>game has morally grey decisions
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>game has morally grey decisions
>game has morally grey decisions
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>game has inconsequential outcomes
NOW WE ARE TALKING
kek
Mass effect 3
post the party version
Not touching the lever and walking away is the only morally correct solution
Murder by negligence.
You wouldn't be charged because there's nothing you could have done to prevent loss of life. If you changed tracks to the single person, you'd be an accessory to their murder because without your intervention, they wouldn't have died.
okay if anything, somebody should actually frame this scene in real life, then get arrested and taken to court so we would know what actual correct decision according to the law should be
Actually i think some places have a kind of 'active' version of a Good Samaritan law, where instead of not being liable for injuries inflicted when trying to help in good faith, you get the book thrown at you for not attempting to help at all
There are laws like this but none of them would apply in the case of the trolley problem. The extent people are expected to help is things like calling the police. Laws like this never even require people to put themselves in harm's way, let alone actively murder someone.
The legal answer is already pretty straightfroward. Not doing anything is completely legally safe. If you pull the lever you will be guilty of murder in most places, but you also have a very good chance of it being knocked down to a lesser charge or even being thrown out entirely due to the extreme circumstances. To give an example, once some crewmen on a stranded ship killed the cabin boy that was already dying so they could drink his blood and live. They were initially sentenced to death (it was the 1880s) but eventually their sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment.
I wasn't aware we were working off of legal precedents set by literal vampires, but the precedents set by metaphorical vampires are usually worse anyway.
Hospitals are just hotspots for disease, pressured assisted suicide and addictions to hard drugs.
>i break my arm
>i go to hospital
>they open and fix it up
>i heal up
i guess you're right anon, there's no good in this world.
That's the Duty to Rescue
Most EU countries have it.
Atleast in the EU there's also a general degree of expected injury from a rescue effort.
Avoiding injury against yourself is not a valid defence for failure to render aid unless it would have been severe enough to immediately endanger you.
e.g. if a car crashes and is beginning to burn up you can't cease rescue efforts of passengers until the fire actually starts to reach you. The other side of the car being on fire is not a severe and immediate threat.
If the car had crashed into a fuel truck and was coated in burning petrol that would be a severe and immediate threat and the duty to rescue is waived because you would clearly be immediately set on fire
>Laws like this never even require people to put themselves in harm's way, let alone actively murder someone.
Wrong, moron. That's the whole point of laws like these.
>fire can reach fuel tank and cause an explosion any moment
>still not dangerous enough
i think you've picked a wrong example.
"I could've gotten hurt if x thing happened" is not a valid defence especially in this case as cars exploding is exceedingly rare
at the very least it is less likely that it will happen than not happen which means the risk is perfectly reasonable
This is completely wrong to the extent that I'm not even sure how you got this idea. Not even first responders or the parents of endangered children are generally required to put themselves in harm's way to perform a rescue. And for uninvolved parties even requirements for simply calling the cops can be waived on account of personal safety.
>Not even first responders or the parents of endangered children are generally required to put themselves in harm's way to perform a rescue.
what fricking third world shithole are you from
The US. And it's almost certainly true in whatever country you're in as well.
Absolutely not. People have been jailed for failure to rescue and it's explicitly criminal for firefighters to not attempt a rescue unless the danger is absolutely overwhelming; they can and have been charged with the equivalent of manslaughter
>won't even say where it's from
Thanks for finally admitting that you're wrong.
>People have been jailed for failure to rescue and it's explicitly criminal for firefighters to not attempt a rescue
I'm not a firefighter
I'm not somebody with the authority or responsibility to shift public train tracks
I'm not even somebody who can be expected to know what the lever is even for
You're fricking moronic. Nobody is required by any fricking law to render aid at the cost of personal bodily harm. There's a reason people who do are referred to as heroic.
>nobody
Not even a soldier under orders?
At the court martial you can argue you were afraid.
You gave an oath to perform your duty, no matter the consequences. Yet, you didn't perform it.
You've got a point as i see it because someone who willingly signs up to the military knows what theyre getting themselves into. It's not a law is it though? So a civilian, or off duty personnel have no obligation, morally or otherwise.
Canadian military law:
Every person who
(Et cetera, et cetera)
(i) behaves before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice, or
(j) does or omits to do anything with intent to imperil the success of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person acted traitorously, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.
I imagine most other countries have similar laws.
As a soldier you are obliged to follow orders. You can object once or twice and ask your commander about the decision, but if they insist - you are forced to act. You will be punished, or even discharged for not following direct orders, depending on the severity of the situation.
The only time when shooting somebody may get you in trouble is when you're your own commander on a free hunt.
You fricking moron, Duty to Rescue and Good Samaritan laws are universally just there to protect rescuers from civil liability. Literally no one on planet Earth has ever been charged for failing to help a stranger when they lacked a professional liability.
>You wouldn't be charged
Ethics is not the same as law.
I am not responsible for saving your stupid ass.
Actually, you can be held liable in some countries/states. Brother's keeper laws or some shit. If nothing else it just kinda makes you a c**t, like those morons who witness a car accident and start filming instead of helping.
Not for things like the trolley problem. Legal expectations for rendering aid to those in mortal peril are pretty common, especially for people who have some reason to be responsible for the other person's safety like a first responder or a parent. But they rarely even expect the rescuer to put themselves in any danger and I'm not aware of any country on Earth where it is legally required for you to kill someone in order to rescue someone else.
I didn't put the trolley there, I didn't put the people there. Not my problem.
Not the point, its still a crime to allow someone to die without your intervention, though this particular example is a greyer area due to the fact theres a body on the other rail. Still, doesnt change the fact you are legally responsible for deaths you could have but did not prevent.
Again, not sure. Itd be a grey area due to the solo homosexual but presumably the law is still the law and not doing anything is in itself a crime regardless.
The real answer is do not pull the lever, but do SOMETHING to try to help, such as try to call out for the actual fricking train operator to stop it, that way you didnt directly kill the solo gay but also didnt leave the family of tards to their fate. This is the only way to be absolved of any legal issues if this ever came up.
>its still a crime to allow someone to die without your intervention
No it isn't what the frick. Phil Collins literally wrote a song about this.
Yes it is. It's called "manslaughter".
Willing to bet you're not very old.
>another one of these Black folk
Even cops can stand there and watch someone be stabbed to death in front of them and do nothing and face no consequences whatsoever. The trolley problem isn't about legality but, if it were, pulling the lever would in fact be murder in quite a lot of places while not pulling wouldn't be murder anywhere.
Burger cops do that, not normal cops
How many English cops were prosecuted for covering up the paki rapes?
Eh so long as Phil isn't there to witness me and write a song about it I'll be fine.
You say that like it's a bad thing
This but pretending you didn't see it because you were checking your phone
Trying to stop the trolley by eliminating the mad trolley driver is the only morally righteous decision.
By jumping in front of the trolley, you will instead be hailed as a hero for trying to stop it directly
the trolley will still continue running, even after you jump in front of it
youll just be remembered as an idiot
say - you're exceptionally fat (which is not far from the truth)
and you just so happen to be close enough to the tracks to be able to throw yourself onto them.
your immense girth is enough to stop the trolley.
will you be remembered as a hero?
i dont know if its even possible to be so fat you can stop the trolley just by jumping in front of it
that being said im not american, so idk lot about fatness
>if its even possible to be so fat you can stop the trolley just by jumping in front of it
No. You either can jump or you are fat enough. Not both.
Any object of any weight can stop anything as long as it is able to deliver sufficent energy. Say, your corpse is bloated enough to get jammed in the wheels of the trolley, so it will create enough friction to stop it eventually, probably before reaching others.
The attempt not to choose is in itself a choice
The moment you comprehend your situation and you are in a position to affect it directly is the moment you are responsible
Not true, nobody has a right to your help, a right cannot be positive, it cannot make you do something. A right can only be negative, something you are barred from doing. A positive right implies a lack of rights of another and is therefore a privilege or entitlement not a right, commies using terminology like rights is a tacit admission of the unpalatability of their beliefs. Slavery cannot be right, and unfortunate circumstances do not entitle you to slavery.
This. Not my problem, pursue someone who tied those people to the tracks
you WILL NOT make me an accomplice
From my point of view, youre evil and im good. Checkmate atheists.
Just fire a bazooka at the trolley and everyone is saved.
The real solution to the trolley problem is to realize how moronic it is, because it needs moronicly specific and static circumstances to exist as a moral conundrum at all. Sure, there are or they could arise situations in reality or fiction where it's the lives of the few versus the lives of the many, but none of them are as obviously unrealistic as the trolley problem itself, which begs the question why it exists to illustrate the issue when it is way more convoluted than any actual instance of it.
For example I vaguely remember in the Prey game there being a situation where a shuttle carrying people heads back to earth that potentially has those spreading mimic things on-board and you have the option to blow it up. So the sci-fi space scenario involving mimic monsters somehow conveys the same thing in less convoluted manner than this trolley bullshit that starts out with your hand glued to a level, a unstoppable trolley with no driver or passengers and multiple people who are tied to two tracks for some fricking reason, like who set this up, the fricking Joker? Wait, actually the Joker did set up a trolley problem in that one movie and it also made more sense than this.
1) It's not that convoluted. It can be described in just a few sentences
2) The dilemma isn't just about the few vs the many. That is an aspect of it, but it also has the additional issue of action vs inaction.
3) Most thought experiments like this make no attempt at realism because that's not the point. They're left fairly abstract because they're primarily about encouraging abstract thought.
nah it's would you kill to save lives and soldiers justify doing it all the time
But are soldiers actually saving any lives when they kill. This is the issue with using real world examples and why these sorts of questions rarely do.
Seethe more. The situation is moronic and anyone who wouldn't pull the lever is an overthinking pseudo intellectual.
why is the smart one portrayed like a fricking loser dressed like a moron with idiotic haircut is that how author of this image looks like well bad news for him you might still have below 100 iq even without a dent in the head being beaten is not a neccesity to be stupid
The smart one is a recluse who keeps away from society at large. I imagine he's been made to look like a monk to emphasise that.
>the good old "what is bell curve?" bait
>move it to single guy
>you now only need to save single guy or you minimized casualties
I'm trying to figure out what sort of brain thinks walking away or doing nothing is better, probably a liberal conservative, ala republicans.
I jump in front of it
>game has decisions that appear to be morally grey
Should be a simple loop up top and a complicated and multi-levered path to death on the bottom.
Are his legs okay?
Does he have enough brozouf?
>grey
homosexual
ai makes everything better
Why's the lever guy naked in this version?
nobody is tied up either
Also no one looks upset, they must want death in this version
Feels good man
good post
Sex appeal
>leave the lever alone
>kill the survivors yourself
true equality
They saw my face, they can't be allowed to leave here alive
push the fat man
I still wait for ACTUAL explanation from people insisting that not pulling leaver makes them not responsible.
It's not that it makes them not responsible. They already weren't responsible. In the same way that you're not responsible for the overdose death of every homeless person you walk by without doing anything to help them. The initial lack of any culpability is one of the integral parts of the trolley problem. If it was just a question of whether it is better to be equally responsible for the deaths of 5 people or 1, it would be a lot more straightforward. There would still be the whole "choosing one life over another" thing. But, given that the bystander knows nothing about any of the people on the tracks, that's much less of a complicating factor than the issue of taking on responsibility where previously you had none.
The answer is to accept Kreia is a walking Kobayashi-Maru and stick to your guns
I half assume via debate dialogue tree you can gain the influence back by properly defending yourself from her tirade anyway
Yeah, that seems to be the point of her character.
So that you pick the option you believe is the correct choice instead of just brainlessly picking a choice based on the dark/light side label or the relationship points gained from it.
>I half assume via debate dialogue tree you can gain the influence back by properly defending yourself from her tirade anyway
Generally yes, you lose influence but then gain it back if you actually attempt to defend your choice.
The answer is to accept she's some old grandma that fancies herself wise and just wants to be listened to.
No influence loss by just immediately picking "Ok, I'll keep in mind"
Wait, didnt Revan have the fricking Starforge creating him an infinite, endless supply of troops?
Bottom line has 5x more loot
Heh
haha is this an AI art?
Its an edit newtard
Flip the switch when the trolley is in the middle of the switch to achieve multi-track drifting.
The people aren’t tied to the tracks. Therefore, they either want to die, or are life-threateningly stupid, in which case they deserve to die either way. I will leave the lever alone at first, and will switch the track to kill the remaining survivor when the next trolley comes along.
Like this?
I pull the lever and back at just the right time and initiate MULTI TRACK DRIFTING
>genocide
Umm genocide = power + israelites + manual labour between soccer matches and relaxing in the swimming pool
Murdering some brown christcucks is just housekeeping
Maybe I’m just autistic or something but I’ve never understood this “dilemma”.
What authority do you have to come to the conclusion you get to decide who lives and who dies?
Is everyone secretly a narcissist that wants to be god or am I missing something? The only sane non-sociopathic thing to do is not touch the lever and yet I see this shit hotly debated regularly
You don't have to think yourself god to believe that 5 dead people is worse than 1
I don’t disagree but those are your thoughts not your actions
You do have to think yourself god to believe you have the authority to act on that thought
No you don't? How did you come to this daft idea?
>What authority do you have to come to the conclusion you get to decide who lives and who dies?
That's part of the philosophical question, anon.
Because the image shows the figure already grasping the handle. If it didn't, you'd have a point.
So like, do you think hospitals shouldn't exist or something? They are full of people making decisions about whether people live or die
>Better not cure any diseases or perform any surgery, that would mean I think I'm god or something
Hippocratic oath and all that.
>fell for the meme
Hypocritic oath more like it.
>What authority do you have to come to the conclusion you get to decide who lives and who dies?
Your hand is on the lever.
You are overthinking it. It's about situation where you can either don't act and allow more people to die or act and condemn less people to die. All variations of original dilemma are based on clash of basic two approaches - that either moral value of act is dependent on circumstances or not, only changing these circumstances. What does not change is assumption that you are near leaver, understand what it does and are aware of consequences of your action or lack of one. So, sane person actually knows that by not pulling the leaver, they allow these 5 people to die instead of 1 - no action is the same as action when you are aware of consequences, as you both make decision.
>hurr durr but that means you are responsible for everything bad happening like homeless person dying next street because you COULD act but didn't!
You are not aware of homeless person dying from cold and hunger next street.
>hurr durr but I didn't place these people on tracks!
From their perspective, it doesn't matter as you are the one who can change their situation or not.
And so on. Perfect recipe for long discussion if you want one and less moronic than Monty Hall ones (which devolve into trolling within seconds).
>You are not aware of homeless person dying from cold and hunger next street.
The dilemma implies you ARE aware of that fact.
The dilemma is basically designed as a provocation (see poster above me) and used in a way to *always* shift blame onto you, no matter if you pull the lever or don't.
Walk away? You didn't act and killed 5 people.
Use the lever? You now actively changed a situation that lead to the death of a person.
It's an extremely disingenuous form of discussion, designed to trap you in a defensive state. The only winning move is to think/answer outside the box and annoy the one who asked the question.
It's not that sinister. It's just supposed to make people think about their value system and how they come to conclusions concerning morality. There is no right answer.
>The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
It's a test to see how defensive you get. It's especially effective on NPCs.
I help the tortoise. Tortoises are cute.
But you don't help the tortoise, and it cannot help itself. Why are you so evil? Just answer the question, evildoers.
It's because this hypothetical me is Chinese
A tortoise can right itself.
I don't get it, if you spare the jury isn't that guaranteeing your freedom? Or are they going to be replaced since the fact that they were saved by you would force them to recuse themselves out of ethical concerns?
They'll likely be replaced but the point of that new problem is to see if you're willing to sacrifice the few to save the many again, but this time with the knowledge that you'll be 100% fricked if you do, while the original problem didn't specify the consequences of your action concerning yourself.
>ethical concerns
sir, this is a moral dilemma
You have a choice to save 4 people from death at the cost of fricking yourself in a court (the last remaining death you could not prevent changed from accident to murder). The other choice is that you choose to do nothing to save your fellow men but you are not held accountable for their deaths either.
You're just making excuses to avoid putting yourself in a tough spot, even if it means the deaths of multiple other people.
>(the last remaining death you could not prevent changed from accident to murder)
It was always murder. Those people didn't accidentally tie themselves to the tracks.
Okay, I got that part wrong. Should've written "change the perpetrator of the last remaining murder from some random guy to yourself". But the trade-off is still that you're saving 4 other people from death.
what if you just sacrificed the messiah to save four hitlers. how can you make the decision while knowing nothing about the people on the tracks. what if the person who tied them there is actually a good guy punishing evildoers in the first place?
>what if you just sacrificed the messiah to save four hitlers.
Then you would be incredibly based.
>messiah
>hitler
Same person. Saving 4 extra hitlers just quadruples the gains.
It's simple maths.
1 person has less family members to blame you than 5 peoples.
maths only work in a vacuum.
these people have came from somewhere, have done something and you somehow relate to them in a different capacity.
The variation i like more is where there's a switch between your family member and 5 strangers. If you choose to pull the lever - then you kill five, but save the person who is important to you.
Only a monster would sacrifice a loved one for 5 complete strangers which removes the dilemma. It needs to be unbiased. Maths keeps it unbiased.
>It needs to be unbiased
Congrats, you've just let subversives into your society and it's now doomed to collapse within a few generations.
Idgi
The dumbass interpreted your answer as you pulling the lever to kill your loved one
The legal issue isn't really part of the trolley problem. It's only concerned with the moral question.
>That genocide
That like a baby compare to what our ancestors did.
how is the trolley problem even a thing?
best course is always just to walk away and let what will be, be.
>its not my fault your honor he's the one who pulled the lever and got that one guy killed
This, but pulling the lever causes the trolley to derail, killing several passengers onboard on top of the ones on the tracks.
I do not touch the lever, and jump onto the train tracks with the five people
Evil wins when good men do nothing.
Unless you're evil, you should pull the lever.
There's no way to know if your actions in pulling the lever will create more net evil or net good without knowing the victims on the tracks, and if we know that, the problem of who to save or whether to walk away entirely and absolve yourself of responsibility becomes very simple.
there's nothing particularly grey about it. you either
1. save (or condemn) the group that contains people you care about (or hate)
2. if the above doesn't apply, you do a 360 and walk away because the scenario doesn't involve you at all.
The galaxy is at peace.
But since you killed him, you're now just as bad as him.
This.
Proper way is to assert dominance and rape them.
>not shoving the lever up his ass
this is the actual answer that narrow-minded gays with ambiguous morals constantly ignore.
this dilemma teaches you two things: that there is always a third way, and that killing killers is a necessity of life.
>that there is always a third way
That isn't a third way because you still have to resolve the initial trolley problem before you go searching for the murderer
I wiener the lever half-way and let the trolley derail, then I search for the murderer.
>and let the trolley derail
congrats now you've killed all the people on board and likely several or all of those on the tracks as the trolley derails unpredictably on top of them.
No, I make the trolley derails to the side of the track, and the people in there are holding tight because are sitting in a single trolley without a train engine and know that shit is going down.
I just saved everyone, and now I'm looking for the murderer.
if you're pretending that you can "safely derail" a moving trolley just by flipping the tracks at the right moment and telepathically communicating "hold on tight!" to everyone within it, you may as well just pretend you have magical powers at that point. your answer is moronic.
I'm not pretend. I KNOW I can safely derail the trolley, and I WILL. People in the trolley WILL hold on tight, and they WILL survive.
In your twisted reality, someone has to die. In my reality tho, everyone lives. I might be moronic, but I safe lives, while you are objectively evil because you want someone to die.
Magical thinking negates the entire purpose of the thought experiment, you dumb brainlet. You think like an actual brown person incapable of hypotheticals or recursive thinking.
Nothing about this is magical, objectively evil anon. You are the sad little brown boy who is unable to grasp that the superior white man came up with another solution where nobody has to die, and now just are reduced to claiming "No! You can never save everyone! Someone HAS to die!" because your own narrow mind wouldn't allow for a third position. Your problem has been solved, and it was to your own dissatisfaction. Evil has been found, and it was you, all along.
>Both tracks have only one restrained person
>But the person on the train's default route saw the killer's face
What do?
He's not a killer until someone dies
What if he's done it before
As the person in charge of the lever I assign a third party to control the lever.
Not my problem
This makes me wish there was a beat 'em game built around the trolley problem.
>If you kill your enemies, you win.
this has been one of the most basic and true rules of all life on earth since forever, yes.
they might have kids though who will probably make you or might try to make you lose
yes
>but the number of killers refused to change
Kill two.
Ah but in your haste you have in turn doomed yourself. There must always be someone making the trolley problem. That person is now you.
>And so the railroad switch operator who had cheated death at the fork outside Goodsprings, cheated death once again, and the Rocky Mountains were forever changed.
>Sequel panel shows even more ppl tied to the tracks
What's your next step?
YOU DENY YOUR SWORD ITS PURPOSE
Raiden bros... we were the problem
does the original hypothetical explicitly say theres a driver for the trolley or is it out of control
>not my problem
>walk away
>What do you mean I'm charged with negligence that led to death of 5 people?!
Hahaha my fricking sides
I don't think you're aware of what legally constitutes negligence.
I love philosophical dilemmas
It misses some Portal A or B situation, apart from that, a daring synthesis!
One of my college classes brought up this scenario, and when it came to my turn on it I said "no way I would touch that handle, you kidding me? I would be charged for murder once when they use forensics and discover my fingerprints on it". I got some looks from some of the other students.
Is it moral to take great risks that endanger greater numbers of people to save a few?
How do you decide what chance is acceptable and what is intolerable?
How long does it take to pull the switch?
For a person who wants to save people, the risk is too high.
A person who wants to kill people would let the trolley run its course and build some kind of automated method of pulling the lever until it hits the jackpot.
The 5 people on the track die either way.
>50% chance to kill EVERYONE while trying to save 5 people
only idiots would pull the lever
I believe the choice in that specific pic is moral to pull the lever
>only the tiniest of tiny chances of actually doing anything bad
>if it does destroy the universe there'd be nobody to care afterward
But the cube continues to exist
People continue to be tied to trolley tracks
Levels continue to be pulled, for as long as the universe exists
As n -> inf, p -> 1
I dunno, if the lever gets pulled every second of every day, that's still like 360,000 years before the 1/10tril reaches drop rate, and even then iirc the % chance is that 60%ish of the times you run the simulation the lever will go dry and not trigger at that point anyway.
But the outcome of the cube triggering is 1.6 billion times more devastating than a mere 5 people being killed
It would only take 6250 pulls of the lever for us to hit "the average/expected number of dead people across all trials is now 5" threshold
Or 1 lever pull per second for 1.7 hours
After 3.4 hours, the weighted risk comes to 10 dead people
and you bet yo sweet ass I'm gonna keep activating that cube
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
that's the dude that made infinite craft too, right!?
I might check this out.
Thanks anon!
yes, that's him. he made plenty of interesting games, but a lot of them have clearly leftist subtext
>clearly leftist subtext
how so?
Not a game but I really liked https://neal.fun/internet-artifacts/
Awesome!
it's cool you can actually play the trolley meme now
never thought i would see the day
I'm probably bad person.
at least you got a new high score :^)
I wasn't even doing joke answers.
oh well
reach for the stars anon
I don't owe the world shit. I'd pull it to save my life or my family and the one going in circles but other than that I'm not saving anyone.
>Not even negligence at this point
>Just assisted suicide
I wouldn't even call it assisted suicide since you simply chose not to intervene. I'm not sure how assisted suicide is defined though so I may be wrong.
In reality I have not killed a SINGLE person
trolley Black folk are low IQ
People died through your conscious inaction. It's the same as murder.
No, it is not. Nor legally neither morally. God has decided they have to die - who am i to interfere?
Are you part of the "silence is violence" leftist mob?
"conscious inaction" is not a thing. You could have been a doctor, but because you chose to be a homosexual and shitpost on Ganker instead, you "consciously inacted" on saving countless lives and are now responsible for the deaths of thousands.
it is a thing in isolated examples like this.
say, you are driving a car. there's a moron in front of you you want to kill.
If you pedal the gas, then you conciously murder him, if you don't brake, then you murder him via conscious inaction.
>you are driving a car. there's a moron in front of you you want to kill.
how did I end up in this situation? your example suggests that I'm trying to run him over in the first place, which is not inaction either way. and you still haven't atoned for the deaths of all those people you killed by choosing not to become a doctor.
my point proves that there's a such a thing as "conscious inaction", not that i would theoretically save more people by becoming a doctor.
then let me rephrase. there is no moral, legal, or ethical weight behind "conscious inaction" that would or should force anyone to act, and you tacitly agree with this by defending the fact that you chose not to become a doctor and are now responsible for the deaths of thousands because of it.
>you run a company
>one of your employees is being relentlessly abused
>he brings this up to you and asked for help
>you chose to do nothing
And now you're in big legal trouble because "conscious inaction" is illegal in this scenario.
you're responsible for hiring the abusive employees in the first place, so there was no inaction to begin with. you acted in poor judgement and are now suffering the consequences.
>you're responsible for hiring the abusive employees in the first place
That's not the basis for "duty of care". Even if you were compelled to hire the abusive employee by the state, which is a thing that can happen, you still posses the duty of care. You can't offload it to the state. You have to take action yourself.
am I the CEO of train tracks and murder trolleys incorporated, as well?
Stop using terms you don't understand.
I'm not getting duty of care wrong. I don't know why you keep insisting I am. Maybe you should google it yourself. It's literally nothing more than a legal obligation to take action to prevent harm to others.
>It's literally nothing more than a legal obligation to take action to prevent harm to others.
you're definitely getting it wrong then, especially in terms of when it applies.
You are, though. Duty of care isn't even the legal concept that is at play in the circumstances where it is legally required to intervene to save someone's life. And using it to describe an employer's responsibility to fire shitty employees, while closer, is still stretching it.
>Duty of care isn't even the legal concept that is at play in the circumstances where it is legally required to intervene to save someone's life.
I'd like to see you argue "Duty of care doesn't apply here because he died." in court.
And I'd like to see you randomly blurt out phrases you don't understand in front of a judge.
He wouldn't be in court in the first place, because duty of care didn't apply. In fact you seem to be conflating "duty of care" which is more about, for example, states and landlords keeping a safe property that doesn't injure their tenants or the populace, with duty to rescue, which is not codified at all in law. Nobody has ever been arrested for deciding not to attempt to save someone else from harm or death, quite the opposite, people have ended up in court for making the attempt and making matters worse.
>Nobody has ever been arrested for deciding not to attempt to save someone else from harm or death
That's not entirely true. There are actually a lot of laws that do require this around the world, albeit with lots of exceptions which usually include not having to put yourself at risk of harm. But, as you said, this is a separate legal concept from duty of care which would not have any relevance to the lever puller in the trolley problem.
>there's a moron in front of you you want to kill.
>if you don't brake, then you murder him via conscious inaction.
anon, that is one of the most moronic things I have ever read
this is what I meant when I wrote that trolley Black folk are low IQ
>"conscious inaction" is not a thing
Of course it is. Perhaps you've heard of the legal concept "duty of care"?
did you just google random legal terms? that has nothing to do with being a guy watching an accident unfold. I am not a train man. I have zero duty towards a random trolley. for all I know its going to stop on its own.
We're not talking about the train. It was said "conscious inaction" is not a thing. It is. Legally and morally. Under some circumstances you have a legal obligation to take action. Consciously not doing so is illegal.
again you're confusing me with a man who knows anything about train tracks or trolleys. Im just some guy near some controls, though its dubious if I'd even know how they would work in the first place
>Under some circumstances you have a legal obligation to take action
Conflating medical personnel who sign an oath with a random person on the street is dishonest to an incredible degree.
But I never did that so I don't know what you're talking about.
Type "Christ is King".
>sign an oath
>do no harm
>experiment on helpless animals and people in the name of advancement
>cut dudes wieners off and tell them they're women
We are talking exactly about the train situation. And you are derailing the thread, which, while isn't considered to be punishable offence, invalidates your arguments by default.
>Under some circumstances you have a legal obligation to take action
turns out being a civilian placed in front of an impending murder scene and told to choose who gets murdered (at no actual risk to yourself if you refuse) is not one of those circumstances.
>under some circumstances
Under which circumstances? Can you provide examples?
Not my trolley, not my tracks, not my lever, i didn't tie them up or place them there, and i was put in front of this lever against my consent. i have no legal "duty of care" in this situation.
>WAH I DIDN'T CHOSE THIS THOUGH!
I don't think you understand what the word "duty" means.
I don't think you understand the basis or context of the tort law you tried using as a "gotcha"
At least google the shit you're spouting. Said duty only arises if you have what's called a special relationship with the victim, or if you create the hazardous situation yourself
identify the legal precedent that shows a stranger owes a duty of care to five people strapped to trolley tracks when standing beside a lever that would divert the trolley to another track and kill one person. You aren't a dunning-krugar midwit who just said the first legal jargon that came to mind, are you?
Im not a qualified rail technician. I dont know how to operate this machinery. I shouldn't be touching and certainly not in a life or death situation. no country in the world would charge me. on the other hand meddling with the controls and people being dead after would raise a few eyebrows and potentially a lot of trouble. after all what if the trolley driver was making adjustments to stop and messing with the rail controls fouled whatever he was doing? I dont know, I wasnt trained to do this.
Why people don't post their trolleys?
The Uvalde dilemma?
1 hundred billion hours in MSPaint!
Oops I fricked up the trolley orientation.
this. if you pull the lever half-way the trolley derails : )
Through inaction you aren't saving anyone, when could, but you also aren't killing anyone. You just allow things to happen. As long as you don't have personal interest as in caring about one of the persons or caring about majority survival or care about overpopulation problem or one of the persons is a Black person, you are completely guilt-free - you hadn't affected anything in a bad way. Not the best situation, but it is not your fault this situation had happened. So far there are only one morally correct decision (to call a police and tell them, that you had just witnessed a murder) and one correct decision (to wipe a handle of a lever carefully and then call a police.
>No sir, I didn't kill that guy, I just chose not to save him! See? I'm clean! I even called police like a good boy! Why you cuff me?!
>t. lever puller
I’m not your Superhero, homosexual. Remember that when you’re in a life or death situation. No one is responsible for saving your stupid ass.
>>how does this effect me personally
your money is being used
That's another thought experiment.
>your government takes your money in taxes
>it also spends substantially more money than it makes
>did you pay for the bombs it uses to blow people up?
>your honor i have as much right to own this nuclear bomb as anyone else as technically speaking my tax dollars paid for it
disprove this statement
>your tax contributions amount to less than 0.002% of the products costs, therefore i rule in favor of the plaintiff
You lose.
i detonate the nuclear bomb in the courtroom
>didnt contribute any tax towards a detonator
Just not your day is it.
someone post the video of a guy just chucking a couple of grenades in a council meeting because the members approved their own pay raise instead of fixing shit near the guy's house
I completely and 100% agree to this statement. People should be able to own nuclear devices so long as they are housed and maintained responsibly.
Your contributions do not automatically make you own anything. If you have worked in a company and created a product, then it doesn't mean that you should be able to own a part of it.
>Your contributions do not automatically make you own anything
tell that to the stock market.
people pay for public transportation and roads and hospitals via tax's, so why not the military which they also pay for?
Because public transportation and infrastructure directly exists for you and to cater to your needs.
Military exists to serve the goverment, which is frankly - not you. Unless you're some kind of a high ranking minister or a general.
the police exist to serve the public i.e me, now what
Not true. Supreme court of USA has clearly stated that police has no duty to protect and serve people. It is not the job of the cops.
really makes you wonder why we pay for cops if they are under no obligation to help you if you are, say, in the middle of a school shooting hmmmm
You don't pay the cops. The state pays the cops and the cops make sure that you pay your taxes to the state.
i see the cops are loan sharks with badges
The cops aren't there to protect you.
The cops are there to protect the state from you.
That's why it's the state paying them.
Living in the USA must be a nightmare
I live in Europoorland and I can guarantee our cops operate with that same mentality here.
They just aren't stupid enough to actually write it on paper or brag about it.
By that token public transportation exists to secure easy employment for the bureaucrats embedded in it. You can't use ought for one and is for the other. Either you consider both of them in their ugly reality or neither of them.
How is that an experiment? It sounds like its a trick to determine if my morals align with yours.
It's not much of a moral question. It's more like a variant of the ship of Theseus. At what point of deficit spending are a government's actions no longer really being funded by its taxpayers?
>uh-oh!
KIDS ARE CRUEL, JACK
he never told him what the goal is or what a moral is
He just wanted him to act according to the Natural Condition of the mankind.
green obviously
transhumanism is our final goal
Red, of course, God will soon patch the universe, so you would survive red ending.
But red lever canonically doesn't kill you
It's not my switch to move
If you touch that switch you've violated the NAP
Griffis!
You're still fricking up by sending all the people to the wrong location by derailing the track though and they WILL sue you for doing that. Doing nothing is the right choice.
halp
hahahahah
I find your lack of trolleys disturbing.
okay that's by far the best one
5 before the one is less traumatic, maybe?
There's no right solution unless you can stop the trolley.
Five before one. Less fear psychological torture.
It's pretty hard to even catch full-speed trolley, let alone pull it.
I know what you guys want.
Oh no haha
>crotch bleeder
No thanks
Run away, I don't want to be anywhere near that fricking lever
You'll sin either way, might as well be the blood of others instead of yourself.
>no "real" in front of girl
I'm onto your tricks.
>"pull the trolley"
>the people aren't even tied to the tracks
>not even a real girl
nu-Ganker is poisoned by idpol propaganda so of course they'll screech about trannies, but becoming the little girl used to be a #1 Ganker fantasy.
>becoming the little girl used to be a #1 Ganker fantasy.
moron. people mocked the shit out of luggage lad for that. the entire meme was making fun of him for it.
i really miss old Ganker 🙁
>would not pulling the lever make the children in that chinese sweatshop who had to assemble it feel any better about their situation?
>There is always a third way where nobody dies! You will see!
I'm somewhat disappointed it didn't fly into the sun and blow it up but it's still pretty good.
Not seen an animation of it before. People put so much effort into the weirdest shit.
C3?
Yes
how? I can knock a few of the possiblities out but I can't reach an answer
He is lying to you. You either suppose, that trolleys will go at the same speed, and then it will roughly will be c3, or you assume, that you have seen assistants and they have shown their letter-number tracks while being near tracks.
Original "i don't know - i know - now i know too" riddle involves colored hats unsern by their own wearers, but seen by other wearers.
It can't be 5 or 6 because Bernard would know at the start. This means Albert can't have A or B because otherwise Bernard would know at the start.
Bernard can therefore have 1-4, and Albert C or D
Bernard instantly knows which pad is the correct one once he knows Albert has either C or D
This means Bernard's number has one of that intercepts C or D, which means he has 2, 3, or 4
Once Albert knows that Bernard has one on 2, 3, or 4 he knows it can only have one pad
Albert has C because it's the only one with a single pad between 2 3 and 4
I join Cheryl because mad scientists are hot
She turns 80 this year
Shoot fricking psionics Albert and Bernard before they'll get into your brain.
FRICK Cheryl.
Albert doesn't know the correct pad, so the number he has must correlate to more than one possible pad. Therefore 5 and 6 are out.
Bernard, after hearing this, is able to correctly identify the pad. That means that, once 5 and 6 are removed from the correct letter, there remains only one pad. The only letter that has only one pad between 1 and 4 is B.
Therefore, the correct pad is B-4.
Try again.
Would you kill 5 wealthy bankers whose demise would destroy thousands of jobs, or one poor guy whose death won't be noticed?
Wealthy bankers. Countless so-called irreplaceable people have died throughout history yet the world keeps turning.
the bankers, poor guy needs a break
Total Banker Death
Factually correct choice is not pulling the lever then killing the one guy after the group gets ran over.
But multi-track drifting is cool
if i know that crazy trolley driver is indeed responsible and that there's a deadman switch - then shoot him. Otherwise - pull, or i might cause an extra unnecessary death.
>unbeknownst to you, a disgruntled terrorist has strapped a bomb to the trolley, and if it slows to below 10 miles per hour for too long, the bomb goes off, killing the one hundred schoolchildren inside of it
>ironically, the terrorist was protesting imperial measurements and the schoolchildren were americans on fieldtrip to NIST to learn how to use metric
Is there an Emiya Shirou version
There is, divided into each of three routes but I cannot find it on my drive right now.
If somebody else wants to pull the lever, is it morally correct to stop him?
No. You'll just be pulling another level that way.
I like to think of it as restoring natural order.
It would still be an intervention.
Yes if it leads to less casualties, you can then argue that you have tried to save somebody by intervention
Attempting to run over the 5 shoggoths carries a higher chance of my destruction so I keep going towards them
Total Xenos Death.
Xeno? They're native to Earth.
I save and reload until I hit the smaller one
>game has no morality, only opinions
I'll even sort out the other trolleys while I'm there so they line up.
I have a mixture of politeness and extreme autism
Yes. It says a lot about someone when they don't.
The best tell of whether someone is a good person or not is how they act when they think nobody is watching or will ever know.
So is jacking off to Isabelle from Animal Crossing good or bad?
Depends if your apartment passes for a normal living space or if you've gone full gooncave.
Yes, I'll even stack it in the correct row and sort out the ones sorted wrong.
You see a trolley to the side while taking your own trolley back; do you:
* Stack your trolley with the other one
* Take them both back
* Ignore it
i return the cart for two reasons:
1. I live in a white society
2. I parked next to the cart return because I'm not moronic
>2. I parked next to the cart return because I'm not moronic
Based and insurance fraud pilled
but what if you had a terrible workday and are tired out of your mind, literally having trouble walking straight. You had to go shopping today because you have a presciption for a mediacation that stops your terminal disease from progressing. Will you still return it?
Even in the rain.
I'm not even going to entertain such an absurd hypothetical.
I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Levers that kill people tied to train tracks?
that's cool and all, but will you?
I cannot think of a single scenario in which I would be unable to return the cart that wouldn't also render me unfit of driving home afterwards or even being there in the first place, save perhaps the outright destruction of the cart or the cart shed by outside factors.
>save perhaps the outright destruction of the cart or the cart shed by outside factors.
Okay, here we go.
1. you have parked your car next to the cart shed
2. some jackass decided to derail the trolley in a trolley problem earlier in this thread so there's now a derailed trolley barreling down the parking lot towards your car and the cart shed
3. your car is large enough to stop the trolley
Do you choose to save your car and allow the trolley shed to be destroyed, rendering you unable to return the cart? Or do you sacrifice your car so that you can return the cart to its shed? You only have enough time to do one of these, attempting to save your car after returning the cart would result in your death as the trolley crashes into you&your car.
>trolley shed
Typo, I meant cart shed
if I'm in my car, in a position to reposition it to stop the trolley, I've already returned the cart. If I'm not in my car, and there's an oncoming trolley about to run into it, I don't get in my fricking car to get hit by the trolley and die. I wait for the trolley to crash into it, then I return my cart and call my insurance company.
I let the car be destroyed, collect insurance money, and use it to hire hitmen to tie
to a set of trolley tracks.
>Yes, but try to imagine if you actually do though.
>What do you mean? I just wouldn't do it.
Found the NPC
You are making this scenario incredibly contrived for the sake of convincing someone to not return the cart.
bluntly put if I have a terminal disease I'm going to do more to help my area around me because what the else frick am I going to do? What would I have done if I didn't return that cart? Shitpost on Ganker? Wow so much better time spending that extra day I got.
>shit job
>terminal illness
>lazy moron who didn't refill prescription on time and "needs" to do it now
Like I said, I live in white society. Nobody here is that irresponsible, that incapable of the most basic forward planning. Think up a more realistic scenario and I'll have an answer for you. (the answer would be yes, in all realistic scenarios I return the cart, because I'm not a feral animal)
I unloaded close to half a ton of lumber in 90 degree heat and was parked as far away from the front of the store where I got the cart from in the first place and I still walked that fricking thing back. Nothing can stop my cart return powers. I will crawl it back if I have to. If the earth was hit by an asteroid, and I was on another shard of what used to be earth and the cart return was on another that was floating away from me, I would try and jump my truck over to it like they did in that scene from the movie Armageddon. I WILL RETURN THE FRICKING CART!!!
>having trouble walking straight
Then pushing the trolley is going to help me walk
The shopping centers pay mexican kids to do this so that you don't have to
Do ppl unironically not return the trolley? Where I live the trolley bay is no more than 30 meters from the furthest parking bay
>Do ppl unironically not return the trolley?
It's an amerimutt thing. The only time i've ever seen someone not return the cart was when a bunch of teenage punks stole one to ride downhill.
Yes and it's also a metric of how bad your area is because it's showing if they will self regulate for the sake of the area to work better or just be selfish buttholes that will frick everyone over when given the moment. You ever move pay attention to nearby cities store parking lots during busy hours to get an idea how shitty your life could get there.
Remember that this is space age technology for Americans
I refuse to believe he has never seen that before
I have never seen a coin hostage device because I don't live in a shithole
yet you know what it is.
pedant
germany fixed this issue decades ago
what is the difference between injured and made ill
If you'll drink mercury, you will very quickly become ill.
If a bucket of mercury will land on your head, you will get injured.
>what is the difference between injured and made ill
Injured - your arm is broken.
Made ill - you got AIDS.
why is your trolley problem on ultra graphics
but what if you personally were tied to the tracks would you be okay with sacrificing yourself or would you rather let 5 people die like the psychopath you are
What about both?
Let the 5 die and then kill the lever-guy when he frees me
any drawfriends in this thread?
can somebody draw trolley problem for baba.
trolley on rail is move, baba is behind trolley meaning you can never catch up to it until it stops
trolley on wall is win
trolley on keke is kill
you can push move, but it will also move win into a dead end, meaning you can no longer win
there is a keke on the track, track ends on a wall
will you sacrifice your ability to win to save keke, or will you let him die?
Parry the trolly.
okay but what about this
I don't pull the lever. That way if anon's made up negligence law exists in this scenario I can just say Hitler did it
Easy. You don't. This way you are both not involved in murder AND can send already ropebound Hitler both to court for his crimes and to researchers to figure out how come young Hitler had made it to the future.
Can I make the trolley back up? And then go forward again? Not to kill both sides but just to make sure that the israelites are really dead.
I will not pull the trolley.
The last guy will finish himself off.
that's not morally gray. this is.
homie, your breeding base can make hundred new, virgin Chillet per day.
That the one who managed to noclip out of the enclosure get butchered is just a rounding error.
still worth more than 5 h*mans
>game has consequences for making the wrong choice.
Riiiiight.
What happened? He didn't pull a lever yet.
>it's another trolley problem thread where a bunch of fricking pseud halfwit mongoloids will run Olympic-level mental gymnastics courses to explain how ackshually you're not in the wrong for doing nothing
This has always been such a braindead logic puzzle. You are directly responsible for either killing one person, or killing five. If you choose to kill five, you are a moron. If you disagree with this notion, then have a nice day. I can't fricking believe the idiots on this thread babbling about positive rights and not being responsible for every homeless man and all this other bullshit.
>5 people: are crackhead losers with absolutely no future and terminal cancer, and are all set to die tomorrow
>1 person: a literal genius who figured out how to cure cancer, and is about to develop a machine that would prevent hunger forever
you are not directly responsible for killing anyone at all if you refuse to make the choice and walk away, dunning.
you are responsible morally, but not responsible legally.
you will always remember that day of your life and ponder if you have made a correct decision
Not even morally. You didn't tie them to the tracks. You have nothing to do with the situation. You pulling the lever is inserting yourself into a situation that, up until then, did not involve you. Doing so isn't necessarily morally wrong. But you are consciously and deliberately killing that one person in a way that someone who just walks away is not with the other five.
the scenario demands that you are already a part of the situation by being aware that it would kill more people without your intervention
>demands
I demand you either suck my dick or eat a big turd. Make your choice.
Awareness doesn't make you part of a situation and it certainly doesn't extend responsibility. You and I are both very aware that we could be saving lives right now by selling all our worldly possessions to buy anti-malarial drugs or some other such humanitarian endeavor. Are we murderers because we aren't?
>Awareness doesn't make you part of a situation and it certainly doesn't extend responsibility.
It does if you also have the power to change it to a more favorable scenario.
The idea that saving the one person is "more favorable" is your own headcanon.
If you really think so then you are a psycho and a moron.
You have no knowledge of these people. You cannot possibly make an informed decision as to which ones to save for the greater good. Suggesting that preventing the deaths of five people is always better than one person is pure idiocy, especially when you have no moral, ethical, or legal responsibility to get involved in the first place.
The trolley problem long ago has ceased to be about morality and has been turned into a problem of consequences for your life in legal terms. Which shows us, that laws, instead protecting people's lives and rights, are still in barbaric way of only punishing the offender in each situation possible, so it is more inportant for your own survival not to be a helpful member of a society but rather uninvolved or intentionally destructive for the sake of gaining personal favors
This is the reason judges and lawyering exists, as the justice system which blindly follows the law is nothing but incredibly unjust.
The trolley problem does not have anything do with the legality of the two options and most people don't even consider that aspect because they realize it's not relevant.
But you do. And you aren't. Why?
It's about as guaranteed as anything could be. The trolley problem stripping away ambiguity doesn't change what the question is ultimately about. The logic that pulling the lever is correct because both pulling and not pulling are equally responsible for the deaths falls apart as soon as it leaves the confines of the scenario. Which is not say that puling the lever is incorrect. Just that this particular reasoning for it is without merit.
Your anti-malarian drug hobby is not guaranteed to save any lives. Even if chance is close to 100%, it all can go to waste.
Trolley and switch, however, are well maintained, and the problem is laid bare. It is now or never, and you are guaranteed to make a decision which will afftect lives of more than a single person.
>Trolley and switch, however, are well maintained
Assumption. The trolley may well break down before it reaches anyone.
>You and I are both very aware that we could be saving lives right now by selling all our worldly possessions to buy anti-malarial drugs
Saving nignogs is moraly wrong.
We are also aware that the vast majority of people living in malaria-ridden areas have negative value to civilization.
So no, we are heroes.
did I tie them to the tracks? did I kidnap myself and force me into this situation? you're going to jail, john kramer.
I wasn't the one who tied those people to the tracks. It was my professor of moral philosophy who did it.
>it's another autist that can't enjoy having fun with thought experiments
>that doesn't even get his take on it is a pseud halfwit take
It's Ganker mate, take a break and touch some grass.
Returning the cart is literal cuckoldry. You're making it your problem when it's not.
It is your problem, though. The only reason you don't hit half a dozen of them on your way out of the parking lot is because other people returned theirs, you worthless Black person.
All these train-lever hypotheticals are a massive hit piece against fast and efficient public transport. I guarantee the rich are the ones behind tying down all these people to the tracks just to keep everyone else down.
obviously because trains are more efficient than trolleys.
trolleys are inefficient by design, and there's nothing stopping cities from using trains instead.
But I've never operated train tracks. I don't understand the question.
Call it.
You say you wouldn't pull the lever because you don't want to get involved, yet you'd eagerly push the fat man. Curious!
That's just cause I don't like fat people.
It can be assumed that you're aware of what's happening and can change the direction because your hand is on the lever.
Now by also assuming that every individual tied to the track doesn't have any remarkable characteristic that make them stand out from the rest in some way.
IT IS ONLY ETHICAL TO PULL THE LEVER, KILLING ONLY ONE PERSON. Not doing so makes you responsible for the a greater number of deaths, because you were aware of the situation and you had the power to change it.
Solved it for you gays, now frick off with this thread.
You don't have the right to pull the lever.
However if the person tied to the tracks begs you to pull the lever in order to sacrifice himself and save the others, I would pull it.
>pull lever
>cut rope
>pull the one guy off the rail
People do realize the trains momentum slows down on bends right?
>no knife involved
how cut? wut do?
>game's meta has been solved ages ago
>controlled derailment
kek
controlling where and how a train derails would indeed by a controlled derailment, yes.
if you think you can just "flip the switch at the right moment bro" and the train will magically stop instead of violently derailing with forward momentum, killing everyone on board and everyone in the path of the derailment, you're an absolute brainlet.
it would flip over on its side, with half of its wheels still locked in place as it falls over and be parallel to the people on the track causing the most amount of friction to stop it. also keep in mind its a single trolley and not a train engine with loads of cars behind it
Anon, please take a look at even minor derailment and how many people get killed or injured.
So by purposely derailing the trolley you're guaranteeing an average of like 4 people killed and dozens gravely wounded, and none of these examples even had groups of people tied to the tracks in front of them. Congrats, you fricking psychopath.
>uses a wiki and looks no further into it.
Fricksakes dude half of those were chemical transports and the deaths counted are from chemicals pouring out into the area. Most of those deaths are not even anywhere close to the train but the nearby cities
Good job proving is point
Yo that Pittsburgh one is wild. The driver ordering people to the back probably helped slow it down at least some and keep people from the impact point, good thinking. The lack of an Oxford comma at the end pisses me off though.
lots of injuries, not many deaths except in real whacky situations. and thats in a hundred years. Im quite confident tipping a trolley wouldn't cause any deaths
>the accident killed 43 people
>killing 46 people
>twenty-one people were killed
>A total of 34 people were killed
Your derailment has a chance to surpass all these numbers, you do not know how many people there are on the trolley. Maybe it's stuffed full of newborn toddlers which will all surely die on collision?
like I said those are real crazy circumstances that had to do with derailing into insane places than just being a simple derailment. the idea of a controlled derailment can be reasonably be thought of as a safer alternative to someone getting run the frick over with is a guaranteed death
there is no such thing as a simple derailment, and in 99% of the cases in your example there were dozens of serious injuries at minimum. the only derailments in which there were no deaths or injuries are those in which there were no people involved at all, which doesn't apply to the trolley problem.
>still use a wiki
>has to go back to the fricking 1800s to get 12 examples
>and of those some are collisions with other trolleys
You are clearly just googling your answers
I dont see any trolleys there. seems fine to me
its the TROLLEY problem, not the train problem.
there have been cases where they were stopped doing that and yes everyone in there was thrown around but unless this trolley is made of space magic it won't be going more than 60mph which would hurt the people inside but unlikely to kill. Also those things weigh a massive amount, derailing them won't be like what the movies and games imply.
the top one has long hair, so we cannot press the lever because 1 woman is worth at least 6 men
>game changes morality to fit the choices of the main character
Pulling the lever is the same as stating it is okay to murder one healthy innocent person so that their organs can be harvested to save multiple people dying of organ failure. Simple as.
These two should really be coupled together for this exact reason.
Make one one on the lower track human so it's an actual conundrum.
The obvious correct choice is to let the train run over 5 people and then kill the one person remaining on the other track. Everyone is dead, I acted completely fair and didn't favor anyone.
if you tried your best to derail the tram then you can't say you didn't try
>>game has morally grey decisions
Easy choice here
especially for the troons who hate their dicks and wanted to voluntarily murder one person to save five in the first place.
>not my problem!
Black response.
I wait for the trolley to pass by then move her to the right track so she gets hit by the next one.
No. The "Hero" must have caught wind of my plans and bested me. I curse his name to the heavens.
You have already compromised your vision, so it is time to escape and start a new project, as this one was ruined by that meddling kids and their stupid blue hedgehog.
>save the top one and they hate you for saving them instead of the other ones
>A baby is forming in your womb. You can pull the lever, killing the fetus, a human being, or you can do nothing, kill noone, and let the child be born.
what if the child ends up a serial killer? inaction has made YOU the real murderer
I move out of the way anyway
tl;dr;ke
If you violate the NAP people will wake up right?
Ancap one seems easiest. It's your trolley and your slaves. It's not really a dilemma and more of a straightforward test of principles.
violate the NAP, negotiate with the private property owner and reach an amicable resolution. If one cannot be reached, we bring our case before a magistrate and abide by their ruling.
I would never be in this situation because I think trollies and anyone willing to be near them are gays
>A trolley is headed toward the past and will hit and kill your mother before you were born.
> If you do not pull the lever, your mother will be killed and you will never born, which is completely timetravel consistent (noone would be there to pull it). However, if you do pull the lever, then an action made in the future will have influenced the past, creating a paradox. Since you are alive and here to pull the lever, that must mean you cannot exist.
If I am alive now, that means my mother survived in the past to give birth to me. Therefore, if she is tied to the tracks, and inaction on my part would kill her, that means that someone must have traveled back in time to put her there, otherwise I never would have been born and be able to ponder this dilemma in the first place. Therefore, whoever tied her to the tracks has already created a paradox.
>If I am alive now, that means my mother survived in the past to give birth to me.
The only way to avoid the paradox is to do nothing no?
Oh god no. Anything but that.
Difficulty 5/5 stars
Flip tracks just after the first set of wheels passes over the split. This will cause it to derail.
Killing the passengers is okay because they were all evil and in on the plan to run over people on the tracks.
>Think his conscience is clean
The very definition of a clean conscience.
>absolve yourself of all your sins with this one weird trick
leave the chickens out of this
That was a very evil chicken tho.
>game lets you say hi to people
are you authorized?
>morons think not pulling the lever is morally justifiable
easily debunked by extrapolation
imagine a trolley is going towards 10 billion people and you can pull a lever to make it hit 1 person - do you pull the lever? yes you do you fricking idiot, which means there is some arbitrary number of people that makes pulling the lever the correct moral choice, even if it's not 5
Morals tend to switch a bit when you go from personal to global levels.
Personal deaths do not affect the species as a whole, but willingly allowing to make your species go extinct is not comparable to an isolated problem in any way.
Okay, 1 person vs 1,000,000 people. That doesn't affect the species as a whole. Do you still ignore the lever and let an extra 999,999 people die?
You are not addressing key claim from people who defend leaving leaver alone - they think that by not pulling it's they are not responsible for death of these 100k people by "not taking part in this situation" and thus "not accepting it". Which is childish.
Then it's not personal but a national-wide dilemma affecting a large-scale community you live in.
Destroying entire country is not comparable to classic trolley problem. You cannot extrapolate it without leaving personal-level constraints of roughly 20-30 people.
the most midwit post itt
moron with no argument
you can extrapolate it - there is some arbitrary number where it's still ""personal"" but high enough that non-psychos decide the lever is worth it, because there is zero moral justification behind their decision
what sort of moron would let, say, 50 people die just so they're not ""responsible"" for killing 1? you would 100% get thrown in prison, ostracized from society, etc. if you did that lmao
>brings up law in a discussion about a philosophical moralistic problem
you really are a midwit
Changing the number of people is missing the point of the trolley problem