Daily reminder that there is NO moral justification for not pulling the lever...

I pause the trolley and ask each group how much they're willing to pay me to sacrifice the other group.
Then I direct the trolley to run over the highest bidders.

the lever isn't even attached to anything
it's a setup!

>Pull lever
>Only have to untie one guy instead of five

Is this supposed to be a difficult question?

What if the one person is your mother or father and the other five are just random people? I ain't pulling that shit.

Good and evil actions are relative. What if you had the knowledge that all those 5 people tied up together were going to kill another person in the future? Then you not pulling the lever would be justified on any moral level.

but if you had that knowledge and did the morally justified thing, it would have been a "good" action right?

the image just wants you to reduce the situation to a matter of numbers, not the details

that's not a question of morality it's a question of survival

what's worth more 1 person or 5

you wouldn't blame the person for doing something that killed someone in this situation because SOMEONE is going to die

You fucking idiot. I'd just untie all those on the right.

Yes, but you have to grasp morality is relative. There is really no such thing as evil or the good, it's all based on consequences.

There is such thing as evil and good in the eye of the beholder.

no OP let me explain why. if you pull the leaver you kill 1 person.if you leave the leaver technically you did not kill those 5 people because you didnt interact the leaver

What if you get paid to kill the 6 people on the tracks and with that money you could save the lives of 7 terminally ill people instead?

But if you don't act you're killing 6 by inaction

ill take the money and keep it for myself

>you have to grasp morality is relative

how is morality relative when the best outcomes are generally regarded as "good"

moral actions ARE the "good"

at the lowest level, actions that further human survival are moral actions and therefore good actions

just because you kill (sacrifice) someone to save others doesn't mean morality is relative, it means what is good is not always "good" for everyone, even though in a way it still is because their death is the best (good) outcome

they would understand that moral choice even if they could perceive it personally as "evil" if they weren't informed of the details

on the flip side, when is murder for the sake of murder (without purpose) *ever* good?

it just isn't, no matter how your mind might justify itself personally

moral relativity only comes from being uninformed of the weight of the decision

instead you allowed them to die
why bother with technicalities when they seem to get in the way of saving lives?

What if I pull the lever and then pull it back again?

The lever is not real. The train is not real. The people are not real. Nothing is real, so nothing matters.

...

You cannot be held responsible for an action you do not commit; otherwise, we are all guilty of all the suffering that has ever occurred in our lifetimes.

You *are*, however, responsible for actions you DO commit.

If you didn't tie the people, and don't pull the lever, you did nothing and can be held responsible for nothing, but you did let multiple people die. If you pull the lever either way, you have blood on your hands, but you have blood for a noble cause. Either way you lose; its entirely subjective which loss to your soul you regard as worse.

>YOU FUCKING MURDERER MY BABY'S CARRIAGE ROLLED PAST YOU AND YOU DID NOTHING SO IT GOT HIT BY CAR
>no lady lol! actually it's the hill's fault for rolling it down here, i have no obligation to help you and i did not kill anyone because i did not interact in the situation
>WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM!? HE'S DEEEEEEADD *starts crying
>fucking plebs

murder to be quite honest with you, family.

>meme

>if you don't you are either actively evil or just a fucking retard

>not pulling the lever, only to push it back a second later

If i were one of those engineers I would sugest that the cars all be programed to kill any pedestrian not using our brand of car. As this would place an insentive on consumers to favor my brand over competitors.

these guys get it

better yet:
>WHAT THE FUCK YOU RAN OVER A BABY WHERE WERE YOU LOOKING
>I didn't push the baby on the road and the car was already launched in that direction, I have no obligation to stop or swerve the car

>pull lever
>later find out that the 5 people the car was headed for were violent criminals scheduled for execution, and the 1 guy tied up alone was just a fetishist being foreverially tiedup fully delitized and loving it

>the 5 people are actually murderers conspiring to kill the 1 person using your nacent sense of morality as their weapon

I've seen many meme worthy variations of this but never saved any
Could someone post them please?

I rather think it's more PASSIVELY evil. Nothing actively evil about not taking an action.

But then the sale of those cars would get banned, so NO-ONE would be buying your cars.

I only not pull the lever, i would go there and kill the other survivor i "saved".
Why? it's a fucking question, who the fuck cares about the answer, it's indifferent what happens because it's only an hypotheticla scenario, so it's just better to kill everyone since irl i would go to jail for it.

Inaction does not need moral justification. We are not obliged to save anyone, only obliged to not actively hurt anyone.

underrated tbqh

Is there a name for people who have a fetish for being potential victims in some philosopher's moral experiment?
>Ooh, I am tied to these tracks and totally helpless, this big trolley could brutally crush my body in an instant, I am entirely at the mercy of the guy holding the lever

I don't know about you but "muh lives" is fucking bullshit and yes I do value my own life over many others, the only ones I'd value above mine own are people I dearly respect and/or love.

So fuck you saying "you'll understand dying right?" By your logic if two of my organs could save two other people that need transplants I should just off myself right? Well that is true right now for YOU so why don't you do it? That's right because your utilitarian sense of good is retarded.
And yes details do matter for some, if I had to choose between 5 gangbangers and 1 family father I would pick the gangbangers any day of the week because my sense of morality says they are worth less as they are agents of destruction.

I enjoyed and screencapped this post

If you pull the lever you've violated the sanctity of human life.

No one...Or everyone?

If they're not for sale, how can anyone buy them?

>Inaction does not need moral justification.
>t. evil people

>evil

...

>we are all guilty of all the suffering that has ever occurred in our lifetimes

This is true though.

If I pulled that lever, would you die?

...

Uhh you would blame someone for killing the sole tied up person that they chose to kill rather than letting the other 5 die, its still culpable murder
The point is killing through inaction is just as bad as choosing to kill the one person over the 5, any other attempts at logical justification just come off reptilian/Vulcan in nature, lacking any humanity

Both are shitty options, one is not better or worse than the other

Wholly different scenarios, terrible analogy, kys

>Daily reminder that there is NO moral justification for not pulling the lever, if you don't you are either actively evil or just a fucking retard
*gets given the fat man variation*
>NU-UH IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!!1 IT'S DIFFRUNT!!1

Face it, you didn't get the original moral dilemma and now are backtracking.

I kek'd

What if the 5 people were niggers and the other was a white or asian? Statically speaking the niggers are far more likely to be criminals and therefore will live on and possibly cause harm to others. You'd be doing the world a disservice by not killing them.

Something to philosophize about.

I'd push the damn fat man.

Yeah, nah. Nobody is going to buy a car that will murder them if some retard runs into the street.

edgy

>implying you could push the whale over the fence
If you're that strong you might as well stop the trolley with your own hands.

existentialcomics.com/comic/106

...

ITT

autists argue that not killing someone is the same thing as killing someone

The only correct choice is to flip a coin, if heads you pull the switch.

It would be incredibly amoral

i may have to steal this meme to use sir. hope youre not angered by my compulsiveness

This is still my favourite version

The only morally acceptable option is to do nothing. If you push the lever either way you are guilty of murder but by doing nothing you are only guilty of letting people die.

> to do nothing
You mean to not exist, right? If you aren't exist, you wouldn't be blamed for your choices in any moral system.

>morals
>evil

>guilt

What matters is who the bloke on the top track is. If he's a genius or a great hero then of course you save him by letting the train crush the 5 nobodies

So what is everyone's opinion on first turning the lever and then switching it back again? How different is this option from just doing nothing? The outcome is the same but you actively intervened.

If you do that, you are totally a killer.

I'd call it murder. By first pulling the lever you made the choice to kill one, and by pulling it again you made the choice to kill five. The end results being the same as doing nothing is inconsequential after you've made the choice to to actively get involved.

Pull the lever, let the front wheels change tracks, push it back as soon as they clear, rear wheels stay straight, train derailment. At least I tried to save them, I'm in the clear if it rolls and they're all killed.

Why the fuck does anyone honestly care about morals? If I could do evil things and get away with it, I surely would.

You are a disabled person.
see

its a logical catch 22 when it comes to technicalities
so long as you do not interact with the lever, you have put no variables or involved yourself whatsoever to the situation, put you have knowingly (while not technically participating since you are merely on the train) witnessed the killing of five people.
If you do interact with the lever, you then become part of the situation, and while you have made the decision to spare 5 people, you have technically slain the other one.
The choices are to witness ( because again you didn't kill the 5, they were merely killed and you were witness, since at this time you haven't interacted with anything ) the killing of five people, and suffer a greater loss of human life, or to be the direct cause of one persons death.
watch 5 die vs killing 1

That's only assuming moral realism is true.

philisophically and technically pulling the lever is murder
consequence wise not pulling the lever is a greater loss

...

The only true moral choice here, it's stop making new people, as a result, such situation wouldn't arises.

Pull the lever in a such a way it causes the trollley to jump the tracks and fall sideways away from the tied people.
If no choice pleases you make your own choice, dig your own way when no other way is available.

Save it it's all yours, friend.

Can't believe none said this:
Turn 360 degrees and walk away.

My reasoning is, If a tree falls and none is around to hear the sound it makes, does the tree really fall?

...

mmm sorry. wrong image

I would push the fat man, that some people are mentally weak and backtrack has no effect on me and my position

...

oh great it's the "the ends don't justify the means" thread again

I went to a Catholic high school and my teacher always tried to justify this. one of my acquaintances showed him an example of how the end can justify the means, but he rejected it for some stupid reason because belief in this ridiculousness is dogmatic.

why the fuck am I at the lever anyways? I have never been at a railroad intersection control in my entire life, and I don't plan on doing this.

...

Inaction is an active choice you make how hard is it to get you retards

...