/lit/ - Literature

>>4599975
Just walk away. "It's not your fault, will"…"it's not your fault".

Pick the race of people you like the least

nothing in this pictures implies they are in fact on solid ground there i see no reason why i can't just turn the one person sideways, let him fall through white space, let the train go on that track and then catch the persons falling through whitespace

>>4599988
/thread

>>4599975
>So, did we ever figure out an answer?

You do not intervene otherwise depending on the law of the country you get stuffed.

>>4599988
New to explaining your thoughts?

switch it to the one guy, i don't get how its at all ambiguous

>>4599975
Destroy the train with a rocket!

>>4599988
>implying dooming someone to a life of only falling through white space is more ethical than killing them almost instantaneously

>>4599988
nothing in this picture implies the train is in fact movie or accelerating therefore pulling the switch may have numerous consequences. how do i know for a certain fact that the tracks are in fact not conveyor belts?

>>4599999
way to waste a perfectly good get faget

>>4599999
then you're making the conscious choice to kill someone and if you're cool with that then whatever

>>4600019
lol pretty good

>>4599999

Yeah. In a moral situation like that, first you look for better options. If there really aren't any, you pick the least bad option.

The fact that actually throwing the lever FEELS worse than if you didn't do anything, because "oh god, I threw the lever, I killed that guy!" is an interesting quirk of human psychology (and is intensified in the "fat man" variant of the Trolly Problem,) but it doesn't affect the morality or ethics of the situation.

>>4600016
nothing in this picture actually confirms that the switch is in fact a switch and not a gold detector. how do i know for certain that this is a moral dilemma and not a bandit taking passengers on the train hostages and demanding to know where they buried the treasure?

>>4600021
im killing one guy and saving five so ive saved 4 net lives

>>4600028
But what if the man you killed was a scientist that had saved millions of lives by curing diseases and would've saved more if you hadn't killed him?

>>4600032
what if the guy i killed was hitler reincarnated
im just working with what i know

>>4599988
>banishing people to empty whitespace

cruel

>>4600028
how utilitarian of you.

>>4600032
We can't assume that.

>>4599975
let the train get the five dudes, strangle the other one to death, hang yourself with his rope

#omnicidism

>>4600032
This sentence is the worst type of philosophy that actually still occurs in academia today.

>>4600032

The chances of that are equal to the chances of any one of the five being such a scientist.

If you actually KNOW the guy is a brilliant doctor, then, frankly, you gotta do the ethical calculus. What are the chances that he'd do more good than all the five put together? What, conversely, are the chances that he's already done all the good he's going to, like many scientists who do their best work early in their careers? You weigh the probabilities and confidences, and you take the least bad option.

>>4599975
You know how people always say that it's the journey that counts, not the destination?

That has never been truer than for that thread. It's still the best thing I've seen on /lit/.

>>4599975
Don't flip the switch to turn the trolley on. Rape the 1 dude. Take a nap in the trolley.

you cant kill the guy directly

>>4600026
now wait just a minute. how do we know those are actually people tied up with rope? for all i know this is could all be a dream and i could be hallucinating that tamales are in fact screaming. to hell with this i'd rather commit suicide rather than squash perfectly good tamales

what the fuck what century is this do those trolleys still exist anywhere outside of SF? if this is the case, kill everybody, kill all the yuppie techies, kill them all

>>4600059
There is an age limit to 4chan.

As for the question at hand, as long as there is a mechanical disassociation with the act I would personally take the utilitarian route. Now if I were say to be pushing a fat man in front of the train, I would not do it. The physical contact/proximity is a large factor.

Jump in front of the trolley.

>>4600076
>trying this hard to be edgy.

Read a book son, it'll do you good.

Stop the trolley.

>>4599975
Oh no, what have we done?

>>4600019
I still LOL errytime

>>4600090
WITH EXPLOSIVES

>>4599975
Switch to those four, then when it's all done, switch back to one that's left. Leave him to next train. There must be good reason why they are tied to die.

>>4600105
>tied to die

>SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB

>>4599975
I think the worst trolley problem would be if there was only the man with the lever. No people tied to the tracks, no trolley, just a solitary man standing there with his hand on a lever. How do you solve that one?

I personally would flip the switch and kill the one person

I don't think I would have a huge issue doing this in the actual moment either, but of course it hasn't happened so I'm not sure

>>4600120
He'd have to find people to tie to the tracks. How far is the next town in that trolley problem?

>>4599975
How much time did I have to consider any consequences? If I just showed up to the lever when the trolley's where it is in the image I probably won't be quick enough to make a choice, making me a simple bystander that was unable to do anything. If I've been here an ample amount of time we can safely say I'm a murderer for not just untying whoever I can. Assuming I have just enough time to choose who the trolley rolls over but not enough to untie anyone, letting the one guy die is clearly better than letting five die.
How do I even know the track is already set straight? I don't, so not making a choice is probably acceptable since I have no idea what the consequences of choosing is.
Realistically, assuming that throwing the level means the trolley will turn, the best thing is to throw the lever and try to pull the one guy away before the trolley gets there. Worst case scenario I don't make it in time and the person is run over completely or partially, but I tried.

>>4600131
Imagine it as a trap in SAW.

>>4600130
But that puts us in another dilemma entirely. How can we be simultaneously tied to the tracks and standing at the lever?

one must imagine switchm8 miserable

think of it like Benjamin. I'd let it roll over more people in the hopes of derailment.

>>4600153
Franklin? Button? Disraeli?

>>4600046

>all life is equal

how pleb can you get?

>>4600153
the trolley is history's slaughter bench.

>>4600169
Is that seriously what you think he was trying to say?

>>4600153
Walter Benjamin

What if you were the one guy tied to the track but you were just close enough to be able to pull the lever?

>>4600184
What if you were the one on the trolley but you had a phone connection to the guy at the lever?

>>4600184
>>4600188
What if you were all seven of the guys in the OP image and also the guy on the trolley

>>4600188
WHO WAS PHONE

>>4600191
What if you are the actually trolley?

>>4600170
All the people tied down are revolutionaries attempting to stop histories slaughter bench by derailment. it is a question of which worker's revolution is more likely to succeed.

>>4600191
What if you were the one who tied the people to the track and the one who started the trolley?

>>4600188
THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

>>4600191
we panpsychism now

>>4600184

I'd live. Fuck those people.

>>4600196
>What if you are the actually trolley?
kek

>>4600191
What if you were none of them at all and instead were sat at your computer?

What if the five guys on the right were suicidal

>>4600184
>>4600188
>>4600191
>>4600195
>>4600196
>>4600200
God Damnit.

>>4600191
What if Heaven was actually real and you were the one to decide who gets to die and then sent to Heaven?

>>4600191
What if you are the guy who decided to make this picture instead of saving these peoples' lives?

>>4600195
>>4600201
>phonemind

i lost my virginity this week and the world is awful

Note: This post was SAGED on 24 February 2014 at approximately 0106 GMT.

>>4599988
you're right anon, that's much worse

>>4600202
That's an actual thing? Neat.

What if this scenario is impossible and would never actually happen?

>>4600191
this is no time for vedantic monism

>>4600218
But it COULD happen.
What if it happened to you?

>>4600218
What if humans don't real since trolleys aren't real?

>>4600214
it always sucks the first time, especially if he raped your asshole. It'll get better, don't let it get to you faggot pussy bitch.

>>4600226
I'll be glad I was in all of this very thread if it happened to me.

>>4600235
simply epic

>>4599975
do whatever you want.

>>4599975
I think the point of these types of questions is not the answer you come up with, but the thought you go through to come up with an answer. As long as your intentions are good and you have a reason for your actions, no one can blame you for what you decide to do in a situation like this.

fuck this fagot ass thread I tried to enlighten you dickless Niggers with my genius and the genius of Walter Benjamin. go fuck a cock sock. and fuck a tit bag whore dick mouth aswell.

truly unsolvable

>>4600248
>As long as your intentions are good

>following virtue ethics
Of course people can blame you. Your inaction killed 5 people, or your action killed a single person. Regardless of what your intentions were, people still died, and you've still committed a morally wrong action

>>4600214
Now you know the feeling of futility and emptiness which will accompany all other "accomplishments".

>>4599975
As a diagnosed psychopath, I'm really not seeing the dilemma here. Throw the switch and be done with it.

>>4600292
Yeah, and a normal person with empathy, I'd be sad to throw the switch that ends someone's life, but how is it not the obvious action?

>>4600214
>i lost my virginity this week and the world is awful
afraid this will happen to me

I steer clear of all trolleys

>>4600297
the man is within earshot

Maximising death is the moral choice here. It minimises trauma.

>>4600307
Can't argue against that logic.

>>4600307
And witnesses.

who am i to decide who dies

>>4600306
Shit. I want to say that doesn't change anything but it would really make the decision much, much harder. Still, I'd go with saving the 5 people.

But honestly, if it was a close friend or girlfriend tied to the tracks, I think I would let the other 5 die. Is that as selfish as it seems?

>>4600323
yeah
but that's ok

>>4600322
The guy next to a switch

Do nothing obviously

>>4600322
God.

>>4600325
It makes me wonder if, when the people are all strangers, we only make the decision to save the 5 because it's more difficult to have 5 dead on your conscious than 1, not just, or at all, because it's wrong.

>>4600336
Cereal.

>>4600344
How dogmatic of you.

>>4600343
It's easy to be calculative and utilitarian when it's impersonal

>>4600348
Epicureans are known for strict dogmatism.

And now you're a doctor with five patients who are all in dire need of organ transplants, and a healthy guy guy walks in off the street for a checkup...

Its a rigged question considering last time philfags said the train ianalready in front of them and can't be stopped and then asked what to do

See, none of you philhomos came up with answer - so useful branch of literary

/lit/, what if you're the one on the tracks? What do you tell the man with the lever to do?

>>4600374
save me i dont give a shit about other people

>>4600374
flip it probably

>>4600374
call him a cunt

>>4599975
I consider myself empathetic, and I know that the "correct" answer is to make the train only kill 1 dude...

...but I would just leave it how it already is. If it's going to kill 5, fine. If it's going to kill 1, fine. I'm not going to be happy with my decision either way. What if the 1 guy who died was an excellent man who would discover something integral to human advancement? What if the 5 people who lived are all serial killers? And vice versa.

It's just too much; I will let fate decide, as it already has

Turn 360 degrees and walk away.

>>4600398
That's not the correct answer. The correct answer is to do nothing. Take a philosophy course

>>4600344
i'm sure you rise above the tares my un-apple-fed hipparchia, i am proud you are so undomestic, but were the bridegroom to stand before you with all that was his own would you not lend him half your cloak despite your training?

>>4600396
I'm saving you to prove your point dickbreath.

>>4600406
I want to know how it's possibly correct to let 5 people die instead of 1

I'll still probably say fuck that philosophy course

Pull the lever one way.

Then pull it another way.

Then pull it back the first way.

You should be able to get it switching back and forth really fast to loosen it up.

Then, at the last minute, shove the lever into the middle position, leaving the track stuck between both directions.

The trolley (which in this problem never seems to have people in it) rams into the halfway-stuck guide track and either crashes then and there or careens off the tracks into the middle of the space between the tracks. EVERYONE tied to the tracks gets to live.

>>4600406
Nah, I'm pretty sure the correct answer is to save 5 people while letting only 1 die. This is a common "test" for sociopathy.

Nevertheless, the answer I chose is your "correct" answer, so I believe I win all the way around

>>4600439
the people aboard the train die

>>4600449
Those people are irrelevant to the trolley problem though.

Captcha: Philistine ersVdm

>>4599975
what about this case??

>>4600449
do you see any people on the train? no? then fuck off kunt

>>4600449
You don't know that. A train careening off the tracks is dangerous, yes, but there's no guarantee of death as there would be with the train running someone over.

I've solved the problem. The choice was never A or B. The choice was C.

>>4600453
then the fact that trains can be misguided to go off the tracks is irrelevant too

>>4600446
>implying you are sociopath based on one rigged question

Jesus

>implying peoplenwouldnt kill five for one loved one

>>4600457
have sex with butterfly. she's already tied up. who cares about what's either side of the bridge?

>>4600466
they've done experiments, hey do

>>4600466
It's always 5 anonymous people, never people you know

>>4600473
>hey
they, obviously

>>4600465
it pretty obvious from the drawing that the trolley is too small to fit people in tho

>>4600478
ok that was my old point. not the one in the post that you just responded to

Tragedy vs. Statistics I choose statistics.

>>4600372
Use your own organs if your so worried about morals.

>>4600413
mission accomplished

>>4600095
I lol'd heartily.

>>4599999
>>4600024
>>4600123
>>4600292
>>4600297

All these people think killing is the same as letting people die, so the correct choice is killing the fewest.

It's not the same. I don't know how someone can hold the above belief without realizing it makes them responsible for all the murders that they might do something to prevent, but don't. After all, they aren't intervening to lessen the loss of life. The logical conclusion of this belief is to dedicate one's life to saving people because they are responsible for not helping when they can, yet I doubt people in this thread lift a finger even when they know murders happen every day and they might help somehow.

>>4600592
dedicating a few seconds and dedicating one's life are entirely different in scale

it's not the "logical conclusion", it's a reduction to absurdity

>>4600614
>reduction to absurdity
which is a logical conclusion fuckwit

>>4600592

So what if people simply have no idea how to stop or are physically incapable of stopping the murders happening around them every day? That's the situation most people are in. They would help if they could, but due to circumstances outside of their control, they lack the capacity to help.

Pointing out that there is a difference between choosing to do something and letting that same thing happen is only valid if all other factors in the situation are unequal. That is, all other things being equal, there is no difference between letting something happen and choosing to stop that thing. That's the situation our train lever guy is in. All other things are equal. His hand is on the lever. He can choose to move it, or choose to let it remain.

When I took Intro to Philosophy they put it like: The old man who works at the train station is fixing something in tunnel A and he's set the train to go through tunnel B. While he's in tunnel A some kids run into tunnel B. You're at the lever, what do you do? I said Don't do anything because the kids shouldn't have been there in the first place and it's their own fault if they die. Pretty much everybody else said Kill the old man because he's going to die soon anyway.

>>4600664
Was your class taking place during the Cultural Revolution?

>>4600617
not him but,

indirect proof =/= logical conclusion

two different logical notions; sorry to dissapoint.

>>4600664
>Don't do anything because the kids shouldn't have been there in the first place and it's their own fault if they die.
if you put it a little gentler you probably could have convinced some people

>>4600674
eh you're right, I assumed he was using it as a colloquialism

How about this one I thought of last night: You're taking out the garbage or something and a man approaches you. For some reason it is very important he disappears. He offers you $100,000 if you come out to the country with him, find a secluded spot, and dig his grave. He will shoot himself and fall into it, and will trust you to cover him up. He is unable to because he is crippled. Given you would not be caught, would you take the deal?

>>4600592
What, there's no middle ground? That's ridiculous.

>I don't know how someone can hold the above belief without realizing it makes them responsible for all the murders that they might do something to prevent, but don't.

That's funny, because most normal people understand that there is a difference between knowing murders happen in a city of millions and watching 5 people get sliced to pieces by a train as you observe from next to the lever that could've saved their lives.

If you are in a position where people are going to die, and you have the means to stop it with relative ease, inaction is the same as letting them die.

Or maybe not. But I'd rather be the murderer of one than observe the deaths of five people I could have saved, and most people would agree with me.

And since when is morality based on who's responsible for a crime? You take no action because then you are not responsible? That's cowardice

>>4600683
Yes.

>>4600683
I would try to get more information out of him (to find out if he's not being impulsive and such) and ask him if he's sure he wouldn't rather do something else with the money

ignoring details like that, yes

>>4600683
I post helpful infographics in "How to an hero?" threads all the time for free and most people are paid shitty wages for digging holes. What do you think?

>>4600683
You are guaranteed not to be caught?

I would try reasoning with the man. Ultimately I would try to take the gun from him, and if he resists possibly shoot him so that he would not kill himself.

>>4600727
>reasoning with the man
but he's right

Why not just angle it so it's between switching tracks and hopefully derails, then see who dies.

>>4600734
No. If a person wants to commit suicide, then they are mentally ill. No buts about it.

>>4600736
I don't get how someone would seriously consider derailing it like that wouldn't likely kill everyone on both tracks

>>4600740
yup better get them on some zoloft there's no way anybody (least of all a cripple) can rationally decide that they no longer wish to live and instead want to end their own lives.

mentally ill, no buts about it.

I especially like that you were so categorical, [hopefully] inadvertently blocking out cases of chronically pained terminal patients

>>4600740
What if it is for the good of the world/society? Or if they are in chronic pain and are terminal ill to begin with?

>>4600740
>medicalization of deviance

>>4600745
>chronically pained terminal patients
I assume they still want to live, but are in pain. So we could use pain killers, strong ones if necessary, so that they can live pain free.

>>4600746
Sacrificing yourself isn't quite the same as suicide. It's still probably a bad idea though.

>>4600748
If someone is wanting to die, they don't want to live. And being high on painkillers all the time isn't exactly living. You're shifting the pain from one area to another: Painkillers are intended to be temporary to get you over a large short-term pain, not a permanent long-term solution.

>>4600592
just for you <3

>>4600752
I see no reason why they couldn't be a long term solution.

Why are people on here so defensive? Can't they just accept that maybe other people have the right opinions about things?

>>4600757
>I see no reason why they couldn't be a long term solution.
side effects and downregulation mostly

>>4600757
>Can't they just accept that maybe other people have the right opinions about things?
he says, while rejecting that anybody could ever have the right opinion about their desire to end their own lives

>>4600760
Why are they in pain? Maybe we could try to fix the problem.

>>4600757
Opinions are opinions. We're allowed to argue them.

Out of curiosity before we continue, have you been high on painkillers long-term before? As in, have you been on painkillers for many waking days in a row without any respite from them? It's not exactly something one would willingly choose to go through from my personal experience.

For reference, I'm not talking Tylenol, even prescription grade, I'm talking Vicodin and morphine.

>>4600771
I took vicodin once after getting teeth pulled, but I didn't like how I felt on it so I only took one pill once.

>>4599999
NOW WHAT, FAGGOT?

>>4600789

What are we gonna do today, brain?

I love switchm8 threads

NOW WHAT????

>captcha: certyne one

>>4600889

>implying I have a gf

your ruse is invalidated, trickster

>>4600889
Obviously I aim it right at my hag of a girlfriend. No more wasting money! No more getting nagged at! I'm free, /lit/! I'M FREE!

>>4600755
today, /lit/ was the funniest board on 4chan

>>4600889
>not straight
that was easy

>>4600889
a pillow would probably derail the trolley

>>4600898
>implying it isn't everyday
I'm always amazed at how much OC this place is capable of putting out.

>>4600683
I'd tell him to fuck off and roll off a bridge.

>>4600755
top kek

>>4600896
>lol wimmins suck guise amirite

Wrong place for that friend, head on over to an open mic night at a bar. No regretted marriages here just bitter virgins

you have to throw yourself on the tracks and jam up the tram before it hits anyone else
its the only way

>>4600889

>>4600943
But there's no way to know that for sure. Also, if that logic applied, then let the trolly go in a straight line would be no different then flipping the switch and damning one person.

>>4600943
You're way too far away from it to possibly do that. The image is not to scale.

>>4600509
>implying a doctor's life isn't of more utilitarian worth than some shmuck off the streets

>>4600965
>implying all the patients aren't doctors

>>4600683
I push the cripple over take his money and light him on fire. if he doesn't have the money on him i just light him on fire.

>>4600727
>possibly shoot him so that he would not kill himself

I know you were probably being serious but I had a hearty chuckle

>>4600757
>right opinions

>>4599975
Isn't it obvious?

>>4600987
wat

>>4600957
>>4600963

>>4600957
*dillemma intensifies*

>>4600994
nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

>>4600960
>would be no different then flipping the switch and damning one person
only if you were two people maybe, but theres a difference between you and the guy tied to the railway.
theres more differences if you consider the effect of personal actions on personal afterlife if such one exists

Accept Tragic Pluralism of life.
Values of relative and values of importance of other people aren't compatible with each other.

We must find which one is the bigger value.
Or follow Aristotle, who already figured out that best life will include love for relatives with all their tragic dimensions, and then we could choose to kill the people.

The guy in the middle on the foreground track looks like he's having the time of his life.

train related captcha: conducted emainloc

>>4601155
why is it tragic? Is it because you distinguish between pluralism and a happier way of living, but nonetheless lacking something? the insight that it is all tragic?

>>4600428
If you do nothing you did nothing wrong. If you flip the switch you just killed a man. It's not that hard to understand.

>>4601210
The values are incomparable with each other, so you always will lose something no matter the choice. Say you have good and the greater good, you choose the greater good for your best life, but you lose the lesser good, which has values the greater good doesn't have.

>>4599975
Fuck tram, eat victims, sell lever.

4 people gone from this earth = less net pain

>>4600789
How can the brain be aware of the two men on the track if it's in a jar with no capabilities of sight, hearing or any other sense?

>>4601237
But your inaction becomes the reason for the deaths of those five people. If you are the only one capable of saving those people, isn't it your duty to do so?

Doesn't this assume that we have a free will? I'm pretty sure I have no say in whether to flip the lever or not, it's all determined by some combination of nature and nurture.

Here is something you can't understand
How I could just kill a man

The obvious answer is to take out your camera.

Switch it to the one guy and run to get him off the track

>>4599975
Halfway so the trolly derails and stops.

>>4600592
>yet I doubt people in this thread lift a finger even when they know murders happen every day and they might help somehow.
Isn't that just tragic?

It'll sort itself out. No matter what you do in any situation something is still going to be done. Choice in this situation is implied but it isn't actually there.

>>4601586
jesus christ man look what you've done

>>4601616
I certainly didn't draw that picture. Own your errors. Man up and admit your flaws. Your terrible, bloodthirsty flaws.

I'd kill the single person over the five. Unless of course I knew the single person then I'd leave it be.

>>4599975
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpgF2HIALw

>>4601664
>Malcom, A comedy of hopes and schemes
Goddamnit, /lit/, why the fuck did I just watch that? It was funny though

>>4601661
Why do you even have to get involved? What is the significance of five stranger's deaths over one to you?

>>4601696
>Why do you even have to get involved
Why not?
>>4601696
>What is the significance of five stranger's deaths over one to you
There isn't any but I'm the sort to regret what I do no matter what so I figure that I may as well do something worth at least some regret.

>>4600038
if I wrote "Stirner In Flatland", would /lit/ read it?

>>4601680
You just watched "When Trams Go Bad."

>>4601727
Depends if he fucks Feuerbach

>>4600439
>Kirk saves the day
Of course!

>>4600457
>preferential loans
Has never been given IRL, unless when the US gubmint gave that to niggers.

>>4600019
12/10

The man that's truly guilty here is the man that tied these people to the tracks. He's the only one that can be held accountable for any death that might ensue.

Now that we established that, we need to establish that there would be an investigation into the whole incident after the fact in order to find the person responsible. One person dying on the tracks is a sadness, but there is the chance that the investigation might not be treated as "urgently" as the investigation that involves the murder of five people. A more urgent investigation means a more thorough investigation, one that might catch the guilty party quicker and deliver justice sooner.

Therefore, it is morally preferable to ignore the lever and let the train kill the larger group of people as the guilty party is solely responsible for either outcome, and justice will find him anyway.

>>4602031
>The man that's truly guilty here is the man
>man

What if they tied themselves to the tracks?

>>4602031
What if they have tied themselves voluntarily?

>>4602038
>>4602039
Then they're guilty for their own deaths, which is pretty normal for most people really. It still doesn't change the fact that whoever is responsible is the one that tied those ropes.

>muh utilitarianism

It be most in my self interest to have never been involved at all, therefore I wouldn't have to carry that moral burden.

Try to yank the lever at just the right time, hopefully making the train derail and miss everyone. It probably won't work, but at least you tried to do something that would have saved everybody.

>>4602071
Tell that to the grieving family.

>>4602079

I think I'd rather hear that than an appeal to utilitarianism or some "it wasn't my problem, so I didn't interfere" shit.

>>4600889
> tfw no gf

>>4599975
Let it hit the 5, then go and stomp on the other guys head until his consciousness dissipates, then take off your shirt, wrap it around your neck and apply pressure to your carotid artery, slip into the black and then from there into a deeper kind

congratulations, you have minimised suffering

>>4602222
I have no fucking idea what's going on in this image

>>4602222
>he lost a part of his ear in the battle which is why he doesnt not have a part of his ear, pls stop dispatching scribes to deliver me scrolls askin me why thats why. also earings arent gurly fuck you thomas aquinas everyone gnos your a fuckin dominican scammer faggot

>>4602241
le anti-natalist face

You guys can't grasp the very basic moral question on that image. The trolley is unstoppable, if you don't do anything, five people die and it's not your fault: you didn't set these people up, started up the train etc etc.
BUT, if you press the lever, you consciously KILL one person to save five.

>>4602258
that's extremely obvious to everyone here, it's just boring to discuss because free will doesn't exist

>>4602258
Wow congrats detective you cracked the case

>>4602258
OH SHIT WOW MIND = BLOWN YOU SIR OUR TRUE PHILOSIPHIZER

>>4602258
>unstoppable

>>4602258
>five people die and it's not your fault

Except it is, you brainless inebriate.

>>4602258

>if you don't do anything, five people die and it's not your fault

what is negligence

>>4599975
completely based on what philosophical approach you're using, but here's what we can be sure of.
>somebody WILL die
>you will be responsible for the death of either
>you may not have an OBLIGATION to save one or the other
>you would undeniably be helping all six if you were to jump in front of the train and derail it yourself
>You aren't obligated to sacrifice yourself, but it's the only way you can be sure you did no wrong.

>>4602258
Hand is already on the lever, so he is already committed.

>>4602325
>>you would undeniably be helping all six if you were to jump in front of the train and derail it yourself

You can't be sure of this.

>>4602325
>you would undeniably be helping all six if you were to jump in front of the train and derail it yourself

Can that be guaranteed? The trolley is going fast, it could hit you, fling you to the side or under, keep going (even if they applied the brakes after impact with you this still could happen), and kill the next person/persons on the track before coming to a full stop. The peoples necks are on the track, so all you need is for the trolley to simply roll at almost any speed onto their neck.

>>4602325
>>4602345
>>4602346
But you're assuming that it's impossible to lodge a object between the tracks to derail it. Though that does beg the question of "is anyone in the train?" What if you end up killing thirty people to save six?

>>4602258

But once you become aware of it you can't become unaware of it

Deliberate inaction is an action

I don't see any motion lines, I don't think the trolley is moving at all

I'd probably just go untie all those people and then we'd go for pints and egg sandwiches

>>4602434
>Deliberate inaction is an action

Fucking thank you, why is this so hard for people to understand?

>implying you wouldn't get caught in the moment and forget to react

>>4602467
I hope that's piss and not sperm.

>>4602434
So you're killing people right now but not being out there preventing murders?

>>4602503

No, general awareness is not specific awareness

>>4602406
Well I've yet to see someone get run over by a trolley but (and here comes a very loose and dirty argument) I've seen a person get hit by a toyota camry which is around 2,500 lb. The car did not flip or roll. It did move from it's original direction slightly, but not by a lot. Now, take a trolley of about 20,000-35,000 lb and a man of 180 lb. If the trolley hits you hit on and you go under, you'll just be (assuming high profile track/under carriage. If it's city low profile style, then you aren't getting under the carriage on impact and will just be dragged along or flung to the side) crushed/dragged/flung with not a lot of affect to the trolley. If you fall under the driving wheel, you'll just be sliced cleanly by the wheel (the wheels on these things aren't sharp, but a 30,000 lb machine going even a slow rate will just break and slice any squishy man under it's wheel).

I use car because I haven't seen someone get hit by a bus (which would probably be the best example).

The point is, a 2,500 lb car can hit a person and have moderate to little affect to the cars projection. Now add 25,000+ lbs, stronger construction, bigger mass, and track wheels. There of course is a possibility that the trolley could derail, but its similar to the possibility that you or I could die this day. Possible, but not very likely.

I tried googling (?) trolley derailment by hitting a person, but got nothing about a trolley derailing because of a human impact. Let me know if you try to look and find something.

>>4602499
it's a sperm

I think we need to start considering the fact that that's clearly a passenger truck, it's a passive load, it's doesn't have any make-go-forwards machines.

>>4602551

I guess it could have been shunted up to speed and then left to coast

>>4602539
Just realized, although you probably don't mean this but if you did, a 25,000 lb moving object hitting a 180 lb man obviously isn't going to derail due to some sort of concussion. If it was like a 800 lb cow, I'd surely entertain the idea but it's just not probable trolley/man.

>>4602503

see >>4600755

Members of the "Derail that fucker" school of thought - a train derailing doesn't just stop and tip over sideways, if it's going fast enoguh to derail it's going to keep ploughing forward and probably just kill all 6 people and maybe you.

>>4602568
Also it would kill everyone on board

>>4602571

I don't see anyone through the little windows but I suppose they might be lying down, OK

>>4602258
i don't see why people wouldn't gladly kill one person to save five
>inb4 should doctors harvest people's organs to save others; this is a case where they are in an equally life threatening situation.

Morality is subjective
:^)

>>4602583
/thread

>>4602518
So everytime you see something specific you could prevent you should or you're an accessory?

>>4602583
The beauty of my dick is subjective, doesn't stop me from waving it in your face though.

>>4602600
Yes

>>4599975

A rights utilitarian would argue that one ought to save the lives of the five because it is in one's duty to perform the action that will most likely result in net positive utility. The point being: regardless of whether person X, who is alone, is capable of saving thousands of lives, if the person performing the action is unaware of this fact, his action is still moral because he was performing the act that most often results in greater positive gain.

Alternately, if each individual has infinite value, the deontologist would argue, then killing one to save the other five is nonsensical because you'd be performing an immoral action while gaining nothing - because inf_1 + inf_2 +... inf_5 is still simply Aleph_null + Aleph_null etc. and you can't determine the sum of infinite cardinalities, so the same gain and loss will incur.

>>4602600

If it's something you feel should be prevented then yes

>>4602607
>>4602614
So you guys don't watch the news out of fear of having to book plane tickets?

>>4602618

By the time something gets to the news it's generally too late to prevent it

The news doesn't often report on things that will happen, and when it does it's generally something beyond my control.

>>4599975
>people not getting the purpose of moral dillemmas.
You're supposed to make a choice based on your moral values and argue for it. Not figure out how to not make the choice.

>>4602647
there's only 1 solution, dumb relativist

I don't think it's really my place to interfere. They're probably there for a reason.

>>4602651
There's two solutions, Theres only one right solution.There's lots of people who tends to make wrong choices. That makes for an argument. People usually likes arguments.

>>4602657

>starving children in Africa
>disabled people and people with terminal diseases that are bed-ridden at hospitals
>extremely impoverished people

I don't think it's really my place to interfere. They're probably there for a reason.

nonintervention is the only ethical principle.

all these bleeding heart liberals trying to a random pedestrian that he can be held responsible for a detached carriage

>>4600141
:)

fucking arabs

>>4602606
>implying you have a dick

>>4602672
moral quietism is absurd. if you were to hear that your loved one was killed while a crowd of bystanders watched, nonreactive, you'd be upset with them and think "Why did they not intervene?" "They are just as responsible as the murderer". To assert that "nonintervention is the only ethical principle" is to revert all social progress and isolate the individual, making for a selfish, anarchic institution where "all goes". Sounds pretty good, if you're into that.

>>4602665
but we're not culpable.

if there's a problem, you either ignore it and expect the guilty party to fix it, or if that would lead to disaster you entrust, and reward, some person or organisation with the responsibility. if the problem persists, you can condemn them and ensure their reform.

it's a perfectly reasonable response to this scenario that you stand back and watch in horror. Accidents happen. We take risks just getting out of bed in the morning. The proper solution is either the central hub for the railway intervenes or grief for those lost and begin the inquiry into structural or employee failures.

>>4602685
No I'd blame the killer. Even in the midst of grief it's not likely that anyone would blame the observers.

Look at stadiums collapsing on people in brazil, or soldiers being stabbed in London. You seriously think the people watching that were responsible?

>>4602681
I do though. Do you want me to show you?

>>4602709

yes

>>4602685
>where "all goes".
it doesn't lead to this at all. You've jumped to that conclusion.
You can still police and conduct safety procedures in the moment and perform the necessary inquiry retrospectively.
The image of people standing around recording an incident on their phones may seem unsettling to you but it's not because those people are guilty, never mind accusing them of being as guilty as whatever caused the incident.

>>4602031
This is similar to the plot of Sophie's choice, in the way that the man controlling which way the trolley goes is not held accountable, but will feel guilty for the rest of his life

>>4602712

>>4602735
how did you fit 2 whales in one picture

>>4602685
> a selfish, anarchic institution where "all goes".

That's not anarchism. Most anarchist groups stress liberty, and would condemn murder and similar violent, selfish acts as violating another's freedom.

You're free to do anything, except things that restrict freedom. Murder, rape, kidnapping, etc all restrict freedom severely..

>>4602739
Asshole

>>4602739

I flip the switch, maybe it cuts the power or some shit.
>when in doubt act without reason.

>>4600643

But even people who don't directly know how to prevent killing have the means to find out. If they can find out how to stop something and don't, how is it morally different than knowing how to stop something and refusing to? What you are proposing seems to suggest that walking around ignoring reality absolves one from having to react to the problems around them because they don't know.

>>4600692

What is relative ease? Why must there be a middle ground? Are you responsible for stopping people from dying or not? If you are, why does the limitation of current knowledge stop you? More knowledge can be attained.

>>4600755

My (admittedly ineloquent) argument is now a comic painting me as a heartless bastard that doesn't care if people die.

saved.

>>4602763

Emasculate wimp.

>>4602665
those seem like slightly different circumstances to this, where someone has very clearly tied these people to the track for a reason, not just people suffering due to lack of care or larger amoral sociological phenomena

Is it acceptable to use the lever?

>>4603240
>sorry i dinnae see the cunts behind us likes

>speeding trolley is approaching too fast to switch to the one person track and pull the person off in time.

>>4603000
Please keep trying to prove how tough and virile you are to the people on a literature board on a Japanese anime website

>>4602988
>Are you responsible for stopping people from dying or not?

Is "depends on the circumstances" really not a valid answer? How could anyone honestly answer yes to that question, unless they have devoted their life to medicine/rescue? Or is that your point? That it's hypocritical to take responsibility for the death of one man in one circumstance when every day you're aware that many deaths are happening and do nothing to stop them?

Anyone have any images from the original thread?

I should've saved them.

>>4601513
>If you are the only one capable of saving those people, isn't it your duty to do so?
We're not talking about duties. We're talking about morals

>>4601513
So what if you save 5? You still kill 1. Killing is always wrong no matter what. If a lifeboat only holds two people is okay to kill you so my dad and I can get on? According to your logic killing is fine as long as the majority benefits.