Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The trolley paradox implies:
A train or trolley moving on rails; there is a fork in the road ahead for 2 3 5 10 tracks and an arrow that moves the train / trolley to 1 of the selected tracks.
And it's up to YOU to choose.
What's the catch and the paradox? There are 1, 2, 10, 50, and 100,000,000 people attached to each of the paths after the fork. It doesn't matter how much. It is important that there is always 1 person on the first path after the fork, and 2 on the other.
People are sometimes given additional characteristics of “fat”, “angry”, “old”, “child”, “blogger-yazhemat” and so on.
You can choose who to kill by train.
Since the choice is not great: from 1 blogger to 1,000,000 people, it all comes down to the mentality of a particular respondent , YOU.
Asians (Chinese) tend to value their families above others, so they can easily kill 100,000 people if they don't know them. And the blogger may be some distant relative, you can't kill him. Better to put strangers under the knife.
Europeans tend to value collectivism and society, so they would rather kill 1 person than 100,000,000.
Someone does not like to be put in front of a stupid choice and will not do ANYTHING AT ALL. Let the train roll, there is a driver there.
For starters, I wouldn't call it a paradox. Also, this question is not one of those questions that has a definite answer. Whether to turn the lever or not is a choice that you should think carefully about before making(of course, this opportunity will not be provided in a real situation).�
On the one hand, if you turn the lever , you will save five lives, but you will lose only one. After all, five is more than one, and five saved lives are better than one. In fact, this is certainly true, of course. However, it is worth considering, and who in this case took this one life-the tram, or the person behind the lever?
Here everything becomes ambiguous. Obviously, the burden of murder falls on the person behind the lever – it was he who directed the tram in the other direction. It's as if quicksilver of the X-Men, during slow-mo, would direct a bullet fired by person ” A “towards person”B”. The killer of the unfortunate ” B ” is already mercury-not otherwise.�
What about ignoring the situation? The tram crushes five people, but the person behind the switch has absolutely nothing to do with the situation – just an eyewitness.�
Hence my position in relation to this situation – I would leave everything as it is. 5 people will die, and I will not interfere with the fate of that one person on the other side of the tracks, on which he (a) should stay alive, and those five-to die.
In general, a similar topic was discussed at the first Harvard lecture ” Justice: What's the right thing to do?”, I advise you to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/kBdfcR-8hEY?wmode=opaque