29 Answers

  1. In Christianity, the understanding and solution of this “problem” is assumed by Jesus Christ Himself, telling his Apostles about it in a parable :

    “What do you think? If a man had a hundred sheep, and one of them went astray, would he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and go in search of the one that had gone astray?

    and if he happens to find her, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth over her more than over the ninety-nine who have not gone astray” (Mt 18:12,13).

    He compares Himself to a shepherd who, leaving a whole flock, that is, innumerable hosts of Angels, went in search of one lost sheep-fallen man.

    In today's world of material over spiritual preponderance, few people will dare to risk five to save one, although in cases involving kinship ties, this choice in favor of one is obvious.

  2. There is no objectively correct answer to this question. Whatever moral aspect we take up, there are several counterweights that are no less significant in the overall picture of the world.
    For example, we can assume that fate brought all five miners together to interrupt their fate. With the same confidence, we can say that the fate of one person is to sacrifice his life for the sake of the lives of others.
    Here everyone would make their own choice, based on their worldview, and probably the right decision for each person would be the one that they would make.

  3. Any interpretation of this problem contains insufficient data to make an unambiguous decision. On the contrary, any real situation is full of little things, details that combine in a variety of ways and greatly influence the choice.

    Take, for example, the interpretation of the dilemma about a trolley that can be stopped by pushing a fat man. It does not say, for example, “Does it really weigh enough to stop the trolley?” and, if “yes”, then “Are you sure you can push it?”. Considering real physics (and real moral dilemmas always arise in real conditions, with real physical, chemical, biological, etc. according to the laws of the natural world), to stop the trolley, it must be so thick that in reality, most people of more or less average build and physical development would hardly be able to push it. Therefore, in real conditions, such a dilemma simply would not arise, because it does not matter whether you agree to push the fat man or not – you will definitely not be able to push him.

    Example, for clarity:

    Let the mass of the trolley is 100kg, and 5 skinny anime girls from cosplay are riding in it, weighing 40kg each. Total, the total mass of the trolley with them = 100 + 40 * 5 = 300 kg. From this it is obvious that in order to stop the trolley, the mass of the fat man cannot be less than 300 kg – on the contrary, it must be significantly larger in order to extinguish the momentum of the trolley, which is – recall the school physics course – the product of the mass of the trolley with girls and its speed.

    We ALREADY know for sure that, for this condition, the mass of a fat person is > 300 kg. Tell me, gentlemen philosophers – how often do you push objects weighing > 300kg? (I am already silent that in reality, delivering a disabled person with such obesity is a separate task, so the question is: where would he even come from in reality? – Wasn't it brought by someone “highly moral” so that you “immorally” pushed him? And how moral is the person who brought a disabled person to this place for such an “experiment”?).

    [Verify that the weight of the heaviest people in the world don't exceed 700 kg for the entire history of observations https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%91%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B2_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5 and the mass of the trolley, if you Google, not so humble 100kg, as in my example, but somewhere FROM 500kg – http://www.darasun.ru/catalog/vagonetki/ , hence the “fat man”, enough at least to slow (not to mention stop) trolley (!and! – with people who also have a lot of money!) in reality, it simply could not be]

    Thus, we see a clear example of an extremely artificial moral dilemma, completely divorced from reality, which looks convincing only for a humanist who has completely skipped all technical and natural science disciplines.

    In conclusion, I will repeat my main point: all questions of morality and ethics (as well as philosophy) did not arise (and could not in principle arise) from scratch – in isolation from social practice, from the interaction of human society with REAL, and not fictional laws of nature. Therefore, ideas about morality should always be considered only in context, meaning more or less real conditions, and not trying to spend invaluable time and effort on giving an answer to a question that no one-obviously-in principle – can arise in reality.

  4. For me, translate the arrows. Because five lives are more important than one. Then I'll sort it out a little (that's what I want) what others write about this in their answers and comments and what they could tell me:
    * I will become a killer
    Which is more important – so that I don't “become a killer” or so that five people don't die (although the sixth will still die)? For me, this is just a label, my actions are important, not what I am called.
    * I'll kill a man
    To do this for the sake of saving five more people is acceptable to me. The “don't kill people” rule is designed to protect people, but it can be broken if it saves the lives of even more people.
    * Human life is infinitely valuable, so the number of people does not matter (and in general, how people can be counted), both options are equally bad, it is impossible/pointless to make a choice
    of Lies. Interestingly, if a person with such beliefs was faced with the choice of who to save – one person or a group of five (despite the fact that everyone could not be saved), he would be confused and panic (and as a result, he did not have time to save anyone, by the way)? Or would you flip a coin?
    * If I turn the lever, I will become a killer, and if I don't turn it, I will just be an observer
    I will be the person who gave up the opportunity to save five people. Is it much better?

  5. There is no solution. Whatever you do, you are still a participant in an experiment that will lead to death. Personally, I would look at gender, likely acquaintance and age, girls are more valuable than guys, young people are more valuable than old people, one acquaintance is more valuable than five strangers. An evil point of view, but an honest one. The worst thing about the trolley problem is the reduction of people to numbers, which is definitely bad.

  6. i think:
    In this case, the person will not have enough time to think, understand and make decisions, it will be easier for him to do nothing. I am sure that there has never been and will never be such situations.

  7. In fact, this “problem” is simplified, compared to the other version that I was always told. In our version with 5 and 1 people, it is very easy to decide – you need to turn the arrow to where one person is lying. The fewer victims – the less remorse you have, etc. (provided that all people are exactly the same and unfamiliar)

    My version is this: you are the driver, your train is moving at high speed and you will not be able to brake abruptly. Suddenly, 5 people run out on the tracks ahead and start vandalizing, obscurantism, taking selfies on the sleepers – in general, 5 “suicides”. There is a left turn right in front of these individuals. I think we need to turn around to save these assholes, and it's okay that we just missed the schedule. But no – there is only one person who is sure that the train will not go there for the next 2 hours. And it just so happens that he's crossing the tracks at the point where you're going to run him over anyway.

    Here is the choice: to kill five people who themselves “agreed” to this or one person who calmly and confidently crossed the road. Here in this version of the “trolley problem”, the choice really depends on each person and there is no one obvious answer.

  8. By holding the lever in the middle position, so that the wits on both sides are not pinned down, we will achieve that the wheels will fall between the frame rails, and the trolley, if it flies over the sleepers, will get stuck with the wheels on the crosspiece. If the jeweler runs a rebord on the wit-it will be a little more interesting, but you can not release the lever. And if the arrow turns out to be cut in one of the directions, then you should try to have time to translate it in the opposite direction after passing the front trolley or the first wheelset. One way or another, the kinetic energy will be somehow extinguished, which will not happen in the event of inactivity. Use caution (there is no question of safety here in general – the action is risky in any case), do not stand in the plane of the lever movement-it can jerk with traumatic consequences. You may not have time to move the arrow between the aisles of different wheelsets, but not using the chance to put the trolley on the crosspiece is already a criminal inaction.

  9. If we talk about me and, if such a situation happened in reality, then I would choose inaction, because�

    1) I do not have the power to decide who will live and who will not, in this case. (“In this case” meant that if the choice was to save an adult or a child, then society clearly gives the moral that the child's life is more important and I would already have the power to decide).

    2) I don't know anything about these people (5 murderers and 1 father with many children?)�

    3) I still believe that in this example, inaction is not equal to action, which means that my non-intervention, given that I do not know anything about these people, and in a short period of time I could not make a decision, will not bring me further torments of conscience.�

    PS In general, it seems to me that I would be in a daze, shock and would not have time to do anything.

  10. As for me, the solution to this problem is inaction. Let fate decide who is worth killing 5 or 1. After all, who said that the life of 5 is more important than 1. We are not cattle to be measured in numerical form. We are all individuals. Therefore, let the one who was more fortunate survive, the one who was saved from death by an amazing series of events.

  11. Inactivity. There is not enough information to save the lives of an innocent person. Unfortunately, we will have to allow the death of three people. On the one hand, the death of the majority is unfair,but I do not dare to be an executioner

  12. I don't know the National Research University Higher School of Economics, apparently this is something new in the post-Soviet period, but it's not about that. The general of the army would not think about such a question, whether he would lose 5 divisions or one, moreover, he would send 1 division to a false breakthrough, and then hit the 5th in another place on the front. Let's complicate the task. Someone at the arrow is a male Homosapiens, �5 индивиду individuals of the same sex, on the other branch is a woman (even if not beautiful)…And an even more complicated case, the person in the arrow is a Philosopher, a lonely tied individual is led by Immanuel Kant, or Thomas Aquinas, I think the actions of the philosopher would be completely predictable.

  13. If you take the picture in the truest sense, then you need to move the arrow to one person and immediately run – pull him off the tracks. One – you can make it.

    There is another option – to calm your conscience, but at the same time not to decide anything. Close your eyes, take hold of the lever and pull it back and forth quickly. And then – who will be lucky. Look, and the trolley will fly off the rails.

  14. Let's imagine a truck driver whose brakes have failed.A bus is coming towards us in front,and a passenger car is coming from the side, along the first row.What should a truck driver do?I would try to stick close to the car, but anticipating that the collision will lead to the death of a person in the car, but many people in the bus will be saved.

  15. I just didn't like such philosophical questions. We had a kid at school. He asked:” In the alley you were attacked by three bandits who want to kill you more than anything else in the world, with you two of your friends, you have a fragmentation grenade. There is no way out, a dead end. You can do nothing, let them all be killed, you can sacrifice yourself and your friends, but kill everyone. You can coward all three of us and die, you can hide behind a friend's back” or ” your mother is there about two chairs, bayonets and genitals.” All these tasks are complete nonsense, this will never happen. These are specially designed tasks without a correct answer. And they are of no use, personally, they only cause me irritation and a desire to send such inventors far away( to a city in Peru, for example), or even smack in the face of unhealthy individuals who are seriously trying to force me to solve such nonsense.

  16. Direct the trolley to one person. At the same time, quickly run and free the poor guy. 5 people in chocolate and one we released. Ta-dam are all safe!

  17. This is an interesting philosophical question, but I think it is important that there are examples of solving this problem in real life, and not on paper.

    If a person has time to think, then either there is time and completely remove the problem with a third solution, such as destroying the rail, or he is an official and he has time to analyze additional data. For example, he is the commander of a retreating unit and someone has to stay and cover the retreat. There are many examples of how people solve this problem. Often, commanders stay on their own and assign another person to lead the retreating unit. Volunteers are often called. I always associate the New Year with the war, with the beginning of the first one. Oleg Tibekin died on the second, also in these New Year's Eve days. wikipedia.org

    If there is no time for reflection, then, again, most people sacrifice themselves trying to do the impossible. Sometimes a person is stronger than trolleys.

  18. Answers like: “if you are a utilitarian – switch the arrow, and if you are a follower of Kant's philosophy, then do not switch” – not a solution, you will agree. This is about the same as saying, ” if you want to kill, kill.” But what should a person do according to the laws of morality? Objective morality

    Utilitarians, when solving moral problems, forget about one thing: about morality. The concept of measuring morality in numbers seems very strange to me. But this is a slightly different topic – we are looking for a solution.

    To begin with, I will define for precise clarity once again the wording of the problem scenario with the name “Deadlock”:Heavy uncontrolled trolley rushes along the rails. On its way there are five people tied to the rails by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can switch the arrow, and then the trolley will go on a different, siding. Unfortunately, there is one person on the siding, also tied to the tracks. What are your actions?

    You, being a highly moral person, should switch the arrow. This is a moral requirement. Why?

    Action on the level of responsibility is equivalent to inaction. Inaction is also an act. When faced with a choice situation, you have two options. These possibilities are objectively equal in their ability to be realized and the level of assumption: you can do this, or you can do it differently. Figuratively speaking, you can click on the “idle” button, or you can click on the ” act ” button. In doing nothing, you choose not to choose. Let's imagine a situation with a football player who, at the most crucial moment, when the ball is almost at an empty goal and one shot is missing, refuses to hit the ball. As a result, the ball rolls away – there is no goal. The football player explains this as follows :” So what if I didn't hit or score? I didn't miss.” It was idle. Agree that the football player is wrong. Action and omission are acts in criminal law that can equally be followed by penalties. In the book “Would You Kill a fat man?” there are also such arguments: a person who strangled a child in the bathroom is just as wrong as a person who saw the child slip, started to die and still allowed him to die. “We are just as responsible for what we can't do as we are for what we actually do.” Therefore, in the case of the trolley, the argument that if you don't touch the lever, you are an observer, and if you lower it, you are a killer, doesn't work. Let's say you agreed that in this case, you can put an equal sign between the action and inaction as actions. But now the question arises: what do you need to choose from this? To act or not to act? Allow five people to die, or allow one to die. The key concepts in this discussion are intention, foresight, and the doctrine of double consequence (UPD). Intent is your goal, the main goal of your action. Foresight – some secondary consequences that occurred as a result of intent. It's like an indirect intent. The distinction between these two concepts is key to the UPD developed by Thomas Aquinas. Your intention is to save 5 people. Your foresight is the death of one person. But this is, one might say, a secondary intention. Because the primary thing is to save five people. It just so happened. If a person tied to the tracks on a dead-end track could get rid of them and stay alive, you would be happy, it would be “the best of all worlds”. But it just so happens that he doesn't get rid of it. Therefore, (first of all) saving 5 people, you (second of all) are responsible for the death of 1 person. Thomas Aquinas believed that deliberate murder is never justified. This is where the UPD comes in: you intend to save the lives of 5 people, but anticipate the death of one. You have no intention of killing him. This is once again proved by your emotions after the person whose death you foresee remains alive.

    So, you need to choose who to harm: 5 people, or one. And by choosing the lesser of two evils, you choose to lower the lever, and by saving the lives of 5 people, you “indirectly” kill 1. And rightly so.

    Nor does this decision contradict the aforementioned Kant: his categorical imperative states that people should be the end and never the means. A person lying on the tracks is not a means. The tool in this solution for us is a lever and its ability to change the direction of movement of the trolley. The goal is 5 people. We don't use one person to save 5 people.

  19. I consider it pointless to reflect on the topic of morality in this matter. There is no morality in this question, and the people attached here are just objects. What will you save, 5 oranges or one?�

    Your moral choice begins when you endow attached people with subjectivity. What if the task had a description of each person? For example: there are five criminal maniacs who have killed hundreds of people, and on the other side there is a brilliant scientist, a Nobel laureate?�

    That's when the selection begins.

  20. Guys, there's a stopcock on every trolley. Stop torturing yourself, if they didn't have stopcocks, then the workers in the mines would have a very difficult time. That's all.

  21. Don't move the arrow. The trolley will crush 5 people, I finish off one, no one has seen anything and does not know. Everyone was killed, there are no complaints about me, as there are no witnesses. No agony of choice and no consequences.

  22. There can be only one understanding here – do not tie yourself, and, moreover, do not let anyone tie you to the rails.

    Therefore, in essence of the problem, the more people are tied to one of the paths, the more effort was spent on finding them in a dangerous place, rather, they themselves were involved in this. Taking the life of one person to please them would at least be an excuse for their passivity.

    The only correct solution here may be not to play switchman, but not to stop the train, then try to have time to drag at least someone from the dangerous path at your own risk: you can not discard the possibility that people were tied to the dangerous path of their own free will.

    The psychology here is such that it is no longer possible to untie at least one person from the disastrous path, without his desire, decision and aspiration.

  23. You answer “Translate after the first wheels”, the questioners spit. You answer “Move to the middle position”, the questioners spit. So you want to kill someone? Well, formulate the question accordingly. And I want to try to save everyone, or at least absolve myself of responsibility for such a choice, when such a possibility exists.

  24. This task is given in different interpretations. For example, there is a variant where this one person, who is being rushed by the train, is the mad professor. And friends gave different answers depending on the ratio. 5×1 – withdrawal of responsibility. 100×1-utilitarianism and saving lives.

  25. All the philosophies of the world must go to hell if people are to die as a result of the choice! Andrey Kudryavtsev and Evgeny Pyatakov gave, in my opinion, the most realistic answers! To stand and reason would be a crime in real life!

    What is the humanism of almost every Hollywood action game? In the fact that there is a hero who fights to the end, using all the tools and opportunities at hand. And evil wins! Evil in the form of a speeding train driverless, a crazed terrorist with a nuclear bomb in the UN meeting room, etc.�

    In real life, I think the situation would be resolved by a person who would not be afraid to take responsibility. I would have called the military, and they would have tried to land a special forces soldier from a helicopter on the roof, so that he would pull the stopcock. Or mess up the track – the trolley would go off the flights. Destroy the trolley with a well-aimed shot from something: a tank, a grenade launcher, a rocket.�

    And if all these exits are too late, really try switching the arrow after passing the front wheels.

    But just don't stand around and philosophize!

  26. If you approach the question rationally, both options are correct:

    • By switching the arrow, you act rationally (utilitarianly): one person will die instead of 5, which is good.
    • If you don't switch the arrow, you won't interfere with an objective situation, which is also NOT a bad thing.
      But from the point of view of the law or morality, both options may be wrong, because by doing nothing, you allow people to die (which is bad), and by acting, you kill a person or involve yourself in the murder process (which is generally atas).�

    Summing up all the above, the most correct option for you is still inaction, although it may also be regarded negatively.�

    From the point of view of “objective” (hahaha) morality, the Kantian version of non-interference is the only correct one. How do you know who these 6 people are? Maybe Hitler, Stalin, Chikatilo, Gacy, and Bundy are all lying in a row on the tracks, and on the right-hand track some villainous guy tied up our Karamchand's Mahatma?

  27. tl; dr – don't move the arrow.
    The decision, of course , is subjective. There is no correct solution, this question can only show the way of thinking and moral principles of each individual.
    For me personally, the answer is obvious, at least in the version with conditions where all victims are depersonalized. My value system is consistent with the ethics of libertarianism and the fundamental principle of non-aggression NAP. In accordance with this, it is forbidden to commit aggressive(non-retaliatory) violence. At the same time, I am not obligated to help anyone (including save lives) against my will, since any relationship between people must be voluntary.
    Thus, by switching the arrow, I will interfere in a conflict between strangers and become the aggressor myself, initiating violence. I can't do that.
    Without switching the arrow, I will simply refuse to help the person, just as, for example, I can refuse anyone's request to give money or fix a computer. I'll say no and go home to dinner and watch TV. And I have the right to do so.

  28. This option: wait until the front wheels pass, turn the arrow, the rear wheels will go on a different path and the car will derail, everyone is alive.

  29. If you are a utilitarian , keep the losses to a minimum and kill one person.

    If you are an adherent of Kant's philosophy-do not interfere and let the trolley kill five people, because “a person is an end, not a means” and you can not even use the life of one as a means of saving five.

Leave a Reply