.

[Anonymous No.5273716]

[Anonymous No.5273733]

[I'M_VERY_GOOD_LOOKING No.5273887]

Before this thread gets to 200+ posts:

We can postulate various scenarios, but at the end of the day we will all change the track to kill the single person.

[Anonymous No.5273894]

>>5273887
What if the group of people are all convicted criminals on death row?

[Anonymous No.5273901]

>>5273894
What if the group of people is 80% unrepentant child rapists but one person is the most wonderful person who ever lived?

On the other track is someone who owns a dog but doesn't have enough time to take care of it, so it sometimes piss or shit in the house and he hits it with a rolled up newspaper. Other than that he's a swell guy, and usually donates to the charity of those people you respect and support.

[Anonymous No.5273902]

>>5273887
If the one person was a sexy girl and the other people were males I would kill the males

[Anonymous No.5273916]

>>5273901
What if they're all child rapists?

What if the guy on the lever is a mujahadeen?

What if the train doesn't actually exist except as a qualia?

What if God exists?

[Anonymous No.5273922]

>>5273887
Wrong, the single person is not in danger, he is to survive as the decision has already been made out. The others are meant to die, end of story.

I walk away, and let it happen.

Why should that one guy die so the others can live? That's psychotic as fuck.
"Hey, dude who is meant to survive. I'm going to kill you."

That's murder.
Letting death happen is natural, and that's what you are doing by just letting the five guys get killed. That's life.

[Anonymous No.5273943]

>>5273922
>death is life
>saving lives is murder

That's some doubleplusgood duckspeaking.

[Anonymous No.5273948]

>>5273901
fuck that guy, people who mistreat animals are the worst, i don't care how much they give to charity

[Anonymous No.5273983]

>>5273948
He doesn't really mistreat it often. Loves it, and likes to pet it and give it scratches behind the ear. It's just every other Wednesday, without fail, he has to work especially late, and the dog will always end up pissing on the carpet. And he's so tired, and hasn't had dinner yet even though it's fucking 9 PM by the time he gets home and he's been meaning to get a dog sitter to cover these days but work has been a pain, and his mom was in admitted to the hospital for a dizzy spell last night and his girlfriend has been very aloof towards him lately and what the fuck that little bastard got into the garbage too?

[Anonymous No.5274000]

>>5273943
Death literally is life. Fucking literally. Life is nothing but the process of dying once you are born.

>saving lives is murder
You are killing someone who is not in danger, and that is not saving lives, that's pretending one life is more valuable than another. And they're not. So let those who are in the path of death die, and those who are not quite there live.

You people are fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.5274044]

>>5273887
You can only speak for yourself.
Your decision to murder the man is not mine. Someone set this scenario up expecting to force me to be complicit in the murder of the one person. I won't do it. I'm walking away and whoever set up this stupid scenario will be responsible for the five people's deaths.

[Anonymous No.5274063]

>>5274000
>Death literally is life. Fucking literally. Life is nothing but the process of dying once you are born.
psuedo-intellectual nonsense. Organisms have a peak before senescence begins. You don't "start dying" as soon as you're born "literally" or figuratively. Life isn't death. Death is the absence of life.

>You are killing someone who is not in danger, and that is not saving lives, that's pretending one life is more valuable than another
It's choosing who lives or dies. There is no fate, only your choice to decide who survives the scenario. You're choosing to kill five times as many people because you value avoiding moral culpability.

I posit that it is you, sir, who is the one retarded in their thinking on this issue.

[Anonymous No.5274157]

>>5273922
it isn't clear which way the track is currently set but i agree w ur point
walk away
who am i to judge who dies?

[Anonymous No.5274304]

You ask the one person to give up their life. If they say no or yes, you then pull the switch based off what you would do.
Personally: If he/she says it is okay to pull the switch, then I save the larger group.
If they say no, I still save the larger group. (Keep reading I will explain)

What if there is not enough time to ask the person? Or they can't answer?
If I can't get that information from them. I most likely don't have right information to begin with and I don't do anything.

Randomly pulling switches without knowing what the switches do is not an option. Having the correct information after the crash is hindsight. Hindsight does not change the choices we made in the past.

So why ask them in the first place?
You have to ask. If they are willing to let themselves die to save others, then they are the ones who saved them. If they are not willing, then you are the one who saved them. Asking makes that difference.

Just walking away is the worst thing to do. Doing something is much better then doing nothing, even if it is asking a simple question.

This problem of "killing one to save many" came up in my philosophy class. And I proposed this idea of asking to the class. I had a very hard time of explaining the importance of asking the question to the rest of the class and the professor. You could say that if the one person was the type to not sacrifice them-self, then he/she deserve to die. But I did not feel as though that was important. I am not there to judge that one person's will to live. We all have a very strong will to live. I am there to make the best chose for myself and the group.

We don't live in a static world. Time pushes us forwards. Just like how I could use MS paint and spend 5 mins to erase the tracks. I also have time before the train hits to gather more information and then make a more informed choice. On a simple paper problem I would make the easy choice to save the larger group. But in real life I would gather more information and make an informed choice.

[Anonymous No.5274626]

>implying that ethics is intelligible by language and not an aesthetic that must be demonstrated

shiggy

[Anonymous No.5275446]

A non-action in this scenario is essentially the same as an action. You choose to kill five people instead of one; choosing in an action, so you murder five people while only saving one.

[Anonymous No.5275840]

changing the track at that speed leaves a 40% chance of the train toppling and killing everyone

[Anonymous No.5275848]

>>5273716
The group, then beat the other to death with a lead pipe because... equality

[Steki YUNG LEAN !!PuHUWgNu6I+ No.5275908]

>>5273716
One in the group of five is actually a very nice guy, says dude all the time, likes to help out, not malicious, and he's just there by mistake.

Other 4 are death row convicts.


The one guy up there is a 64 year old man who's one of your dad's best friends from before, but you've only seen him a few times in your life, last time was over 15 years ago on Easter.

Who do you kill?

[Anonymous No.5275919]

>>5273716
SIE SIND DAS ESSEN UND WIR SIND DIE JÄGER

[Anonymous No.5275942]

>>5273716
We don't even know if the rail is set to continue or to move left.

[Anonymous No.5275958]

>>5275840
the only correct answer

[Anonymous No.5275959]

>>5274044
>I'm walking away and whoever set up this stupid scenario will be responsible for the five people's deaths.

As will you. 'Responsibility' is not an opt-in/opt-out thing.

Maybe put it another way: imagine yourself on the tracks. As the one, you might wish that the person not pull the lever, but it would hardly surprise you if they did. As one of the five, you would be outraged if they didn't.

[Anonymous No.5275966]

>>5274157
>who am i to judge who dies?

...he said, thereby judging that the five should die.

[Anonymous No.5275969]

>>5275959
If I were on the track, I would want to live no matter what. Try again

[Anonymous No.5275972]

assuming all are equally likeable people and so on, you kill the one person. even if that means you actively have to change the course of the trains.

you are presented with the choice, and not pulling the lever is as much acting as pulling the lever is, you can't walk away from it now.

>now i am become death, puller of levers

[Anonymous No.5275976]

>>5275969
>Try again

What do you mean, "Try again"? You haven't contradicted me.

[Anonymous No.5275981]

>>5275959
>As one of the five, you would be outraged if they didn't.

No, Mr. Bond, you would be dead

[Anonymous No.5275982]

>>5275972

[Anonymous No.5275988]

Flip a coin to decide.
Not even trying to be edgy i often did and still do that.

[Anonymous No.5275994]

>>5275976
I have. Anyone would be outraged if they were about to be killed by a random stranger.

[Anonymous No.5276000]

[Anonymous No.5276031]

[Anonymous No.5276042]

>>5276000
STEM can make you money. AND as an INFJ Nietzsche reading, sexy, strong, 6'2", ubermensch, rationalist, philosopher king and self identified spinozist-feminist romantic; I endorse this message.

>you will never fuck derrida in his boy-pussy

[Anonymous No.5276064]

>>5276031
I can't.

[Anonymous No.5276104]

>>5274063
>psuedo-intellectual nonsense

No, that's science you ignorant cunt.
And no, DNA from the beginning of your creation makes small mistakes within an extremely small area related to aging. This part of the DNA has been isolated. You die, as your body evolves. It is dying, from the beginning. That is fucking fact. Don't like it, doesn't matter, it's true anyways.

>It's choosing who lives or dies

The five guys that are in the path of the train as it stands are fated to die, you stupid mother fucker. They are already goddamn dead. The one guy above them, to flip the switch, means you murder him.

You're mentally deranged if you wish to kill the one who is no in harms way.

Get bent, troglodyte .

[Anonymous No.5276115]

>>5273887
what if I'm a sadist?

[Anonymous No.5276120]

>>5275994
>I have.

No, you really haven't.

>As the one, you might wish that the person not pull the lever

i.e., you would want to live, as you have told me in a tone implying it is new information.

I go on to say that it 'would hardly surprise you if they did', which I suppose is a function of your awareness that the vast majority of people would pull the lever.

You still have yet to contradict me.

[Anonymous No.5276121]

[Anonymous No.5276138]

>>5276104
>And no, DNA from the beginning of your creation makes small mistakes within an extremely small area related to aging.

Cell division occurs from inception, too. May as well say "life is nothing but cell division" - it'd mean about as much and be just as embarrassingly, laughably wrong.

>The one guy above them, to flip the switch, means you murder him.

Not flipping the switch means you murder the five guys.

Granting, since I optimistically believe in fire prevention, that doing so is less reprehensible and less blameworthy than orchestrating the scenario initially, this remains the case.

[Anonymous No.5276146]

>>5273716
who cares

[Anonymous No.5276169]

>>5276120
> but it would hardly surprise you if they did. As one of the five, you would be outraged if they didn't.

Yes. I have
I simply point out that all parties in that situation would be outraged all the same, had the your decision lead to their death. Being outraged is no virtue.

[Anonymous No.5276245]

>>5276169

I don't see how. Are you claiming that most people agree with you?

[Anonymous No.5276270]

>>5273887
This is absolutely not true, I know for sure that I'd freeze in panic before any decision or logical process could take place

[Anonymous No.5276287]

[Anonymous No.5276294]

>>5276245
I am claiming that being outrage and reasons are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.5276357]

Imagine that a person has taken 5 people hostage. He calls you and tells you that he will kill these 5 unless you kill another person. You know for certain that he is telling the truth, and that he will let the 5 go if you do as he asks. There is no other way of saving the 5 hostages.

Now tell me how this scenario is morally different from the trolley problem.

[Anonymous No.5276391]

>>5276294

Do you mean "outraged and reasonable"? 'Cause if so, I disagree, but it's still not addressing (and therefore not contradicting) anything I've said.

[Anonymous No.5276401]

>>5276357

It's not, provided he names the person.

[Anonymous No.5276444]

>>5276104
I don't think you understand genetics or the process of senescence. Or science in general.

[Anonymous No.5276452]

>>5276104
Failure to avoid a situation when given the opportunity is complicity in that situation.

[Anonymous No.5276464]

Let the train kill the group of people. As anon has said, to change its course would jeopardize the whole car. Also, with every human killed, the relative value of human life increases.

[Anonymous No.5276496]

>>5276452
I'm not avoiding the situation.
I'm simply not determining the outcome which has already been decided.

If this drawing was different, as in it was a fork at the end with one person to the left and five to the right then it would be completely different, but those five are already in the path of the train in motion, therefore, murdering the one who is not already in the path of said moving train, is immoral.

[Anonymous No.5276502]

>>5273716
Obviously you turn off the trolley before they're all dragged to death.

[Anonymous No.5276507]

>>5276496
You could have stopped them from dying. You didn't. You chose not to. You chose for them to die.

[Anonymous No.5276514]

>>5276391
No I mean outrage and reason. Nothing of what you have said can be used as a basis for a judgment, if there should be any judgment to be made at all.

[Anonymous No.5276527]

>>5275966
>it isn't clear which way the track is currently set
tbh im not familiar enough w this scenario
i dont remember if the track was already set a certain way and it isnt possible to tell from the drawing
and if the track was already set to kill the 5 then im simply going with the decision of whoever set those 5 ppl there, knowing the trolley was set to crush them.
like
at least read the full post man

[Anonymous No.5276540]

>>5276464
>Also, with every human killed, the relative value of human life increases.

we're only halfway through the day and already i've encountered the most retarded thing i'll read today.

[Anonymous No.5276570]

>>5276514
>Nothing of what you have said can be used as a basis for a judgment, if there should be any judgment to be made at all.

Well, Jesus, it took a while, but finally we got to an actual point of contention.

I think imagining yourself on the tracks is an excellent way to frame the scenario. It allows you to game it out:

You are the one, and the train is headed for you. A stranger diverts it.

You are the one, and the train is headed for the five. A stranger diverts it.

You are one of the five, the train is headed for you, and a stranger diverts it.

You are one of the five, the train is headed for you, and a stranger diverts it.

Think about those four scenarios. And listen - if your response remains "I would be angry and therefore unable to think" then really you're just announcing your lack of capacity to meaningfully partake in the discussion, which I'm not sure you really want to do.

[Anonymous No.5276591]

>>5273716
This is a though experiment. We imagine a problem: by switching the points, by sacrificing a person’s life, we can save millions. Is it a moral action? Ethics man (the one choosing the top track) is a utilitarian. He says an action is a moral action only if the consequences are good. He says the consequences are good if they increase the sum of total human happiness. We define happiness as a state of well-being starting off with being alive instead of dead. Being a person is respect. Because you’re not just a cat, or a dog, or a bunch of tulips. You’re a human person and human is not something you can be different amounts of. It’s maxed out from the start. Total respect.

There you have it.

[Anonymous No.5276596]

I'd ask the one guy what he thought I should do

[Anonymous No.5276619]

>>5273922
>>5274000

Nice appeal to nature there, foolish troll.

>implying killing one person to save 5 isn't morally applaudable

[Anonymous No.5276623]

>>5274157

Fucking quietist.

[Anonymous No.5276715]

>>5276570
Then you are imposing your own moral subjectivity on all parties. It comes back to you as the arbitrator. Whatever reasons you use to justify your choice, let make it clear that it has nothing to do the perspective of those people. At best, it is a baseless guess.

Besides, I would think "I deserve to live." in all four cases. And I would wager that the one has the greater claim than all because his desire would be rooted in something else, something private and personal, but of his our merit, rather than one of the five, who would almost certainly claim the merit of being in a group of five. But the latter has no virtue as he did not earn it.

[Anonymous No.5276764]

>>5276715
>Then you are imposing your own moral subjectivity on all parties.

In short, I am rendering moral judgement, per the request of the person posing the question. That is an utterly vacuous observation.

>Besides, I would think "I deserve to live." in all four cases.

This means not that you are correct, but that you are immoral. This claim, too, is bereft of even something following the form of persuasive power.

[Anonymous No.5276815]

>>5273716

Make sure the greatest number of people die at all times.

By killing more people you're sparing more people the angst-ridden ups and downs of a life of spiraling existential crisis.

By having their respective families confronted directly with this misfortune, you're providing them a distraction - albeit a negative one, a distraction nonetheless - from the vast and meaningless perplexity of being and withdrawing them from the painful experience of delving the bitter unknown.

For the rest of their meaningless existences, they'll be thinking of the death of their loved one, rather than mulling questions whose answers do not exist.

[Anonymous No.5276907]

[Anonymous No.5277193]

>>5276764
>In short, I am rendering moral judgement, per the request of the person posing the question.
Then you killed for the criminal who set this thing up in the first place. Your initial premise left an impression of your killing the one being beneficial for all including the one because it was "morally sound."
>This means not that you are correct, but that you are immoral. This claim, too, is bereft of even something following the form of persuasive power.
Then you are claiming that this entire scenario was the same if the switch was in control of the one. That is, he was to kill himself to save the other.

[Anonymous No.5277220]

>>5277193
>Then you killed for the criminal who set this thing up in the first place.

No. Like all moral agents, I acted for the feeling of acting in a morally correct manner.

>Then you are claiming that this entire scenario was the same if the switch was in control of the one.

The calculus remains the same. We can establish this easily by assessing your feelings toward the one in the case where he does divert the train - do you feel contempt? No? Admiration, you say - well then: clearly he has acted morally, we would say. Even if you approach a decision on his part not to divert with understanding and empathy, you don't say that he was correct not to divert it.

[Anonymous No.5277232]

>>5276907

[Anonymous No.5277244]

>>5276287
we already answered this
jesus would sacrifice himself, condemning himself to hell for suicide in order to save the others by derailing the tram

[Anonymous No.5277256]

>>5275988
dumbass

[Anonymous No.5277264]

>>5277244
Jesus is the fat man on the bridge, and we ought to push him.

[Anonymous No.5277299]

"responsibility" is a spook.
and this thought experiment is kinda stupid for suggesting that you can turn people into a universal and quantitative units of value.
i would act based on the situation, maybe not do anything, maybe choose to kill 1 person, maybe choose to kill 5.

[Anonymous No.5277311]

I would flip the lever to kill the five guys.

[Anonymous No.5277322]

>>5277220
No. Like all moral agents, I acted for the feeling of acting in a morally correct manner.
That is an immoral stance.
>The calculus remains the same. We can establish this easily by assessing your feelings toward the one in the case where he does divert the train - do you feel contempt? No? Admiration, you say - well then: clearly he has acted morally, we would say. Even if you approach a decision on his part not to divert with understanding and empathy, you don't say that he was correct not to divert it.
No, by your methodology, you don't have any contempt nor admiration toward my saving my own's skin. Even without that projection, it would be hypocritical of me to admire his selflessness, and hence immoral.

[Anonymous No.5277327]

>>5277322
>That is an immoral stance.

No. It could be called amoral or metamoral.

>No, by your methodology, you don't have any contempt nor admiration toward my saving my own's skin.

Clearly, you don't understand my methodology.

>it would be hypocritical of me to admire his selflessness

We can admire those who excel us in virtue without being hypocritical, so again, no.

[Anonymous No.5277433]

>>5277327
>No. It could be called amoral or metamoral.
At the expense of others? No
>Clearly, you don't understand my methodology.
Being the observer when the outcome is unfavorable, and the actor when it is morally sound? If not, can you elaborate?
>We can admire those who excel us in virtue without being hypocritical, so again, no.
Only true if it isn't tied to an agenda that would bring harms to the actor, and in this case, one that would end his life. It is hypocrisy at its most destructive form.

[Anonymous No.5277470]

>>5277433
>At the expense of others? No

There is no point in inserting your moral precepts into a metamoral claim.

>Being the observer when the outcome is unfavorable, and the actor when it is morally sound?

No. Imagining yourself in the position of each party and considering those perspectives when making your judgement.

>Only true if it isn't tied to an agenda

This doesn't mean anything.

>in this case, one that would end his life. It is hypocrisy at its most destructive form.

It's not hypocrisy if we believe that we would also not divert. It's only hypocrisy if we believe simultaneously that we should divert and that we would not. Thus the only hypocrisy that can obtain is unrelated to another party's actions.

[Anonymous No.5277564]

>>5277470
>There is no point in inserting your moral precepts into a metamoral claim.
Then there is no point of using metamorality in making any judgment.
>No. Imagining yourself in the position of each party and considering those perspectives when making your judgement.
Then the one party must be given control of the switch. You are not asking what each party would do if given the switch, but how each party would react if the decision had already been made.
>It's not hypocrisy if we believe that we would also not divert. It's only hypocrisy if we believe simultaneously that we should divert and that we would not. Thus the only hypocrisy that can obtain is unrelated to another party's actions.

>It's not hypocrisy if we believe that we would also not divert. It's only hypocrisy if we believe simultaneously that we should divert and that we would not. Thus the only hypocrisy that can obtain is unrelated to another party's actions.
Then such admiration is not grounded in vacuum. The only just admiration is through the realization of associated metal and physical strengths which made it possible, not foolishness.

[Anonymous No.5277663]

>>5273733

[Anonymous No.5278445]

>>5277564
>Then there is no point of using metamorality in making any judgment.

I didn't. It's like every time, you're responding to my most recent post with no regard for the preceding conversation.

>You are not asking what each party would do if given the switch

Of course not. Why would I do that?

>Then such admiration is not grounded in vacuum.

Uh, OK. It's still not hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.5278500]

I've never quite understood why that is such a problem.

First, it seems that nobody would ever know what happened exactly, let alone who changed the track.
In that case, the thing is easy: do whatever you think is right. Most likely, in that situation, you won't even think, but rather act intuitively. Intuition is based on experience. Basically, the best choice will be taken by itself without much cerebral effort. Think after and show some compassion to yourself. Either way, you've done something that can be right and wrong anyway. It's not black nor white. Just deal with the black part by reflecting the white one on it.
If you do have the time to think, well, just take on your responsabilities. Still again, if you're not taped, do whatever the fuck you think is right, and get some repentance if you believe you need to take some. Both ways, you'll be on your own, and only you can inflict to yourself pain or give yourself awards. A matter of mindset.

If you're taped, well, that's different. Either you just go along what you believe society would support the most (depends on the kind of society), and you shall be fine, and probably would delegate subsequently any responsability to it. Anyway, society will take charge of it for you, with mass-media, etc., and might spare you the bothering mental fight you'd be tempted to engage in for what you did.
Or you're strongly engaged and sure of what you should do. Then go for it, fuck what people would say. You've got something to believe in, you have principles, well, it's now that you should defend them, no matter what. And you'll have no regret.

Not really a problem.

Nice pic name.

[Anonymous No.5278503]

>>5278445
>Admiration, you say - well then: clearly he has acted morally
Yea... No
>Of course not. Why would I do that?
May as well ask a dead man if he deserved to die. Let me tell you why you wouldn't do that. Because it would fit your "most people" because most people would save their skin first.

[Anonymous No.5278512]

Id pull the lever only if the one guy told me to.

[Anonymous No.5279112]

>>5276815
This + there's the chance of preventing several births by causing enough mental pain, at least as far as I know depressed people don't breed as much/at all.