Memes aside, which is the righ moral decision here?

Memes aside, which is the righ moral decision here?

killing yourself
you can always kill yourself

Depends. From a hedonistic perspective it could be either.

From a moralist perspective it would be to let more people die because dying quickly is better than suffering for forty more years than dying anyway

The obvious moral choice is the fuck off with your ethics from the science board ya cunt.

In that particular case it's better to be pragmatic. Not every problem should be approched with the same lenses no matter what kantian autists would tell you. So just flip the switch.

Doing nothing is the only objectively correct choice. You have no right to play ''''''''god'''''''' with people's lives.

Multi-track drifting

This is correct

Came here to post this.

>muh moral fee fees
>making decisions is playing God
Not everything that feels bad is evil. Not everything that is impassive is good.

>comparing personal feelings to being objective

Are you clinically retarded?

>morality
>objective

Thanks for playing.

...

jam the lever so the switch is stuck between the two spars so that the trolley derails harmlessly

Prove to me objectively that I am not God and do not have the right to do what I like to people's lives

People are in the trolly. They die if you do.
>You're not getting off the ride that easily.

If you flip the switch then you're responsible for killing an innocent person, but if you do nothing and let the group die then it's not your fault.

I'd pick sitting on the sidelines and watch events unfold as they naturally would.

Then they die for blaspheming the invisible hand with public transportation

Fault is a product of blame. Someone will always blame you.

You are on Veeky Forums on a Saturday night.

Sunday morning where I am.

Aha, already failed since it is objectively sunday morning!

Someone would die either way and I wasn't the one who started the chain of events in the first place. Someone could blame me if they want, but it would be illogical to.

>and I wasn't the one who started the chain of events in the first place
Or maybe you WERE?

>It'd be illogical to blame you!
Now you know everything you need to know about "morality."

We must follow the prime directive. Interfering with natural selection could have drastic consequences down the line and hinder the development of the species.

Minimize loss of life
Find perpetrator

>Find perpetrator
They tripped and got wrapped up in ropes that happened to tie them to the tracks that way. It's just a series of tragic events leading up to you being a killer either through action or inaction.

You sick piece of shit.

Let the train kill the five, use the lever as a club to kill the survivor. Only fair answer.

Came here to post this

...

...

Leave the lever and throw yourself in front of the train.

Ye shall be welcome in My kingdom.

Move two of the people to the side with only one person and then flip a coin to decide which three die. Also I suppose flip a coin to decide which two to move in the first place.

Randomness is the only fair way to go about it.

...

Brutality plus edginess equals Brutedginess.

...

It's doing nothing still playing god? You are given a choice whether you want it or not

Mill
>save the most lives possible, since every life has utility and we are morally compelled to preserve the greatest amount of utility
Kant
>Neither choice is good since choosing to kill is never good because the act of killing cannot be extended universally as an imperative, so the only right choice is not to choose
Hobbes
>whatever the sovereign tells you to do
Nietzsche
>your concept of "right" contains the seeds of its own nihilism and the "right" of the overman cannot be conceived by other than the overman
Machiavelli
>whatever is most useful to you
Socrates
>what do you mean by right?

What gives you the right to choose life and death for others?

If you use that liver, then you are responsible for the death of that one person. So it would be better to not do anything, because those five people were going to die even if you were not present in that scene. It was their bad luck that they ended up in the wrong track.

Think about it this way: The syllabus for a class says a test is on day X, but only one diligent student studies for it while everyone else doesn't.
The diligent student has a test next week, but everyone else does not and they beg to professor to push the test back.
The moral choice for the professor (by normies/lefties standards usually) is to push the test back and fuck over the one person. But the right choice is to keep it as is (not pushing the lever)

I'm proud of you user

How to make good use of a silly thread.

Kill less people. How is that a question.

Knock out the trolley out of the tracks

as heat death of the universe is inevitable it does not really matter what choice you make. but for the sake of the argument: you don't have free will, so the only possible correct answer is do what the universe makes you do.

What if you're a surgeon with six patients, five of which are going to die if you don't find a donor and one that's just getting his tonsils removed. If you take spare parts organs from the tonsilectomy patient you can save the five others.

Save one, or save five?

Assuming each human life is equal, a life = 1.
1 life = 1*1 = 1;
5 lives = 1*5 = 5;
5 > 1.
Thus, five lives are more worth than one.

MULTI

If a donor can't be found shit sucks but they were going to die anyway. Tonsil person isn't in danger of dying.

...

...

the lever

There is no free choice. We all obey physical laws. You are just a cog in the great machine we call the universe.

If you close your eyes, will the trolley split into several virtual trolleys?

shut up cogtard

The physical laws of the universe made you type that, coglet.

...

topkek

Assuming you're trying to make an ethical choice and not to be an edgelord, obviously rerouting the trolley to kill the single guy is the correct decision. What it comes down to is the best/worst outcome given the options you have. If you have the option to change the outcome of an event to something better, then by refusing to make a decision you have made the decision to let the group die.

Hurr durr: I worship the god of determinism.
Hurr durr: I don't even get it's just a metaphysical concept which cannot be falsified or verified.
Hurr durr: I ignore all the neuroscientific experiments which point to the existance of at least a certain freedom of choice.

Just go back to highschool and stop aping bullshit like that just because you read two or three pop-sci articles about the subject.

There is no moral decision here anymore. Moral decisions would help you to not get in a situation like that.

Does a single subatomic particle have freedom of choice?

>Memes aside, which is the righ moral decision here?

walk away and pretend you never became aware of the situation.

>ITT: Brainlets too simpleminded to understand an abstract thought experiment
The problem is supposed to illustrate the dilemma of whether it is justifiable to do harm in order to achieve an overall (supposedly) preferable or less harmful outcome. This is a common problem for politics, police and rescue workers, and more.
Your ramblings about what happens to the lever, whether life is more valuable than death, or attempts to quantify specific suffering through speculation about the victims' race, age, family or how much they "deserve" to be in said situation in the first place are completely missing the point.

You're the one missing the point here. Everyone is aware of the moral dilemma, but it's not very interesting or compelling so it's basically just sci being sci coming up with ridiculous trolley problems and asinine "solutions" as a joke.

Do you really think that any new or interesting thought will come from this entry level pleb thought experiment?

>all the neuroscientific experiments which point to the existance of at least a certain freedom of choice
could you post a few of those? i'm genuinely curious

Does a single subatomic particle have a metabolism?
Does a single subatomic particle have the ablility to feel pain?
Does a single subatomic particle have the ability to think?

to prove that you have free will you would have to prove that to any given stimulus (or: to every current state of the particles you and the universe are made of) there are multiple possible reactions or outcomes. since we can only observe a single result each and every time, there is no reason to believe that multiple outcomes would have been possible.

even if you turn away from the physical aspect of the problem, there are experiments that have shown that decisions are made subconsciously 3 to 10 seconds before we are consciously aware of them. you can't consciously control your subconscious by definition, therefor you are not able to make conscious decisions at all.

i don't know what your definition of 'free will' is, but something you can't consciously change is not something i would call 'free' will or choice. you just _believe_ that you make conscious decisions (since it feels like it subjectively - i'm not saying otherwise), but this is not the case as i have explained above. it's an illusion.

feel free to provide a peer reviewed study that proves otherwise.

None of those 3 things involve freedom of choice though, and each can be described as the positions, motions and interactions of a very large number of smaller parts. In addition, those 3 things aren't "metaphysical concepts," to use your own words, and can be "verified" or "falsified".
Failed analogy.

...

...

t. socialist

I made this just for you.

anti-logic atheists absolutely BTFO

>blind, unverifiable faith is better than just admitting or tolerating uncertainty
Explain yourself.

The right moral decision is to move the fucking people off of the track. Seriously how retarded is this?

It's not blind, it's understanding that while we will never fully understand reality, we are blessed with the tools to get closer to the truth.

If you can't take that on faith, you can't act on anything or gain any knowledge.

Holy shit

Make the decision that causes the least harm, dumb ass.

If the choice is 1 dies or 5 dies. Then you must let that 1 guy die in order to save those 5.

Now if given information:
1 guy can save 10 lives and the other 5 guys who can die can only save 1 life.

You must let the other 5 people die, killing 6 people total, but in the end you saved 11 people.

You must choose the option that does the least amount of damage, and can lead to the "best" happy ending. There is no good or bad involved, its just doing what you must.

If you can't do this how do you expect to become a Hero, user?

>natural

>You must choose the option that does the least amount of damage
why? and according to who?

Usually 5 human beings can contribute more to society than a single one. That's why killing one is usually better than killing five.

Ability is not the same thing as right user

/thread

clearly you need to push the lever to the left

did you even look at the diagram?

Brutally murder the one dude to save the other five; take his corpse home, drain his blood, bathe in it in preparation for my black metal concert

...

Now you see, in a quantum universe, the train being on both tracks means that if you flip the switch, instead of switching from one track to the other, it switches from being on both to neither, saving everybody!