What's the correct solution to the trolley problem?

What's the correct solution to the trolley problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
currentaffairs.org/2017/11/the-trolley-problem-will-tell-you-nothing-useful-about-morality
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not getting involved

save the people you can without killing others

the virgin don't touch vs the chad pull

That's subjective

Save those who matter, the rest can get fucked.
It's not even a hard decision unless you're a schizoid pseudlet.

Have your municipality use a bus system for public transportation instead.

And how exactly are you meant to determine who "matters"? They're strangers and the tram is hurtling towards them at high speed.

Kill the one to save the many

Depends on the people on the rails
1 good citizen > 5 death row inmates

Just walk away

Kill them all and let God sort them out

This

I wonder

Do you want to be internally consistent? If so, then if you choose to save the many (thereby implicitly claiming that killing is the same as letting die), you would then be compelled to save all the people you COULD save, as letting them die when you could save them is equivalent to killing them, making your life dependent on saving others, limiting your freedom. Is it worth it to devote your life to helping others? That's a question only you can answer.
Do you not care about being internally consistent? Do whatever you want because you don't have consistent logic underlying your behavior anyway.

spooks

except its not taking much effort to pull a lever

That's a pragmatic distinction; it doesn't take significantly more effort to send money to a starving kid, or to do any other number of things that could save someone's life. The point is not how easy it is to pull the lever, it's the decision to pull it in the first place, which then compels one to help other people when they can, assuming the individual is internally consistent. As was mentioned above, you could always just walk away from the lever or ignore the situation, which I imagine most would do.

It isn't. Morality is purely subjective.

Your premise is flawed from the start because mankind is not internally consistent, perfectly rational automatons. Reason is a slave to the passions.

>your premise is flawed from the start
That's why I made the distinction between those who want to be internally consistent and those who don't.
>reason is a slave to the passions
for some, not for all

There is no "correct" solution to the trolley problem. The trolley problem wasn't even meant to have a solution either, it was meant to show the moral differences between people. People who would pull the lever to save the many at the expense of the few, are naturally inclined towards utilitarianism, and the people who wouldn't pull the lever at all because they think it is murder, would be deontologists.

Now, given how politics functions at both a national and international level, the state will almost certainly choose to pull the lever, as will the military, because both the military and politics almost demands utilitarianism by definition.

depends on their skin color

>That's why I made the distinction between those who want to be internally consistent and those who don't.
But the implication in how you worded what you said was that deontology is the superior moral frame to hold. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>for some, not for all
No, it's all. Reason is post-hoc that we fit to what we already feel deep-down. There are some people who might be more autistically rational than others, but no one is fully rational by any stretch of the imagination.

>t. montezuma

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
Children have the answer.

...

Not getting involved. Switching the tracks means that you're saying that it's ok to kill an individual to save more than an individual. So if somebody needed a kidney from you you must give it to them because if you don't one person will die and one will live and if you do two people will live, it is a violation of personal autonomy.

Or perhaps you have autism.

That makes no sense. How's one person dying better than no people dying?

>absolutism
I take my moral hits on a case-by-case basis, only autists stick to an unflinching code.

KEK haha maga
If one person is dying and needs a kidney transplant, and you have one and could give it to him, if you hold to the philosophy that states you need to pull the lever to kill the one and not 5, then you must give your kidney to the dying person because if you were not to give it to him 1 person would die and 1 would live but if you were to give him your kidney 2 people would live. What are you not understanding?

From a legal point of view, keep away from the lever.

false equivalence. Saying you want to maximize the number of lives saved in the trolley problem does not mean you wish to boil down all morality to a single over-simplified concept and apply it universally to all other contexts. Your argument doesn't follow the premise.

>What's the correct solution to the trolley problem?
Get rid of them and use buses. Buses can be re-deployed as transportation patterns change, and if some moron straps people to the tracks, or in the middle of the road, a bus can go by another route easily.

Important point.

Close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen.

>But the implication in how you worded what you said was that deontology is the superior moral frame to hold.
For internal consistency between actions, the belief one holds while pulling the lever will determine how you should behave. Are you pulling the lever because you feel responsible for the fate of this group of people, that you have a moral duty towards them, are you pulling the lever because you want to save as many people as possible, are you pulling it to maximize happiness, are you pulling it to minimize suffering, are you pulling it because a virtuous person would pull it, etc?
If you are pulling it because you have a moral duty to them, then you have a moral duty to all the others you could save.
If you are pulling it to save the most people, then you similarly will want to save others.
If you are pulling it to maximize happiness, then you will also have to consider how you weight your own personal happiness in comparison to that of others, and that weighting will determine how much compulsion you should feel towards helping others.
If you are pulling it to minimize suffering, then you will want to consider how much suffering helping others causes you, if any.
If you are pulling it for virtue ethics reasons, ask, would a virtuous person devote his life to helping others?
>No, it's all.
For some, reason is used to justify their emotional beliefs, for others, reason is what they use to determine what is optimal. I've had profound shifts in beliefs from recognizing a rational argument as true even when it conflicted with my emotional feelings. Did my feelings suddenly change to fit a new belief before I rationally understood the idea as true, or did I rationally recognize the truth of the idea, which then caused emotional turbulence until I accepted the idea on an emotional level?
>no one is fully rational by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know if any are, but there are many that strive to be as rational and consistent as possible.

currentaffairs.org/2017/11/the-trolley-problem-will-tell-you-nothing-useful-about-morality

Skin color