T1B

Let's examine your ethics.

Watch the video (1:37 long).

What do you do in each of the two situations?

What is your rationale for these decisions?

I'd push Gordo onto the track in a micro-second. Only one would die, and the person dying would be someone who's only going to live a few more years before he has a heart attack.

In the first instance would you divert the train so that one dude is killed instead of five?

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:29 pm In the first instance would you divert the train so that one dude is killed instead of five?

Pushing Gordo onto the track would negate the need to switch the track & sacrifice human lives.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:01 pm If the 5 were liberal pedophiles, I would make damned sure they were canceled. America would be 5 notches better in an instant.

So you're saying that this country should do away with the justice system & just permit vigilantism?

No surprise that you're from the same shithole state as the McMichaels...

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:44 pm

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:29 pm In the first instance would you divert the train so that one dude is killed instead of five?

Pushing Gordo onto the track would negate the need to switch the track & sacrifice human lives.

"Gordo" isn't part of the first instance.

The first instance is one in which you can, by flipping a switch, divert a train to kill one dude instead of five.

Would you flip the switch so that the one dude is killed instead of the five?

Roach wrote:Shoving obese man off the bridge is more personal. A physical, direct, up close act.

Pulling a lever gives distance to the process so we can deny actual murder.

To say the lever is more "moral" is a cop out. It would be a crutch to help us forgive ourselves.

I take this to mean you assume the utilitarian view.

(1) pulling the switch and (2) pushing the obese man, result in the same outcome (1 killed rather than 5), so they are in essence the same thing.


Not agreeing or disagreeing with your take, Roach, but just a question...

On what basis would you have decided, in the instant of decision, that 5 lives are of more value than that one life?

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:17 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:04 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:01 pm If the 5 were liberal pedophiles, I would make damned sure they were canceled. America would be 5 notches better in an instant.

So you're saying that this country should do away with the justice system & just permit vigilantism?

No surprise that you're from the same shithole state as the McMichaels...

You’re still butthurt over Ritt, aren’t you? There’s your justice system. How about the guy in the parade? He’s just like you.

I never said what YOU said, but I have no problem with piles of shit being eliminated.

Thanks for the tacit admission.

Taking the utilitarian view that "consequences are all that really matter" a few steps further to factor in the results of actions taken beyond the death of either phat boy or dude who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, consideration must be given to the legal consequences likely to befall the individual who takes the action. In the first instance, pulling the switch to divert the train is not an overt act intended to cause anyone harm (even if the outcome is someone's death); it is an act intended solely to prevent fatalities even if it isn't completely successful. The argument could be made post hoc that it was conceivable dude on the spur at least had a chance to save himself and that a possible outcome could have been zero deaths.

Pushing tubby off the bridge is essentially murder, since the elements of murder are criminal act, criminal intent, causation, and harm. Motive is not an element. Pushing someone off a bridge in front of a speeding train, knowing the result will be fatty's demise, is certainly a criminal act with criminal intent even if the motive was to save others' lives. There is no possibility of zero deaths by doing so. The consequences for the pusher would likely be a murder trial and possible conviction/incarceration. Since consequences are all that matter to the utilitarian, not being charged with murder is preferable to the alternative, and no one could make a rational argument that dude was negligent by not pushing lard-ass off the bridge to save the lives of others. Sure, the result of inaction is 5 toe tags, but no possible crime was committed to prevent it.

Pulling the switch to save 5 lives, even if one was sacrificed, would likely be widely viewed as an act of heroism. Intentionally killing someone to save others is far less likely to be viewed as heroic, even if the outcome of the two scenarios (1 death instead of 5) is the same.

From that perspective, I'd pull the switch but wouldn't push plus-size.

You raise a very good point, Smackie, and it was not discussed in the short video.

Pushing tubby could very well result in your being prosecuted.

Of course a defense lawyer would make a case that you were actually acting heroically, but that might not go the way you want in a court.


I might ask those willing to push tubby off the bridge why THEY wouldn't instead jump off in front of the trolley and try to stop it.
They would likely die, but I mean, still, it is one death instead of five -- and tubby would not be involved at all.

I would throw the midget off the bridge because who doesn’t enjoy a good midget toss every now and then.

Yeah, he wouldn’t impede the train much, but that’s irrelevant. We’d be rid of him and the board readability would climb.

I wouldn’t push Mikey errrrr I mean fatty off because having a firm grasp of most of Newton’s laws, I realize that even a fat guy isn’t gonna slow a train much. If he was THAT big, he’d prolly just get mad and throw me off the bridge.

How about throwing the switch half way and hoping for a derailment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smackaholic wrote:How about throwing the switch half way and hoping for a derailment?

An interesting idea, but not presented as a possibility in the video.
The choice given is you either (1) pull the switch to divert the trolley and likely kill 1 dude, or (2) don't involve yourself and 5 are likely killed.

You're right, Roach.
One's decision in that brief instant might easily be influenced by the identity(s) of a person at risk.

The video presents it as a situation where the individuals at risk are generic.

Roach wrote:Interesting question Pops, not so clear cut. If we agree death is bad or unwanted, then it seems five deaths are worse than one. And with no time to ponder it, this would be the basis.

I think nearly everyone, in that split second, would value 5 lives more than 1 in the situations described in the video, myself included.

The underlying assumption is that every human life is equal.

But is it?

Is the death of five given individuals necessarily more tragic than the death of one given individual?

I wonder.

Roach wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:14 pm Shoving obese man off the bridge is more personal. A physical, direct, up close act.

Pulling a lever gives distance to the process so we can deny actual murder.

To say the lever is more "moral" is a cop out. It would be a crutch to help us forgive ourselves.

This is all that really matters.


Roddenberry and Nolan were both trying to teach us something.
The trolley problem is a trick question, an unwinnable game. ALWAYS choose the third option.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:40 am Is the death of five given individuals necessarily more tragic than the death of one given individual?

The Bible teaches us subjectivity is king. Whomever writes the chronicle decides whether an event is tragic or heroic.