[Sebb767]

You go from passively letting someone die to actively killing someone. Which is a major difference.

Now, you might think that it isn't given enough time, but it's easy to argue that you're currently letting kids die in Africa by your inaction (or Ukrainians or homeless people etc.). Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few people would be willing to do. It definitely makes a difference.

[crznp]

Consider this version: there is someone on the track and if I don't act, they will almost certainly die. Or I can act and almost certainly save them, but it sends the trolley somewhere unexpected.

If I were a professional rail operator, I could take action. I know how to operate the switch, I know where both of the lines go, I can contact the trolley operator to let them know what happened. As a bystander, I would not take action. Maybe it would save that person, but dooms all the passengers on the trolley. Maybe someone had it under control and I'm throwing a wrench in their plans. In general, we probably don't want random bystanders to be messing with the operation of heavy machinery.

Sometimes there is a duty to act: if I am babysitting a child and they are suffering in the cold, I better bring them somewhere warm. I may have some responsibility if I see someone suffering in the cold and I have an extra blanket that I could give them. But I am not responsible for buying blankets to give out every time it is cold, nor am I responsible for throwing railroad switches. In those cases, I am more culpable for my actions than my failure to act.

[Dudeman112]

>Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few people would be willing to do. It definitely makes a difference

It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying

Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Trying hard to not know anything is even desirable from that point of view: it's not neglect if you never bothered getting to a state where you are capable of being responsible for anything

[Sebb767]

> It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying

Unfortunately, that's the one (not) making the decision in this case.

> Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition.

Is, though? I mean, in general we should strive to improve the world, but does getting overwhelmed by all the bad things that you should be doing something about really doesn't help.

[Dudeman112]

Maybe if we were overwhelmed by all the bad things that we should be doing something about it would eventually lead us to a point where we would be doing something instead of just living our lives doing nothing (for the most part)?

If we are already talking about changing the human cognition, might as well add an ability to function while being aware of the issues

[a_wild_dandan]

I have choice paralysis while buying pants. I'm 100% capable of grabbing a pair and swiping the plastic rectangle. But I just don't know a good solution. I'm afraid of picking wrong.

And that's just pants. Hell, even in math -- the most rigorous subject ever -- there are undecidable problems. Asking me to decide squishy issues of who lives and dies, who I should spent resources helping (including myself), etc...that's so many orders of magnitude more complex, so many immediate and cascading future consequences, of unimaginable import. It's crushing, and maybe without a correct (or even good) answer! It's pants ultra out there. If you make me internalize all the issues, then the only decision I'll make is which corner to lay by in the fetal position.

The only idyllic "human cognition" fix here is basically omniscience. And that kinda feels like cheating, y'know?

[uoaei]

The trolley problem is set up in a specific way for a specific reason: the person standing next to the lever has no barriers to action, and comprehends the immediate consequences of their choice. This is not so for the kids in Africa example you give.

The trolley problem does not extend readily to systems involving incomplete information or some kind of inaccess to enacting a solution. That is why moral philosophers despise it as an illustrative example -- armchair ponderers apply it with gross negligence to the context and nuance present, so it ends up illustrating nothing much except ignorance for the details of the thought experiment.

[nurettin]

Can this person pulling the lever with no barriers to action ask if the lone victim wants to sacrifice themselves?