What do you think is the more moral choice to make in the Trolley problem ?
There is a runaway trolley 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 allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
(Taken from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)
- Doug CatholicLv 71 month ago
Catholics don't believe in "double" predestination.
- UserLv 71 month ago
which is still immoral
but which is LESS immoral than option 1.
- 1 month ago
I'm wondering where I got lever training. Ooo...there's some irony.
- Ernest SLv 71 month ago
This is foolish nonsense that has no conception of right or wrong.
If you pull the lever than you are guilty of murder or manslaughter, so you have no option.
As to what is the right thing to do, you can never do the right thing except as God shows you.
A sinner can never justify himself.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- DaneLv 41 month ago
Even though it is an A or B choice, there is no absolutely correct answer here. Generally, Most of us would agree in saving the most amount of people in the Utilitarian fashion. However, what happens when in order to save the five you have to push someone in front of the train? In studies most people choose not to push someone and let the five die. Even though it is the exact same outcome and you are just as responsible for pushing them as you are for pulling the lever yet most people do not actually want to be directly involved and that changes the answer many people give. It is just one of those grey areas where no set answer is actually correct. As for me, let the five people live. But what if the one you have to kill is your own child? Or what if someone had some equipment fall on him in the TV station? The game is playing and if you save him you cut the feed? We would obviously save the man even though cutting the feed many people will be driving home angry and increase the amount of car accidents. Lets say 20 people die in crashes for saving the one man is it still not moral to save the man? Or what if your country needs you and you have to choose to fight in a war to save your country or stay home and take care of your dying mother? There is no perfectly correct moral answer in these types of philosophizing.
- PubliusLv 71 month ago
The right thing to do is to save as many lives as possible.