It literally says in the video that the five workers cannot escape. The only real question is, if they tracks are close enough and the one worker can literally see the other five, why isn't he over there trying to untie them, letting you flip the switch?
a. Save 5 workers but kill one worker b. Save 1 worker but kill 5 workers c. Rigourously flip switch back and forth and dislodge train from tracks, running the risk of killing 20 but saving 6
Alex Qwertyuiop, they won’t tell you that the five people are criminals or the one worker is a law-abiding citizen when making the choice. Only after making the choice.
And then all of them are half dead and half alive when you haven't looked, and then maybe you could save 3 people in average, and 6 at best luck. Ps: I know it seems wrong but doesn't it sound convincing?
@@arkice1937 agreed also I have a question for you 3 people are trapped on a rail With a speeding train if you pull the lever to change the direction of the train it will run over a button instead that has a 5% chance of seting off a nuclear bomb what do you do?
Clever answer, and realistically what you would do (and you're joking so it's cool). But, easy answers like that avoid the point of the question. Think hard and question why you would pick one or the other. And if you can't decide, well, think as to why and how that impacts who you are.
But then won't it be called as mass murder. Idk how the court works but as far as i know a human or one person is capable of mass murder. So it can be proved as that .
Well... I think if you just "asked" a person if they would do it, some would say yes. To sound holy or to impress. But in an actual situation? *No* human would ever sacrifice himself. Unless he was Jesus of course... Or just nuts.
Plus it isn't immediately obvious and hard to picture having a fat man being able to stop a train, while a switch that switches the tracks is easier to picture.
Vokainodragon l Road to 100 FUCKIN YELL AYE GET THE HELL OUT THE WAY A TROLLEY IS COMIN BTW if don't work then yeah go super saiyn and go KAMEHHAAAAA FUCKIN BREAK THE TRAIN
Fun Fact: If you let the trains drive into the 5 people, it wouldn’t count as murder since it was bound to happen anyways. If you turn the cart into that one person, it would technically count as murder, since it was caused by you, whether the intention was good or not. Personally, I would just act like I didn’t notice the lever and rush in to try and do something, as if I was panicking. Edit: You guys have really enlightened me as to how wrong I was. From now on, I firmly believe in moving the train to kill one person then stomping the other five people to death.
Yea sure but it’ll also be explainable if you let the 1 person die instead of the 5. I can’t live the rest of my life knowing I could’ve saved 5 lives by sacrificing just 1. That’s just me.
I love that the animator sometimes animates simple 2d, sometimes animates smooth 3d, and sometimes realistic stuff like the heart and the hand. It’s cool.
Anomen that's an angle I never considered. I was thinking of being apathetic or too concerned with ones own consequences (self interest) to make a decision but I see your point.
a lot of people would do that in reality, because no one wants to be responsible for a death. What they don't realise is that if you did nothing and watched, you would still be responsable, but of the 5 deaths - because it was in your power to flick the switch. Its the same logic as say, a cameraman filming torture is as guilty as the one inflicting the torture. Doing nothing does not protect you from your responsability as a human being!
I think its also a demonstration of "gut instinct". I realize this is not a proper or professional term but we are often told to trust it. I think our subconscious can often assemble past experiences and tell us what it the right thing to do while our conscious mind cannot define why.
i will forever stand by the answer of leaving the lever in whatever position it was in when you were presented the problem. my reasoning is that if this situation were happening and no one were around to see it, that would be what happens. so i don’t find myself at fault when the outcome would have happened had i been there or jot.
@@zarifshoebkilling Is a heinous crime, should a surgeon then kill a non consenting person to save 10 people who need organ replacements? Doing that would undermine your right to privacy, autonomy, dignity, etc.
You cant even handle your feelings got hurt? 😂 Thats pathetic. I know how to solve this riddle and matter of fact I am gonna stop the train. If Im in that position, I would've pull the track towards that one person, and jump on that track and try to save that one person as quickly as I can. Now, there is another possible outcome, either we both died or we both make it, but it doesn't matter. That train is trying to put a blame on you for killing at first, but guess who's to blame now😤 I become a legend, because one day, I know there will be a day where that train will stop taking lives because of me, even after I've long gone.
[Holds up drawing of said solution] So, I would dangle a sharp blade out the window to slice the neck of the guy on the other track as we smush our five main guys.
Here's another way to think about it: What if you were the one person on the track and you could still change where the train is going? Would you sacrifice your life?
I vaguely remember a similar dilemma, where the answers people gave in a survey differed, depending on exactly how the dilemma was described. It had something to do with one person being gravely ill, and who would surely die if you didn't put five other people at some level of risk of death. Depending on how the question was phrased, the majority of people asked would either put the five other people at risk of death, or not. Sorry that I can't remember the details now. But the point was that this person who is ill will surely die if you do nothing. But if you do something, you might end up killing all six. But you might also end up saving all six. Well, five of them weren't in any risk before, so "saving them" might be a bad choice of words. It bugs me now that I can't remember the two ways the question was asked. Interesting, however, that the exact same ethical dilemma might get two totally different answers from the same person, depending on your choice of words when presenting the problem.
mr theawesome but it’s still true and the apple earphones are pretty much the same as the AirPods 😂 the AirPods are just slightly smaller in ear and a bit louder
Simple, move the person who’s by himself to the other track. Don’t divert the trolley. Then once everyone’s dead, blow up the trolley and get rid of all witnesses. While you’re at it destroy the world, no, the universe.
I think the reason people are so contrary to the first decision when presented with the bridge version is because of how they perceive the aftermath would be like. More specifically a conversation about your choice. It would be a lot easier telling someone you flipped the switch because you felt like you had no choice, rather than push a man because you felt like you had no choice. Only one is considered deliberate murder. The other one is not.
This question would be much harder to answer if the trolley was heading towards the one person, but the one person is someone you love, and the five are strangers and you have the choice to flip the switch to divert the trolley to the five instead of killing the person you love. If you answer to divert it to the five, you have the mindset of a well-written villain in a story.
I don't think so. Actually it would be much easier for me. There is an angelic creature on this planet named Henriette. 5 strangers are not nearly enough to make me think about letting her go. Maybe 5 billions might make me think twice... but, i believe that i would say ''sorry'' to all 5 billions of them and the rest of their families as i'm switching that switch. Piece of cake...
I would have froze and let the 5 die. The burden of directly causing one's death is too much to bear as compared to the burden of not doing anything and letting it run its course taking the 5 lives as if you were not there.
jjingjaykay But then you actually have the choices of "kill one person" or "kill five people". The reason why you chose "kill five people" is because you think you're not "held responsible". Well it turns out you're actually held responsible, you had those two choices. Doesn't mean if you do anything doesn't mean you're not held responsible. Example: You have a taser for some reason. Suddenly a person who is *clearly* a robber(with valuables and has no way of harming you) is being chased by the police. That robber is heading you're way and you have 2 choices: "use the taser to stop the robber" or "do nothing and let the robber escape". If you chose to do nothing, you're still responsible for the robber escaping.
@@sylicone6952 The is not a similar situation. Even then you are not RESPONSIBLE for the robbers escape. The reason I say they are not the same situation is because in your scenario, there is no sacrifice being made. You know theres a robber being chased and you can make the decision to stop him or dont but if you were to stop him you havent sacrificed anything (like how you sacrificed the single persons life in the trolley problem). The discourse for this scenario will be different from the trolley problem. Now as for why you wouldnt be responsible. It is simply because you do not have the burden to do something for the greater good, that is not how it works. If you pull that lever to kill the individual person, you did not save 5 people, you just killed 1 person. This is because there is no reason for you as an individual to save those 5 people from something occuring thats not your responsibility. You are not the cause of them being strapped there and thus you are not the one responsible to save them. You being a bystander is not morally wrong, it just means you did not interfere and if you did, you are responsible for whatever happened.
@@sylicone6952 apologies I cannot really put my thought in the most eloquent way possible but my point is that you being a bystander in something you have nothing to do with is morally ok. If you pull that lever you are the cause of that single mans death. You did not save those 5 people because once you pull that lever, they are not in need of saving, you are now in the timeline where you take actions into your own hand and just murder someone instead. Obviously this is a morally gray situation, neither options are objectively right or wrong. But i think thats my take on it as logically as possible
Just walk away that way nobodies life is in your hands and you feel no regrets, as opposed to feeling the regret of taking that one persons life.As a cartoon character once said, ''dont be afraid to walk away''😅
@123fort andbree I think she means that if she pulled the lever she would be actively/willingly killing someone where as if she did nothing things would happen as it was meant to be. If she didn't do anything she would be considered a bystander and people wouldn't be on her, but if she willingly killed someone, that would bring up many issues, and lets not forget the media, they would blow it up then everyone in America will feel like they should have a say. Heck people would attack her, and she could probs lose her job. -of course if it were me id want to be saved, but if I were the one with the power to decide, I'd....regret whatever decision I made.
Exactlllly you never know what is going on, what if the trolly is going to run out of gas before it kills those people! I am sorry but no human is at a place where they could decide who dies and who doesn't!!
Cwrigz Then that one man must be punished for the contribution of over population which is initially the main cause of earths destructions, poor economic, etc.
From my point of view, there’s no difference between either choices as both of them lead to the same outcome. Refusing to take action is as much of a choice as pushing someone to their death.
I love how people here are building scenarios based on the problem like "have the one worker go save the other five". It shows the lengths they'd go to not answer this moral dilemma.
@ゴゴ Joji Joestar ゴゴ In this scenario, 5 workers are unable to move, on the main tracks of an incoming trolley. The fact that they didn't check the trolley schedule is what put them in that situation. If they had checked beforehand, they would have waited until the trolley passed by, before doing work. On the other hand, the other guy was working on the safe path, probably aware that a trolley would not pass by him. Changing the path means you activelly punish a person for doing the right choices, while saving the ones who chose poorly.
It's not "that version". If the 5 people die, they are responsible for their deaths, since they went there. If you move the lever, YOU are responsible for the 1 person death.
Y'all-Qaeda Yeehawdist no, that’s the way I see it too. If you want to answer a deep moral question, you must think deeply about it, and that’s the conclusion I came to as well. For me, it would feel wrong to pull the lever, and that’s the only reason I can think of as to why.
Julio Pinto Coelho And I think this is why people don’t want to push the large man over. All the workers, including the one on the safe track, should be aware that they are doing a dangerous job. Even the one on the safe track should be aware of the possibility of the lever being switched. The large man, however, didn’t put himself in harm’s way in the way the workers did. You could argue that the man should be aware of the possibility of someone pushing him over, but that it a less likely possibility.
Julio Pinto Coelho I did think of a different, more unrealistic version, however. Let’s say instead of workers that chose to be there, some alien or powerful being teleported 5 people at random onto one track and one person at random onto the other. I guess I would pull the lever. But with the large man on the bridge scenario, and with these 5 people who have been teleported at random, I’m not sure. Maybe the large man is less innocent since the likelihood of being pushed over is greater than the likelihood of being teleported at random. But I still can’t help but feel that the large man should make the choice to sacrifice himself instead of someone else pushing him over. And perhaps I could say that the large man was teleported onto the edge of the bridge, so they’re all equally innocent. So with the lever scenario, the one person can’t make the choice to sacrifice themself. But the large man can. But I guess you could say he is unaware of what is going on, and he is both blind and deaf, so you can’t make him aware. So then he really wouldn’t have that choice. Perhaps I would push him over after all.
This is very easy ngl The 5 workers are basically stuck on the track; so they need help The one worker is not stuck (still working) so he/she will 100% escape the trolley cause they're free to Therefore, I would flip the switch, saving the 5 workers (and no one would die)
Dym the five ppl or the one person? Either way its a runaway trolley, also theyre working wdym "CLEARLY" yes ofc they know trains run over that track but only when they arent there meaning a schedule or sm like that but since its a runaway trolley theres no way tehy couldve known
@@eris1301 ooh thanks for pointing that out, i missed that 'runaway' trolley....... But i don't change my answer, welp, if the fate wants to kill those 5 people, i won't change the rail path (?) to someone else 😅
This hypothetical dilemma is what's happening in hospitals right now. It's the choice of using a bed for one Covid19 patient for 20 days, or for 5 to 10 other patients who need some form of surgery and would use the bed for just a few days.
@@omaralqau9008 Yes, a bed in a hospital. As in the space a patient takes up while getting treatment in a hospital. Limited amount of beds equals limited amount of patients. And if you don't treat a patient for a serious condition, they might die.
Thomas van Dijk, your correct. At the beginning of the pandemic my government had to decide whether to put a elderly covid 19 person in a care home with other elderly people or allow a young person to die because there were no free hospital beds. They had to choose between loosing many old people or a few young people. Never considered that before, thanks.
To anyone talking about these stupid loopholes, THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point of the experiment is to toy with our emotions and make us think about morality. You aren't being clever by "telling them to get off the track", you're just missing the point by trying to "win" in a lose-lose situation.
I'm not TRYING to be clever by "telling people what to do". I'm making a point on how everyone coming up with these loopholes are missing the point. The goal of the problem is to make you think, not to try and find a loophole. It's like trying to solve "shrodingers (I probably spelled that wrong) cat by saying "I would open the box". It's not clever, it's just an excuse to make a joke.
I get that they're trying to have fun, but I feel like there's a distinct line between people who are just doing it for a joke and people who just couldn't be bothered to think about the question and instead chose to be a smartass. I can see that my original comment was too harsh, but there's still an element of truth to it.
tbh, I think it's moreover the fact that they don't want to accept the fact that they have to make a crucial decision in an unavoidable life-death situation. Just an add on.
You are being bothered by people just discovering loopholes in the problems, and you instantly assume that they're just being smartass, do you see the problem here? By pointing out the loopholes in this riddle they're not participating into the test by answering the question, but that doesn't instantly make them an immoral and unethical human being, the way you assumed them to be, it's just that they choose to use complex reasoning (Like how deliberately pulling the lever and killing one person would be considered as a murder) over feelings. Again, that doesn't make them immoral and unethical
Ive wondered if the best choice is to flick the switch with your eyes closed back and forth as quick as you can and then stop at random, and whatever the choice happened to be, we let it happen.
i keep coming back to this riddle because of how satisfying the animations are. especially the part at 3:40, the animator's way of conceptualizing the script in this video is amazing
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. This could be your response to anyone implying that you should lose weight. Tell them you're bulking up for maximum trolley stoppage. Every hero you eat makes you more of a hero. Superhero name: Trolleystopper
This question is so easy to answer in our society of law suits. Obviously you would not touch anything, being directly responsible for just one person's death would be the end of your life, no matter how many people you saved. However, nobody can go after you because you didn't act fast enough to save 5 people. It's not your place to judge the importance of that one person's live relatively to that of the other 5.
I personally like the alteration that goes “There is one person on an alternate track who has a happy family and low salary and begs for his life, and five people who are willing to die to save the one poor person.”
This is my thought, not sure why I would feel this way but here goes: If you switch the button/lever ~ you place a concious inside of you that tells you that you killed 1 person. You made that decision so you will most likely label yourself as a murderer for the rest of your life. Further, by letting that one person die, it will be one of the biggest trauma to you, as that is the first time you will have ever allowed yourself to let someone die. I feel that this will make you keep thinking about that 1 person you "killed" and haunt you after the tragedy. However, If you leave the 5, consciously you would want to save them, but you think that decision-wise, its not majorly your fault. You think, how did they get tied up? Who put them there? It was too late for me to help, but you will assume theres more factors to this with the biggest assumption is that there is someone else at fault. And allowing those 5 to die, sets up trauma in your mind, but it doesnt equate to your decision to letting the 1 person die, as you wont be able to think about each and every person after the tragedy. There will be so much that your mind will conciously try to stop that trauma. I'm not so sure, I feel like letting 1 die here has greater consequences on your mental state and more so than letting the 5 die. Though I can contradict that letting 5 die might make you feel like it's okay to keep doing it in the future, which can be so terrible if you keep this same mindset in every tragic thought experiments like this
Adam Mohamed Mokhtar Yea it wouldn’t feel right to intentionally let that 1 person die when. I feel like letting those 5 people die is out of your hands. Because whoever’s mistake it was to have the people on tracks at that time is to blame, not me. And by choosing to end ones life instead of five inserts You into the mix
@Joseph I dont think you really have the power to "stop it." It's a case of either 1 dies or 5 and both decisions ultimately become immoral when you do create a decision. Hence why, I think the best move is to do what's best for you and in this case to protect your mental state. And sometimes letting go, is what stops us from hurting ourselves.
@Joseph totally cool, we can agree to disagree :) so in order to prevent the worst outcome from happening, how do you define "worst"? Is 5 people always a worse situation? What If the 5 people were murderers? Would you save them? Or what If the 1 person was your loved one or a young child? Who would you choose to "let" them die or live? So yeah i think I'd be subjective to say what is worse - everyone has different opinions.
As a man who values true equality i suggest that anyone who is on any track should be killed. If the trolley doesn't end them, the leaver puller you kill the ones left alive to enact equality. If i was one of the people who were on the track this is how i want it done anyways.
I simply won’t touch the lever, because in that case I didn’t cause a death, the train company did, for letting the train go rogue. If I hit the lever, I’ll be partially responsible for the death.
Under the laws of the United States, the railroad company would be the one who gets charged with negligence and involuntary manslaughter. Criminal negligence because the railroad company failed to inform workers about an incoming train; involuntary manslaughter because of criminal negligence.
"Unrealistic"? Let me give you a realistic version of the fat-man scenario, then: A doctor is on shift at a hospital. He has five different patients, each with an incurable disease isolated to a different organ of their body: One has a tumor in the lungs, the second has a heart with corroded valves, the third has liver damage, _et cetera._ Patient #6 comes in for a surgery, but it's nothing life-threatening- he'll need to be anesthetized, but his damage is ultimately temporary. As the doctor's working, though, he notes that patient #6 is a perfect donor match for all his other patients. And he's in perfect health, too- none of his organs have any issues at all... Does this sound like an "unrealistic" scenario? Because this is the path that pushing the fat man takes us down.
Your scenario is just as unrealistic (if not more) as the one shown in the video. The chances of one person being a donor match for five other people is highly unlikely, if it did happen, the chances of all five in the same hospital as the person is just as unlikely. Your scenario works on coincidence and nothing else. And besides the doctor can't give the people the organs without that one person's consent, Clconsidering it's their organs being giving away.
Imnotsurewhat tomakemyusername there are ways to make it realistic, like what if you could save one younger life or 2 people by sacrificing a person. plus requiring concent may not lead to the best outcome for everyone. like if somebody got an incurable disease but wasn't quarantined because they didn't give concent puts a lot of people at risk.
I guarantee you it's not that far-fetched, mate. Statistics all but guarantees it. Nearly 40% of the U.S. population is o-positive; another 35% are A-negative. Assuming you're the less common of the two, just for the sake of argument, the chance of you having the same blood type of five other people in a hospital is .35 ^ 5. Now, statistics says that only about 40 or so people per 1,000 need to visit a hospital before age 35 ( politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-odds-of-going-to-hospital.html#.WHjUp_krLZY ), so that puts you at about a 4% chance, again raised by 5 for the other blokes. Our math so far gives you a 5.37824 x 10 ^ -10, which really does sound outlandish. Here's the kicker, though- this needs to be multiplied by the entire U.S. population. 320,000,000. This gives us, in total, about a 17% chance that an A- negative person is in a hospital, same as 5 others with his blood-type. Now, there are other factors to consider- this math only takes into people in hospitals across the U.S, not hospitals nearby themselves; organs harvested in New York are probably useless to hospitals in Arizona, regardless of necessity. Furthermore, admittance to a hospital is not any guarantee of life-saving surgery or surgery requiring anesthesia. But there are factors weighing in the equation's favor, too, boosting its probability. For one, this hypothetical is only for the A-positive group, not the statistically larger O-negative one. And for another, utilitarianism only requires the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people; so long as that integer is greater than 1, utility-wise, it's still the better judgment. What happens when you only need organs to save _three_ people? What happens when you only need organs to save _two_? As for consent.... well, no one asked the fat man's opinions before they pushed him, did they?
Assuming that the tumor is operable, take the tumor out of the first guy's lungs, get the second guy some artificial heart valves, remove the damaged parts of the liver from the third one: the liver is the only organ in the body that can regenerate itself, so I'll just remove enough of the damaged parts so that there are only healthy cells left that will grow back, etc. and operate on patient 6 last. Though you used the word euthanized instead of presumably put on anesthetics, which if he were euthanized, you can ignore everything I said above because he'll be dead anyway.
Another variant I heard of the trolley problem that really made a lot of people uncomfortable was a scenario in which you are a master surgeon. You have one completely healthy person and 5 people who are dying of various organ failures. If you were to dismantle the completely healthy person and transfer his working organs to all the sick people you can save all of their lives, but the healthy person would die.
I think it depends on the 5 people. Did they cause that illness/organ failure themselves as a result of unhealthy living and bad choices? Will they make the same mistake, causing them to be sick again? Was it caused by something out of their control? I think there are a lot of things that need to be considered.
That's a totally different scenario because the master surgeon took a hippocratic oath, that they would never use their medical knowledge to intentionally harm people. Dismantling the healthy person would be a clear violation of that, regardless of the total good that could be achieved. A bystander witnessing a runaway trolley has made no such oath, and is only bound to take the action they consider to result in the most good.
I never got why so many people were inconsistent with the trolley problem. It comes down to letting 5 people die, or murdering 1 person. We all let people die everyday, but a vast majority of us do not murder others, yet the results of the trolley problem are just the opposite -- most people choose to murder instead of letting people die.
Niklas Hansen You can't and I'm sure you would not kill a person to think that it is possible to save others. You won't push a man in front of a train wtf.
* front part of the rain runs over the railway switch * P.E. Expert - The Savage MC Master : "Oh boy I sure wanna turn that switch to save some lives!" * turns switch * * back end of the train follows the other railway * *MULTI TRACK DRIFTING* OHSHIT.jpg * train absolutely mangles the 6 innocent people, derails and flips over, killing and injuring some more *
What many people in the comments don't seem to understand is that the Train track dilemma is just a hypothetical situation being used to represent a real life concept: would you sacrifice one to save five. It doesn't matter if you can derail the train or move the people off the tracks. The train does not matter, it just creates a visual example for an ethical concept(which has actually happened before)
@@jaded8itchwhat if the one person is 90 years old and the 5 are kids?? and you are 25??? The 90 year old has lived. Everybody gets his time to do the same.
To me it's the same-same. Flip the switch. Push the man. You caused that worker's/man's death. Thing I'm not sure about is would I do it to save five people? Or be a witness because choosing whether or not people die is not necessarily my decision to make. Not to mention this question: Is that one person worth more than five people? If he is, what if something changes in one of those five (or more) that make them more worthy later on? Ugh philosophy.
BlurBerry Creative One life can outweigh all 5 if it was for example your lover, your mother/father or any close person to you. That's what makes it more complicated.
When the Sun Rises no, it's the best, if you believe killing one person is better than letting 5 die then you have no grounds to refusing a doctor to let people die to harvest their organs for people that need a donor, just replace the train with illness and it's the exact same thing, (the one person could be saved and the others wouldn't die without the one person dying) so that's why I'd choose to do nothing. Also "one of the worst"? There are only 2 choices it's not like there are multiple choices to the trolley problem...
When the Sun Rises Ok I'll break it down more, so: In the doctor's analogy let's say there is one person that is the only compatible donor for other 5 people that need organ donations to survive and they need different organs so their death can save all five of them. Not pulling the lever and letting the train run over the 5 people equals letting the disease kill the five people that need organs and treating the person that can be saved with just an operation. And flipping the switch and letting the one person get hit by the train, equals letting the one patient die to save the five people that need the organs. Would you be fine with that happening in the real world? Might not always be 1 person saves 5 people situation but we are always out of compatible organ donors all over the world so 1 person saves more people by donating all organs is a very real situation. Since you think it is morally right to pull the lever would you be ok with doctors letting patients die if they qualify as organ donors?
Your both opinion is correct but sometimes you need to choose one of them. Even what you doing is Factually right its doesn't mean that you always morally right. Sacrificing one person to save 5 live is logicaly right but it morally wrong, that's why most people in that situation choose to not doing anything. Imagine if that one person is your loved ones or family, can you sacrifice them for 5 people that has nothing to do with you? In that case what would you do? Who will you choose to death? There's nothing free in this world. The one who cannot sacrifice anything cannot change anything. In my perspective that is the moral you can get from this story
It's obvious you'll save your sibling over 5 strangers. You can't break that chain of love and care between a family, even if it's selfish to save 1 person and kill 5 other's. Basic human instincts
The actually answer: why in the world are random people standing at tracks and a worker working when the train is already running Edit: THX SO MUCH FOR THE LIKES!!!
The answer to both scenarios were simple to me. 1 or 5? - Flip the switch to save the 5, run and try to get the 1 worker's attention to move. If I have time to flip a switch, even if it's a couple of seconds before the split, I have time to move my body wheather or not I make it in time to the 1. Push the bigger guy to save 5? - No. Jump myself and form a tight ball inbetween the rails, close to either side of a rail. If that fails, I never took another person's life for the chance of it failing.
_but that one dude is the one only working_
_im gonna save him_
a bunch of fucking letters yes best answer
It literally says in the video that the five workers cannot escape.
The only real question is, if they tracks are close enough and the one worker can literally see the other five, why isn't he over there trying to untie them, letting you flip the switch?
Yeah... I thought the same thing
Munawwar Abdul Muneer WRONGLY
woozie I would push I'm off and then jump off and run from the TR am
a. Save 5 workers but kill one worker
b. Save 1 worker but kill 5 workers
c. Rigourously flip switch back and forth and dislodge train from tracks, running the risk of killing 20 but saving 6
d. flip the switch quickly 2 times so trolley starts to do double track drift
@@egorence2149 MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!!
@@egorence2149 lol
@@egorence2149 Secret ending
Stray Kids UWU *Harvard wants to know your location*
There’s also a version wherein the five people were criminals who have done horrible stuff, and the one worker is a law-abiding citizen.
thats so easy. just let it go. the criminals will die anyway in jail
Alex Qwertyuiop, they won’t tell you that the five people are criminals or the one worker is a law-abiding citizen when making the choice. Only after making the choice.
@@sakatagintoki5562 thats not even a dilema then. its just misinformation
If I didn't have that information beforehand then it makes no difference.
@@buzzlightyearpfp7641 misinfirmation? You didnt know any of them yet. Who will tell you?
Another solution
Keep flipping the switch really fast when the trolleys on the intersect. It will break the trolley.
And then crash to an area containing hundreds of people
@@qweqwe-by6sf （・∀・）
@@qweqwe-by6sf well, Ted-ed did say " _RUNAWAY_ " train...
*IDOIT!*
Multitrack drifting
Is there anyone in the trolley tho
schrodinger’s trolley splits in two and rides over all of them
made me cry!
But half killing them.
And then all of them are half dead and half alive when you haven't looked, and then maybe you could save 3 people in average, and 6 at best luck.
Ps: I know it seems wrong but doesn't it sound convincing?
@@hoaithunguyen4473 It's quantum mechanics after all.
according to schrodinger's trolley theory, if you close your eyes it could be 50/50. I can live with those odds. Cool guys never look back anyways.
I'm trying to save these people but this one train keeps killing them
Is it TheTrolley27?
Usheer L
Is it TheThomas27?
TacoMasters Association it IS theThomas27!
XD
Why are these TED-Ed videos always so aesthetic?
I despise myself for reading "aesthetic" as "atheist"
ＡＥＳＴＨＥＴＩＣ
They're into Vaporwave.
They have a good marketing team.
Priya darshini 1000th comment like
oh man whoever animated this did such a great job
all those smooth transitions and abstract but meaningful imagery! wow.
The sound design was fantastic as well.
@@arkice1937 agreed also I have a question for you
3 people are trapped on a rail
With a speeding train if you pull the lever to change the direction of the train it will run over a button instead that has a 5% chance of seting off a nuclear bomb what do you do?
The 3 people, to prevent chance of blowing the whole state down..
"Hey! There's a trolley coming! Move out of the way! Thanks!"
Genius
HE’S WEARING AIR PODS
E
Clever answer, and realistically what you would do (and you're joking so it's cool).
But, easy answers like that avoid the point of the question. Think hard and question why you would pick one or the other. And if you can't decide, well, think as to why and how that impacts who you are.
Archisha Dasgupta They can’t hear you because your are in the operation station controlling the trolleys being on the right tracks.
why is no one talking about the art & animation in this video like *W O W*
@Mushaku I've looked for any info I could find about the animator & what they use, but I couldn't find anything, sorry.
@Mushaku love and creativity.
Also Blender and Adobe AE I guess
@@yusha3905 the animator is cited at the end along with her(?) email
@@madi3067 I know that, I found their Instagram & website, but I was looking for the programs they use to animate with.
@Mushaku I don't know for sure, but it looks like the animation was most likely done using blender :) I hope that helps!
You know, the other man can see the trolley too....and he decides to push you instead....
Now I know how to kill everyone jump off and frame him
Saukhya Telge Think about the situation before you say
Now if that man, decides to start pushing me, then it's gonna be an entirely different story
If I go down your coming with me
since theres no correct option then i wont push：\ maybe call police
I once met a person who told me they would kill the 5 people because it would be easier to explain in court.
damn
and right that persn is
But then won't it be called as mass murder. Idk how the court works but as far as i know a human or one person is capable of mass murder. So it can be proved as that .
I would because I wouldn’t have murder on my hands, I didn’t change the path
That makes sense. There aren't many cases where failing to save lives is a crime, but intentionally ending lives is always one.
Change the question to this: "Would you sacrifice your self to save five?" And see the result of people answering it
The answer was already 10% with the fat guy, that change wouldn't make much of a difference.
Belial
That change would make A LOT of a difference, killing oneself is harder than killing another person
Well... I think if you just "asked" a person if they would do it, some would say yes. To sound holy or to impress.
But in an actual situation? *No* human would ever sacrifice himself. Unless he was Jesus of course... Or just nuts.
Vietnam Mapper yes i would because i judged about my life and not of a person i dont know.
Jhon Bards or have nothing to lose and no longer have the will to live
If you're strong enough to push that heavy guy that could stop the train, just go super saiyan and stop the train yourself
ikr
Plus it isn't immediately obvious and hard to picture having a fat man being able to stop a train, while a switch that switches the tracks is easier to picture.
Vokainodragon l Road to 100 FUCKIN YELL AYE GET THE HELL OUT THE WAY A TROLLEY IS COMIN
BTW if don't work then yeah go super saiyn and go KAMEHHAAAAA FUCKIN BREAK THE TRAIN
wtf
+Munawwar Abdul Muneer But then your body won't stop the train unless you also are HUGE.
Everyone: Just get the worker to move!
*HEY!*
Oh no he has Airpods, he cant hear us!
Allzombifood underrated comment af
BUILD THE HELICOPTER!
I told my friend of this problem and he asked why can't they hear. This was the answer I gave him.
Ferociously Malicious Rain and I answered either save them all or let the five die and then kill the worker with ax
LOL
Fun Fact: If you let the trains drive into the 5 people, it wouldn’t count as murder since it was bound to happen anyways. If you turn the cart into that one person, it would technically count as murder, since it was caused by you, whether the intention was good or not. Personally, I would just act like I didn’t notice the lever and rush in to try and do something, as if I was panicking.
Edit: You guys have really enlightened me as to how wrong I was. From now on, I firmly believe in moving the train to kill one person then stomping the other five people to death.
Yea sure but it’ll also be explainable if you let the 1 person die instead of the 5. I can’t live the rest of my life knowing I could’ve saved 5 lives by sacrificing just 1. That’s just me.
@@zarifshoeb I couldn’t live with myself knowing that I am the direct cause of the death to someone.
Exactly. It isn't my problem to fix so I'll just let them get ran over by the train
@@Locket.L I would my life very happily if I knew that i saved 5 people instead of just 1...
@@karak_t9754 personally I would be depressed that I murdered one person, no matter how many people on the other side died.
the animators will never be paid enough for such good animations! 10/10
This comment is 11/10
everyone gangsta until u trip and fall over with the man also
Anyone know the animator's instagram or name?
Yes
yup
Came after that 2 year old kid who killed all six
Haha, me too
Same bro
God bless youtube
Lol me too
lol metoo
The animation is so satisfying..
Neutron Star minimalistic.
Blender is way better than autodesk maya
yeah it looks like Blender, I wonder if they use more tools and how long it takes.
Neutron Star the animation is pretty fluid though.
Wait so all these animations are done using Blender!?
The workers be like: *hmm yes what that loud noise probably just the wind*
Switch the tracks when you’re half way over the switch so you can get that 6 player kill streak
Multi-track drifting!
Michael?
No, Michael attached a long sword to the side
Chidi slowly backing away
A man of culture i see
“This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors.”
Duolingo Bird THE GOOD PLACE OMG💀♥️♥️
Duolingo Bird I love the Good Place.... lol Chidi 😂
Chidi 😭
Duolingo Bird this is why I came 😂
@Epic Terry what if they were the enemies ?
I'll just call Bob the Builder, if he can't fix it, then no one can.
It’s big brain time
nah man, Micheal and Son
"If you cant, we can, Micheal and Son, ba dum ba!"
MHM…. FIX IT FELIX
I love that the animator sometimes animates simple 2d, sometimes animates smooth 3d, and sometimes realistic stuff like the heart and the hand. It’s cool.
Yeah. But the heart was so terrifying to me.
We all know the correct answer to this problem:
*_Multi-Track Drifting._*
Nani!!!??!
YES
GAS GAS GAS
I would get on the track to add to it
Hey your pfp is from High School DxD right? Akeno
I actually hate this. I can never know If the one guy has a huge family and the 5 people are all serial killers.
Haha good thought
Hol Up
@Jov Ven but if you choose to do nothing you'll save the one
@@higorss It's a false choice. You don't have a right to decide who lives and dies. The fact that you have the ability to decide isn't relevant.
@@grantcivyt What if there is 5 parents of yours in one track and 1 strange in the other one?
you know, I think ,in a real situation, a lot of people would just stand there and do nothing but watch. why wasn't that an option?
That falls under 'don't flip the lever'
Hanna Takeuchi yep.I guess ur right.
But it's not the same to decide to not press the lever, or to not press it because you're in shock and can't make a decision in time.
Anomen that's an angle I never considered. I was thinking of being apathetic or too concerned with ones own consequences (self interest) to make a decision but I see your point.
a lot of people would do that in reality, because no one wants to be responsible for a death. What they don't realise is that if you did nothing and watched, you would still be responsable, but of the 5 deaths - because it was in your power to flick the switch. Its the same logic as say, a cameraman filming torture is as guilty as the one inflicting the torture. Doing nothing does not protect you from your responsability as a human being!
I think its also a demonstration of "gut instinct". I realize this is not a proper or professional term but we are often told to trust it. I think our subconscious can often assemble past experiences and tell us what it the right thing to do while our conscious mind cannot define why.
3:01 if you don't know what the fill tool in MS Paint is.
Haha
Lol.
hahahaha true
Come here from "A 2 Years Old's Solution to Trolley Problem" video
Me2
Same
What was the solution?
That’s the best solution
youtube algorithm bringing people together again
0:27
Narrator: Would you sacrifice one person to save 5?
The five: *intense nodding*
HAHAHAHA
No I will Kill 5 to save 1
My sis said it doesn’t matter since everyone’s dying
She’ll grow up to be a wonderful philosopher
🤣🤣🤣
Hahaha😂 I didn't even see that.
i will forever stand by the answer of leaving the lever in whatever position it was in when you were presented the problem. my reasoning is that if this situation were happening and no one were around to see it, that would be what happens. so i don’t find myself at fault when the outcome would have happened had i been there or jot.
Yes but you’ll be living the rest of your life knowing that you could’ve saved 5 lives by sacrificing just 1. I can’t.
@@zarifshoebkilling Is a heinous crime, should a surgeon then kill a non consenting person to save 10 people who need organ replacements?
Doing that would undermine your right to privacy, autonomy, dignity, etc.
You cant even handle your feelings got hurt? 😂 Thats pathetic. I know how to solve this riddle and matter of fact I am gonna stop the train.
If Im in that position, I would've pull the track towards that one person, and jump on that track and try to save that one person as quickly as I can. Now, there is another possible outcome, either we both died or we both make it, but it doesn't matter. That train is trying to put a blame on you for killing at first, but guess who's to blame now😤
I become a legend, because one day, I know there will be a day where that train will stop taking lives because of me, even after I've long gone.
"Obviously the dilemma is clear, how do you kill all 6 people?"
LOL
That's easy
MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING
[Holds up drawing of said solution] So, I would dangle a sharp blade out the window to slice the neck of the guy on the other track as we smush our five main guys.
Id make 7
I think you miscounted, it's 7 people you forgot to count yourself in the equation.
Here's another way to think about it:
What if you were the one person on the track and you could still change where the train is going? Would you sacrifice your life?
Multybrendan Honestly, only if they are my friends, familiars, or childs.
Multybrendan yes I would safcrife myself
Then I'd be extinct
nope, rip those five people
Multybrendan if you can't find something to live for, find something to die for
if you drifted the train you would be able to hit all of them
Strike!
R/cursedcomment
Multi-track drifting
weeeeee
Just like the kid did.
I vaguely remember a similar dilemma, where the answers people gave in a survey differed, depending on exactly how the dilemma was described. It had something to do with one person being gravely ill, and who would surely die if you didn't put five other people at some level of risk of death. Depending on how the question was phrased, the majority of people asked would either put the five other people at risk of death, or not. Sorry that I can't remember the details now. But the point was that this person who is ill will surely die if you do nothing. But if you do something, you might end up killing all six. But you might also end up saving all six. Well, five of them weren't in any risk before, so "saving them" might be a bad choice of words. It bugs me now that I can't remember the two ways the question was asked. Interesting, however, that the exact same ethical dilemma might get two totally different answers from the same person, depending on your choice of words when presenting the problem.
Hmmm interesting
Imagine if the two-year-old kid who killed all 6 is the right choice for this problem.
that’s where i came from 💀
What if all 6 of them are nazis?
I came to watch this after that
@Adel Eljawad Yes, that it's hella funny to say "ut oh" after all six die
@@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536 diffrent version of the problem
Michael: "Keep the train on the track with the five people. Then use a long pole with a blade to slice of the head of the other one."
Stop copying the good place
It’s called *quoting*
LMAO I remember that 😭😭😭😂
It sounds like something Dwight would say not Michael
Michael from good place not the office
Change the question "...if one person on the other track is your friend."
More like a mother or wife
Bob T haha xD
*Joel intensifies*
Then most definitely the 5 ppl that it would have hit accidentally instead of consciously having it hit my friend
Hmm. One side is your wife who is pregnant. Other side is your family, with brother and his fiance
To me, pulling the lever knowing that the worker will die makes you equally responsible as pushing the man off.
Doesn’t matter how you put it, the only correct answer is to let the 5 people die.
Oh no! They’re wearing AirPods they can’t hear us!😱
RUN THEM OVER
divert the trolley to wherever u(conan) are. they gonna die anyway lol
Conan Edogawa AirPods are actually really bad at blocking out noise so we would definitely hear you
mr theawesome but it’s still true and the apple earphones are pretty much the same as the AirPods 😂 the AirPods are just slightly smaller in ear and a bit louder
If it is you no one will die
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the beautiful animation? It's so smooth and relaxing to look at ❤️
mysticalunicorn 13 no
@@proxxgeo1054 that's ok if you don't want to :)
@@annabelledsouza01 I agree , that a beautiful animation to enjoy.
@@annabelledsouza01
Ok!
His voice too
Simple, move the person who’s by himself to the other track. Don’t divert the trolley. Then once everyone’s dead, blow up the trolley and get rid of all witnesses. While you’re at it destroy the world, no, the universe.
Dont forget to say "Uh oh"
@@No-ej5jz Yes
@@fishgarbage16 you don’t have to wear a mask if every living thing is dead
Just accelerate time and reset the entire universe!
@@fishgarbage16 Hence my point
I think the reason people are so contrary to the first decision when presented with the bridge version is because of how they perceive the aftermath would be like. More specifically a conversation about your choice. It would be a lot easier telling someone you flipped the switch because you felt like you had no choice, rather than push a man because you felt like you had no choice. Only one is considered deliberate murder. The other one is not.
This question would be much harder to answer if the trolley was heading towards the one person, but the one person is someone you love, and the five are strangers and you have the choice to flip the switch to divert the trolley to the five instead of killing the person you love. If you answer to divert it to the five, you have the mindset of a well-written villain in a story.
My family always come first, no matter what.
@@whatyouwaitingfor1027 you wouldnt even have the balls to sacrifice yourself.
I don't think so. Actually it would be much easier for me. There is an angelic creature on this planet named Henriette. 5 strangers are not nearly enough to make me think about letting her go. Maybe 5 billions might make me think twice... but, i believe that i would say ''sorry'' to all 5 billions of them and the rest of their families as i'm switching that switch. Piece of cake...
@@psihostrumpf6233 This reminds me of Iron Man's situation in the endgame🥺
tell your family to get off the track and then run over the 5 strangers
I would have froze and let the 5 die. The burden of directly causing one's death is too much to bear as compared to the burden of not doing anything and letting it run its course taking the 5 lives as if you were not there.
Don't you think knowing you could have saved four lives is a bigger burden?
jjingjaykay But then you actually have the choices of "kill one person" or "kill five people". The reason why you chose "kill five people" is because you think you're not "held responsible". Well it turns out you're actually held responsible, you had those two choices. Doesn't mean if you do anything doesn't mean you're not held responsible.
Example:
You have a taser for some reason. Suddenly a person who is *clearly* a robber(with valuables and has no way of harming you) is being chased by the police. That robber is heading you're way and you have 2 choices: "use the taser to stop the robber" or "do nothing and let the robber escape". If you chose to do nothing, you're still responsible for the robber escaping.
Its still a choice, you are choosing to kill 5 people
@@sylicone6952 The is not a similar situation. Even then you are not RESPONSIBLE for the robbers escape.
The reason I say they are not the same situation is because in your scenario, there is no sacrifice being made. You know theres a robber being chased and you can make the decision to stop him or dont but if you were to stop him you havent sacrificed anything (like how you sacrificed the single persons life in the trolley problem). The discourse for this scenario will be different from the trolley problem.
Now as for why you wouldnt be responsible. It is simply because you do not have the burden to do something for the greater good, that is not how it works. If you pull that lever to kill the individual person, you did not save 5 people, you just killed 1 person. This is because there is no reason for you as an individual to save those 5 people from something occuring thats not your responsibility. You are not the cause of them being strapped there and thus you are not the one responsible to save them. You being a bystander is not morally wrong, it just means you did not interfere and if you did, you are responsible for whatever happened.
@@sylicone6952 apologies I cannot really put my thought in the most eloquent way possible but my point is that you being a bystander in something you have nothing to do with is morally ok. If you pull that lever you are the cause of that single mans death. You did not save those 5 people because once you pull that lever, they are not in need of saving, you are now in the timeline where you take actions into your own hand and just murder someone instead.
Obviously this is a morally gray situation, neither options are objectively right or wrong. But i think thats my take on it as logically as possible
I just wanted to say that the animations were really well done.
I especially love the bird at 3:42.
The animation was done in blender.
www.blendernation.com/2017/01/16/ted-video-trolley-problem/
I scrolled through the comments looking for this. Was not disappointed :D
Isaiah Rivera yay
U Wot M8 You What Mate
Just walk away that way nobodies life is in your hands and you feel no regrets, as opposed to feeling the regret of taking that one persons life.As a cartoon character once said, ''dont be afraid to walk away''😅
In either cases, I would do nothing. Not gonna risk some lawsuit for people I don't know.
The most logical solution.
@123fort andbree I think she means that if she pulled the lever she would be actively/willingly killing someone where as if she did nothing things would happen as it was meant to be. If she didn't do anything she would be considered a bystander and people wouldn't be on her, but if she willingly killed someone, that would bring up many issues, and lets not forget the media, they would blow it up then everyone in America will feel like they should have a say. Heck people would attack her, and she could probs lose her job.
-of course if it were me id want to be saved, but if I were the one with the power to decide, I'd....regret whatever decision I made.
@123fort andbree yeah, a death for me, sounds like a win :')
-jkdontlinkmeupwithpreventsuicidehotlines-
@@mickeythedogo703 haha you did the funny
I will run
What if the 5 people have no family but that worker has a huge family and kids
Exactly.
This is beginning to feel like saw 6
Exactlllly you never know what is going on, what if the trolly is going to run out of gas before it kills those people! I am sorry but no human is at a place where they could decide who dies and who doesn't!!
Sarah Hamdan good point
Cwrigz Then that one man must be punished for the contribution of over population which is initially the main cause of earths destructions, poor economic, etc.
"A small price to pay for salvation"
Sounds very Abrahamic
Origin?
where is this quote from ?
chinchin 1 From movie avengers endgame
chinchin 1 Thanos says it in Avengers: Infinity War
There's a difference between killing someone (active) and letting someone die (passive).
From my point of view, there’s no difference between either choices as both of them lead to the same outcome. Refusing to take action is as much of a choice as pushing someone to their death.
What sort of difference though? A moral difference? Not really. Allowing someone to die from your inaction still makes you culpable for their death.
@@con.troller4183 not really
@@lavion219 yes really...
@@con.troller4183 nope
I shout to that one person working "HEY GET OUT OF THE TRACKS"
Finally found a similar answer to mine.
What if the person cant hear you because he is a construction worker and has headphones on that prevent him from hearing you?
@@pazifix2282 your choice, your action, your consequence
ye. Tell the worker to move to the middle side
In the real Trolley Problem, all the workers are turned around and have noise cancelling headphones.
1:54 Everyone's gangsta until the train doesn't get stop by the large man and also kills remaining 5.
Yeah I was thinking what if I don't do it right, if I don't have the skill.
Everybody a gangasta until the large man drops you instead
6 kills
BTW how that large man is large if he gets pushed by us that easily and even if we try to do it he would rather puch us instead
Thats exactly what would happen in real life lol
I love how people here are building scenarios based on the problem like "have the one worker go save the other five". It shows the lengths they'd go to not answer this moral dilemma.
@ゴゴ Joji Joestar ゴゴ In this scenario, 5 workers are unable to move, on the main tracks of an incoming trolley. The fact that they didn't check the trolley schedule is what put them in that situation. If they had checked beforehand, they would have waited until the trolley passed by, before doing work.
On the other hand, the other guy was working on the safe path, probably aware that a trolley would not pass by him.
Changing the path means you activelly punish a person for doing the right choices, while saving the ones who chose poorly.
It's not "that version". If the 5 people die, they are responsible for their deaths, since they went there. If you move the lever, YOU are responsible for the 1 person death.
Y'all-Qaeda Yeehawdist no, that’s the way I see it too. If you want to answer a deep moral question, you must think deeply about it, and that’s the conclusion I came to as well. For me, it would feel wrong to pull the lever, and that’s the only reason I can think of as to why.
Julio Pinto Coelho And I think this is why people don’t want to push the large man over. All the workers, including the one on the safe track, should be aware that they are doing a dangerous job. Even the one on the safe track should be aware of the possibility of the lever being switched. The large man, however, didn’t put himself in harm’s way in the way the workers did. You could argue that the man should be aware of the possibility of someone pushing him over, but that it a less likely possibility.
Julio Pinto Coelho I did think of a different, more unrealistic version, however. Let’s say instead of workers that chose to be there, some alien or powerful being teleported 5 people at random onto one track and one person at random onto the other. I guess I would pull the lever. But with the large man on the bridge scenario, and with these 5 people who have been teleported at random, I’m not sure. Maybe the large man is less innocent since the likelihood of being pushed over is greater than the likelihood of being teleported at random. But I still can’t help but feel that the large man should make the choice to sacrifice himself instead of someone else pushing him over. And perhaps I could say that the large man was teleported onto the edge of the bridge, so they’re all equally innocent. So with the lever scenario, the one person can’t make the choice to sacrifice themself. But the large man can. But I guess you could say he is unaware of what is going on, and he is both blind and deaf, so you can’t make him aware. So then he really wouldn’t have that choice. Perhaps I would push him over after all.
This is very easy ngl
The 5 workers are basically stuck on the track; so they need help
The one worker is not stuck (still working) so he/she will 100% escape the trolley cause they're free to
Therefore, I would flip the switch, saving the 5 workers (and no one would die)
Am I the only one who thought of it as "The guy clearly knows that trains go over that track, so CLEARLY he wants to die"
That's exactly what i thought too! Why should i move the rail just to save some amount of people who bravely take the risk?
Dym the five ppl or the one person? Either way its a runaway trolley, also theyre working wdym "CLEARLY" yes ofc they know trains run over that track but only when they arent there meaning a schedule or sm like that but since its a runaway trolley theres no way tehy couldve known
@@eris1301 ooh thanks for pointing that out, i missed that 'runaway' trolley....... But i don't change my answer, welp, if the fate wants to kill those 5 people, i won't change the rail path (?) to someone else 😅
This hypothetical dilemma is what's happening in hospitals right now. It's the choice of using a bed for one Covid19 patient for 20 days, or for 5 to 10 other patients who need some form of surgery and would use the bed for just a few days.
A bed???
@@omaralqau9008 Yes, a bed in a hospital. As in the space a patient takes up while getting treatment in a hospital. Limited amount of beds equals limited amount of patients. And if you don't treat a patient for a serious condition, they might die.
@@Dynoboot the space a patient takes up ohhh
Thomas van Dijk, your correct.
At the beginning of the pandemic my government had to decide whether to put a elderly covid 19 person in a care home with other elderly people or allow a young person to die because there were no free hospital beds.
They had to choose between loosing many old people or a few young people.
Never considered that before, thanks.
@@davidvarley1812 lose elderly because young people can reproduce
To anyone talking about these stupid loopholes,
THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point of the experiment is to toy with our emotions and make us think about morality. You aren't being clever by "telling them to get off the track", you're just missing the point by trying to "win" in a lose-lose situation.
I'm not TRYING to be clever by "telling people what to do". I'm making a point on how everyone coming up with these loopholes are missing the point. The goal of the problem is to make you think, not to try and find a loophole. It's like trying to solve "shrodingers (I probably spelled that wrong) cat by saying "I would open the box". It's not clever, it's just an excuse to make a joke.
I get that they're trying to have fun, but I feel like there's a distinct line between people who are just doing it for a joke and people who just couldn't be bothered to think about the question and instead chose to be a smartass. I can see that my original comment was too harsh, but there's still an element of truth to it.
tbh, I think it's moreover the fact that they don't want to accept the fact that they have to make a crucial decision in an unavoidable life-death situation. Just an add on.
You are being bothered by people just discovering loopholes in the problems, and you instantly assume that they're just being smartass, do you see the problem here? By pointing out the loopholes in this riddle they're not participating into the test by answering the question, but that doesn't instantly make them an immoral and unethical human being, the way you assumed them to be, it's just that they choose to use complex reasoning (Like how deliberately pulling the lever and killing one person would be considered as a murder) over feelings. Again, that doesn't make them immoral and unethical
Anon Battery
He just commented here, How is he Trying To Force his views.
Any possibility that we take into account how difficult it would be to be in that situation, and not blame the person for either choice?
The first word of the video: "Imagine"
Solution of the problem: STOP IMAGINING
Is you Pic is of Ruk-Chan ?
Ruka
I’ve wondered the difference when it’s one person that you know, to save five strangers.
@Scott Scotty well idk if a baby would be working on tracks 😳
@Scott Scotty maybe im being s-sarcastic?
@Scott Scotty he is being sarcastic by tbe fact that he used an emoji
Ive wondered if the best choice is to flick the switch with your eyes closed back and forth as quick as you can and then stop at random, and whatever the choice happened to be, we let it happen.
@@nicolassalazar457 real answer: force someone to do it for you :D
i keep coming back to this riddle because of how satisfying the animations are. especially the part at 3:40, the animator's way of conceptualizing the script in this video is amazing
"MA'AM, YOU GOTTA MOVE! I'M GONNA DIVERT THIS TROLLEY, OKAY? MOVE OUT OF THE WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY-"
A man heavy enough to stop a train probably wouldn't live very long anyways.
Kazooie That's cold man
{TGD} hardcorepro but true...
Diabetes?
But just saying he would not die when he falls he would make a earthquake derailing the train
Kazooie XD
"The hardest choice requires the strongest will"-Thanos
Me: *pulls out the plug and 8n the process destroying every sentinent life within the a.i and leaving them in eternal oblivion* yes
Ruined 202 likes :(
Snap!
How about the train driver just use an emergency brake?
In the fat guy situation, I'd jump cus I'm fat.
lololol
Kuro Inori And the train would explode and kill everyone onboard.
Shit tru. I could die a hero. A fat hero
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
This could be your response to anyone implying that you should lose weight. Tell them you're bulking up for maximum trolley stoppage. Every hero you eat makes you more of a hero. Superhero name: Trolleystopper
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Oh wait it is just a fat guy jumping xD
This question is so easy to answer in our society of law suits. Obviously you would not touch anything, being directly responsible for just one person's death would be the end of your life, no matter how many people you saved. However, nobody can go after you because you didn't act fast enough to save 5 people. It's not your place to judge the importance of that one person's live relatively to that of the other 5.
1:49 we just gonna ignore the fact this man shifted from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional
He was trying to appeal to your mercy by becoming more real. Like how Janet in the good place tries to stop people from pressing her reboot switch
I mean ttrue
Girls locker room: sacrifice 1 to save 5 the people!
Boy locker room: *DISLODGE THE TRACKS AND KILL ALL 6*
Hydrocarbon You literally copied The Bold Text from the Comment Above,Go play minecraft
Mentolly I didn’t steal anything and anyways my one is funnier
Please change your profile picture, its almost as bad as mine!
@@OnceMK dont hate on Minecraft it is great. you clearly have never played.
@@rh7732 sexist
The Good Place brought me here.
Same
The narrator is named Eleanor.
Nishit Singh not the narrator
Rocio Rodas r/wooooosh
Inessa Leonova k
I personally like the alteration that goes “There is one person on an alternate track who has a happy family and low salary and begs for his life, and five people who are willing to die to save the one poor person.”
😁😅😅 What the heck.
The opposite situation is more likely to be true I think..
Eleanor from The Good Place: kill all of them!
Chidi: *confused screaming*
charlotte the cow finally a The Good Place comment! The teller of this video is also named Eleanor lol
Clair Tang what a coincidence! Lol
Keep it [SPOILERS]
U mean Michael lol
Multi-track drifting.
They already said what I came to say :(
Adam Jackson
You'll kill all the 200 passengers
Even better
+User Name they choose to be in a shitty trolly that can't stop. They die
+TheWaross hahahahah
This is my thought, not sure why I would feel this way but here goes:
If you switch the button/lever ~ you place a concious inside of you that tells you that you killed 1 person. You made that decision so you will most likely label yourself as a murderer for the rest of your life. Further, by letting that one person die, it will be one of the biggest trauma to you, as that is the first time you will have ever allowed yourself to let someone die. I feel that this will make you keep thinking about that 1 person you "killed" and haunt you after the tragedy.
However, If you leave the 5, consciously you would want to save them, but you think that decision-wise, its not majorly your fault. You think, how did they get tied up? Who put them there? It was too late for me to help, but you will assume theres more factors to this with the biggest assumption is that there is someone else at fault. And allowing those 5 to die, sets up trauma in your mind, but it doesnt equate to your decision to letting the 1 person die, as you wont be able to think about each and every person after the tragedy. There will be so much that your mind will conciously try to stop that trauma.
I'm not so sure, I feel like letting 1 die here has greater consequences on your mental state and more so than letting the 5 die.
Though I can contradict that letting 5 die might make you feel like it's okay to keep doing it in the future, which can be so terrible if you keep this same mindset in every tragic thought experiments like this
Adam Mohamed Mokhtar Yea it wouldn’t feel right to intentionally let that 1 person die when. I feel like letting those 5 people die is out of your hands. Because whoever’s mistake it was to have the people on tracks at that time is to blame, not me. And by choosing to end ones life instead of five inserts You into the mix
Adam Mohamed Mokhtar I would just pray for the sake of the 5 people
@Joseph I dont think you really have the power to "stop it." It's a case of either 1 dies or 5 and both decisions ultimately become immoral when you do create a decision. Hence why, I think the best move is to do what's best for you and in this case to protect your mental state. And sometimes letting go, is what stops us from hurting ourselves.
@Joseph totally cool, we can agree to disagree :) so in order to prevent the worst outcome from happening, how do you define "worst"? Is 5 people always a worse situation? What If the 5 people were murderers? Would you save them? Or what If the 1 person was your loved one or a young child? Who would you choose to "let" them die or live? So yeah i think I'd be subjective to say what is worse - everyone has different opinions.
As a man who values true equality i suggest that anyone who is on any track should be killed. If the trolley doesn't end them, the leaver puller you kill the ones left alive to enact equality. If i was one of the people who were on the track this is how i want it done anyways.
If I was in that case, I would closed my eyes and pretend I didn't see anyone, and let the trolley runs its direction.
Trolley Problem quesion.
Stalin answer:One death is tragedy, but five is a statistic. Problem solved.
Approved
You can say for 5 tragedy to because there is 5 1
No. That is murder.
They'd all be starved before they could die on the track
Theist answer: do nothing, whatever happens is part of god's plan
This would change the Sokovia Accords. It's not your fault Scarlet Witch.
mugensamurai i understood that reference
mugensamurai YES YES SOMEONE MAKE THIS VIDEO VIRAL SO THAT ALL MARVAL FANS CAN UNDERSTAND
Superhuman registration act. The comics came first.
She killed many people, if she were smart enough, he would let Cap died. #peace
"We don't trade lives, captain"
Don't worry guys, trains have emergency brakes in case there's a situation like this.
What if emergency brake gets destroyed?
@@ameennasar2583 they dont
133 likes ruined but I gave u new one :)
man u saved my day or else i would be thinking about this the whole day instead of preparing form my test next week :')
@@honkhonk8009 wut if i destroy it
I simply won’t touch the lever, because in that case I didn’t cause a death, the train company did, for letting the train go rogue. If I hit the lever, I’ll be partially responsible for the death.
Plot Twist: there wasn't anyone on the tracks in the first place
lol yep
Plot twist its not a train its an attack helicopter
Plot twist you are actually in your mind daydreaming while YOU are on the track
MaggotKombat1911 Shutter Island?
Finn Godson yep
Under the laws of the United States, the railroad company would be the one who gets charged with negligence and involuntary manslaughter. Criminal negligence because the railroad company failed to inform workers about an incoming train; involuntary manslaughter because of criminal negligence.
gottem
Gottem
gottem
gottem
@@president8102 u first
"Unrealistic"? Let me give you a realistic version of the fat-man scenario, then:
A doctor is on shift at a hospital. He has five different patients, each with an incurable disease isolated to a different organ of their body: One has a tumor in the lungs, the second has a heart with corroded valves, the third has liver damage, _et cetera._
Patient #6 comes in for a surgery, but it's nothing life-threatening- he'll need to be anesthetized, but his damage is ultimately temporary. As the doctor's working, though, he notes that patient #6 is a perfect donor match for all his other patients. And he's in perfect health, too- none of his organs have any issues at all...
Does this sound like an "unrealistic" scenario? Because this is the path that pushing the fat man takes us down.
i mean it is the path both push us down. all cases require you to take action to prevent five deaths and cause 1.
Your scenario is just as unrealistic (if not more) as the one shown in the video. The chances of one person being a donor match for five other people is highly unlikely, if it did happen, the chances of all five in the same hospital as the person is just as unlikely. Your scenario works on coincidence and nothing else. And besides the doctor can't give the people the organs without that one person's consent, Clconsidering it's their organs being giving away.
Imnotsurewhat tomakemyusername there are ways to make it realistic, like what if you could save one younger life or 2 people by sacrificing a person. plus requiring concent may not lead to the best outcome for everyone. like if somebody got an incurable disease but wasn't quarantined because they didn't give concent puts a lot of people at risk.
I guarantee you it's not that far-fetched, mate. Statistics all but guarantees it. Nearly 40% of the U.S. population is o-positive; another 35% are A-negative. Assuming you're the less common of the two, just for the sake of argument, the chance of you having the same blood type of five other people in a hospital is .35 ^ 5. Now, statistics says that only about 40 or so people per 1,000 need to visit a hospital before age 35 ( politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-odds-of-going-to-hospital.html#.WHjUp_krLZY ), so that puts you at about a 4% chance, again raised by 5 for the other blokes. Our math so far gives you a 5.37824 x 10 ^ -10, which really does sound outlandish.
Here's the kicker, though- this needs to be multiplied by the entire U.S. population. 320,000,000. This gives us, in total, about a 17% chance that an A- negative person is in a hospital, same as 5 others with his blood-type.
Now, there are other factors to consider- this math only takes into people in hospitals across the U.S, not hospitals nearby themselves; organs harvested in New York are probably useless to hospitals in Arizona, regardless of necessity. Furthermore, admittance to a hospital is not any guarantee of life-saving surgery or surgery requiring anesthesia.
But there are factors weighing in the equation's favor, too, boosting its probability. For one, this hypothetical is only for the A-positive group, not the statistically larger O-negative one. And for another, utilitarianism only requires the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people; so long as that integer is greater than 1, utility-wise, it's still the better judgment. What happens when you only need organs to save _three_ people? What happens when you only need organs to save _two_?
As for consent.... well, no one asked the fat man's opinions before they pushed him, did they?
Assuming that the tumor is operable, take the tumor out of the first guy's lungs, get the second guy some artificial heart valves, remove the damaged parts of the liver from the third one: the liver is the only organ in the body that can regenerate itself, so I'll just remove enough of the damaged parts so that there are only healthy cells left that will grow back, etc. and operate on patient 6 last.
Though you used the word euthanized instead of presumably put on anesthetics, which if he were euthanized, you can ignore everything I said above because he'll be dead anyway.
TED-Ed videos and the animations >>>>>
Another variant I heard of the trolley problem that really made a lot of people uncomfortable was a scenario in which you are a master surgeon. You have one completely healthy person and 5 people who are dying of various organ failures. If you were to dismantle the completely healthy person and transfer his working organs to all the sick people you can save all of their lives, but the healthy person would die.
This is simple, depends on whether or not the healthy individual agrees to donate his or her organs.
I think it depends on the 5 people. Did they cause that illness/organ failure themselves as a result of unhealthy living and bad choices? Will they make the same mistake, causing them to be sick again? Was it caused by something out of their control? I think there are a lot of things that need to be considered.
That's a totally different scenario because the master surgeon took a hippocratic oath, that they would never use their medical knowledge to intentionally harm people. Dismantling the healthy person would be a clear violation of that, regardless of the total good that could be achieved.
A bystander witnessing a runaway trolley has made no such oath, and is only bound to take the action they consider to result in the most good.
Easy not kill the healthy person
I literally thought of this 2 min ago and i Made a comment, i swear to god i had not read your comment nor that perspective.
“Would you sacrifice one person to save five?”
Me: Yes, *me specifically.”*
Easier imagined than done man....
@@larry1816 not if..you are suicidal
I think he meant that he's part of the 5
Depends who earns more ~ capitalism
Why isn't there a sort of alarm to warn the workers?
Roaring Rayquaza get out
yeah that's cheating; cheaters aren't allowed 😂
Nice answer my dude. /s
It's not about solving the problem bc there are many ways, it's just about how you would deal with the problem, kill 1 person or 5
kudos to the 5 workers who stayed silent to not alert that one man.
I never got why so many people were inconsistent with the trolley problem. It comes down to letting 5 people die, or murdering 1 person. We all let people die everyday, but a vast majority of us do not murder others, yet the results of the trolley problem are just the opposite -- most people choose to murder instead of letting people die.
I know, idiots.
It´s purposely letting people in our vicinity die though. We don´t do that every day.
Niklas Hansen You do, you just don't think about it because it's other people's jobs.
Lutra Nereis Inadvertently, yes. Purposely, no.
Niklas Hansen
You can't and I'm sure you would not kill a person to think that it is possible to save others. You won't push a man in front of a train wtf.
Would you sacrifice one person to save five?
Me: How can I sacrifice all 6?
Multi Track Drifting
Pull the witch when one car is going towards 5, and he last will get the sixth.
just turn the switch and when the train is in the middle of turning switch it back so everyone dies because the train will go off the track
Multi track drifting.
Use the break pedal?
People would get their phones out and start recording!!!
beemore18 XD
beemore18 *I HAVE TO DO A SACRIFICE AND KILL SOMEONE?!?!?! |STORY TIME| SO TENSE!😰😱😰😱😰😱😰😱😰😱😰😱😰😱😰😱😨😨😨*
beemore18 *PUSHING PEOPLE ONTO TRACK GONE WRONG GONE SEXUAL*
Omg so truexd
beemore18
of course they would. What do you excpect them to do? Take action?
Would you do something about it? Really?
All these transitions and symbolism is such an eye candy.
Keep flipping the switch and the train derails
Christopher Norris it’s empty, if it was full they’d be dead anyways
Lol
@@siffle4249 no they won't. Humans are not that strong.
* front part of the rain runs over the railway switch *
P.E. Expert - The Savage MC Master
: "Oh boy I sure wanna turn that switch to save some lives!"
* turns switch *
* back end of the train follows the other railway *
*MULTI TRACK DRIFTING*
OHSHIT.jpg
* train absolutely mangles the 6 innocent people, derails and flips over, killing and injuring some more *
............................ok
What many people in the comments don't seem to understand is that the Train track dilemma is just a hypothetical situation being used to represent a real life concept: would you sacrifice one to save five. It doesn't matter if you can derail the train or move the people off the tracks. The train does not matter, it just creates a visual example for an ethical concept(which has actually happened before)
I don't believe people should be sacrificing other people. Sacrifice yourself, not a stranger. Unless they're proven to be deranged and vile.
@@jaded8itch what if say you aren't exactly on the bridge, and instead you can push a button that pushes the same man of the bridge?
@@jaded8itch🙄🙄🙄🙄
@@jaded8itchwhat if the one person is 90 years old and the 5 are kids?? and you are 25??? The 90 year old has lived. Everybody gets his time to do the same.
To me it's the same-same. Flip the switch. Push the man. You caused that worker's/man's death. Thing I'm not sure about is would I do it to save five people? Or be a witness because choosing whether or not people die is not necessarily my decision to make. Not to mention this question: Is that one person worth more than five people? If he is, what if something changes in one of those five (or more) that make them more worthy later on? Ugh philosophy.
your mcm thinks this is deep
BlurBerry Creative One life can outweigh all 5 if it was for example your lover, your mother/father or any close person to you. That's what makes it more complicated.
When the Sun Rises no, it's the best, if you believe killing one person is better than letting 5 die then you have no grounds to refusing a doctor to let people die to harvest their organs for people that need a donor, just replace the train with illness and it's the exact same thing, (the one person could be saved and the others wouldn't die without the one person dying) so that's why I'd choose to do nothing.
Also "one of the worst"? There are only 2 choices it's not like there are multiple choices to the trolley problem...
When the Sun Rises Ok I'll break it down more, so:
In the doctor's analogy let's say there is one person that is the only compatible donor for other 5 people that need organ donations to survive and they need different organs so their death can save all five of them.
Not pulling the lever and letting the train run over the 5 people equals letting the disease kill the five people that need organs and treating the person that can be saved with just an operation.
And flipping the switch and letting the one person get hit by the train, equals letting the one patient die to save the five people that need the organs.
Would you be fine with that happening in the real world? Might not always be 1 person saves 5 people situation but we are always out of compatible organ donors all over the world so 1 person saves more people by donating all organs is a very real situation.
Since you think it is morally right to pull the lever would you be ok with doctors letting patients die if they qualify as organ donors?
Your both opinion is correct but sometimes you need to choose one of them. Even what you doing is Factually right its doesn't mean that you always morally right. Sacrificing one person to save 5 live is logicaly right but it morally wrong, that's why most people in that situation choose to not doing anything. Imagine if that one person is your loved ones or family, can you sacrifice them for 5 people that has nothing to do with you? In that case what would you do? Who will you choose to death?
There's nothing free in this world. The one who cannot sacrifice anything cannot change anything.
In my perspective that is the moral you can get from this story
Save 5 lives or 1?
Denji: The cat.
Now change that 1 person to being your closest family member, and 5 strangers.
It's obvious you'll save your sibling over 5 strangers. You can't break that chain of love and care between a family, even if it's selfish to save 1 person and kill 5 other's.
Basic human instincts
DopiestThyme 336 ruclips.net/video/fs3rRDWQw5w/видео.html
AI have no relatives. This question only become relevant in the case of programming ethics.
The hardest of choices require the strongest of wills
@@张桓瑜 So you would save 5 strangers over a family with unconditional love?
The actually answer: why in the world are random people standing at tracks and a worker working when the train is already running
Edit: THX SO MUCH FOR THE LIKES!!!
Maybe someone hijacked the trolley
They can hop the fence.
Your answer is actually in the form of a question :/
there's a version where the people are actually tied to the rails
* confused indian noises *
"Comedy clip"
Written on it: *_LMAO_*
|_ |\/| /-\ ○
The answer to both scenarios were simple to me.
1 or 5? - Flip the switch to save the 5, run and try to get the 1 worker's attention to move. If I have time to flip a switch, even if it's a couple of seconds before the split, I have time to move my body wheather or not I make it in time to the 1.
Push the bigger guy to save 5? - No. Jump myself and form a tight ball inbetween the rails, close to either side of a rail. If that fails, I never took another person's life for the chance of it failing.
No human would sacrifice themselves like that😂
@@assarlannerborn9342 Maybe not you