[nocturnial]

If you factor in the legal implications, the trolley problem becomes trivial. Do nothing. I'm not qualified nor allowed to operate train infrastructure and the legal consequences will become worse if someone dies because of something I did.

[alistaira]

The point of the hypothetical situation is to look at a 'pure' case without external consideration in order to get to the crux of the problem.

Consideration of legal implications is missing the point of the exercise.

[nocturnial]

The crux of the dilemma is that there are two solutions. If there aren't two then it's a lemma and the trolley problem is solved.

I didn't introduce the convoluted idea of there being train tracks and a switch. If it was purely hypothetical, you could've asked: "Would you prefer to let 5 people die or let 1 die"

Here's another hypothetical:

"A train is on a track and you are standing on bridge above it. You spot a couple of kilometers further down the track 5 people who are going to be run over by the train. Do you push someone standing beside you over the edge and onto the tracks so the train will register a collision and stops in order to save those 5 people?"

This is the exact same scenario. Only instead of pulling a lever, you have a human interaction. The percentages of who would kill that 1 person change when the trolley dilemma is asked in that way.

If we're getting to the crux of the problem, then why does the response change when you provide the exact same scenario but replace the mechanical with a human-to-human interaction?

[rcoveson]

I don't see how that trivializes the problem. With that additional consideration, the options are:

1. Let 5 people die and 1 live, and you probably don't have any legal consequences.

2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail.

So the thing that made the answer trivial was the introduction of legal consequences that affect you personally? Doesn't the difference of 4 deaths dwarf that?

[nocturnial]

No, it doesn't. How I look at it is those (legal) rules weren't made randomly. I don't think it's an option for me to overrule what millions of people have decided on over the course of a couple of centuries. Especially if I only have a couple of seconds to think about all the implications of my action.

The calculation for me would change if there was a choice between killing 5 people and potentially killing nobody. But that's not the hypothetical here.

If those rules needs to be changed, then change them through debate and well reasoned arguments and not a split second decision. The "good samaritan" law is an example of this. If perform CPR on someone who's heart has stopped, they can't sue you if you save their life but cracked some ribs.

[rcoveson]

> I don't think it's an option for me to overrule what millions of people have decided on over the course of a couple of centuries. Especially if I only have a couple of seconds to think about all the implications of my action.

I find it bizarre that you're taking the side of the, say, thousands of transit policymakers--who are certainly not taking this hypothetical into account--over the majority vote of the public on this exact ethical issue. Not wanting to reason from scratch in the moment is fine, but you don't have to. This is a well-known dilemma, and the consensus is that you should kill one to save five.

> If those rules needs to be changed, then change them through debate and well reasoned arguments and not a split second decision.

Yep, that's why we're here. Now that most of us have agreed that "pull the lever" is the right call on the trolley problem, do you think the transit authorities are going to codify it as a law? Don't be ridiculous. Just take the legal hit, if it even comes. Laws are wrong sometimes, especially in hypotheticals.

[nocturnial]

Let's take a step back.

I would never criticise someone for making the decision to pull the lever. I understand that decision, I really do. I only said I wouldn't do it and explained why.

It's not as clear cut as you think it is. If you think it is, then write to a philosophy professor and say you've solved the trolley dilemma through an internet vote. I hope this sounds absurd to you.

You can play with numbers, but if I were to pull the lever, I would feel I would kill someone for the sole reason they were in the minority. Which is an extra reason for me not to do it.

[rcoveson]

> I would never criticise someone for making the decision to pull the lever. I understand that decision, I really do. I only said I wouldn't do it and explained why.

And I wouldn't critcise someone for not pulling the lever... unless the primary reason they didn't pull the lever was the legal consequences they would suffer. That's a terrible reason.

[nocturnial]

This really disturbs me.

You have no problem when someone decides to kill someone and thinks the laws doesn't apply to them. To make matters worse, you think someone who tries to obey the laws makes a terrible decision by not killing anyone.

If killing someone doesn't give you a pause, I would be afraid to be a minority in whatever society you live in. The laws, which you so easily dismissed, gives some rights to minorities.

What's next? Here are five people who are dying... Let's kill someone in the minority to get their organs and transplant them. It's ok! Five people will survive, while only one dies.

Laws, whether or not you like them, are there to also protect minorities.

[darkerside]

There are only a few times when people consider it acceptable to break through bureaucracy, and life or death situations is one of them.

[smorrebrod]

Personnaly, some answers were swayed by thinking about these legal consequences for situations like:

- Annoying the driver of the trolley for my enjoyment

- A 50% chance of killing 2 people or a 10% chance of killing 10 people

- Killing 5 people now or 5 people in the future

- Killing 1 cat or 5 lobsters

[FartyMcFarter]

I chose to annoy the driver because the prompt already told me that I wanted to do it.

[mcv]

I chose that I had free will and my decision wasn't predetermined, and I used that free will to not annoy the driver.

[littlestymaar]

> 2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail.

You'll be prosecuted for sure, but if the death of the 5 was certain unless you acted, I'd be pretty surprised if you were found guilty, let alone being jailed.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

You're implying that you'd go to jail for the lives of 4 people (or that people should), but recent experience has shown people won't even wear a mask to save other people's lives.

[rcoveson]

Yes, people are shitty utilitarians. I can think of a thousand equally egregious examples that we're both guilty of. Doesn't mean we wouldn't be good people when presented with a social situation that our culture and instincts actually prepared us for.

Think about how many people have sacrificed themselves for others. Not just jail time, but death. Would each of those people have lived completely pure, selfless lives if they hadn't done what they did? Probably not. Who knows, some might have ended up being anti-maskers. It is said that "dying is easy". Making one clearly right choice, damn the extreme consequences, is actually very normal for humans. Just as normal as spending a whole life making bad decisions. Even more bizarre is the two "modes" aren't even mutually exclusive.

[Markoff]

Is there any proof wearing a mask save ANY lives? People talk about this as if it were some fact, it's usually same people believing safe and effective vaccines, who quickly forgot vaccines were supposed to stop transmission, stop symptoms, they just keep pushing goal posts, while reality if you look at stats in highly vaxxed countries is that vaccines do really nothing anymore.

[mcv]

You spread a lot less virus if you wear a mask. Cheap masks don't protect you, but they do protect others from you. Countries where everybody immediately wore masks had far less cases than those where a lot of people didn't. The whole mask issue was the ultimate test in altruism: do you accept slight inconvenience that might save other people's lives? A lot of people failed.

[Markoff]

Masks work only in the lab when worn PROPERLY at ALL ocassions, never meeting strangers without mask, good luck with that. In real life people have to eat without mask and they won't wear it at home or often in work etc. or they don't wear them properly anyway with gaps around.

So yeah, masks work in theory, but reality shown us they are completely useless, especially with newer more infectious variants. If they were such great invention we would not have flu and other respiratory viruses, in the end everyone will get infected anyway.

[mcv]

They are only useless when half the people don't use them and ignore all other measures while they're at it. Obviously there's no need to wear it at home; that's just stupid. But outside, in public space, it catches a lot of those particles that can carry the virus. If everybody wears one, that means less virus particles in the air, and less chance of infection.

And during the pandemic, a lot of countries did indeed not have their usual flu season.

[FartyMcFarter]

Vaccines decrease the severity of disease.

[Markoff]

Numbers of vaxxed vs unvaxxed hospitalized (per capita in same group) don't confirm this disinformation spread by pharma companies and their paid politicians.

[mden]

Can you share a source? Here's a quick one I found that shows the opposite: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s...

[mcv]

They should have made the mask issue one of the tests. Do you let 4 people die, or do you choose to save them but wear something uncomfortable?

[MrRiddle]

Congrats, you saved Hitler, Stalin etc and killed Tesla.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

"Nothing" would be my choice regardless, morally and philosophically. In each case you'd likely be sued by the person(s) you'd kill and they'd probably win.

If you don't intervene circumstances play out and you are blameless. In the other case you are choosing to kill someone, taking their life based on an idea in your head which may or may not be valid. In reality nothing is so clear cut and the people at risk may not have died anyway and you may kill someone needlessly.

That is not to say I wouldn't, for instance, defend someone being attacked. In that case I'm not causing someone else's death by my actions. If the attacker dies during my defense that's fine because it's due to his actions, not mine.

[ahtihn]

One of the problems allows you to save yourself but kill 5 other people.

"Blame" doesn't really factor into that decision.

[FartyMcFarter]

How so? If you choose to survive, some people can certainly blame you.

[formerly_proven]

The non-interventionist stance seems to be unfavored on average, both by the problem makers ("kill count: 93") and the average respondent.

[Markoff]

It's not trivial, dunno about US, but in many (developed) countries around world not providing help to someone (passing around car crash without stopping, if you don't see anyone providing help) has legal implications.

[nocturnial]

When you are certain your actions will result in the death of someone then I doubt the legal protections of helping someone is as clear cut as you think it is.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know all laws of all countries.

I'm hoping a lawyer would jump into this thread.

[isolli]

But, unlike the typical trolley problem, stopping on the side of the road comes at no cost to you or anyone else.