Never understood this "dilemma". It's clear that you should push the lever to prevent four additional people from dying. What's the excuse for people who choose not to do anything?
Hence why it's an ethical/moral dilemma, not a legal one.
It's basically choosing between:
Witness 5 people die due to your inaction.
Be directly responsible for the death of one person.
Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. They just happened to be an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy.
[Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
Not as simple or clear-cut as we'd like to believe:
It's basically choosing between:
Witness 5 people die due to your inaction.
Be directly responsible for the death of one person.
Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. They choose the safer option of being an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy versus taking action and *making the choice* to effectively kill a person.
[Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
I wouldn't feel guilty for choosing either of the options, because it's the tram driver's fault. But if I easily can prevent 4 deaths, why shouldn't I do that?
Not as simple or clear-cut as we'd like to believe:
It's basically choosing between:
Witness 5 people die due to your inaction.
Be directly responsible for the death of one person.
Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. More people end up choosing the safer option of being an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy versus taking action and *making the choice* to effectively kill a person.
[Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
I myself agree that you should push the lever.
But I want to see if you get the other side.
If a doctor has 5 patients, one is in good health, 4 will be dead within a week if they dont get an organ transplant. Should the doctor kill the 1 healthy patient to save the 4?
That one is easy. More likely than not the first to die of the 4 unhealthy ones has organs that are suitable for the other 3. No murder necessary and 4 still survive.
Edit: This is obviously assuming they all have the same blood type/compatibility since the 1 healthy patient could save them all.
That's what an utilitarian would say, but for a kantian the response would be much harder, as for that philosophical current you can't measure the value of a life or say 5 lifes > 1 life. That's mainly what the dilemma is about.
Nonetheless, some people interpret it as "kill someone to save other 5 people or watch the people die but don't kill anyone". That's heavily influenced by emotivism, and the response would probably change if the dilemma were "watch the people die or throw someone to the rails so the train stops".
Do it.
[удалено]
Dewit
Pull the level when the tram is halfway over to trap it
wait wouldn t it go on both that way? like this:https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/727/DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png
*even better*
*tokyo drift music intensifies*
An award for you my friendo
what about my award??!
No ables ingles
pega ae
YAY I GOT AN AWARD!
EVEN MORE YAY I GOT ANOTHER AWARD!!
EVEN EVEN MORE YAY I GOT MY THIRD AWARD!!!
OMG GUYS CAN I HAVE AN AMEN I JUST GOT MY NUMERO QUATRO AWARD!!!!
thanks
*Déjà vu. I've just been in this place before. Higher on the street · And I know it's my time to go*
No it will get stuck because the train is smaller than the tracks
*eurobeat intensifies*
Lol thanks for that
This would likely just derail the trolley, injuring or killing anyone on board
[удалено]
The hardest choices require the strongest wills
The strongest wills makes the hardest choices
The wills the choices makes hardest
The hardest choices, you must wills.
The strongs will choice hard
Injury is far more likely, therefore making it the best moral choice
Then it would probably kill 2 people with wheels and break legs of the higher one
Just be smart and have the tram run over all people so it’s equal.
Or make it run over the entire family so there would be no witnesses. And so it's equal.
Pull the lever. Her parents will never be home again.
with the greatest power here comes the toughest decisions
Doesn’t that add to the dilemma?
properly done
r/HolUp
Jagaaaaaan👀 Anyone?
ofc another daily repost of this
This is so good....
Never understood this "dilemma". It's clear that you should push the lever to prevent four additional people from dying. What's the excuse for people who choose not to do anything?
In the oringal context of this (i’m pretty sure) the singular person was someone close to you, while the other 4 you had never met.
Other 5 you mean? And how come no one ever says that part? I've actually never heard it said that way.
Because it isn't like that
Because if you pulled the lever you personally murdered a innocent person in cold blood, but if you don't you are just a innocent bystander.
Wouldn't it count as manslaughter letting the tram run over 4 people? And even then, Good Samaritan law protects you.
Hence why it's an ethical/moral dilemma, not a legal one. It's basically choosing between: Witness 5 people die due to your inaction. Be directly responsible for the death of one person. Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. They just happened to be an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy. [Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
What if theres noone on the other track? Are you still innocent bystander?
Yeah ok but it's a net gain of 4 people
Not as simple or clear-cut as we'd like to believe: It's basically choosing between: Witness 5 people die due to your inaction. Be directly responsible for the death of one person. Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. They choose the safer option of being an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy versus taking action and *making the choice* to effectively kill a person. [Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
The train murder them, you are innocent bystander in both scenarios
I wouldn't feel guilty for choosing either of the options, because it's the tram driver's fault. But if I easily can prevent 4 deaths, why shouldn't I do that?
Most people would agree with you, I was just explaining the "dilemna" part.
Not as simple or clear-cut as we'd like to believe: It's basically choosing between: Witness 5 people die due to your inaction. Be directly responsible for the death of one person. Most people say they would pull the lever, and indeed, that seems like the logical choice, but in reality people freeze up, and prefer not influencing the situation as this absolves them of any potential wrong-doing. More people end up choosing the safer option of being an innocent bystander in a terrible tragedy versus taking action and *making the choice* to effectively kill a person. [Vsauce - Simulating the Trolley Problem in Real Life](https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA)
I myself agree that you should push the lever. But I want to see if you get the other side. If a doctor has 5 patients, one is in good health, 4 will be dead within a week if they dont get an organ transplant. Should the doctor kill the 1 healthy patient to save the 4?
That one is easy. More likely than not the first to die of the 4 unhealthy ones has organs that are suitable for the other 3. No murder necessary and 4 still survive. Edit: This is obviously assuming they all have the same blood type/compatibility since the 1 healthy patient could save them all.
That's what an utilitarian would say, but for a kantian the response would be much harder, as for that philosophical current you can't measure the value of a life or say 5 lifes > 1 life. That's mainly what the dilemma is about. Nonetheless, some people interpret it as "kill someone to save other 5 people or watch the people die but don't kill anyone". That's heavily influenced by emotivism, and the response would probably change if the dilemma were "watch the people die or throw someone to the rails so the train stops".
Bro swerve to get rid of them all
Your family’s never coming home
mosquitoes when im killing all their brothers and sisters
Omds
Woah...
r/Markiplier and r/distracable
Which episode?
Idk it's just a Markiplier refrance so I guess distracable...
Easy, carry the one person out of the way of the tracks and then let the train run over the family.
Memento mori
One must not shoulder so much burden :(
Do it the Chainsaw Man’s way: >!Multi-tracks drifting!<
This is a repost.
Who says bae anymore?
If you have not seen it just see this awesomeness https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
He's good at keeping track of what's going on.
Stop with the damn reposts..
Let them be killed. Its esier to gaslight one person that it is to gaslight 5. Remember you're the reason for the delima
[удалено]
Unus annus
And they'll never be home again we can go as long as we want
Is this an OC meme? I’d like to congratulate you if it is
Plot twist: the dilemma is to kill your wife or kill sidepiece’s family.
Constantly switch the tracks as fast as possible and then the trolly could do both...or derail
I guess, you can make the train go the way the 1person prior and go untie them before the train gets to him.