There is a runaway train barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them.
You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
You have two options:
1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
What will you do?
Do nothing because higher score
kill five people because they are normies
Pull the lever.
Utilitarianism is best.
>>28026531
Do nothing. I don't want legal liability.
Here's one for you.
Pull the lever, kill the five people on my own
Pull the lever. With 5 people, it's more likely that there will be an Eliot Rodger doppelganger. And I want some normies to get shot. Reee.
>>28026619
No, it's cancer and the reason why democracy is killing our civilization
>>28026572
comment of originaltiy
>>28026531
robotobt
>>28026695
Aw you beat me to it
>>28026680
But someone like Eliot Rodger would be alone.
>>28026531
I would not pull the lever. Because if I pull the lever, I am directly responsible for killing a person, whereas a runaway train is nobody's fault or moral responsibility.
>>28026531
Why does no one ever ask
> what the fuck am I doing in a trainyard and how do I even know how track levers work?
> who tied up these people? was it me?
> who even are these people?
>>28026805
I thought that if you see someone in a situation where they're in direct danger of dying and you can do something to help them, if you don't help them by law you are partly responsible for their death.
Isn't that called negligent homicide?
>>28026531
If I do nothing, I have no blood on my hands because I didn't put those people on the tracks nor did I send the train towards them.
If I pull the lever my actions have led to the death of a man.
>>28026695
>>28026710
Came here to post this
Robloxoxxo xoxoxoxoxo
>>28027113
In what real life scenario do you think that you would be able to actually stop a train that's running wildly alone?
There's a reason this is a thought experiment.
>>28027113
Law student here
I can't speak for anywhere else but this is not true in the US. If you come across someone in danger, you have no duty to rescue them. The only time you would be legally obligated to rescue them is if you are responsible for putting them in danger.
If you were to come across a drowning kid and didn't help them or even call 911, you would not be legally liable. You might go to hell, but there's nothing the cops can do.
Negligent homicide is when you cause the death of someone else through your own negligent act. One example is an airplane that crashed because duct tape was accidentally left taped over some vents which caused the crash. The man who left the tape there was charged with the negligent killing of the passengers.
>>28026805
You wouldn't feel guilty for standing by and letting 5 people die instead, when all you had to do to save them was pull a lever you were already standing next to? You're basically murdering them at that point.
>>28026531
Let the train kill the 5
Pull the lever so the next trains kills the 1 guy
>>28027310
I would feel more guilty knowing that I was the *cause* of someone's death.
If you're going to say that extenuating circumstances make people guilty then you are literally guilty for killing millions of starving Africans just by eating at McDonald's.
>>28026531
Do nothing. Utilitarianism means constantly being on the lookout for do-gooders trying to sacrifice you to some putative greater good. Nothing can get done in such a society. Deontology is superior because it's simple and predictable. You don't murder people, no matter what. If you lie on train tracks you can't expect other people to die to save you. There are no perverse incentives and society can function smoothly.
Jump in front of the train and end my own suffering
Try to pull the lever but fuck it up
Pretend that I meant to save the one guy after I untie him
>>28027350
This. Utilitarians are basically Hitlerites.
>>28027350
what if your deontologist (sp?) society is running low on people and you need those 5 people to work the fields or whatever?
>>28026531
I pull it of course.
>>28026531
I would leave it desu, that's probably the trains intended route and I wouldn't want something important to taken to the wrong place.
There's too many people anyway, ignore the lever, and record all of it for youtube.
What would you do now /r9k/?
>>28027831
I wasn't going to pull the lever anyway so dead shitskins is even better
>>28027831
Pull lever, stand infront of train. Wouldn't want me or the man to live in an overwhelming black population. I don't want to be a minority.
>>28027537
Once you start making exceptions you set bad precedent for the future. By firmly committing to deontology you discourage people from getting into OP situation in the first place. If the ratio was much higher, eg. 10000:1, then it's understandable if you pull the lever, but then you must immediately turn yourself in to be punished like any other murderer, and there must be no leniency for "good intentions".
If I interfere then I'm a murderer but if I let the train stay then I'm merely a bystander
>>28026531
nothing, i'm not going to jail for 5 normies
>>28026695
>>28026710
yeah le multi track memeing so facking fanny sup reddit gonna post this one on /r/memes for the sweet redditgololold
>>28027831
The guy holding the lever looks Jewish, he would definitely pull it
>>28026531
Look if there are females, if yes let the train go the other way, take the female back home
win
Only a sociopath could answer this with any certainty.
God, why did you post this. It's the riddle equivalent of a earworm.
>>28026627
Nothing since the brain can't be sure if he is being deceived. Let fate play out and whoever dies will die
>>28026531
this premise serves only itself and defeats any logical argumentation by assuming that such an incidence is not without a moral agent to cause it.
the man at the lever is at the behest of the man to manifest the situation. the judge of morality is up to the person who made the thought experiment, and does not bring any kind of insight except "wow there's no answer except kill people"
fuck you
Whichever option has no legal repercussions.
If no matter what I do I won't go to jail then pic related.
>>28027350
A murder like the one involving the trolley problem is completely different from your usual murder though. One involves saving more lives while the other involves covering up a crime, so having the same punishment for both doesn't really make sense. Punishing them will simply discourage them from making the decision to save more lives, without having any sort of deterrence on your usual murders.
That said, the deontology you're describing seems like another form of utilitarianism.
>>28026531
Can someone shop this pic so Smug Pepe pulls the lever to kill a single angry crying Wojak
>>28028772
>One involves saving more lives
See >>28026627
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
It is better to stick with simple rules like "don't murder" which allow people to understand and predict the consequences. If you know that the person who saves you by murdering somebody will get off lightly you're more likely to get into a situation where you need saving.
Wait until train is at the cross track, pull lever, train derails saving everyone.
Then sperg out.
>>28027230
I once saw a muslim collapsed on the floor breathing heavily and covered in blood
I just walked away, even though my inner cuck was telling me to help him, when I got home I researched UK law and found it to also not make me liable.
>>28026531
Depends on whether anyone will know what I did or didn't do.
>>28026805
>>28027118
You're still somewhat responsible, as you were informed and able to take action to affect the course of events. Inaction still bears moral weight, albeit less than action, but then there's also an imbalance in the number of lives involved.
>>28027230
Not only are you not liable if you don't help them, you might be liable if you DO help them and make it worse. The US doesn't have very consistent "good Samaritan" laws to protect people in such instances.
>>28026531
I couldn't care less either way so I'd probably just leave it, but it really depends on who the people are. Would you robots still pull the lever if it was your waifu?
>>28028873
I don't think deontology deals with consequences. What you're saying seems to amount to another version of utilitarianism. Everyone's ethics seem to point to the greater good or maximum utility.
>If you know that the person who saves you by murdering somebody will get off lightly you're more likely to get into a situation where you need saving.
In the end, if we end up murdering 1 life to save 5, we at least know that the immediate consequence is more lives saved. We however, do not know the consequences that happen long after that. For all we know, all those five lives saved could be raising awareness about trolley safety, thus decreasing the chance of anyone getting into that situation.
>>28026531
It's not my point to intervene if it means someone dies because of it.
They were on the main track, they deserve to die.
>>28029479
You're assuming the 1 life is less valuable than the 5. I say - you can't know for sure, just that the 1 doesn't deserve to die. If I somehow knew that the 5 indeed were more valuable, maybe I'd pull it. Maybe.
But... I can't know that with any certainty unless they're people I know. 5 stranger vs 1 stranger, fuck the 5 in this case.
>>28026572
>le fbbp maymay
That one person is really lucky, wouldn't want to ruin that though.
Pull the lever halfway for MULTI TRACK DRIFTING and kill all 6
>>28029709
Or pull the lever halfway, which makes the train derail and kills no one.
