An old moral dilemma - The Trolley problem

I couldn't really answer this one, becuase being responsible for who dies just feels unfair. If I had to choose, I'd have to say that saving more lives is better than not, but ultimately I'd try to save everyone. Maybe I'd try to time the trolley lever to knock the car off the tracks or hit it with a wrecking ball. I dunno.

Kill the relatives, help relieve overpopulation and save more people in the long run.

And then steal the wallets of the relatives.

Based on the choice I had, I chose to divert the trolley because in the end, family is a family and no matter how close or how far apart you are from your family, you can't deny the fact that they are your family.

But, what I wish to do

is to JUMP and sacrifice in order to save them both.

Honestly, I can't just kill somebody to save others, the burden is just too much! People might think that what I'm saying is bullshit and stuff, but seriously, killing your true love for your family or vice versa, damn man, it's too much!

I would divert the trolley and save family, I consider them to be way more important and precious and would be a great deal more upset and distraught if they were to go away.

I wouldn't be able to kill my true love.

now, if my true love was on the main track, and I could pull the switch to kill 5 people, I would be more hesitant.

If there is at least 1 relative I give a shit about then I will let my "true love" die. Otherwise, I will go for sex > flesh & blood.

Given the above stated criteria I'd say the chance of my true love surviving is pretty damn good.

I'd save my family since I don't even believe in true love (Unconditional love doesn't count).

Does this thread seriously belong in SD? All of the answers are basically prefixed with "I would...". This is an opinion poll, not a serious discussion of moral and ethics.



Assuming that only A or B are permissible and A and B result in the death(s) we would have to quantify which live(s) are worth more...

Except, now you don't even have the precise question that I think you are seeking the answer to which would be: Which decision would be less morally bad then the others? Both decisions result in death so they are both morally bad but relatively which one is less is a better question.



There are 3 things wrong with your original question: There are unnecessary physical details which brings the dilemma into a realm with more options, the question only asks for the possibility of making a decision, and, if interpreted the implied way, the question asks for a personal choice without elaborating on ethics.

Here I'll restate the problem:

You have to choose either your true love or five non-immediate relatives to die and you are not permitted any other option. By default, the five relatives will die if no choice is made. What is the most moral choice and why?

Concise, unambiguous, and fits into SD.

I don't really know, when this situation happens to me, I'll know which part of me really is in control. You can't accurately judge a situation without actually being in that situation.

I would save the one precious person and let my family die. Lust and Love is stronger then family. Morales are just things people make up. I would murder million humans to save my precious person.

If they were my true love (as you imply), they'd understand that I couldn't sacrifice the lives of others for my own selfishness. I don't like most of my family, but choosing their death for my own happiness would make me far worse than them... I would regret such a decision for the rest of my life.

In evolutionary terms, you're better off letting your lover die (since your relatives can carry on your genetic code, at least partially) so I'm not surprised that the relatives team is winning... That shit is hard wired into our psyche, sexual partners can be replaced but your genetics can't be...

Theres an old genetics saying that goes like, 'I'd happily give my life for three of my brothers or five of my nephews'. Since they carry more of your genetic code than you do your death is justifiable to yourself in a evolutionary sense...

Personally, I'd be to chickenshit to do anything in reality, I'd probably just stand there and watch my family get mushed...

I'd save my love. Is it the moral choice? I could argue that it is (or about unmorality) but knowing how most people react it'd be pointless. I could also argue that sacraficing yourself to save all six even though thats not possible, is actually not a good choice.

It's not easy to choose to divert the trolley. I would, but it's an extremely difficult decision. Firstly, by hitting the switch, I'm taking part in actually causing the trolley directly to kill one person. On the other hand, by NOT doing anything, while fully knowing I could easily do something, I would still feel like I'm INDIRECTLY causing 5 deaths. So in essence, 5 deaths caused indirectly, or one death caused directly.

Those are my options.

With my morals, I can objectively acknowledge that saving the 5 people is more likely to be better for society than protecting one. Should I be held responsible for my actions? Yes. Should I be jailed? No. I believe if I threw the switch, or if anyone did, the obvious questions aside(couldn't you have gotten them off the tracks somehow?!), the punishment would be difficult to come up with. How do you judge someone who is clearly not only remorseful for their actions, but also have saved people by doing it?

I think that's the REAL question this dilemma brings up, "What do you do with the person who throws the switch?" Because I STILL don't know what would be a good answer.

This really irks me because it mentions non-immediate family instead of random strangers [which is the way I've heard it before]. Really makes it tough to decide.

I'd go with doing nothing. Probably because at the moment of the actual choice, I literally would not be able to will myself to do anything. I don't want to see people die unnecessarily, but if either choice I made couldn't stop that, then I'll just sit there and let the trolley do its business without my interference.

EDIT: To Lundi, the post above mine: The first paragraph of your post = almost exactly what I was thinking.

As far as the hypothetical situation goes, if I must make a decision based on the belief that I must choose either A or B, then I would choose to do nothing(B) and let the trolley kill the five relatives. In my opinion self-preservation extends to my most loved ones, and I would act to save the woman I loved - by choosing not to act. If I even touch the lever, I become complicit in the crime of the person who set up this insane situation. By doing nothing, my true love is saved and I am now free to hunt the bastard down who killed my family members. I would then take delight in bringing him to justice.

Now for the real world. You say that the lever is not close enough to the situation to allow me to rescue any of the people, but manual levers are located right at the switching site. That means the trolley is either moving too fast to make the rescue attempt, or the people are too far away to reach. If they are too far away, then how would I be able to recognize my relatives and true love? If the trolley is going too fast, then the natural human response would be to shut down in indecision until it was too late anyway. Same result as if I had chosen not to act, as stated above.

Now for my real world answer. Since I know a little something about train tracks, I know that there are two sets of independent wheels on either side of the trolley car. If you switch the track in between each set of wheels, then those wheels each follow different tracks. This would derail the car off the track, leading to my relatives, and the trolley would likely flip over. Saving everyone, except maybe me, as I would be standing right at the point of derailment. Personally, I would rather die trying to save everyone than make the choice that kills one or the other.

In exercises such as this there is no concept of right or wrong, only consequence. Morally, the decision should be to choose the lesser of two evils, and in this case (in my opinion) the lesser choice is to not become a pawn of the one who devised this scenario. Intellectually, I would still choose option B, even if my true love were on the other track. Emotionally, who knows? Humans are seldom logical in times of stress so the hypothetical situation is inherently flawed anyway.

Amen, brother, amen.

I'd rather fail trying to save all of them then doing nothing.

So essentially you just said that there IS a difference between "doing" something and doing "nothing".. But both of these options have crossed your mind, so in reality you have already done both of these options INDIRECTLY before anyone got killed. The option that you allowed to happen was the one done Directly, and hence should be treated that way.

You've also already answered your own question regarding what should be done to the person deciding who dies... Nothing. But I don't think that's the right answer. Imagine that the choice is between a whole city, and a lonely house where your love lives, and the truck has a nuclear device installed (and it's made out of unopenable steel so no you can't disarm it). Shouldn't you be held accountable for the death of an entire city as opposed to the death of your loved one?

What I'm trying to say is, law is decided by the society, and the society (in our type of democracy) is the majority.

Personally If these were my distant relatives I'd rather save my love. But if they were my sisters, their boyfriends, and my parents, I'd kill my own love. Mostly because a) at the moment I don't have a "love" and b) I've got too much of my life planned with my relatives to sacrifice it for momentary pleasure.