The trolley problem is without a doubt the single most retarded thought experiment philosophy has shat out...

The trolley problem is without a doubt the single most retarded thought experiment philosophy has shat out. Anyone who wouldn't change the track is a sociopath.

Here's a real problem:
>20 innocent adults who you know and consider friends are about to be executed by the state for expressing polite dissatisfaction with the totalitarian government
>you know a guy in a foreign customs office who has everything he needs to issue them valid passports and save their lives, but he won't do it because he's afraid of losing his job, and won't relent to bribes, guilt or empty threats
>the only person he gives even the slightest shit about is his son, but even if you hold the child hostage, he won't relent unless you physically
and permanently injure him to prove you're serious


Would you do it Veeky Forums? Are the lives of 20 adults worth more or less that the extreme suffering of a child?

>Anyone who wouldn't change the track is a sociopath.
That's a meaningless truism and you know it. The Trolley Problem is meant to spark dialog over ethics, not your pet pop psychology horseshit.

It's still a retarded thought experiment, since like most thought experiments it ignores any possible subtlety or nuance of scenario to the point of being obtuse.

>Anyone who wouldn't change the track is a sociopath.
You got it backwards.

>Anyone who wouldn't change the track is a sociopath

children would just draw more figures unto the other track

the thing about the picture is that it is and isn't at the same time, there are stick figures but you have to build the story around it and fit morality into it make it work

it's "retarded" because it forces you to come up with something that isn't part of the narrative and bares your notion of the world to be exposed to everyone

so there is a shame associated with it and so on

Is Veeky Forums smart enough to solve pic related?

LMFAO this one is just as bad. this is a quantitative quandary dealing in juggling the lives of people.. morality is qualitative. i suppose we can blame the scientist approach endemic to our technocratic, reductionist society for people not seeing this basic, logical fact.

>ok so ur gonna kill 1 bunny vs 3 bunnys, which is more moral

It's puerile. It begs the answer from the recipient. No shit we want less death in the world. Baby bunny or grown, child or adult. The moral stance is not a yes-no question either.
>the government is ultimately stifling free will - this is wrong
>the guy in foriegn customs (presented with the situation, granted) does not do anything to lift the suffering of the innocent - he is wrong

kidnapping or harming his son should never come into question

Daily reminder that since you did not put those people onto the track or that trolley onto the rails you are absolved of all responsibility.

That's because the trolley problem isn't supposed to be isolated like this. After you answer the trolly problem, you're supposed to face the next problem.

>you are a doctor with 6 patients
>5 of them are in need of organ transplants, all of a different organ and will die within a few days if they don't get them
>the 6th patient only has a few broken bones and will make a smooth recovery
>the 6th patient coincidentally is a donor match for the other patients and all his organs are healthy
>you don't have any other source for organs that you can acquire in time
>you're a master surgeon with a 100% success rate
>do you kill your healthy patient to save the lives of the other 5?

The trolly problem isn't interesting because of your choice, it's interesting because people often change their minds when the exact same ethical dilemma is presented in a different context.

someone post the "no one's in danger, but you can pull the lever to make the trolley come closer" pic

You miss the point entirely. The initial hypothetical trolley problem is supposed to be obvious. Pretty much everyone you ask will intuitively choose to switch the track. The point is you then transpose the same ethical dilemma into other situations to see if their reasoning holds true, such as whether or not you'd throw a bystander onto the track to slow the tram down to stop it running into a large group of people further down.

>don't change the track
>-1/12 people die
some autist said so in yutub so it must be true

In a libertarian world there would be no public transport and so no trolley problem. This is not a ethical problem but a political one.

When the trolly reaches a large enough group of people, it will get jammed/derailed and the carnage will end. But if it takes the upper track it will continue to kill people until the track ends, which I can only assume in infinite for the purpose of this dilemma.

That one is actually much simpler than the trolley one. Here the person in question is ether torturer out of necessity, or he stoically stays aside while the deaths happen. The deaths are not his fault, In trolley case people die in both cases, and he is already in position to make a change. The dilemma is clearer.

But then how would you solve pic related?

...

>libertarian world
I'd rather just throw myself on the tracks if that were the case

This is in fact a straw man. Since there is no public transportation a trolley system would be built on private property. As such the man pulling the lever and those tied up are already all on private property and would have been shot long before the trolley even arrived.

There is no answer. The trolley problem is an abstraction of ethics that only serves to give shitty utilitarians like yourself credit enough to engage in other philosophical discourse where you don't belong. As soon as the scenario is altered to take place in the hospital, where there are five sick people in need of organ transplants and a healthy person happens to walk in, no one will kill the man. Not to get too Kantian, but it's clear that society can never function if each person is viewed as possessing some essential quality that recognises them as human and sovereign.

>Anyone who wouldn't change the track is a sociopath.

No, I'm more inclined to say that people who believe a pure numbers game is appropriate where humans are concerned are the actual sociopaths.

i think in this case of surgeon it has a different psychological feel, with the trolley youre just pushing a lever, as a surgeon you have to get your hands dirty with blood

i know the outcome is the same, and its just a thought experiment, but what would make people change their minds is that feel

That's good and all, but try this one

In either case it's infinite people die
However if you change the track you save infinitely more people than you would by not touching it

Anybody have the ridiculous Jordan Peterson one?

Would you rather kill 1 person now to save 10 people in 50 years? After you're dead?

Would you rather stab 1 person to death now, to save 10 people who will die in their sleep now?

>muh politics

Fuck off.

I'd switch the track then switch it back so there is no ambiguity over who was responsible for letting the greater number of people die. It is ethical to be clear in your intentions and to dispel all doubt.

>change the track
>-1/2 people die

You save more life by changing.

t. pleb

Depends on how much I actually value them as friends.
Depends on whether or not I'd get caught kidnapping the child, and so on.

The trolley problem is infinitely better than your shitty question, no one on earth wouldn't kill a person they have no compassion for to save 20 people they love. The trolley problem expresses ethics, I would never pull the lever because that puts you as an active contributor to the deaths of others rather than a passive contributor. Even if I save lives it's to difficult to follow through.

A good flip on the question though could be
>There are 5 people tied to the track the train is on and thirty people tied to the alternate track.
>you have already been framed for their murders and will serve life in prison regardless of whether or not you pull the lever
>do you pull the lever knowing it will prevent people from fucking with you in prison?

By not pulling the lever you actually save lives.

you play too many video games

this is even dumber since organ donation has to be voluntary

Wow. You're dumb af brother

Why do all these shit ethics questions feature idiotic scenarios with no basis in reality? It can't be that hard to repurpose real-world ethical dilemnas.

>this is even dumber since organ donation has to be voluntary

It doesn't.

where do you live, a shanghai back alley?

...

You're missing the point of the thought experiment.

how does it feel being retarded

Explain

To change or not to change the track - obviously this is a false choice. The true radical solution is to destroy the railroad system that constrains you to these, and create new conditions for the liberation of the victims. The utilitarian ethics that are implied in the problem already assume the dominant cultural logic, and thus represent pure ideology.

why not just turn them all into immortal super beings while you're at it. typical materialist, can't see beyond his physical reality.

?
Is what I said wrong somehow?

>reality beyond the physical

hmm...

Wait, which ones are the jews?

I swear if this trolley doesn't get the fuck off my property I'll don't know what's gonna happen.

...