The Trolley Dilemma

[Siren]

It really does.

You are 100% responsible for not changing the track, and in turn allowing them to die, how can you not see that?

[Ad Bot]

[McJob]

It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that a trolley is large enough to batter a man to death and yet small enough that he wouldn't notice and evade it.

Because workers nowadays have a very tight communication system (as far as I see when I pass by construction sites) and usually have buddies to ensure each other's safety, I'd send it to the worker full well knowing your question is bullstuff and you should feel bad for asking the stufftiest variant I've heard yet. Literally the worst form of the question ever.

And forget anybody who goes "moral this moral that". He should have just said "needs of many vs. needs of few" if he wanted to have the moral debate.

EDIT: Oh, apparently he means a TRAIN. NOT A loving TROLLEY YOU STUPID loving AMERICAN CUNT.



THAT'S A loving TROLLEY YOU DUMB ARSE.

Anyways, my answer still stands. Railworkers take some of the highest safety precautions I've ever seen, and a spotter would very quickly signal for everybody to clear the track if they had any inkling of danger.

[Taciturn]

instead of a worker it's a man tied on the track. That handles the logistical issues.

As always you're trying to find ways around it. If you can kill one to save a hundred do you?

[Donnies Catch]

thats a cart, and in my country its a wagon

[McJob]

instead of a worker it's a man tied on the track. That handles the logistical issues.

And how can a man be tied to the track? The tracks are designed to be weighed down so that nothing can uproot them, meaning nobody can be "tied" to them. If you mean ye olde tied-up-with-rope, they could just roll until they're off the tracks.

And why would a man be "tied to the tracks". What kind of Western film are you creating for me? You're very cruel to this one man. What did he ever do to you?

As always you're trying to find ways around it.

No, I'm pointing out how the scenario you're trying to paint is stupid and wrong. Just directly ask the moral question rather than trying to hide it behind a ridiculous scenario, because scenarios create context that invite logic and reasoning over morals, especially when we're sitting down comfortably in a chair, not actually stressing over the problem.

If you can kill one to save a hundred do you?

That's not the question you asked. You asked about a very specific scenario and I gave you the real life facts of the matter.

cart

wagon

[The Resonte!]

here's a scenario

theres a timer and a lever if you don't pull the lever 100 people die if you pull the lever 1 person dies
no ifs ands or buts


using scenarios helps give you a realistic sense of how to answer, especially with something as dire as life and death

[gr8dayseth]

I feel the burden of killing a single man to save a bunch of people is weaker than the burden of letting a bunch of people die to save one man knowing you could've done something about it

Anyway y'all are assuming that the combined lives of everybody in the train are worth more than the one man.

who's to say they aren't though? the one man isn't the president or really anything of importance leadership speaking, just one of many workers, and since you said this

instead of a worker it's a man tied on the track.

that makes him even less important while there's a greater chance the people on the trolley's lives are more important than the man's, 100>1 and if say a quarter of everyone were important in this case, then 25ish>probably 1

[Taciturn]

Let's change the scenario up. Rather than just pulling a lever to save the people in the train you have to stab the innocent worker to death. Do you still do it to save everyone in the train?

He's not a bad guy here, it doesn't matter why you have to stab him to save the train. You have to or 100 people die. then would you mind your own business and let the train go?

[McJob]

Now, if you want the answer to the morals question; the needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few, and there's nothing moral about it. It's entirely about the continued existence of our species and what is best for the future. "Cruel" as it may be, but we're all just specks of dust compared to the number of people that will come after us, and we need to ensure that they will have the means and needs to continue surviving, or else we might as well just go extinct now.

No one person will ever be as important as the whole of us; people in this modern society are defined by positions, which can be filled by others. Nowadays, people are pushing for individualism and trying to rise above the rest of the crowd for "popularity", but that's not how society is designed to work, and I can promise it'll end badly.

Anybody who says "oh but thinking about the one man, you're a murderer!"; as I said, there are no morals in this scenario. I've known death as long as I've lived since my Dad and his whole family were funeral directors. People die all the goddam time. Morals are a man-made construct, not a universal law, and everybody has different morals.

theres a timer and a lever if you don't pull the lever 100 people die if you pull the lever 1 person dies

Now, you're assuming that the timer system can't be modified or stopped, similar to how a bomb can be defused. And what connection do I have to these people? There's nothing there for me to give a stuff. I can do either thing because it's not going to affect me; I was just the guy who happened to be in the control room and I made a call. I wasn't wrong or right because people died either way.

using scenarios helps give you a realistic sense of how to answer, especially with something as dire as life and death

No, it just makes me want to see all the contextual flaws of the scenario.

[McJob]

This completely changes the loving question to "needs of many vs needs of few" to "murder vs morals", an entirely different argument. You're asking if I'd be willing to overstep my "moral boundaries" to protect "the innocent".

I don't get why you'd say "this guy has done nothing wrong". If he has done nothing wrong, why is he dying? If you're making up some ridiculous scenario, at least loving explain it properly.

[The Resonte!]

Now, you're assuming that the timer system can't be modified or stopped, similar to how a bomb can be defused. And what connection do I have to these people? There's nothing there for me to give a stuff. I can do either thing because it's not going to affect me; I was just the guy who happened to be in the control room and I made a call. I wasn't wrong or right because people died either way.

go ahead

No, it just makes me want to see all the contextual flaws of the scenario.

maybe if you're going to be a dork about it

If he has done nothing wrong, why is he dying? If you're making up some ridiculous scenario, at least loving explain it properly.

irrelevant

[McJob]

doesn't matter

If he's going to flesh out a scenario, then of course it matters. It matters because it's going to put spin on the the entire question, which is crucial to see how the context of a situation changes a person's perception, which is the whole point of asking these moral questions.

Moral questions are asked because we want to see how a person interprets the world and solves problems; more specifically, to understand their thought process. If a person changes their answer between the guy being good and bad, they're strongly motivated by their perceived morals/emotions rather than their logical process. If a person remains consistent, they're probably thinking rationally and don't factor morals into their thought process as much.

That's what's most interesting because you can start to accurately judge how a person would react in any scenario as you come to understand how they make judgement calls.

[The Resonte!]

great

so what's your answer?

[KickFlow]

and I know you're itching to fly into a jail cell,

um what lol

[McJob]

so what's your answer?

Maybe give me a little backstory so I can understand how I got in this mess and I might give you a proper answer, because otherwise it's just a poorly given hypothetical.