Congratulations! You got the position!

>Congratulations! You got the position!

>However...

>First you must provide an answer to the "trolley problem" do you pull the lever or not?

How do you respond?

>

no, i was not a cause of the situation nor am I morally obligated to become part of the situation, the morality of the situation is on the perpetrator who tied those people to the tracks and set the trolley off. I am in no moral quandry but the one who allowed this to happen in the first place is.

I am sorry to inform you that we suddenly found somebody else for the position

How much are you paying me not to?

I did not set the trolley in motion, nor did I place anyone on the tracks. I have committed no action that has led to this situation, other than me now observing it take place. Any action I do take would result in a death which would make me morally responsible.

I refuse to involve myself in the event, and will wait to provide help to any injured.

Can start frying this burger now?

Yes. All else being equal, the larger set of people is more likely to contain greater utility to me and society in general. But it's only a bet of course.

>inb4 utilitarism
Not claiming that mine is the right response. But, as long as you don't come into believing utility is universal or strictly objective, something close to utilitarism is practical, both from self-interest and pro-social perspectives.

Because that's what we want in our executive officers.

Someone who will always blame someone else for the problem, and do nothing to fix it or mitigate the resulting damage.

You're hired!

I would pull the lever but I wouldn't feel like it was the right thing to do.

>I would shoot the innocent person standing over the mass grave but I wouldn't feel it is the right thing to do

Disgusting pleb morality

It's not the same.

He said he would dirty his hands to try to minimize damage, but wouldn't feel superior for it. As opposed to the people who would use morality to further their perceptions self-worth or to avoid feelings of guilt.

I'd hire him.

Don't pull the level. Take the least involved course of action available to you in all significant choices that you haven't sought to actively participate in

>nor am I morally obligated to become part of the situation
By being aware of it you ALREADY are, dumb nerd.

In action is an action. Fucking nerd.

bump

No thanks, you already told me I got the position, see you tomorrow.

I pull the lever and then push it back before the train reaches the switch

the weak must fear the strong

Well?

Dichotomous nature. The distinguishment of one thing occurs at the distinction from another.

The answer is always multi-track drifting

>I would do the """"right"""" thing
Said the manlet.
>5'0
>0
>ZERO

pull the switch while the train passes over the moving part of the track.

flip a coin

>Pagans STILL have no answer for this

B T F O
T
F
O

pull the fucking lever, dont be a pussy.

Is it possible for me to pull the lever and then join the man on the track and comfort him as we await our impending deaths?

user i think he's going to suffer enough

God is infinite, like MWI, and therefore does both options. This is what they mean by humans being unable to comprehend the divine. They can only comprehend the mundane, that is, the universe they exist in, they can not see the vast and infinite sea of the multiverse.

>train jack knifes and kills people on both tracks

I'll put it this way. If I'm hiring, I want the guy who pulls the lever. Folks not willing to get involved to minimize a destructive situation in order to cover their own asses are the worst to work among.
So I would answer that I would pull the lever. Dont really know if I would IRL, thats some heavy shit to have on your conscious.

Well?

>traditional designs
I would save Bkub designs

Yeah but you also want to employ people who aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. Your methods sounds like you get a lot of yes men. You want someone who tell you just that, that it's a heavy desicion but by all rights they SHOULD pull the lever.

Id want someone to be aware of the consequences of their actions and not just choose it as the "obvious" choice

i know. way more efficient. this is a job interview.

Inaction is by definition not an action.

Allowing something to happen is not the same as causing it.

>what is willfull neglect

Once you are aware of the situation what ever course you take from there is an action. You might term it as inaction but, you're right, that term is lacking. Your action was to remove yourself from the situation, which in effect, changed the possible outcome.

You can't claim agency and then just divorce yourself from causality, faggot.

Either way, I don't feel that I am morally obligated to intervene. If I do not pull the lever, I have allowed people to die, but if I do, I have directly chosen to kill a person.

I personally feel that murder is worse than death from neglect or unfortunate circumstance.

That is valid reasoning. Claiming you weren't involved or implicated was not.

Morality of course, is in the eye of the beholder. This situation is intentionally obtuse. I wouldn't hold either option against a person.

Yes I do, through my states extremely loose interpretation of the good samaritan law I am not legally held responsible for my actions. Also this makes me appear as a man of action. I will accept your offer on the condition that my pay be 10% higher.

So, you say you can only compreend the mundane, how can you be sure god is like the dogma your religion describes? How can you define god as your perception and acept it as absolut truth?