[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.

[rcoveson]

> This really disturbs me.

Oh save it, it's a disturbing hypothetical.

> You have no problem when someone decides to kill someone and thinks the laws doesn't apply to them.

This is the most dramatic mischaracterization I've read in recent memory. Who has "no problem" with either outcome of the trolley problem? "Oh, one person died? No problem!" Did you consider how strawmannish that sounded before you wrote it? And as for the law "not applying", that's not part of the conversation either. The law will certainly apply, as it must to preserve societal order. But the pragmatic application of the written law is not always aligned with what is right, and when multiple lives are at stake, the legal consequences themselves are not especially, well, consequential.

Take this euthanasia hypothetical as another example of the point I'm making:

Your spouse is experiencing horrific, constant, neurological pain. It is a given that they will die in the next 48 hours. The only treatment available to you is ineffective at treating the pain, but at high doses it will cause immediate death. Your partner is aware of the situation and has requested euthanasia. Do you euthanize them?

It's a highly contrived situation, but then so is the trolley problem. I believe that people should have an opinion on this problem that is not swayed much by the possibility of legal consequences to themselves. The consequences either way are so incredibly dire that the opinion of some disinterested court referencing a law that was absolutely not written with this situation in mind should be practically ignored. If somebody said to me that they would have euthanized their spouse if the law in their state hadn't said they couldn't, but since it did say that they just watched them suffer, then I'd say that person is a coward. I'm not saying they should have done it and then tried to avoid the legal consequences, I'm saying they should have done it and then accepted the legal consequences, because the consequences to the other party are so much more drastic.

That's all I'm saying about the trolley problem. If you believe in switch-pulling the trolley problem, you should switch pull without considering your local laws, or how much you could spend on a lawyer. If you don't believe in switch-pulling that's fine as well, unless you are somebody who actually does think switch-pulling is the right thing to do but not if there are legal consequences to yourself. Again, that's a terrible reason. Believe one way or the other and act on that. Don't outsource your morality to the legislators when you're faced with a once-in-a-lifetime moral dilemma where people are guaranteed to die at the end.

[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...

[Markoff]

Here is for instance data directly from Czech gov

https://www.mzcr.cz/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/IS_COVID19_Ti...

Page 5, new hospitalizations, 7 day numbers per 100K people in each group June 2022 unvaxxed 1.4/100K vaxxed unfinished 1.3/100K vaxxed 2 doses 0.5/100K vaxxed with booster 1.7/100K

To be fair most of these people are hospitalized for other reason than COVID regardless their vaccination as was always the case even when they were spreading propaganda about hospitalized unvaxxed. Numbers in ICU look better for vaxxed, but there are way too many factors to consider, you are more likely to have better life style as vaxxed risk group than unvaxxed risk group, which doesn't really say vaccination works.

[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.