Would you sacrifice one person to save five? - Eleanor Nelsen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2017
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/would-you-s...
Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too - but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.
Lesson by Eleanor Nelsen, animation by Eoin Duffy.
Came after that 2 year old kid who killed all six
Haha, me too
Same bro
God bless youtube
Lol me too
lol metoo
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
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
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..
_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
Change the question to this: "Would you sacrifice your self to save five?" And see the result of people answering it
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
Vietnam Mapper I would since I have no reason nor will to live anymore.
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.
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.
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
“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 ?
The workers be like: *hmm yes what that loud noise probably just the wind*
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.
@@zariftahmidshoeb3487 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.
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*
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
@@zariftahmidshoeb3487killing 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.
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
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!
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.
All these transitions and symbolism is such an eye candy.
"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.
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
These videos never end in a solution. They always end in giving us the problem of finding our own solution.
Because there is no solution. It is not a mathematical problem.
The level of animation in this🙌🏾
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?
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
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?
This is so well animated
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?
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!
Great animations!
YO THE ANIMATION IS SO GOOD
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
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.
what a creative animation style!
absolutely love the video animation
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
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
I feel like if the in the 1st trolley problem ,
We might be able to untie the person on he rail in time
(it might depend on the speed of the train , if its sow enough we might be able to untie him and turn thehh train)
@All - Bells, churches used bells for communication well before the steam engine, and to even sound alarms which can be heard up to miles away... could of done a flare also... we get the concept of saving the many... however the whole trolley itself is then expendable, just like the track...
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
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.
From my perspective, It's challenging to kill just a one person when we divert the first track to the second track, but the funny thing is, the speaker doesn't mention a person who is on the second track can escape or can't escape/has been tied up. Rationally, the person is still a human who has eyes and can see clearly about the dangerous thing is coming toward him, so, it's pretty simple that the person could jump to the left or right , which is the safest thing to do beside the second track, without being hit by the trolly or the train.
if there are 5 people on track 1 i think it's easier for 5 people to see a trolley coming then just on person on track 2, also a sudden change to track 2 would be more unpredictable becuase the trolley was on track 1 to begin with.
Damn those animations ! ❤️
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!?
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.
Mr. David Kamp, thank you so MUCH for making all those sounds so scary, I wouldn't be able to sleep
Something we all missed is what if all of the 5 people didn't actually die? If we combine the 5 and say their about 120 pounds each middle aged workers then we can assume that the trolley might have enough speed to only hurt 2 of those middle aged workers. 240 pounds of weight should be enough to stop the trolley therefore sacrificing 2 and saving 3 in the process.
Still 2>1 so still by sacrificing 1 life you can save 2.
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
"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.
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)
This is a situation that relates really well to the basilisk paradox, and honestly the answer seems clear here. Do nothing. The situation here has absolutely no positive solution, either way you are deciding who days and making a decision of fate. If you do nothing, either may people will die, but you do not have the right to decide whether those people die regardless. If you sent the tram their way, you are to blame no matter who dies, but if you decide who lives and who dies, you are still to blame for the death. Involving yourself in choices of fate and morality have no positive solution, and the only correct one, is by far the hardest to grasp for almost everyone.
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
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
"MA'AM, YOU GOTTA MOVE! I'M GONNA DIVERT THIS TROLLEY, OKAY? MOVE OUT OF THE WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY-"
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
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
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
Pull the lever as the cart is driving over the intersection. This means the switching mechanism will slam into the wheels, compressing them enough to stop the cart. If not, and the extra friction just causes the cart to get shoved out even faster than it went in, the sideways motion of the switcher rails will destabilise the cart. Instability+speed=derailment.
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.
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.
3:01 if you don't know what the fill tool in MS Paint is.
Haha
Lol.
hahahaha true
I was really thinking one would be someone close to you so it'd make the choice so much harder, like a lot of people asks qs like "Would you save 10 lives but lose your best friend or vice versa" kinda thing and i rlly wanna kn what the outcome would be then. Sacrificing lives as collateral damage is a lot easier for someone if u don't know them because yes you will feel remorse and guilt but you won't be affected by their death that heavily as compared to a friend dying. Same thing with pushing off would you push a friend off? Or would you let the train go on? It gets a lot more complicated when u add someone who your emotionally involved with in some way or another and idk abt me but I kinda wanna see vids where they incorporate smthg like that where it's a friend or family member maybe walking along the track
How about just yell at the worker to GET OFF THE DAMN TRACK
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
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
I see a key difference between the two versions of the problem.
Imagine for a moment that there WASN'T a worker on the second set of tracks. In that scenario, switching the trolley's tracks and saving those five people is the obvious correct decision. So when there IS someone on the second set of tracks, even if you switch the trolley so it runs them over, you're not SETTING OUT to kill them - you're just doing the same thing you would have done even if they weren't there, and simply aren't letting their presence STOP you.
But in the bridge version of the problem, the large person's death isn't an unfortunate side-effect of saving the five people's lives - the large person's death is the MEANS you're using to save their lives. You're specifically targeting the large person for death in a way you weren't with the worker in the switch version of the problem.
This one dude: Flips the switch and pushes the worker causing him to die but save all of them*
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
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.
No its because the "moral dilemma" itself is easy to answer. Just kill the one person. You can not convince me that its wrong because "you made a choice hurr durr your a murdurrurr". Doing nothing is also a choice. You chose to do nothing. Maybe not from a legal standpoint but from any other standpoint DOING NOTHING IS A CHOICE.
@@hybmnzz2658 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.
@@juliopcrj didn't know about that version. Cool. My instincts tell me kill the 5 :D
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.
What happens if we have to program automatic cars between deciding between killing a young person and killing and old person in a crash if those were the only two possible outcomes?
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
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.
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
Save 5 lives or 1?
Denji: The cat.
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.
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.
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
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.
I love the animator on this one ❤
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
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 go with the multi track drifting option.
I think there are two other paradoxes ( I Think ) that are like this one as shown in Indian films and also from my experiences.
1. belief/poison paradox :- this one is related to some chefs that make poisonous food to kill their owner. but for this everytime they try to do this, their owner always asks them to eat that food first. So , they always make food that isw not poisoned to impress their owner. But one day, the owner tells them, I believe you so he doesn't ask them to eat. The next day, the owner does the same, but this time, the chefs really make poisonous food. Then he died. Now, even if the chefs do/don't eat/make that poisonous food, it depends on the owner to believe it or not. I think that after you read this you see no paradox, But when I thought deeply about this, I got so many questions and confusions but I could not express what I exactly meant by this or what I had thought that time.
2.trust worthy/responsibility paradox :- Ok, this one is a little different and difficult for you to understand if you are not an Indian ( Sorry, I don't know if you can understand or not, as I thought so deeply to find/search/make this ). So this is about a shopkeeper and a costumer. One day the costumer from a very far place came to this shop on a bicycle to buy vegetables, but he didn't have enough money. As he came from a very far place, and was tired, he doesn't want to waste his work, So he said to the shopkeeper, that he would pay that money some other time. The shopkeeper agreed. But as the costumer got to his home, He was very busy in work/school/home and he forgot about that money matter. And same happened to the shopkeeper, he was very busy in selling and forgot that money matter. Now, where had the trust of the shopkeeper/ responsibility of the costumer gone?
This recently happened to me, but I paid the money. As I said earlier, I have not expressed my thoughts completely, but this one is little close.
I don't know, if you call these ' paradoxes ' or not, but this was what I understood about paradoxes. There are still some points that I want to express but I would be writing all day and you would be reading all day.
About second, if vegetable seller is open minded enough to trust a unknown man, most likely he would understand that other person forgot
The first word of the video: "Imagine"
Solution of the problem: STOP IMAGINING
Is you Pic is of Ruk-Chan ?
Ruka
"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
I would never be able to pull the switch, I would probably act like I didn't notice it until it was to late, and feel guilty about it for the rest of my life, but in the end, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be able to do anything. No matter what you do, someone dies. I don't think I'd be able to make a decision about something like that
My answer for the first problem is I would make the tracks face between the two sides this kills no one , for the other one I would jump so that they would all live.
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
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 😅
Flip the switch. Its a fed up situation.
You can change the outcome or not change the outcome.
Either way depending on your desision one person or 5 people die
The loss of 5 souls is greater then 1.
Thanks
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
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
"Don't touch anything" should be the only correct solution in this exact situation with no more information about the people involved
Not doing anything is a choice. You would deliberately let 5 people die😊
@@assarlannerborn9342 You don't know what happened or how those people got there, you are just playing God by changing it and killing one person that wasn't in danger and you know nothing about.
Whoever put the people on that situation is letting the people die, not me.
It would be interesting to see if these results vary at all when presented to more collectivist cultures versus individualist cultures. Especially if the bridge choice is to push the other person or jump over yourself.
It depends. Your body might not be as big enough as the man to stop the train, so you'd kill yourself as well as the 5.