. In addition, you'd have to risk your own life to save a drowning person.
To your second point, you're obviously wrong. Unless you have any cases which support this ridiculous assertion.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 so you're brain can't think of another hypothetical to combat your arguement? Wow sad. So bascailly you're saying you would slap a falling pot that would hurt you or your hand to save a baby that was about to be crushed because it's causing you to act. . . That's bascially the arguement. Even though you're already involved in the situation your friend is trying to falsely distance himself from responsibility even though both are equal in being responsible for those deaths. Inaction is still action. Bringing the law into this is pointless tbh. I understand because it will influence emotions and actions strongly. But either way your buddies point is really weak.
@@ClarkKant1Terrible analogy, saving or don't saving someone from drowning is different from the trolley problem, because the trolley problem is all about sacrificing a life for "the greater good or choosing to not do so", while this drowning situation is about saving or not saving someone without the cost of other lives. Different situation entirely.
@@funkyreapercat5280 You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that action and inaction can have similar consequences, and they're often morally equivalent. If you fail to act when you could have and someone dies, aren't you morally as responsible as someone who kills another person? Your choice caused a person's death. Getting tied up in numbers of people is a blind alley.
Of course, the real issue here is that the vast majority of people when they encounter the Trolley Problem can only think in two dimensions: they go on and on about "maybe I could jam a log into the tracks..." and totally miss the point of the problem. It's a thought-experiment, designed to make us confront the methods by which we arrive at moral decisions. We are led to believe that morality is black and white, right and wrong. The trolley problem forces us to re-evaluate that assumption, and then maybe think about other moral questions with a new perspective.
And on a related matter... the plural of 'life' is 'LIVES,' not 'lifes.' A small thing I know, but it speaks to credibility.
Thanks for the explanation, Principal Skinner!
LMAO
Had to scroll way too far to find this comment
Guys - there was never any 'solution' to this problem! The point of the exercise is to make us think about the MORALITY of the situation. It's a MORAL dilemma, not a practical one. If your mind immediately goes to "maybe I can shout to them to get off the track!" you're missing the point, and should go check out the amusing cat videos. As members of any society we need to consider situations in which our actions, however well-meaning, have consequences: and we must weigh our moral choices in response to those situations (and in this we might treat action and inaction as equivalent). There isn't meant to be a 'solution' to this problem. It worries me that so many people, when confronted with a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT such as this, are unable to THINK about it and appreciate the moral complexity of the real world to which the example alludes.
Many of the commenters here seem to think that they must come up with a solution. These same people would no doubt propose stealing the cat from the box when Schrödinger isn't looking! Thought experiments seek to distill the essence of a problem, so that we can think about the ways in which we behave in the more complex world around us. For example, one of the interesting facets of the problem is that it forces us to consider notions of action versus inaction, and realize that in many situations, these two apparent opposites are morally equivalent. We make utilitarian decisions all the time - weighing the 'least harm' options. The Trolley Problem forces us to see those consequentialist decisions for what they frequently are: selfish, callous and arbitrary choices based on very little information and made with no real knowledge of what the ramifications might be.
Which is why people also fail to see how this problem is actually a real life problem too for autonomous cars. People want to act like there is a solution, but in reality, there is no truly desirable outcome, only an outcome with consequences and rewards.
It also comes into play with the Coronavirus. We have to ask ourselves, which group do we want to sacrifice, those that are at risk, or those that need to work. People will die in both situations, it's undeniable that you cannot save everyone, but who should we allow to die.
You sound like an incel
What would you do Kent?
Yes! Thank you! And honestly, some of the comments feel too "troll-like" in nature. Why must be the world seem filled with great idiocy?
dude thanks you saved my homework
If they are on the middle of a railway line and they died is pure darwinism.
Then you should build/repair railroad remotely,right.
Hmmm
Good thing Darwinism is bullshit
I mean, they might be able to tell that the train is coming by the vibrations or noise. In which case, if they didn’t move that’s Darwinism in action.
And to any anti-evolution believers... trust me, Darwinism is a real thing, and if it causes you lot to die trying to prove it otherwise by, say, jumping off a bridge believing some invisible sky daddy will catch you... you’ve proved my point.
@@gryphonarthur-kiss5006 elaborate?
If they insist on standing on some rails while trains are still operating, there's nothing you can do about that. People are responsible for their own choices
(Natural Selection)
As you are responsible of your choices, so you switch or not?
Inaction is your choice too..
You didn't want to feel responsible? too bad. YOU ARE.
If a person doesn't have the same way of thinking as you, they won't feel responsible.
Now that I think about it, that is another way to look at it.
im sure others said the same thing but I'm not going to read a bunch of comments. However, I would do nothing. If I pull the switch, I am causing death. That makes me responsible and will land me jail time. If I do nothing, I am nothing but a witness to a terrible accident.
And then the thought of actively letting 5 people die by inactivity weighs on your conscious forever :]
PokeTsuna better than having big bubba make you his bitch in prison
whether that weighs more than manslaughter is debatable and dependent on perspective. In my opinions, I would rather feign ignorance than hold responsibility. That is, I would redirect the train, but deny rational though based on imminent threat and instinct.
@@MakeMakoGreatAgain much better than the thought of murdering someone to save others.
There's a kid solve the problem, instead of switching the track, the kid put the one man along with 5 men, and the train kill them all
Psychopath in a nutshell xD
Population control!
But there is also a girl who fought not to kill anybody and so she was ready to throw herself before the train to save the others! And she has just 20 000 views...
multitrackdrifting
and kill 6 for double points
BEST COMMENT OF 2K17 YOU MIGHT NOT SEE THIS BUT THIS IS GOD TIER THX YOU XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
No one really puts a heart here....
So you watched that video too
Man... those illustrations using silent film era stars are spot on. I love it.
my perspective on the trolley problem is when the question is presented you were chosen as a (hero) that you need to save either 5 people or 1 but what you did not see is you are not a hero becuase it is a choice between you being a witness to an accident or you becoming a murderer. If you switch the leaver you would become a murderer because you are the reason why that single person died but when you do nothing and watch the five people die you just become a witness to an accident.
❤ Thank you
I honestly have no idea how I would react of this actually were to happen. Probably freeze up in fear (telling myself to do something) and regret not doing anything for the rest of my life. Because I don't handle myself well under pressure, if I'm being honest. However, I would like to think that since the track with only one person is closer to me, he would have a better chance of hearing me when I yell "GET OFF THE TRACK" and then pull the lever. But then again, there are many flaws in this plan. I don't know what I'd do if the tracks were reversed and the 5 people were closer. Honestly I really don't know so I probably shouldn't be commenting.
There is no saving everyone. In order for this to be a dilemma, someone must die...
Hint: What do you do after you’ve wronged someone?
I think by touching the Lever no matter the situation, is failing the test .I think the true test is To Let nature run its course It's wrong for us to decide where to direct what is the natural , who are we to dictate who lives and dies that is not our right . Its always the Human reaction to want to change/have some control over what we think is right and wrong or the dosage of death we or others can handle , we measure Our value in Death and that is as unatural as pulling the lever . Life isn't about what you deserve it's a collective Experience shared by all forms of life no matter our decisions or walks of life .4 example Killing someone is killing apart of yourself .
Me personally, imma travel at light speed and bring that one person to the 5 dudes, run a train on all if them😀😀😀
there's so many wrong things with your comment lmao.
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood Trolley taught me the trolley problem since childhood. Now, as an adult, I'm learning the trolley problem at a different level. :)
Did he really do an episode with the trolley problem, or are you joking? I loved Mr. Rogers and remember his awesome train layout/diorama very well, but my 2 to 4-year-old brain definitely couldn't comprehend this problem - and I was undoubtedly playing with my toys and/or eating while watching it. I'm curious now though; did he really do an example of this?
Absolutly beautiful illustration of that philosophical problem
I asked my dad this question and myself. Both our choices was don’t push the man off, and the train will kill the single dude. My reasoning was that it has nothing to do with me and best outcome. My dad’s was that we don’t value them as people at that point, we value them as lives. 4 lives win over 1 and involving the man from the bridge would be in the same outcome of killing only 1 person, just that we’d be murderers in that case
The juxtaposition in your answers is interesting! One little thing though, the train would kill 5 people if you didn't push the man
You would a murderer in both cases. You switched it and that person died because of your action. Saving lives cannot justify you from killing people
@@daviddong9916 …which is why some say they'd do nothing, because regardless of what you do in this situation, you're a murderer - thus not _doing_ anything preserves one's own _personal_ morality.
My question is this: Do the five workers know that they can get hit by the trolley? If they are workers they should know to ONLY work on a track while it is not active or know when to look to move out of the way at least. Without this information, I'll assume they are negligent and say that they deserve the fate they get.
If they did not know (I.E: The track was scheduled to be inactive during that time), and I knew this at the time, then I would switch, as it is 5 > 1.
I like how BBC has some obscure intriguing videos on random topics. never to be known otherwise. almost hard to make up your mind but you know you want to watch. thank you
If the trolley doesn't see the people and it plans on going forward, it probably has a greater speed than if it was going to turn. And the average person has limited knowledge of train tracks or switches. So pulling the lever could potentially derail the trolley, in which case one might not only injure/kill the initial 5 victims but also some of the passengers on the trolley or even other passengers not on the track. Don't get involved if the problem might require knowledge you don't possess. You may only make things worse.
People would rather pull a lever over pushing someone for the simple reason that the lever distanced themselves from the outcome: the death is farther away, and you would feel less guilt doing so.
This is the same reason we have internet fights at such a magnitude of animosity towards one another.
"Help ! A train is going to kill us !"
"What do you want from me ? I can only sing you a song !" (cit.)
Only for italians people😂
The difference between the 2 scenarios is that:
A) one is hands on killing of a person, which is unsettling.
B) pushing the person is not going to stop the trolly anyway, so it's adding a death.
I 1st heard this and the 2nd scenario was said to be a boulder (mistakenly), to which a really heavy person may/might stop the boulder.
It's a good thought experiment, but they would be a lot variables in a real life scenario. Workers can see the trolley coming, while you can't warn them there're others that might, pushing a large man in front of it might not stop the trolley.
The clarity and depth of this content are impressive. A book with related subjects enriched my cognitive skills. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
I bet that many people change their answer because, if this was a realistic scenario, the fallen man might not stop the trolley. So you have a chance of turning the death count from 5 to 6. If you redid the test with different wording, the answers might change. I'm sure that the point the "pushing" scenario was trying to measure is whether the pushing is seen as more intimate/evil/culpable/violent of an act than pulling a lever, but the question introduced a new variable (whether the trolley would really stop).
Another reason might be prison, you go to fckn jail for that shit
just get the dinosaur at 0:30
I think the trolley problem presupposes that the giant man's bulk is capable of stopping the train.
I agree with your reasoning that the wording needs changed to somehow pushing the man off the bridge would have the same level of certainty as flipping the switch. I’d assume I’d flip the switch; but, I may possibly also push the man off the bridge but only if I went with him so our combined size would further make certain the train stops. First, however, I’d try just yelling at all the people to get off the tracks.
What some people don't realize is that a person's inaction IS action. Simply standing there knowing you could have saved the 5 lives is just as bad as pulling the lever if the number of people on the two tracks were switched.
killing someone by inaction is... better in my view than killing someone by action
killing 5 people isnt worse than killing one
lorderik237 EXACTLY. Not pulling the lever is as much an active decision as is deciding to pull it.
what's worse? standing by whilst someone drowns someone or being the person drowning that someone?
you could easily help people in third world countries, does the fact that you don't mean you're a murderer? i would say not
Your drowning example has a totally different structure to the trolley problem hence you can't apply the same logic to it. Lorderick237 is responding to the problem from a utilitarianist perspective - since it is a problem of ethics. This is obviously far above you.
it's not that different
either you kill someone or you let people die, exactly like in my scenario
one life isn't worth less than five
these comments are extremely interesting. this is the first time i've ever agreed with so many opposing views at once.
A runaway train is heading towards five workers on a railway line. There is no way of warning. But your standing near a lever that operates the points. Switch the points and the train goes down the spur. trouble is there's another worker on that bit of track too. but it is one fatality instead of five. should you do that. Many people think the right thing to would be to switch the points. to sacrifice one to save five. since that produces the best outcome possible. now imagine the train heading to the workers again. this time it can only be stopped by pushing a very large man of a bridge. his great balk would stop the train. but he died. should you do that. most people say no. but why not. both thought experiments are cases of sacrificing one to save five. what the trolley problem examines is whether moral decisions are simply about outcomes or about the manner in which you achieve them. some utilitarians argued that the two cases are not importantly different from each other both have similar consequences. consequences are all that really matter. each case one person dies and five are saved. the best option in each harrowing situation. but lots of people say they would switch the points but they wouldn't push the man of the bridge. are they simply inconsistent or are they onto something.
Yeah I too don't understand this inconsistency
If there are 5 workers on the railroad line, they should be able to at least hear the train or see it coming (at least one should). It wouldn't be hard for them to get off the rail (it takes like 2 or less seconds).
The video applies that we must choose between saving these people in a situation where they technically can save themselves if they realize what is going on (Hey, I hear/see a train coming, we should get off the rails and let it pass). A good worker is aware of their surroundings (through sight, smell, sound, etc).
We can try to save the 5 workers (or lone worker as well), but in the end it really comes down to whether or not THEY realized a train was coming down the railroad. (I understand the main idea of the scenario being brought up, but logically people are smarter than to just sit on the rails when a train is coming, even without a warning. 2 seconds is all it takes).
Possible solutions? Pull the lever, the train will go towards the 1 guy. Chances are the guy will hear/see the train and get out of the way. Everyone gets saved. (P.s, why even bother pushing off the big guy, let him do his own thing).
It saids on the video thar sound wasnt invented yet tho..
@@angels-haudenschild7791 Ah, yep, they did say that. (Which is an unrealistic scenario nonetheless, not sure how their world functions without sound too. [Like how they got their jobs or many other things that would more than likely require sound because communication is practically needed]. They still have their eyesight, at least 1 worker should have seen it coming).
Then again, this video is meant to bring about an extreme example. The solutions or actions suggested in the video are meant to be your only options, but realistically that isn't the case.
(But yes, you are right. In their world, sound ceases to exist until it is "invented.")
“Would you push the man off the bridge”
Me: looks like your going to the shadow realm jimbo
The simple fact is that the one guy down the railway might just notice the train and run away - whereas if you would push a heavy guy off the bridge for the purpose of stopping the train you are making a sacrifice on purpose, essentially killing a man. It is more unlikely that he would be able to withstand the fall and not hurt himself so that he could get away from the train, further damning to your actions.
Who put me in charge of the lever in the first place? I'm completely unqualified for such a thing.
This video reminds me of variations of the Milgram experiment - where, when people could see the subjects they felt more guilt and wouldn't obey as easily. Pushing someone off the bridge makes you feel more directly responsible for their death.
I wonder if the reason is because when you are pulling a lever, it’s different to PUSHING someone down to their deaths. Pulling a simple lever doesn’t feel as if you are doing something immediately wrong at the time and usually doesn’t make you think of what you are doing at first, maybe leaving the horrible guilt and realisation of what you have done for the end.
I think most people would choose to pull the lever because they can't help thinking of it as merely risking one life instead of five. After all you can't know for sure if they'll die until they die. While pushing the dude in front of the trolley is certainly murder or attempted murder
0:17 'you can't shout because sound hasn't been invented yet'
THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS
I also noticed that
I don't get your point. When gravity wasn't ' invented ' , everyone was just floating in air , right...?
he better said that all are deaf
I believe this was a joke related to the fact that many of the famous people depicted in the animation are from the silent film era.
Thank you, Principle Skinner.
"Well obviously, the dillema is clear; how do you kill all 6 people?" -Michael from The Good Place
The reason for it is that, when you push a man off the bridge, he has no way to avoid dying, or getting seriously hurt at least. Whereas, when one has the option to direct the runaway trolley to the one man, he is given a better deal, where he can possibly notice it and get aside.
For the purpose of most versions of the exercise, the people on the tracks can’t move.
Not the point. SMH gheez people can't think. . . Sad days
If you pull the lever, there's still a chance the single worker could get off the track in time, so you would save 5, but the lone worker may still survive.
But pushing someone off the bridge, you're dooming him to death.
Not the point. You missed it be a million miles.
Disturbed by the amount of people who overlook the fact that once you pull the lever you become a murderer.
Either option will result in death. Are you less of a murderer because you didn't switch the lever? If the deaths could have been prevented by your decision and you failed to decide, is that just as wrong? Is that still murder? Quite interesting for sure.
yeah if you're right beside the level not pulling it could be considered complacency where you basically murder 5 people by doing nothing.. not trying to weigh to either side... this problem is made to tickle all areas of the brain considering wtf is ethical
@@jesusantispray i wouldn’t pull the lever. Because not doing anything isn’t the same as actively killing someone. Judging the value of human life by using numbers I horrible in my opinion and makes us less human
@@jesusantispray you obviously do not know the definition of murder.
No you don't. It wouldn't be considered murder by any legitimate system of law.
I shouldn't be watching stuff like this just before i go to bed, i have trouble sleeping now lol... Carl
In any moral dilemma, it's important to think about your own morality, think about how YOU (not other people) would weigh the value of each subject. Only then you could see the right answer.
Ex: In this case: do nothing (a), save 1 & kill 5 (b), save 5 & kill 1 (c). Choose a, or b, or c. Skip to the end for a single sentence solution.
I (myself only) would experience a negative feeling much larger; when I choose (a), compared to all the consequences from individual (b), or (c). So, I (others may not) put (a) out of the equation.
Between (b), and (c). To be honest, in case all of them are strangers; I feel like killing 1 or 5 has no significant difference. But the thing that affects my decision is that compensating for 1 family is easier than 5. So, (c) death to the one guy this will be.
In the case of one fat guy, I would say "Even if the guy is replaced with a big rock, I still wouldn't push it." That is way too much "work" compared to compensating for up to 99 families.
If any of these people is a person that I value different, the answer may vary.
If you can end a day saying I do not regret it, I would say "you made the right choice".
For anyone who is wondering, the people are based on real famous silent film era comedians:
The man sitting on the train at the top of the screen is Buster Keaton. The train is from his 1926 film The General.
I'm not sure who the man sitting in the train cab is.
The two men on the bridge are Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.
The three men on the track near the bridge are The Three Stooges: Curly, Moe and Larry.
The man next to them holding the mallet is Ben Turpin.
The man on his knees is Lloyd Hamilton.
The lone man on the other track is Charlie Chaplin.
The man with the glasses is Harold Lloyd.
(The three people on the platform with names below them are well-known philosophers.)
I'm not sure who the other two men on the platform are, the man with the moustache might be Chester Conklin?
The dinosaur is from a 1914 animation called Gertie the Dinosaur.
There are several other famous silent film comedians, but I can't match them for sure to the three questionable ones. Any ideas?
I would shout to the one worker to move out of the way and then pull the lever, Ez saved them all
but shout is not yet invented it says
Imagining that this is narrated by Principal Skinner makes it that much better.
When you had the option to push someone else down on the track to stop the train you could instead do like Black Widow and Hawkeye and fight each other for the honor of sacrificing yourself.
The answer is hope, if you pushed the man off the bridge he would have no chance to save himself if the directed the train towards the the guy on the track he would have a chance. Even if the outcome in this scenario is locked, hope still prevails
Another way to pose the trolley problem is this: would you be able to live knowing that you let 5 people die, or knowing that you're the cause of someone's death?
Edit: shit my bad english is showing i meant rather, not be able to, fuck.
I'd rather have the situation in which 1 people die because of my action than 5 people die because of my inaction
Love the artwork! Made me want to keep watching
lmao
I think it would be morally wrong to get involved in both cases. The problem with utilitarianism (in my eyes) is that it fails to differentiate events happening naturally and human hand in things. If the train runs over the five workers it may be tragic, but no one can truly be said to be responsible, but as soon as you flip the switch you are directly responsible for killing the sixth worker. If you fail to see the difference between things unfolding naturally, and human action; imagine you're a hostage negotiator talking to a group of terrorists. The terrorists say they'll free five of the hostages if you give them a civilian. Would you consider it moral to put another innocent person in danger to save a greater number?
Beautifully animated
Surely they could hear the train coming.
Why don't they just...get out the way?
Deaf
very well animated.
The problem is the problem it really comes down to ur moral aspect cuz no one can judge whats right n wrong in this situation
At an acting class I took, I was asked to make a film in which I play a man who is about to commit suicide. Since being dumped or losing someone seemed to clise to me I went for something more complex: not wanting to live with the guilt for the choice made in the trolley problem. So here's the trolley problem I created for my character:
A helicopter gunship pilot is assigned to providing cover for a team trying to capture a terrorist leader. Suddenly the team is ambushed by several terrorists shooting rocked and heavy machine guns. The other gunships are shot down and the protagonist's co-pilot is also killed by machinegun fire, leaving the protagonist as the only gunship pilot still in the battle. Now that the terrorist gave away their position he can easily level the building from which the terrorist are shooting before more of his teammates are killed. But here's where the trolley (helicopter in this case) problem comes in: The building is a school filled with children. What's the right thing do here:
1. Kill the terrorists and the children
2. Let the soldiers die and the terrorists escape (and kill even more people in the future) but give the children a chance to live.
The character of course makes the worst decision: he hesitates and 2 transport helicopters are shot down killing over 20 soldiers and only then he fires rockets at the building, killing everyone inside.
It's things like this that the trolley problem really about, not literal careless people standing on the tracks.
With the way switches work, if you throw it only halfway, the trolley may derail and possibly not kill anyone.
Not sure how trolleys work, but what if you pull the lever and while the trolley is passing, find a way to have the lever cause the tracks to return their original position?. It will cause the trolley to derail and may mean all lives can be saved.
There is an old saying, *"The needs of the few are the survival of the many."* .
@Yeetdatshulker1 um, sure.
"five of them can stop it, nothing's stronger than family"
- vin diesel
What kind of psychological horror is this? My brain is fucked i need more of this.
How I think about it is you are voluntarily pushing the man over deciding his fate . But the guy that’s on the railroad track was already placed there . But either way I’m deciding his fate . Damn this is hard .
My solution: Yell as loud as you can to the five people then go full speed towards them , They might live if they're fast enough
Check if the single person is aware of the situation. If they are, pull the lever: They have a better chance of running away on time than the 5 people who have no clue (If they had a clue they would have ran already)
I wonder can we warn the one person and then switch the lever?
I wouldn't touch the switch, because then I have made an active choice to kill someone, valuing 5 lives over 1.
The lever really is no different from pushing the fat man, except you do it from a distance, but either way it is still your action that kills the single person.
If the people on the tracks are random strangers, how could you measure their lives worth?
For me the quantity is unimportant, it is my action or lack of action which is important.
*****
How is choosing to kill one over 5
or 5 over one a heroic act?
it could be if there were specifics, such as
"the one is a murderer, hated by everyone"
but this scenario isn't easy like that.
I guess there is no "moral" decision for me.
Because If I do something, the act will be immoral.
+Khaz Goroth But if you choose not to do something you are ignoring the act on your consent thereby you are letting 5 person die so yeah....Its not a heroic act to kill one over 5 but it is the logical one.
Ok so lets increase the number of lives at stake. How far are you willing to go? Are you similarly unqualified to make a value judgement on the lives of 20 people? 100? 1 million? Tell me when it becomes immoral to just stand there like a dunce and not pull that switch.
It never becomes immoral
Demi Urgos Well at least you are consistent
it depends. do I get into trouble if I act? If I am a random bystander, than I have no responsibility over any of the things that are happening, hence cannot be taken accountable for not taking any action
+ferdzso To solve this "problem" with the problem, there's a variant where you are the conductor of the train, rather than a random bystander, and you're the only person who can redirect the train.
Simple. People feel disconnected from the consequences of an action if they just have to interact with a lever. But if you have to physically push someone off a bridge and murder them. The act becomes more connected to you. In short, the more an action with a morally bad consequence is disconnected from an individual, the easier it gets. Just like a lever in fact. Your Morales are like a lever, if you grab closer to the bottom of the lever it's harder to switch, but at the other end it's a lot easier. The only difference between people is where pivot point is.
Yes. Good points.
A good explanation of the problem!
A good explanation is there ain't no moral understanding of hell
These days most people would just get their phone out and record what happens.
I mean, if you have the time to push a man down the railway, and the time to switch the lever, why wouldn't you have the time to shout at the lone man while switching the lever? Then maybe the lone man can just directly jump out of the way. In that case wouldn't there be the slightest possible chance to save all of them if they were fast enough, and grab that slightest bit of possibility?
Autopreloading detector
I think there will never be a solution to this problem. Deciding whether you should save one’s life or saving the life of the other five, is both evil. A person’s inaction is action. Even if you only let 1 person die, you would still bring the guilt for the rest of your life. You will tell yourself that you should have done everything. But what is there to choose if there’s nothing good about the situation? We must weigh our moral choices according to this situation. Simply standing there knowing you could’ve saved the 5 lives is just as bad as switching the number of people on the two tracks. But if I really have to choose, I would choose not to pull the lever because I would kill someone who didn’t even do anything wrong. I would not want to put his life in my hands. We can’t really distinguish the good from the bad but we can weigh our moral choices.
what if the only way of saving those people would it be you sacrificing yourself? and if you choose not to would it be consider as a bad thing?
You could just put some leaves on the line. That'll stop it.
I am so amazed to the last question in this video😅.
If they're standing on the rails, it's not your responsibility to begin with. You aren't letting them die; they're killing themselves.
You clearly didn't pay attention if that's all you got out of this
Well ye but that's why it's a problem to start with. People who say they'd let it hit five argue the rational that THEY aren't killing the five but they would be killing the one given that they'd be flicking a switch causing the train to hit him.
Okay, let's say a diabolical villain tied them all to the tracks and forced you to decide. That's essentially the position this thought experiment is meant to put you in.
And if there fixing the tracks??? hmm
Joe Lackey exactly
The real solution is to swing the lever back and forth really fast. If you're good enough you'll get the train to derail, and take out both tracks simultaneously. Double points for the win!
Did you ever move tracks like this with a lever. Do you know from first hand that it can be done fast or is it a conjecture?
As a centrist and someone that values life I can say this, the problem will most likely never arrive where you are forced and directly responsible for people's death. It really isn't about morals but about "what did you do to try and stop it". If you were working a train yard and a train was barreling down the track and fixing to hit 5 people or turn it and hit one, the most logical explanation would be to try and force the train to de-rail. Only half turn the lever to where its in between the tracks then either the wheels get get caught and you throw the train off the rails, or the speed forces the train into one of two positions and fate decides which side gets hit. Therefore you can say "I did what I could to save everyone"
error 1: "1 dead is better than 5"
error 2: "you have to interact"
just dont do anything and you stay free of guilt
Even though the man on the below section of track isn't seemingly in danger, he is still standing directly on a railroad track, his death would in some sense still be his own fault of unawareness. The fat man on top of the bridge, however, is not in danger and could not be faulted for having been pushed off, his death would not directly correspond in scope to what would happen to the other man. Trains run on tracks, they don't suck people off of overhead bridges.
Also the fat man doesn't know anything, he's innocent then you're morally evil-like going to push him to the tracks to stop the train
You're more evil when u do that, So I'll just let the fat man live and then go switch for the 1 man track
I like the detail of the engine in the background that doesn't do anything and is there for the looks
Heck, no way am I killing Charlie Chaplin. As far as the others are concerned, off with their heads!
I refer you to the TV show THE GOOD PLACE. In that there's about a dozen variants of this problem, including whether or not the man on the bridge offers you bribe not to kill him! ;)
The workers will know the train is coming hence they will move out of the way by themselves. People are smart.
Thanks Chidi, now i can go to the good place.
I would push the guy and change the lever only if I knew beforehand that pushing the fat man would 100% save the lives of the five people. Some people have been saying utilitarianism is immoral because it treats an individual as a number that has only one value. The reason I would push the person AND pull the lever is because the likelihood of any one of the five people being a 'valued person' is higher than just the one person. You can never be sure who is a more 'valued person' but the likelihood that you saved a valued person is obviously higher if you save five people rather than one.
In all honesty I cannot be sure what I would do if faced with such a dilemma in REAL LIFE but I think the best solution is the one stated above provided I don't think over-instinctively and react irrationally due to stress.
+Anukrit Lamichhane I think your reasons are sound and make perfect sense.
Okay, would you still feel the same if that one person was your son, daughter, mother or father?
I believe I have an answer to this... at least for why people will pull the lever and not push the fat man. When one pulls the lever, the immediate result is 5 people are saved. This can be called the "resulting action". The consequence of this is 1 person is killed, but this occurs after the resulting action, so it can be argued that this tragedy was not the responsibility of the operator, since he saved 5 lives FIRST. Furthermore, it can be argued that the railroad track and train are responsible for the death of one man, since the tracks were shaped towards him, and the train would not stop. This saturates the responsibility of the outcome more than just that of the operator. Now, when one pushes the fat man over the bridge, the resulting action is a murder. The consequence, which occurs AFTER the murder is that 6 people are saved. Since this occurred AFTER the murder though, the responsibility of the murder falls solely on the operator, not the railroad track, nor the train. I believe this is why the dilemma results are the way they are.
This guy sounds like the priest from the simpsons
1 man dying after the track switch would still be an accident but pushing a man off the bridge would certainly be a murder. So there's my justification.
I would probably just pretend that I don't see anything. I could get branded as a murderer by letting any of them die but if it seemed like I didn't know, then no blame is rested upon me.
"if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
Just put your hood up, do it and run away.
honestly depending on the distance, and the speed of the trolley, I would pull lever towards the one man. It's not a guarantee, but what if I pull the lever, and rush quickly to the man? If it was a dire situation, I would be panicking obviously, and choose the one guy. As for trauma it's unavoidable, and because of it the blame not upon you. It's upon the situation. Now, that's to say that a third possibility may occur, where I boost the probability of saving the one man's life. Of course nothing is guaranteed, but you see that shovel on the railroad? It's a possibility that the shovel can get stuck, in between the wheels of the trolley. That is, if I do objectively take notice to it before hand, and account how much time it takes for that shovel to get caught , and derail the trolley. This is all theoretical, and many derivatives can come into play if I knew what was going on. Say I'm a worker who has experience with railroads, and trolley's. Would that make a difference in the way I would handle things? Absolutely. So what I'm getting at is it depends on the person, and their reactions to live situations. To be honest though I'm more interested in how the process of something occurs though. The outcome is too inevitable, and absolute. The problem is what to accept. From the mind of free will, or at the hands of fate. That REALLY depends on the views you portray of course. But I won't get too far into that.
I was thinking that also! Also if I had time to run from my position from next to the switch to the bridge to push off a heavy person would I not also have enough time to get to the worker and pull him off the trails after switching the lever? There are too many circumstances that could be different if you just time things right.
The trouble with this is that people automatically put themselves in that position and of course hesitate to choose pushing the fat guy for a number of reasons.
If the question was posed, but caveated with the fact that you could watch this video before the scenario and understand completely that the push would be successful, his bulk would stop the train and their would be no legal ramifications for you, then a lot more people would be willing to push him.
I'd video call my brother as he has a morbid sense of humour and would love to see this !
I pull the lever of train track towards the people who are wearing red coloured dress, so train stops by seeing colour red or colour white😉
Bro right
a train cant stop though..
It’s like the kobayashi-maru test from Star Trek
Do you go into the neutral zone to rescue the ship but violate a treaty possibly starting a war and have your vessel fired upon?
Or do you stay out of the neutral zone and keep the treaty in tact but 381 people on that ship die
In both cases the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one
Bruh just switch the tracks and then switch them back so the train comes off the tracks.
Then everyone on the train dies... Is it better?
Antton Korhonen
They might survive
I love bbc
Radio 4🤓☝️