[Gnothi Seauton]

Why would these people be on those tracks to begin with? And wouldn't they be intelligent enough to move from the tracks when they saw the trolley approaching?

What if these people on the tracks were planting bombs on the tracks that could kill hundreds of other innocent civilians and by killing them, not only would I be getting rid of some criminals but perhaps saving these innocent lives?



You know that scene in Spiderman, when Peter Parker lets the thief get away with all the money and ends up killing his uncle? How do we know that by trying to "save" these people, we also end up being an accomplice of a more large-scale murder?

So maybe I would probably run over the five people, come back with the trolley, and run over the other person on the other side just to be safe.

[Killbain]

In the military we had this situation several times during the Falklands conflict. I was extremely fortunate in that my unit was never directly in the front line of any fighting, but other Officers did have the dilemma of committing soldiers to probe Argentinian positions to draw them out or locate them from fire patterns to protect larger bodies of troops - Yes it was a war and everyone knew that an army in the field puts people at mortal risk, but having to make the decision whom and when, knowing some will almost certainly be wounded or killed must be very difficult indeed, even if trained to do it.

[Incorporeal]

Why would these people be in those tracks to begin with? And wouldn't they be intelligent enough to move from the tracks when they saw the trolley approaching?

What if these people in the tracks were planting bombs in the tracks that could kill hundreds of other innocent civilians and by killing them, not only would I be getting rid of some criminals but perhaps saving these innocent lives?

You know that scene in Spiderman, when Peter Parker lets the thief get away with all the money and ends up killing his grandpa? How do we know that by trying to "save" these people, we also end up being an accomplice of a more larg-scale murder?

So maybe I would probably run over the five people, come back with the trolley, and run over the other person on the other side just to be safe.

Good idea. And after that, maybe throw some of those scumbags' bombs onto the bridge to finish off the fat man for good measure. What kind of sadistic freak just stands by eating his tenth big mac and watches villains rig the tracks? Definitely an incorrigible and probable psychopath (plus a glutton). The world will be better off.

[RayStormX]

I am operating under the premise, if I understood it correctly, that we are dealing with six strangers about whom we know nothing. If we do nothing, five people will die. If we act, one person will die and five will be saved.

First off, if you divert the trolley from its natural course, you are not "letting the one die," you are murdering someone who otherwise would have lived. Granted you are attempting to save five others, but this does not take away from the fact. I am not trying to malign the action, just attempting to cast it in its proper light. And the mere fact that is is murder does not change the equation in any way. On the other hand, if you allow the trolley to continue on its course, you are letting those five die so that you do not have to murder the one. I suppose technically allowing the five to die could be considered murder as well, but I am not sure I would label it as such, unless the person choosing also released the trolley.

Saving the five basically boils down to a numbers game. If you subjectively concede that human life has value, and you believe for whatever reason that the more things of value there are the better, then it logically follows that the five should be spared at the expense of the one. Yet this line of reasoning is only logical if you accept that premise... and there is no objective reason to do so (unless you are for some reason collecting humans, or getting a commission for each one, hoping for more converts, etc.). More of anything is not inherently, objectively better.

According to my own subjective ethical system, I am not sure what I would do. I feel that human life (along with all other forms of life) has no inherent value, other than what is given it subjectively by individuals. That said, I have absolutely no desire to contribute to the destruction of life; quite the contrary, actually. My gut response is to save the five and kill the one (irrationally based on the numbers game to which I do not consciously subscribe). Then again I am also rather passive, and do not necessarily believe that more is better, so I am not naturally inclined to attempt to save five who are passively doomed by actively killing one person. And yet...I would in all likelihood kill the one and save the five in the heat of the moment. Give me time to reason it out, and who knows? I certainly wouldn't blame someone for choosing not to kill the one. Or for killing her/him for that matter.

Some other hypothetical permutations:

1. Would you want you and your four fellow passengers to be saved at the expense of this other person?

2. What if we replace the passengers with five puppies, but leave the solo player human? Does this change anything? Five kittens? Five chimps? The last five baby seals on the planet?

If my life was one the line, screw that other person, no matter who it is.
If it were between animals and humans, well I would save the human, regardless of their character.

I think it's possible to make the argument that the two situations are different, but this isn't it. Diverting the trolley and pushing the fat man are both conscious acts, are they not? The distinction you draw is entirely semantic.

Yeah you're right, thanks for pointing that out lol.
On the legal side, does the act of intentionally killing one to save many count as manslaughter? Murder?

And for the scenario where you are in one of the trolleys, if you let the other person/ people die, does killing them to save your own life count as self defense? Or is it murder or something else? Assume that the only possible choices in that scenario is to let them live and cause your own death, or kill them, resulting in your survival.

[Enormous Hatred]

Yeah, I might not ever understand why this is so difficult to answer. Pretty simple math here; one death is devastating to probably many people, five deaths are likely to affect even more people. It doesn't make the one death less tragic, you're just trying to minimize the overall suffering. Sometimes you have to make the shitty decisions and your inaction damns the five just as much as your action would damn the one. Think to yourselves for a moment: If the question was switched around slightly and you would be asked to switch the track to the one person, would you be relieved that the train was not headed for the five by default?

It's always bizarre to observe the rationalization when these questions are asked. People try to dodge the question by saying it's an action we were never meant to take ourselves, or they will pick apart various specifics of the hypothetical to try and undermine the obvious principle behind the question: Would you kill one to save five?

I think a better question to ask that would more directly confront the point would be something like "You have time to operate on only one of two rapidly fading individuals of equal composure. Would you be able to make the choice?"

1. Would you want you and your four fellow passengers to be saved at the expense of this other person?

2. What if we replace the passengers with five puppies, but leave the solo player human? Does this change anything? Five kittens? Five chimps? The last five baby seals on the planet?

1. Yes.
2. Save the human being, probably. It does change the question because it's now about comparing the value of lives across species rather than simply quantities of human life. It's also more complicated because you can get into points like, "Well, I wouldn't save 100,000 ants at the expense of one human, but I probably wouldn't sacrifice 100,000 gazelle".

[RayStormX]

I would sacrifice the 100,000 gazelle. Just sayin.
Screw the zoo or whatever idiotic establishment that decided to stuff 100,000 gazelle into a trolley car.

[Kyrielle]

I can't say I know what I'd do. I don't want to murder someone just so 5 random people can live. Odds are, in the heat of the moment, I'd get trapped in a mental moral-logic loop. Unable to exit this loop, I would inevitably find myself be unable to act, and thus the 5 people would get run over by the trolley.

Because inevitably, I'd be choosing murder of a single person, or gross negligence of five people.

My resulting rationalization would be that those 5 people were clearly idiots as they were loafing around on active trolley tracks and were too stupid to hear the thing blazing towards them (if they were workers, then why is there a trolley running down tracks under repair? Who let the trolley loose?). They should have moved. That doesn't mean I wouldn't feel terrible, guilty, and partially responsible for those five people's deaths. I'm just saying that's what I would tell myself so I could sleep at night.

As far as the boat scenario goes. I never understood why the people didn't just jump off the stupid ferries. Why were they all just sitting there when there were life preservers, benches, and destructible things everywhere? I suppose it might be because in this universe, they can believe that Batman will save them, as he always seems to save them. But what does that say about the people of Gotham? That they have become do dependent and lazy in their daily lives that they do not take precautions or make the effort to save themselves and others? It's pretty pathetic. I'd rather brave freezing waters than risk getting blown up by a bunch of convicts.

[Nightingalee]

I would spend too long trying to figure out what to do, sussing out the variables and such.. so the five would die.
Although, I believe one can only answer this if faced with the situation. The sudden adrenalin rush may switch your usual decision making process.

[Nightingalee]

I can't say I know what I'd do. I don't want to murder someone just so 5 random people can live. Odds are, in the heat of the moment, I'd get trapped in a mental moral-logic loop. Unable to exit this loop, I would inevitably find myself be unable to act, and thus the 5 people would get run over by the trolley.

I should have read yours before replying haha, you summed my answer up right there. ^

[MyDarkAngel]

If I was certain that there was no way to save all of them I would sacrifice the one person. If this decision was in my hands, I would be responsible for death one way or another. I'd rather only be responsible for one death, thanks.