+63 The problem with the Trolley Problem. amirite?

by Remarkable-Field 2 days ago

I might have misunderstood that part, you could be right.

by Remarkable-Field 2 days ago

I didn't say they were the same. I didn't make any statement about what is right at all, so I don't know what conclusion you are talking about. I just said the question is well-presented for evaluating whether a person thinks they are the same.

by Street-Difficulty 2 days ago

But I am disagreeing with you though. I am not saying the idea the person had in mind when presenting it is flawed. I am saying the execution is.

by Remarkable-Field 2 days ago

Yes, but your argument against my point assumes your moral framework. The question is specifically agnostic of moral framework, and meant to discern an aspect of an unknown moral framework.

by Street-Difficulty 1 day ago

Yes, precisely. This is why he doesn't understand the problem.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I might not be able to explain what I am saying well, a flaw in me, I am sure. But the way I see it is this, you think you are doing something good by thinking you are saving five people. What we all saw is that you killed someone innocent. Why do you think the follow up is always something along the lines of "In this version, you physically kill the person yourself, punching them to death." Why do you suppose that would make some people change their answers? Why would someone even hesitate? It shows, that people never understood what they were doing in the first place. This is why it isn't a dilemma, just a misunderstanding. You are given two choices, do nothing, or do evil. Most people seem to see the nothing as the true evil, thus they do evil, thinking they did something good. Just in case someone misunderstands what I meant by "Nothing." I am not saying that inaction can't be evil, nor am I saying that doing nothing is not a choice. I am talking about this specific scenario though. Hope that makes sense.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

It does make sense, but I still think you are assuming your moral framework. I don't think people change their minds because they didn't understand. I think they change their minds because they didn't employ a moral framework, they went by what feels more wrong. Which, to be fair, is a sort of moral framework of its own. Punching someone to death feels more wrong than just pulling a lever. But it's a good thing that people change their answer. It may prompt them to actually think about what makes certain actions wrong, rather than relying on what feels wrong. Or it may not. Not everybody thinks morality should be a logical endeavor. I do, but I am aware that this is not universal.

by Street-Difficulty 1 day ago

To a certain degree I think that's just semantics. Although, I can agree that I could have worded it better. The point I am making is that it isn't a dilemma. It is supposed to be one, but it fails at being one. And there is only one option moral people can make. But does it mean that everyone that chooses to pull it is immoral? No, it just means, you misunderstand the question itself. That's only my opinion though, of course. You are completely right that inaction can be evil, and not doing anything is a choice. This is what I mean when I say people misunderstand. Just because what you said is true, doesn't mean that this specific "dilemma" is accurate. When presenting a moral dilemma, you are supposed to weigh two, equally difficult things, or as near to it as possible. However, here, we just get presented with, do you want to kill, or not. That's how I see it. The ends, do not justify the means, kind of thing. It doesn't matter if it was 5, or 5 billion. The real question is, do you want to kill at all. We have to also assume the person you kill is innocent, otherwise, there wouldn't be a question to ask. But, I doubt most people will see it my way, and most will still see this as allowing deaths, when in reality, you didn't allow, you just didn't kill.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Your entire response is exactly the point of the problem. Some see it as you do, some don't. It's not meant to be an objective measure of morality. Its about exploring the spectrum of morality as a whole.

by Important_Pop_2909 1 day ago

I think you are the one misunderstanding me and the "dilemma." You are saying I am making a moral claim or something. I am not. I am just saying that you can't get a moral dilemma out of the question itself. I am not saying I am right, morally speaking. I am not talking about morals, I am simply questioning the logic of the dilemma. A dilemma is supposed to be something with more than one option. If there can only be one option for a moral person, then it isn't a dilemma. Why are there more than one option for moral person then, you ask? Because in MY opinion, they are misunderstanding the question, reading into it, and answering from THAT framework, which is their morality, not the actual question itself. The best way I can explain that is that a bunch of misunderstandings and assumptions lead to a a true answer to a riddle, but the way to the riddle itself was not asking whatever people think it was. They are the reason for the answer, BECAUSE they misunderstood the riddle. I am not talking about people's morals, I am talking about the question itself being flawed. Ironically though, in the end, it doesn't matter. Since people give the dilemma a meaning it was intended to have all along.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Your entire answer hinges on the belief that killing in of itself is evil and immoral, though. That is not a widely agreed upon belief. In fact I think most people disagree. It seems more like you're looking at the question as an "is killing bad, no matter what" standpoint. Where thats not the case. Imo its widely assumed that killing is OK in some scenarios, and the question explores where that line is, and also if you believe doing nothing is itself an action. But the fact that we're having this discussion and looking at the question through different lenses is the point of the question at the end of the day. Its philosophy, the entire point is introspection and discussion.

by Important_Pop_2909 1 day ago

However, here, we just get presented with, do you want to kill, or not. That's how I see it. The ends, do not justify the means, kind of thing. It Great, then you lean more toward a Kantian solution to the problem, that the ends do not justify the means. This is the entire point of the trolly problem, to see what moral philosophy you lean toward. It worked, you now know which one you lean toward. Other people would kill if it saves many other people. That's more utilitarian, about the "greater good"

by Silver-Occasion-6548 1 day ago

i always seen it as your inaction is a action in it self, the conscious choice of not doing nothing is a action in it self

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Indeed, and that's why this is an unpopular opinion of mine. I completely disagree with that idea. I don't think this is a moral dilemma, it just sounds like it on the surface. But if it isn't, in reality, then it shouldn't be used for what it was intended.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

I mean, yeah. That's why it's often followed up with the fat man and the doctor variation.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yeah, I've heard of those as well. This feels to me, like someone reading into a quote, and finding beautiful meaning in it, when the author itself was high and didn't have a clue what they were saying at the time. The reason this "dilemma" makes sense to people isn't because it's a good dilemma. It isn't a dilemma at all, it's just that people, who are far smarter than the so called dilemma, put meaning into it, and make it work for them.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

By your logic if there was no person on the other track and you still decided to not pull the lever you didn't do anything wrong. You are claiming inaction has nothing to do with you.

by deronratke 1 day ago

The point of the problem is exactly to scrutinise the idea that the utilitarian choice for 1 death rather than 5 is obvious. You're reading too much into the way the question is framed, namely as a choice between pulling the lever or not. The real choice, which the problem forces you to consider, is between two different outcomes, not about pulling a lever. Not pulling the lever, in this formulation, even though it is technically inaction, should therefore be considered as the choice for a certain outcome, namely the death of 5 instead of 1. The trolley problem is simply designed to test the validity of the idea that the best action is the one that does the most benefit or the least harm. You can't weasel your way out of moral responsibility with the odd claim that not pulling a lever would amount to inaction and therefore absolves your responsibility for the outcome; it is a moral dilemma precisely because in any event, you are responsible!

by Anonymous 1 day ago

In no way is the Trolly Problem masked, hiding the ball, or ambiguous. Action vs inaction is the whole Trolly Problem. That's it, that's the whole thing.

by West-Obligation 1 day ago

That's what I was going to say. In describing his problem with the trolley problem, he's literally just describing the trolley problem.

by Schummclarabell 1 day ago

No, I understand that. It sounds like the inaction is worse than the action, which it isn't, therefore there isn't a dilemma.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Option A (pull the lever): you actively intervene. You make a conscious choice to cause the death of one person. That person would have lived if not for your direct action. You become a killer. Option B (do nothing): five people die, but they die as a result of a pre-existing accident that has nothing to do with you. You are a bystander to a tragedy, not its cause. Your hands remain clean. Wrong. Inaction is also a choice and it doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Option A - you actively intervene to kill one person. Option B - you passively intervene to kill five people. Therefore, the question isn't "save one or save five." The real question is: "Are you willing to become a killer to change the outcome of an accident?" You will become a killer either way. The question only is of how many people. Choosing inaction isn't about choosing for five people to die; it's about refusing to commit murder. It is the only option where you are not morally culpable for a death—the only option where you are not evil. But it is. If you have the option to save five people and you don't - you actively chose to let them die by your inaction. You are morally culpable for the death of someone whom you could have saved. Whether or not that makes you evil is a whole other discussion. For any person who believes that the act of killing is fundamentally wrong, the answer is clear. You must do nothing. This is a completely deluded and alibistic view. It's like saying if you believe hurting people is fundamentally wrong then a doctor must never cause any of his patients any pain, even if he is trying to help them. Or that if someone wants to be in a relationship with you you must not turn them down because that would hurt them.

by Fidel18 1 day ago

I would probably choose inaction for the reasons you suggested. I didn't kill those 5, nor the 1 as I am not involved directly in the situation. Now, if that 1 person was someone I cared about, I'm taking inaction deliberately not indifferently. More, I would likely turn the trolley on 5 strangers to save the 1 important-to-me person if I had to.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

The question was never deciding between killing 1 or 5 people. The question is whether you would sit back, inactive, and leave 5 people to be killed or actively get involved in order to do something that only results in 1 person being killed.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

The way I see it is, is it wrong to kill 1 person? Then the answer most people seem to give is, nope, it is totally fine, justified too, to kill 1, 1 billion people too. Innocent, babies, whatever, doesn't matter in the least. What DOES seem to matter is what you compare it to. 1 person dead? Bad, 1 person dead but you DON'T kill 2 people, 5 etc, good. That's not a moral question, even if it sounds like it is. The only worth you give people and goodness is what it compares to, that is less than it. I am not sure if you understand what I mean, maybe I am wording it wrong. Everyone can agree that killing a baby is wrong. But what if I told you that by killing this baby, you save 5 babies? Or in another sense, killing this baby means not killing 5 babies. Now, it might sound like a moral choice, but where is the morality of the choice exactly? By you becoming a monster, other babies do not die. Had you simply not done anything, there would have been no blame, because you are not the one doing the bad deed. You are not "letting it happen" either. Nor are you even saving the one baby. You are simple not killing. If you don't get what I mean, then that's fine.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

By having means to pull the lever and not doing it you're still affecting the outcome

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Let's say you run for the lever, but you don't make it. Did I affect it? I never had a choice, since I couldn't run faster, no matter what I tried. That's the moral wall in front of me, preventing me from acting. You see it as a choice, but it isn't a choice, from a moral point of view. It gives you the illusion of a choice, which in my opinion is the misunderstanding people have with the problem. Otherwise there wouldn't need be a follow-up question where you, this time, kill the one person with a knife or something.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Your problem with the Trolley Problem seems to be that you don't like the framing of your choice in it. You would choose inaction, and are desperate to avoid anyone pointing out what that means. You've declared that watching people die when you could have saved them is morally neutral. Others, obviously, disagree. But that's literally the point of the Trolley Problem. That some view inaction as morally void while others consider it an action in itself.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I am not desperate about people's opinion on the matter. I am pointing out the flaw of the scenario itself. I never said that watching someone die while I could save them is morally neutral. That's your assertion. You are taking a specific case and painting a general picture with it, that's the flaw. It is masked as a hard dilemma, but it isn't. Nor could it logically be picking between a lesser of two evils, because everyone would pick the lesser of two evils. Therefore it wouldn't be a true question. So, it must be about moral vs not moral, right? It should be, but in this case it is moral vs nothing. Therefore it isn't a choice, and hence, not a dilemma. Just because people misunderstand something someone said, and took it as a wise thing, doesn't actually mean what the person said was that.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Duh.

by elsiejacobs 1 day ago

I am glad we agree, but people don't usually say this. The usually hear people say that it is the obvious choice to pull it.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

You want philosophers to be done after one question? Lmao

by Consistent_Solid2249 1 day ago

Haha, fair point. But I was hoping that more people would see it from my point of view. So far, all they are doing is convincing me they are not getting what I am saying. Had they gotten it, they wouldn't constantly be misunderstanding my points. Saying silly thing like "inaction is a choice" of course it is. "Not doing anything can be evil" of course? I am not talking about those things in the first place. Just because I give a specific answer to a very tailored question, doesn't mean people can now use this answer and apply it to a general situation. I mean, someone even said that if there was no one on the other track, that means "you still decided to not pull the lever you didn't do anything wrong." Of course I'd be wrong if I didn't pull it in that scenario. They are missing the point. I am saying morally, a human life is valued in of itself, regardless of other people. What they have effectively done is devalue a human life into nothingness. Because as long as I bring up a higher number of people, we can now suddenly justify LITERALLY anything being done to the other person. It's all good since it saves others, right? Now, suddenly, morality means nothing. You can just do whatever evil, all the means are justified by the ends, because WE got a higher number of "saved" people. That's not morality, that's just devaluing what that even means. Why do they even care about saving people anyway? The same people they saved can the next day be on the other side of the tracks, we just add +5 more on the first track, and suddenly the saved are not a means to "save" others. But the words, save mean nothing any more, nor does life mean anything.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

The correct solution to the trolley problem is (c) go back in time to 1967 and kill Philippa Foot and put an end to this nonsense once and for all. đŸ¤ª

by Swiftdenis 1 day ago

So you pretty much just said the trolly problem is flawed and then when you tried to describe what the question should be really asking you just described the trolly problem.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

For me it depends on who the five are. If it is five criminals against one innocent, I am saving the innocent person. And vice versa.

by Objective-Trash 1 day ago

Your problem with the trolley problem is the trolley problem

by Schummclarabell 1 day ago

I'm pretty sure the scenario posits you have to act, inaction isn't a choice so that kind of ruins your idea.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Inaction is a choice. Not doing anything is still a choice. By choosing to abstain from pulling the lever even though you had every opportunity to do so you have doomed 5 people to die. Sure in the trolley problem they would have died anyway but you somehow stumbled upon this situation and made a choice to not do anything and thus the 5 people die when you could have minimised suffering or helped the most ammount of people or whatever

by FirstArugula 1 day ago

Inaction is a choice, I agree. But this is semantics now. I am saying, the person that made up the dilemma, made a bad attempt at such. That doesn't mean I am saying that inaction isn't a choice, or inaction can't be bad. In this specific situation, it isn't a choice for a moral person, it is a simple one. Hence, not a dilemma.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

I do agree with you, that's why I feel like most of this has boiled down to semantics in a way. Obviously, in a real, true sense, you always have a choice if you can physically act. But from a principle, or moral stand-point, everyone has a line in the sand. Interestingly though, this "dilemma" has always a follow-up, to show-case to people that they misunderstood something with their choice. Such as physically killing someone, with their own two hands. Indeed, and it has never changed my answer, no matter which version I am answering.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

Oh if that's the case then I concede, and you do have a point. I suppose if its framed without inaction then the question is ludicrous.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

thats not actually necessarily true you have an obligation to help and will get punished if you don't in alot of places atleast in some capacity

by Wonderful_Action_698 1 day ago

That's fair, only as far as laws go. A law doesn't necessarily have to be moral, the same way, this question doesn't have to necessarily be a real moral dilemma. My defence is simple. I witnessed a horrible accident, and the only option was to willingly end someone's life. That, is not an option for someone that believes they are moral.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

that entirely depends on your moral system and the choice of least death is in most the morally correct choice as it minimises Suffering

by Wonderful_Action_698 1 day ago

With that sort of "moral" compass, you can justify any amount of killings. You could wipe out entire universes, because you chose to save the same amount of universes +1. At that point, what is morality anyway? What you are doing is a numbers game. Save most amount of lives. Then what is a life really worth? To me, it's not about numbers. 10 lives vs 1? I see it as 11 vs 0. I am not seeing it as saving lives, I am seeing it as not taking them. I don't have to save anyone, but I should not try to kill anyone (innocent). I think once people become the one person in the scenario, they would see what I mean. They either witness someone that never kills them, versus someone that happened to want to save +1 person, so your life, even though you are a good person is forfeit. That does not really value the goodness itself. It is only as good until there's someone with +1 goodness, then you are nothing.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

yes morals are a system of reduced suffering a choice which preserves Human Life while keeping Suffering at a minimum will always be right also yes wiping out n universe for n+1 universes is the morally correct choice if you must make a choice there isn't even an argument here

by Wonderful_Action_698 1 day ago

wrong. you can literally stand there and watch, and the police cant do anything.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

That's a good point. To be fair, that's probably what most people would do, if they could do something other than pulling or not pulling the lever. But to be fair to the concept itself, you wouldn't be able to do that, since it would defeat the purpose of asking this question to begin with. Although, I fully agree with you, in a real sense, but within the confines of the rules, I would do nothing, because in my opinion, that's the only answer. A question with only one answer, can't be a moral dilemma, so the flaw is the entire scenario itself. I think people that think the answer is A, or that there can be more than one answer (for a moral person that wouldn't want to kill innocent people), are just misunderstanding and assuming the question isn't flawed. That's what I think, anyway.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago

I look at it this way: you actually don't KNOW if the person or persons will die. The problem assumes you know, for a fact, the outcome, but, you don't. It also assumes you have an unlimited amount of time to decide what you want to do, or not do. Time to weigh the options and then make a choice. You don't. Given only a split-second to decide, most people would freeze and not do anything, regardless of their beliefs.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

There are different kinds of the problem presented, such as you knowing the one person, etc. Either way, if you don't know if they will die, you can always say you assumed they would get away. Then the entire thing becomes pointless. It would be a working defence, and everyone would use it, not much of a moral dilemma, now is it? Again with the last sentence. If that's the actual reality of what happens, and it might very well be, isn't that a pointless fact to bring up? The interesting thing is supposed to be what you think you'd do, not what will prevent you from entirely making a decision. That's what I think anyway.

by Remarkable-Field 1 day ago