• happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d kill the trolley driver and the person who owns the trolley company. Now nobody will want to drive it and nobody will want to start their own.

    • kleeon [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah I have the same position. I would also give this kind of ironic answer to avoid answering the question, because I don’t really know if I’d pull the lever or not

  • Abraxiel [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think I believe pulling the leverage is the right thing to do. I also have a feeling I wouldn’t be able to do it.

  • Othello [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    if the people on the tracks are strangers yes of course. if you dont do anything you kill more people, it would not be worse to pull the lever on my concise.

    • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I really don’t think the answer is as clear cut as this

      Let’s reframe it to this. You’re a surgeon and you have 5 patients that are about to die. You can save all of their lives and they’ll all make a full recovery if you kill a random guy and take all of their organs to transplant into your 5 patients

      Is it really just as easy to say yes to killing that 1 guy for the 5 patients?

      Edit notes:

      Imo it’s pretty clear the trolley problem is exclusively focused on morality and only to be viewed in a vacuum without concerning oneself about stuff like broader societal implications. The reframing should thus be considered with the same purpose

      • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I understand what a trolley problem is.

        As a materialist I don’t agree that you can simply reframe the issue this way since the two situations are not equivalent.

        When you have the choice to change the trolley track then the outcome is exactly clear and certain. Either 5 will die or 1 will die and there are no broader consequences for society beyond that. Like sure it will change which family grieves etc but society itself isn’t altered.

        A world in which a surgeon might randomly kill you to save 5 others is a profoundly different situation since now we live in a world where might randomly be killed.

        The flaw with trolley problemists who eschew materialism is that it leads them to believe that a trolley killing 1 or 5 is perfectly equivalent to a surgeon choosing to kill 1 healthy person to save 5. Actually these problems are not equivalent since the reframed example has profound broader implications for society. In problem A it’s a straightforward forced choice and since it’s forced by the material reality of the trolley track design and tying people to it the bystander has a choice without broader social implications whereas in problem B now every human on earth needs to fear sudden murder even in the absence of being tied to a trolley track.

        • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with what you’ve said but I think this is all out of scope for the thought experiment

          Imo it’s pretty clear the trolley problem is exclusively focused on morality and only to be viewed in a vacuum without concerning oneself about stuff like broader societal implications. The reframing should thus be considered with the same purpose

          • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But then you’re altering material reality itself to counter my materialism based response which seems to validate rather than invalidate the materialist response.