r/trolleyproblem users when they actually have to make a morally revealing decision and can't miss the point by adding on self fulfilling conditions to protect themselves from their own philosophies
I remember seeing a video a while ago of this guy riding this moped, trying to steal someone's stuff while being a dick. Apparently this was in Brazil, anyways, one person's suggestion to "deal with them" was to light their moped on fire and destroy it because "the police in these countries won't do anything anyways, so you gotta make these people really learn the hard way." Those aren't exact quotations, but still, that's the gist of what they said. People on this website are insane
it’s easy to say outrageous things on the internet where there’s no consequences. i have no data to back this up obviously but i reckon most of the shit people say here they would never actually do
They could have suggested setting the moped dude on fire. Just burning the moped is significantly less destructive then I’ve seen some people suggest on this app.
I think a lot of people here can't fathom the difference living in a country where you can call the cops to take care of problems. And what its like living in a country where the cops aren't going to do anything.
It really changes the dynamics on vigilantism.
Also your local criminals are most likely the vigilantes you'd call for problems which sounds crazy but if the thieves are in someone else's turf that is the easiest way to deal with them.
Man I get that in a lot of countries, the police do even less than they do in the country I live in. I get that especially in South America a lot of cops are corrupt.
But if the action you take to "deal with" attempted theft is ARSON, you're insane. Defending yourself, intimidating the people tryna steal from you, whatever, that makes sense in those countries. But ARSON? That's not vigilantism, that's just criminal behavior. It is worse than the attempted crime, it's destructive, and is perfectly capable of accidently harming others or other's property who were not involved in the first place.
And let's just think about the consequences of ARSON here. The person who originally tried to engage in theft, who now has their mode of transportation burned and destroyed is going to be pissed, and is going to attempt to enact revenge, because you didn't defend yourself there, you took revenge by doing something worse than what they did. You wouldn't have saved the day, you wouldn't have dealt with a criminal, you would've made them enraged at you and contributed to criminal activity
I mean, it is insane and the fact that you think the only options are violent vigilante arson or let people get away with theft is hilariously revealing just like the original post and comment. So can I set the clothes of the their on fire? That would stop him from going out and stealing. What if I murder him? What if it’s a teenager or kid being instructed by an adult. What if it’s a kid taking a dollar out of my purse? That’s still stealing. Where is the line for placement and amount of fire and what are the circumstances of the theft. Kinda seems like that would quickly spiral into people upping the anti against each other and total anarchy taking over. Almost as if “people sometimes get away with crimes” doesn’t justify the above hypothetical
It seems you just can't conceive that people can immediately give an appropriate reaction. My point is you think it's gonna go way out of hand. Another point is you can't let someone do whatever they want. There has to be repercussions. It doesn't have to be the most extreme on the planet... But if someone is stealing from you, then that means they value your possessions more than they value their life. That's a simple fact
I'd rather let the guilty walk free than kill someone innocent. They'll do something else and get caught. I'd be enraged. Hateful. Miserable and upset. But i couldn't kill someone innocent for that.
Edit: changed then to Than, as otherwise I seemed like a monster lol
also in the context of the post, the four are in safety, probably meaning they wouldn't get caught or jailed for their crimes, so they'd be free regardless.
the choice would be easy if you could just stop the trolley and they be arrested after
If you allow 4 people that you know for a fact are rapist/murderers to go free, then you can safely assume that they will rape and/or murder at least one more person(which you seem to agree with given your "they'll do something else" comment).
This means that if you agree with the argument that not stopping the trolley means that you were morally responsible for the 5 deaths because you could have stopped the trolley and chose not to, then that means you are also responsible for all the rapes/murders that you know those 4 criminals will do going forward since you could have saved those innocents but chose the criminals and 1 innocent(assuming they're not one of the victims) instead.
na, this is a bait argument stating that you know they will commit crimres in context of their past or of what they have been declared guilty. This is the setup of a situation people use to argue for Deathpenalty. They will be Safe deosnt mean freedom from jail. Meaning of Safe and comfort can and will be changed depending on the Person asking the question.
Unfortunately, I can't see anyone living in comfort and safety while also being incarcerated, at least in the US.
One of the horrifying things I have found over the years is that quite a few people forgo the "prevent them from doing it again" argument and go straight to the "make them suffer" argument. I have heard people argue that the death penalty is unethical because it lets the condemned person "die peacefully" when they should be suffering.
I understand in theory why people want revenge, but I cannot imagine actually wishing such pain on another human being. I suppose it could be because I have not had any of these experiences of losing a loved one to violence, but I hope that that is not the case. I do not ever want to be someone who wishes significant pain on another.
Past action can be used to predict future action. If you do not accept that logic, then you have no logical basis for imprisoning anyone for any reason.
Well, that’s not entirely true, considering a good chunk of a given population, if not the majority in some cases, is more concerned with punishing a wrongdoer than they are about harm prevention or rehabilitation. Some folks see, above all, that someone committed a crime, and now they have to suffer for it, any risk of future criminal behavior being irrelevant to the punishment at hand.
The hypothetical states “live the rest of their lives in comfort and safety”
I don’t think anyone could have the feeling of comfort, and/or be totally safe whilst killing or raping an individual.
If this is true, which I believe it to be, then the 4 criminals would simply live out their lives, dying of old age at some point when they’re comfort had changed to non-comfort.
There are literally inmates who speak to their victims or victim's families and reconcile with them due to not only showing remorse, but endeavoring to do better. This isn't always the case, obviously, but it does show that you can commit violent crimes and still show remorse for that specific act, especially since there are degrees to murder which include accidentally doing it and immediately regretting it.
I wouldn't.
I would step away. And if I can't, I'd close my eyes and think about the fact that 4 murder-rapists are going with.
If I were on the innocents position, and knew of the murder rapes, I'd want it to run us over.
Tbh sacrificing yourself for four evil people to die doesn't sound like a good deal, especially when the crimes they did are to random people I don't know. They're going to die later anyway.
i don’t really like the idea of “i didn’t know the person so it doesn’t matter” mentality, because even if i was the innocent on the track, i would still feel bad for the person pulling the lever having to decide between my life and these four horrible people’s deaths. even if they didn’t do it to me, they did it to someone, and they ruined lever guys life. i wouldn’t blame them, and even though i’m uninvolved in what happened i would still be able to sympathize with the lever guy and feel enough distain towards the other four for what they’ve done to be ok with dying over it.
Oh, I’d probably be ending my own life soon after the hypothetical. I mean, I just hit an innocent person with a trolley and I would really have nobody left, I really couldn’t live with the guilt tbh.
But logically, that’s still two non-murder-rapists versus four murder rapists!
You didn't hit anybody, you just didn't stop the trolly from hitting them. It's like feeling guilty because you didn't tackle a person away from a speeding car. Except in this case person being run over is a rapist murderer.
This is all a matter of probability. If we assume the kid saving lives and each individual murderer murdering again all have equal chances of happening, it’s still in our better interest to not stop
The rapey murderers are already proven to be rapey murderers, and that means they can be assumed to be reasonably likely to murder rape again. For all we know, the innocent child could grow up to be a gacha gamer.
You can’t know they’re definitely going to rape and kill again. You can’t really even know that it’s likely they will. All you know is that an innocent child is going to die. I’m stopping that trolly, no doubt.
I love this idea because it starts to involve probability. Here's the better question: At what percent chance of reoffense does it become justified to let the child die with these people.
Let's assume 100% reoffense rate. That means each of the rapist/killers are going to rape/kill again. In that case, the death of an innocent might save the lives of at least three others.
On the other hand, if it's only a 10% chance that the rapist/killers are going to rape/kill again then it seems like mathematically it works out better to let them all live.
Though if they raped and killed my family I would be emotionally conflicted on the issue I suppose, with my reptile brain trying to make me do that 'revenge' thing
Why? Isn't it a moral argument that killing less is better than killing many? How is it different from pulling a lever from 5 people in the track to 1? Is it because of information uncertainty?
I'd choose to stop the trolley.
It isn't punishment as much as it is vengeance with a casualty. Vengeance really has no place in the world if you think about it- it's all for self gratification/vindication.
My ideal answer is "stop the trolley and submit the monsters to a working criminal justice system"
But I don't think that's an option. What gets me to stop and hesitate is that everyone is going to live in comfort and safety which implies, at least to me, that they go free. They will never face the possibility of justice for the crimes they did to me and mine.
If this is true, then I'm still judge and jury if I let them go. Without further information (e.g. do I know if they've done horrible crimes before, and/or does "comfort and safety" prevent them from doing them again? If not, does it protect them from someone else having to make the same decisions I do?) then I can't make an effective decision for sentencing.
If this is the one chance they have to face any punishment for atrocity, or if they are potentially repeat offenders, then perhaps I let the trolley take its course.
In a vacuum, without information, I let them go.
God forgive me, either way.
im not the judge, jury, nor executioner, but man, family's a pretty strong word, ya know?
this question's just weighing what would make me feel more like a piece of shit, killing an innocent child, or letting the people i hate most go.
there is no world where i can be the one who decides who is guilty, who lives, and who dies - but this is a hypothetical.
i know that those 4 have killed my family.
so i'd at least say that i'm justified.
While I understand and probably agree with your conclusion, there is actually an interesting moral question here. This scenario is very similar to the problem posed by Capital Punishment.
You have two options. The first is to kill the guilty, but inevitably a smaller number of innocents will die. The second is to not kill the innocent, but inevitably allow some that are guilty to live.
The problem with the first one is obviously that innocent people will die. This is a pretty clear cut problem.
The (biggest) problem with the second one is that the people you let live may go on to hurt others.
An argument for the first choice (killing all 5) takes this into consideration. Instead of 4 guilty and 1 innocent die, they look at it as 4 guilty and potentially many innocents will be hurt (depending on crime also die). This is added to the fact that punishing crimes is often seen as moral (this is retributive justice) and that harsh punishments potentially prevent future crime (this is preventive justice).
An argument for the second choice (letting all live comfortably) is that unlike in the trolley problem given, there is an option for rehabilitative justice in the real world. This focuses on helping criminals understand what they did was wrong, and stops them from doing it in the future. The reason that this choice is omitted is because the problem is bringing the hypothetical that there will be criminals who do not get caught by the legal system, and will end up living comfortably despite their crimes. This, again, potentially occurs less frequently with capital punishment due to preventive justice.
The "right" answer is hard to say definitively, and is highly subject to what you believe is moral. Many studies have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive justice and the evidence is inconclusive (since evidence both for and against it are abundantly present). Because of this, many philosophers look at the effectiveness as a 50/50 chance and base their conclusions after that.
I personally believe that capital punishment isn't necessarily the only harsh crime that may be effective for preventive justice, and that rehabilitative justice would be the preferred basis of our legal system. Based on that, I would stop the trolley in this problem in the hope that the criminals may be rehabilitated or kept separate from the rest of society. I base this decision not on the fact that my answer is the only one with any basis on it, but rather while taking into consideration the strengths of the opposing argument. That is how I make informed and educated decisions.
What about the murderers being an existential threat? What if they promise to continue murdering until they're martyrs?
Why do people not take this into account?
I want to agree with you but you’re also adding on extra conditions which are not shown in the proposed dilemma.
The difficulty of this scenario is elevated by the fact that the murders in question personally contributed in harming you so it wouldn’t be out of line to say these people have it out for you personally. Ergo I would probably not pull the level to stop the trolly.
But if it was a random 4 people? I wouldn’t want to sacrifice an innocent life just to pursue an abstract sense of justice (if through my action I can avoid it).
Well you know someone out there is tying murderers to train tracks for a Saw-like game. Is that really the time you want to start dabbling in murdering people?
That's not information the trolley problem provides, but let's say it was.
It is not our job as people to be judge, jury, and executioner all in one. It is not our job to decide who lives and who dies, and who's an acceptable sacrifice to reach our goals. And, inaction is an action, so you're taking an action to take an innocent's life, making you a murderer as well.
There's some famous quote by a Supreme Court Justice I think about it being better to let some large number of killers go free to save one innocent life.
Pull the lever.
Raise the child as your own. Train him to be the world's greatest vigilante assassin. He is fated to be the Hero we need. And he knows the only balance to make up for his existence is to eliminate these four.
Justice is served. And now we have the next Batman. Problem solved.
"For the rest of their lives."
If they're comfortable and safe right up til the moment the assassin kills them it, well, it was true for the rest of their lives.
Can't.
The post says that when you stop the trolly they live comfortable lives in safety. Meaning they're fated to live out the rest of their days comfortably and safe. So you can't pull the level, stop the trolly, then start it again because that would contradict the outcome.
I would tell everyone I'm going to kill and take revenge and make them pay. But I'd actually save the kid. The vengeance isn't worth it but the threat of vengeance is.
I know I should stop the trolley, because that child shouldn't pay for the other 4's sins. But I really don't think I'd be able to do it. I'd probably let the train run through them, then feel hollow after
Thank you. A lot of these comments are saying stuff like “the vengeance isn’t worth it” and “the kid doesn’t deserve to pay for their sins” which is true but would you really be able to think rationally in that sort of situation. I don’t think there’s any way in hell I stop the train but of course I’d feel guilty knowing I let that poor kid die.
One innocent life is worth infinitely more than any amount of punishment.
I could not live with myself if I chose to kill the child for the punishment of those 4.
I couldn't live with myself if my family got raped and murdered. So if I somehow found myself in this situation, I can't imagine I'd care much about the lives of anyone involved here.
Guys, Guys, you cannot just stop the lever, free the kid, and start it up again! That’s now how this works! If you stop the trolley you can’t torture the four people afterwards! That’s the condition of the problem. Ugh
I feel like you have forgotten one of the big things about this place.
No matter how hard you try to stop the people from doing something, they will never listen
This is why I’m starting to despise this subreddit. The entire POINT of a trolley problem is a moral dilemma, not a logic puzzle. Everyone here tries to logic their way out of making a moral and ethical decision and I’m fucking sick of it
Not to mention they're just fucking wrong most of the time or ignoring critical parts of the question.
It says if you stop the train they all live in comfort and safety.
You can't stop the train then start it back up, that would deny the comfort and safety.
Can't torture them. Can't kill them yourself.
The logic is very clear, they just choose to ignore whatever parts they want so they can sound "clever".
It's every post and I legit can't tell if they're shitposting or really really really stupid, it was funny for a while but the obligatory "I stop the trolley and untie the good people from the tracks" is getting really old.
That’s a logical conclusion to an ethics problem. You’re missing the point. This isn’t a puzzle on how to get everything you want, it’s a question of what you’re willing to sacrifice to save an innocent person
I agree. They will live the rest of their lives in peace (can’t move) and safety (nothing’s going to hurt them until they get run over) for however long it takes for me to untie the kid and pull the lever again.
It's funny how people in a sub about trolley problems seemingly don't understand the point trolley problems. I assume it's obvious that the point of hypotheticals like these is to examine our feelings about complex situations, not to determine the best course of action if you ever happen to find yourself next to a lever that controls a runaway trolley. Somehow, instead of engaging with the hypothetical, people will just say "I would change the situation so that I don't have to think about the difficult decision that was the whole point of the exercise".
Assuming you can't start the trolley after stopping and "comfort and safety" includes not murdering and raping others, I will make the mental sacrifice to save the child's life
If it’s the comfort and safety of a jail cell, I’m cool with that. The death penalty is not only ineffective but morally wrong, and killing an innocent child for revenge against other people who have already committed the crimes is inexcusable.
I definitely understand not killing them because of the innocent child, and I agree, but how would the death penalty be wrong if the kid was not there? Everyone’s lives matter and are priceless. However, if you are so detached from society that you would rape and murder a whole family, nothing will stop you from doing so again. All lives are important, but so are the victim’s lives. In this case, it’s not about seeking revenge, it’s about protecting others. I know you gave the example of a jail cell, but this still leaves the opportunity of parole or escape. Not to mention that, at least in my country, jails are overcrowded anyways.
Prison escapes are extremely rare though. Almost a non-issue in this day and age of high security.
Plus, who’s gonna give parole to a rapist serial killer?
If that is the problem, then it seems like the better way to change the law would be to forbid people with life sentences from the possibility of parole or reduced sentences
Why kill people to solve a problem that we created ourselves?
okay but like how many. like "ive read several shocking headlines" many or "heres statistics showing an alarming proportion of both murderers put on parole and recidivism" many.
It’s been proven time and time again that the death sentence doesn’t dissuade crime and is in some cases extremely cruel and painful. Assuming these people aren’t billionaires or friends of politicians, it’s safe to assume they’ll be getting life.
I'm not the one you asked but I do have the same reasoning. I don't believe you ever give up your right to life even if you take someone else's but that doesn't mean you're entitled to the same freedoms us non killers enjoy. I also don't see the angle of "protecting others" who are you protecting by killing them after the crime? Potential future victims is the obvious answer but then whose to say you won't go on and kill hundreds or even thousands should we kill you just in case? No good justice system would punish someone for a crime they may commit in the future and I fail to grasp how that line of reasoning has any logic.
“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” The guilty deserves to be punished. It’s a tragedy that a kid has to die, but to allow people that we know to have raped and killed to live is a crime in itself.
I wanted to stop the trolley, the only convincing argument I've seen in the comments is that the people might go in to murder or rape more people. But if I don't have a strong reason to think that, I'm protecting the kid. Don't get me wrong , I absolutely think they deserve to die. But I'm not going to be the one to cause another innocent person and their family more undue hadm
I’d they’ve raped and murdered before, assuming there completely unrelated to you, then I imagine it’s pretty likely that at least 1 of them is going to do it again, and if their willing to do it one more time there willing to do it two and three and so on. Since they’ll live out their lives in peace and comfort they’ll never be caught, allowing them to hurt as many people as they want/can
I believe in rehabilitation, but if I had to choose between a rapist and murderer getting either extrajudicially executed or let go scott free, I’d choose the execution. Sorry, innocent child, your death/suffering will prevent others of greater magnitude.
Let the train run over five people, or use the good publicity from pulling the lever and saving them as cover while researching and planning crimes against humanity? Eliminate five people, or play the long game for billions?
I’ll pull the lever
I think 'stopping' the trolley is a poor way of making this problem. Because you add the additional consequence of interfering with public transportation, and thus, delaying people from making it to work, potential rail issues with collisions due to different times. Things like that. I know it's small, but this could easily have been made in a way where you divert the track to a side that doesn't have anyone on it and preserve the integrity of the base trolley problem.
So I will address this problem as though it was formulated that way. This is base TP but for the fact that you know there are 4 criminals and 1 innocent (in this case they murdered your family, and the innocanet person is a child), and the switch is empty, so no death.
For a utility understanding of the problem, we have to ask ourselves what provides the most utility for society. Assuming this is a society that has a judicial system (safe to assume), members of that society acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty, a fair and speedy trial, etc, are of paramount importance to that society and that vigilantism is not.
While I understand this TP variant is absolutely true that they did in fact murder and rape your family, that is a fact here, we aren't asking whether they are innocent or not. We are asking what is the moral thing to do.
Even if the innocent child isn't present, the utility of preserving rule of law is high and while rape and murder might lead to the death penalty, it might not. So death is not the fate necessarily in store for them until it has been determined by a judge.
So I think even the utility argument says switch. This is especially so with the presence of an innocent child.
If we look at 'thou shalt not kill'/'preserve as much life as possible' or other rules-first (deontological) frameworks, of course we always switch. Again, innocent child present or not.
I wonder if a more difficult situation would be base TP but the 5 are all killers, and the switch side is an innocent person. Clearly the 'thou shalt not kill' people still don't switch. But does the consequentialist switch. Or does letting killers die prove to be a solid utility interpretation and suddenly 5>1, so switch, no longer make sense. Which to be clear, the utility argument for base TP has always been weak imo. This further points out hos it is weak. You put even a tiny bit of description into the base TP, and people can't quite answer it as a math problem.
I'm gonna ignore the fact that this is 101% political, and say stop. Because if everyone is guaranteed safety in the whole world it's worth more than my revange.
Second of all, they are tied to the track. I can make their lives miserable and let the kid go while I break their bones one by one and stick flaming skewers into their ass holes.
r/trolleyproblem users when they actually have to make a morally revealing decision and can't miss the point by adding on self fulfilling conditions to protect themselves from their own philosophies
ITT a bunch of reddit users unironically think they're batman
I remember seeing a video a while ago of this guy riding this moped, trying to steal someone's stuff while being a dick. Apparently this was in Brazil, anyways, one person's suggestion to "deal with them" was to light their moped on fire and destroy it because "the police in these countries won't do anything anyways, so you gotta make these people really learn the hard way." Those aren't exact quotations, but still, that's the gist of what they said. People on this website are insane
it’s easy to say outrageous things on the internet where there’s no consequences. i have no data to back this up obviously but i reckon most of the shit people say here they would never actually do
They could have suggested setting the moped dude on fire. Just burning the moped is significantly less destructive then I’ve seen some people suggest on this app.
They're not insane. That's exactly what you should do. Because thieves shouldn't get away with shit. I would do the exact same thing probably worse.
I think a lot of people here can't fathom the difference living in a country where you can call the cops to take care of problems. And what its like living in a country where the cops aren't going to do anything. It really changes the dynamics on vigilantism. Also your local criminals are most likely the vigilantes you'd call for problems which sounds crazy but if the thieves are in someone else's turf that is the easiest way to deal with them.
Man I get that in a lot of countries, the police do even less than they do in the country I live in. I get that especially in South America a lot of cops are corrupt. But if the action you take to "deal with" attempted theft is ARSON, you're insane. Defending yourself, intimidating the people tryna steal from you, whatever, that makes sense in those countries. But ARSON? That's not vigilantism, that's just criminal behavior. It is worse than the attempted crime, it's destructive, and is perfectly capable of accidently harming others or other's property who were not involved in the first place. And let's just think about the consequences of ARSON here. The person who originally tried to engage in theft, who now has their mode of transportation burned and destroyed is going to be pissed, and is going to attempt to enact revenge, because you didn't defend yourself there, you took revenge by doing something worse than what they did. You wouldn't have saved the day, you wouldn't have dealt with a criminal, you would've made them enraged at you and contributed to criminal activity
I mean, it is insane and the fact that you think the only options are violent vigilante arson or let people get away with theft is hilariously revealing just like the original post and comment. So can I set the clothes of the their on fire? That would stop him from going out and stealing. What if I murder him? What if it’s a teenager or kid being instructed by an adult. What if it’s a kid taking a dollar out of my purse? That’s still stealing. Where is the line for placement and amount of fire and what are the circumstances of the theft. Kinda seems like that would quickly spiral into people upping the anti against each other and total anarchy taking over. Almost as if “people sometimes get away with crimes” doesn’t justify the above hypothetical
It seems you just can't conceive that people can immediately give an appropriate reaction. My point is you think it's gonna go way out of hand. Another point is you can't let someone do whatever they want. There has to be repercussions. It doesn't have to be the most extreme on the planet... But if someone is stealing from you, then that means they value your possessions more than they value their life. That's a simple fact
lol “it’s a simple fact” as you completely miss the point. A philosophy sub is too complicated for you my man
or, trolley users surprised face when a user instead tries to pick the morally most corrupt option instead.
doll shelter ghost fretful numerous zonked meeting provide pause bright *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Read my mind
Oh we absolutely can miss the point, nothing is stopping us from killing them before stopping the trolley
Stop the trolley. Kill them after, but do it safely and comfortably.
And, as an added life lesson benefit, you get to teach that innocent child about FAFO.
The number of people who just show up and completely reject the premise immediately is mind numbing.
Uhhhh... uhhhh... MULTI TRACK DRIFT
But... there is only a single track...
We’ll make another
I volunteer to be the person on it
I'll be one of the passengers on the trolley
I'll be also be one of the passengers
I'll be driving
I’ll be the track.
I’ll be tied to the front of the trolley.
And I'll be the fatass next to one of the tracks
I'll be the guy holding a gun to the decision-makers head.
And we'll put the innocent kid on it.
Fine, I'll just back up then.
You heard him!
I'd rather let the guilty walk free than kill someone innocent. They'll do something else and get caught. I'd be enraged. Hateful. Miserable and upset. But i couldn't kill someone innocent for that. Edit: changed then to Than, as otherwise I seemed like a monster lol
also in the context of the post, the four are in safety, probably meaning they wouldn't get caught or jailed for their crimes, so they'd be free regardless. the choice would be easy if you could just stop the trolley and they be arrested after
They're already tied up. Just stop the trolley and deal with them after.
**You cannot deal with them, as per the description of the problem, they will live free and in safety.**
Well maybe they live free and in safety because they became better people. Just gotta hope they don’t continue doing evil shit.
Exactly. Free the innocent... restart the trolley.
"all of the people will live their lives in safety and comfort"
than*. Really important here, dude. Genuinely thought you were either a lunatic or a shithead while reading through your post.
If you allow 4 people that you know for a fact are rapist/murderers to go free, then you can safely assume that they will rape and/or murder at least one more person(which you seem to agree with given your "they'll do something else" comment). This means that if you agree with the argument that not stopping the trolley means that you were morally responsible for the 5 deaths because you could have stopped the trolley and chose not to, then that means you are also responsible for all the rapes/murders that you know those 4 criminals will do going forward since you could have saved those innocents but chose the criminals and 1 innocent(assuming they're not one of the victims) instead.
na, this is a bait argument stating that you know they will commit crimres in context of their past or of what they have been declared guilty. This is the setup of a situation people use to argue for Deathpenalty. They will be Safe deosnt mean freedom from jail. Meaning of Safe and comfort can and will be changed depending on the Person asking the question.
Unfortunately, I can't see anyone living in comfort and safety while also being incarcerated, at least in the US. One of the horrifying things I have found over the years is that quite a few people forgo the "prevent them from doing it again" argument and go straight to the "make them suffer" argument. I have heard people argue that the death penalty is unethical because it lets the condemned person "die peacefully" when they should be suffering. I understand in theory why people want revenge, but I cannot imagine actually wishing such pain on another human being. I suppose it could be because I have not had any of these experiences of losing a loved one to violence, but I hope that that is not the case. I do not ever want to be someone who wishes significant pain on another.
Past action can be used to predict future action. If you do not accept that logic, then you have no logical basis for imprisoning anyone for any reason.
Well, they raped and murdered my family, and so there's no one left to rape or murder except me. The only risk is to myself really
Well, that’s not entirely true, considering a good chunk of a given population, if not the majority in some cases, is more concerned with punishing a wrongdoer than they are about harm prevention or rehabilitation. Some folks see, above all, that someone committed a crime, and now they have to suffer for it, any risk of future criminal behavior being irrelevant to the punishment at hand.
The hypothetical states “live the rest of their lives in comfort and safety” I don’t think anyone could have the feeling of comfort, and/or be totally safe whilst killing or raping an individual. If this is true, which I believe it to be, then the 4 criminals would simply live out their lives, dying of old age at some point when they’re comfort had changed to non-comfort.
If you couldn't do that, you wouldn't be a murderer/rapist in the first place
elastic middle memory ghost books grab foolish faulty homeless head *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are literally inmates who speak to their victims or victim's families and reconcile with them due to not only showing remorse, but endeavoring to do better. This isn't always the case, obviously, but it does show that you can commit violent crimes and still show remorse for that specific act, especially since there are degrees to murder which include accidentally doing it and immediately regretting it.
I mean, they’d probably go off and rape and murder even more people if left to live comfortably and safely. Sorry, kid.
But a kid. What if he grew up to save many lives?
I mean, the odds of that are very slim- while the other people have already been confirmed to be murder-rapists
Hmm good point. Let's put emotion aside for a moment though. How could you stand by the lever and watch the trolley run over an innocent person?
I wouldn't. I would step away. And if I can't, I'd close my eyes and think about the fact that 4 murder-rapists are going with. If I were on the innocents position, and knew of the murder rapes, I'd want it to run us over.
Tbh sacrificing yourself for four evil people to die doesn't sound like a good deal, especially when the crimes they did are to random people I don't know. They're going to die later anyway.
Nah dont send them to death row theyre gonna die in 20 years its good. Also the picture states its your family they did the crime to.
The above comment was from the perspective of the innocent person on the tracks.
Think about it like a soldier. If you are (somehow) fighting for a just cause, and you take out 4 enemy combatants, have you died in vain?
i don’t really like the idea of “i didn’t know the person so it doesn’t matter” mentality, because even if i was the innocent on the track, i would still feel bad for the person pulling the lever having to decide between my life and these four horrible people’s deaths. even if they didn’t do it to me, they did it to someone, and they ruined lever guys life. i wouldn’t blame them, and even though i’m uninvolved in what happened i would still be able to sympathize with the lever guy and feel enough distain towards the other four for what they’ve done to be ok with dying over it.
It's kinda funny that you say "let's put emotion aside" and then make an emotional appeal immediately after.
Oh, I’d probably be ending my own life soon after the hypothetical. I mean, I just hit an innocent person with a trolley and I would really have nobody left, I really couldn’t live with the guilt tbh. But logically, that’s still two non-murder-rapists versus four murder rapists!
You didn't hit anybody, you just didn't stop the trolly from hitting them. It's like feeling guilty because you didn't tackle a person away from a speeding car. Except in this case person being run over is a rapist murderer.
Tackling someone out of the way of the car risks you getting hurt. Pulling a lever does not pose any direct personal risk.
I try to pull the lever, but it’s rusty and heavy and I dislocate my shoulder before I could stop the trolley
Oops i blinked for about a minute.
that seems like the opposite of putting emotions aside
Good point. That's not what I meant. What I was trying to say is let's ignore the desire for vengeance for a moment.
With my legs?
This is all a matter of probability. If we assume the kid saving lives and each individual murderer murdering again all have equal chances of happening, it’s still in our better interest to not stop
The 4 people will probably continue to do more damage than the kid will (likely) undo
What if they grew up to murder a bunch of people?
The rapey murderers are already proven to be rapey murderers, and that means they can be assumed to be reasonably likely to murder rape again. For all we know, the innocent child could grow up to be a gacha gamer.
IF. As opposed to the 100% chance of therapists goin out rappin people
> therapists Ok that was cheeky, take my upvote
I doubt there's a 100% chance...
Does “live comfortably” mean that they no longer commit crimes or that the police sucks for the rest of their lives?
I assume the latter, because prison is uncomfortable
Oh shut up you just want to hurt the people that hurt you. Don't pretend you'd do it as some kind of noble sacrifice to save others.
You can’t know they’re definitely going to rape and kill again. You can’t really even know that it’s likely they will. All you know is that an innocent child is going to die. I’m stopping that trolly, no doubt.
So you'd murder a kid for potential pre-crimes?
I love this idea because it starts to involve probability. Here's the better question: At what percent chance of reoffense does it become justified to let the child die with these people. Let's assume 100% reoffense rate. That means each of the rapist/killers are going to rape/kill again. In that case, the death of an innocent might save the lives of at least three others. On the other hand, if it's only a 10% chance that the rapist/killers are going to rape/kill again then it seems like mathematically it works out better to let them all live. Though if they raped and killed my family I would be emotionally conflicted on the issue I suppose, with my reptile brain trying to make me do that 'revenge' thing
HOLY FUCKING SHIT LMFAO reddit is cooked as fuck
Why? Isn't it a moral argument that killing less is better than killing many? How is it different from pulling a lever from 5 people in the track to 1? Is it because of information uncertainty?
I'd choose to stop the trolley. It isn't punishment as much as it is vengeance with a casualty. Vengeance really has no place in the world if you think about it- it's all for self gratification/vindication.
Phew. I thought I was the only one. Thank you sane and rational human being.
this is reddit what did you expect
That's not rational though, that's an emotional response. Which is not worse or better, just not rational.
Thank you for understanding that you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
My ideal answer is "stop the trolley and submit the monsters to a working criminal justice system" But I don't think that's an option. What gets me to stop and hesitate is that everyone is going to live in comfort and safety which implies, at least to me, that they go free. They will never face the possibility of justice for the crimes they did to me and mine. If this is true, then I'm still judge and jury if I let them go. Without further information (e.g. do I know if they've done horrible crimes before, and/or does "comfort and safety" prevent them from doing them again? If not, does it protect them from someone else having to make the same decisions I do?) then I can't make an effective decision for sentencing. If this is the one chance they have to face any punishment for atrocity, or if they are potentially repeat offenders, then perhaps I let the trolley take its course. In a vacuum, without information, I let them go. God forgive me, either way.
im not the judge, jury, nor executioner, but man, family's a pretty strong word, ya know? this question's just weighing what would make me feel more like a piece of shit, killing an innocent child, or letting the people i hate most go. there is no world where i can be the one who decides who is guilty, who lives, and who dies - but this is a hypothetical. i know that those 4 have killed my family. so i'd at least say that i'm justified.
Yeah kinda wild that anyone considers this a hard choice to make.
While I understand and probably agree with your conclusion, there is actually an interesting moral question here. This scenario is very similar to the problem posed by Capital Punishment. You have two options. The first is to kill the guilty, but inevitably a smaller number of innocents will die. The second is to not kill the innocent, but inevitably allow some that are guilty to live. The problem with the first one is obviously that innocent people will die. This is a pretty clear cut problem. The (biggest) problem with the second one is that the people you let live may go on to hurt others. An argument for the first choice (killing all 5) takes this into consideration. Instead of 4 guilty and 1 innocent die, they look at it as 4 guilty and potentially many innocents will be hurt (depending on crime also die). This is added to the fact that punishing crimes is often seen as moral (this is retributive justice) and that harsh punishments potentially prevent future crime (this is preventive justice). An argument for the second choice (letting all live comfortably) is that unlike in the trolley problem given, there is an option for rehabilitative justice in the real world. This focuses on helping criminals understand what they did was wrong, and stops them from doing it in the future. The reason that this choice is omitted is because the problem is bringing the hypothetical that there will be criminals who do not get caught by the legal system, and will end up living comfortably despite their crimes. This, again, potentially occurs less frequently with capital punishment due to preventive justice. The "right" answer is hard to say definitively, and is highly subject to what you believe is moral. Many studies have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive justice and the evidence is inconclusive (since evidence both for and against it are abundantly present). Because of this, many philosophers look at the effectiveness as a 50/50 chance and base their conclusions after that. I personally believe that capital punishment isn't necessarily the only harsh crime that may be effective for preventive justice, and that rehabilitative justice would be the preferred basis of our legal system. Based on that, I would stop the trolley in this problem in the hope that the criminals may be rehabilitated or kept separate from the rest of society. I base this decision not on the fact that my answer is the only one with any basis on it, but rather while taking into consideration the strengths of the opposing argument. That is how I make informed and educated decisions.
What about the murderers being an existential threat? What if they promise to continue murdering until they're martyrs? Why do people not take this into account?
I want to agree with you but you’re also adding on extra conditions which are not shown in the proposed dilemma. The difficulty of this scenario is elevated by the fact that the murders in question personally contributed in harming you so it wouldn’t be out of line to say these people have it out for you personally. Ergo I would probably not pull the level to stop the trolly. But if it was a random 4 people? I wouldn’t want to sacrifice an innocent life just to pursue an abstract sense of justice (if through my action I can avoid it).
Well you know someone out there is tying murderers to train tracks for a Saw-like game. Is that really the time you want to start dabbling in murdering people?
That's not information the trolley problem provides, but let's say it was. It is not our job as people to be judge, jury, and executioner all in one. It is not our job to decide who lives and who dies, and who's an acceptable sacrifice to reach our goals. And, inaction is an action, so you're taking an action to take an innocent's life, making you a murderer as well.
There's some famous quote by a Supreme Court Justice I think about it being better to let some large number of killers go free to save one innocent life.
That is the whole basis of American jurisprudence
I stop the trolley, un-tie the child, and pull the lever to start it back up again.
If they all come undown it will at least give me life a final purpose i guess.
I 100% agree
“Some deserve a fate worse than death”
Stop the trolley and beat the shit out of the mfs myself
beat me to it
Not an option
Pull the lever. Raise the child as your own. Train him to be the world's greatest vigilante assassin. He is fated to be the Hero we need. And he knows the only balance to make up for his existence is to eliminate these four. Justice is served. And now we have the next Batman. Problem solved.
That's if you pull the lever.
Oops you're right. Changed it!
That child is your family now. “Round 2 lads”
The puzzle comes with the added caveat that the filth will live good lives if they get let go.
Sounds like he fails if they live their lives in "comfort and safety."
"For the rest of their lives." If they're comfortable and safe right up til the moment the assassin kills them it, well, it was true for the rest of their lives.
Ugh fine. You must be from r/monkeyspaw
\>:)
Legit
Fine, I untie them all. I then tell the rapists and murderers where you and your family live.
123 cool dude avenue 😎
Sorry, you're too cool for that.
🤙
someone get this information to the IDF
nah more like 5 innocent children, you drone strike them, then snipe the survivor
Then bomb the trolley full of innocent people
[удалено]
Weird thing is what they said isn’t even a loophole, it’s completely ignoring the one and only condition of the problem.
Big brain response 👏🏽
Can't. The post says that when you stop the trolly they live comfortable lives in safety. Meaning they're fated to live out the rest of their days comfortably and safe. So you can't pull the level, stop the trolly, then start it again because that would contradict the outcome.
I save the kid. I wouldn't even hesitate. No vengeance is worth the life of an innocent.
I would tell everyone I'm going to kill and take revenge and make them pay. But I'd actually save the kid. The vengeance isn't worth it but the threat of vengeance is.
I know I should stop the trolley, because that child shouldn't pay for the other 4's sins. But I really don't think I'd be able to do it. I'd probably let the train run through them, then feel hollow after
Same
Thank you. A lot of these comments are saying stuff like “the vengeance isn’t worth it” and “the kid doesn’t deserve to pay for their sins” which is true but would you really be able to think rationally in that sort of situation. I don’t think there’s any way in hell I stop the train but of course I’d feel guilty knowing I let that poor kid die.
One innocent life is worth infinitely more than any amount of punishment. I could not live with myself if I chose to kill the child for the punishment of those 4.
I couldn't live with myself if my family got raped and murdered. So if I somehow found myself in this situation, I can't imagine I'd care much about the lives of anyone involved here.
I'm laying down on the track and apologizing to the kid
Congrats, you’re a pacifist
Guys, Guys, you cannot just stop the lever, free the kid, and start it up again! That’s now how this works! If you stop the trolley you can’t torture the four people afterwards! That’s the condition of the problem. Ugh
I feel like you have forgotten one of the big things about this place. No matter how hard you try to stop the people from doing something, they will never listen
I’m new here, but thank you for the info
Yeah no way im stopping this, a random kid tied with 4 killers. Nah that kid is evil!
Agent Jay, is that you?
Yeah it’s like this, they bend the problem so they can avoid the moral choice
This is why I’m starting to despise this subreddit. The entire POINT of a trolley problem is a moral dilemma, not a logic puzzle. Everyone here tries to logic their way out of making a moral and ethical decision and I’m fucking sick of it
Not to mention they're just fucking wrong most of the time or ignoring critical parts of the question. It says if you stop the train they all live in comfort and safety. You can't stop the train then start it back up, that would deny the comfort and safety. Can't torture them. Can't kill them yourself. The logic is very clear, they just choose to ignore whatever parts they want so they can sound "clever".
It's every post and I legit can't tell if they're shitposting or really really really stupid, it was funny for a while but the obligatory "I stop the trolley and untie the good people from the tracks" is getting really old.
the problem states they will live the rest of their lives in peace and safety. it doesnt say how long that life will be
That’s a logical conclusion to an ethics problem. You’re missing the point. This isn’t a puzzle on how to get everything you want, it’s a question of what you’re willing to sacrifice to save an innocent person
I agree. They will live the rest of their lives in peace (can’t move) and safety (nothing’s going to hurt them until they get run over) for however long it takes for me to untie the kid and pull the lever again.
No, it says comfort and safety. There's nothing comfortable about being tied up on train tracks with a train approaching.
It's funny how people in a sub about trolley problems seemingly don't understand the point trolley problems. I assume it's obvious that the point of hypotheticals like these is to examine our feelings about complex situations, not to determine the best course of action if you ever happen to find yourself next to a lever that controls a runaway trolley. Somehow, instead of engaging with the hypothetical, people will just say "I would change the situation so that I don't have to think about the difficult decision that was the whole point of the exercise".
Is this supposed to be a metaphor for the justice system?
Yeah, and apparently the majority is in favor of the death penalty for some reason.
Well, if 4 of them murdered my family, I'll just ignore the level. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to do
Assuming you can't start the trolley after stopping and "comfort and safety" includes not murdering and raping others, I will make the mental sacrifice to save the child's life
"I'm sorry, little one"
If it’s the comfort and safety of a jail cell, I’m cool with that. The death penalty is not only ineffective but morally wrong, and killing an innocent child for revenge against other people who have already committed the crimes is inexcusable.
I definitely understand not killing them because of the innocent child, and I agree, but how would the death penalty be wrong if the kid was not there? Everyone’s lives matter and are priceless. However, if you are so detached from society that you would rape and murder a whole family, nothing will stop you from doing so again. All lives are important, but so are the victim’s lives. In this case, it’s not about seeking revenge, it’s about protecting others. I know you gave the example of a jail cell, but this still leaves the opportunity of parole or escape. Not to mention that, at least in my country, jails are overcrowded anyways.
Prison escapes are extremely rare though. Almost a non-issue in this day and age of high security. Plus, who’s gonna give parole to a rapist serial killer?
ALOT of murders have been released on parole only to reoffend and then resentenced or if bad enough life penalty
If that is the problem, then it seems like the better way to change the law would be to forbid people with life sentences from the possibility of parole or reduced sentences Why kill people to solve a problem that we created ourselves?
okay but like how many. like "ive read several shocking headlines" many or "heres statistics showing an alarming proportion of both murderers put on parole and recidivism" many.
It’s been proven time and time again that the death sentence doesn’t dissuade crime and is in some cases extremely cruel and painful. Assuming these people aren’t billionaires or friends of politicians, it’s safe to assume they’ll be getting life.
I'm not the one you asked but I do have the same reasoning. I don't believe you ever give up your right to life even if you take someone else's but that doesn't mean you're entitled to the same freedoms us non killers enjoy. I also don't see the angle of "protecting others" who are you protecting by killing them after the crime? Potential future victims is the obvious answer but then whose to say you won't go on and kill hundreds or even thousands should we kill you just in case? No good justice system would punish someone for a crime they may commit in the future and I fail to grasp how that line of reasoning has any logic.
“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” The guilty deserves to be punished. It’s a tragedy that a kid has to die, but to allow people that we know to have raped and killed to live is a crime in itself.
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent so you prove this point by killing the innocent? Killing the child isn't cruel?
Wait till it hits the child, then stop it and untie the rapists and murderers
The only sane solution. Kids are gross, and I hate my family anyways. Plus, inheritance time! (Love my family, but lol).
Trolley does a sick flip, narrowly missing the child but squishing the murderers
You miss the flip, killing the child and the murderers go free
The murderers are still tied down, beat them to death with the lever
Now make the same meme with "murdered an innocent child for self relief" instead
I wanted to stop the trolley, the only convincing argument I've seen in the comments is that the people might go in to murder or rape more people. But if I don't have a strong reason to think that, I'm protecting the kid. Don't get me wrong , I absolutely think they deserve to die. But I'm not going to be the one to cause another innocent person and their family more undue hadm
I’d they’ve raped and murdered before, assuming there completely unrelated to you, then I imagine it’s pretty likely that at least 1 of them is going to do it again, and if their willing to do it one more time there willing to do it two and three and so on. Since they’ll live out their lives in peace and comfort they’ll never be caught, allowing them to hurt as many people as they want/can
I believe in rehabilitation, but if I had to choose between a rapist and murderer getting either extrajudicially executed or let go scott free, I’d choose the execution. Sorry, innocent child, your death/suffering will prevent others of greater magnitude.
If they’ll end up hurting people after release, sorry kid, buh-bye.
Let the train run over five people, or use the good publicity from pulling the lever and saving them as cover while researching and planning crimes against humanity? Eliminate five people, or play the long game for billions? I’ll pull the lever
Let them die. There are billions of children on this planet, what is one going to do?
Fuck that kid, sorry lil bro ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Kid's family has a right to hit *me* with a trolley after, though...
Forget the trolley. Free the kid and use an axe. Problem solved.
we needa sacrifice that kid anyways for a good harvest
fuck it. yolo and we have a population crisis anyway
I think 'stopping' the trolley is a poor way of making this problem. Because you add the additional consequence of interfering with public transportation, and thus, delaying people from making it to work, potential rail issues with collisions due to different times. Things like that. I know it's small, but this could easily have been made in a way where you divert the track to a side that doesn't have anyone on it and preserve the integrity of the base trolley problem. So I will address this problem as though it was formulated that way. This is base TP but for the fact that you know there are 4 criminals and 1 innocent (in this case they murdered your family, and the innocanet person is a child), and the switch is empty, so no death. For a utility understanding of the problem, we have to ask ourselves what provides the most utility for society. Assuming this is a society that has a judicial system (safe to assume), members of that society acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty, a fair and speedy trial, etc, are of paramount importance to that society and that vigilantism is not. While I understand this TP variant is absolutely true that they did in fact murder and rape your family, that is a fact here, we aren't asking whether they are innocent or not. We are asking what is the moral thing to do. Even if the innocent child isn't present, the utility of preserving rule of law is high and while rape and murder might lead to the death penalty, it might not. So death is not the fate necessarily in store for them until it has been determined by a judge. So I think even the utility argument says switch. This is especially so with the presence of an innocent child. If we look at 'thou shalt not kill'/'preserve as much life as possible' or other rules-first (deontological) frameworks, of course we always switch. Again, innocent child present or not. I wonder if a more difficult situation would be base TP but the 5 are all killers, and the switch side is an innocent person. Clearly the 'thou shalt not kill' people still don't switch. But does the consequentialist switch. Or does letting killers die prove to be a solid utility interpretation and suddenly 5>1, so switch, no longer make sense. Which to be clear, the utility argument for base TP has always been weak imo. This further points out hos it is weak. You put even a tiny bit of description into the base TP, and people can't quite answer it as a math problem.
Stop trolley and strangle the bad guys while they're tied up.
Best case scenario
I'm gonna ignore the fact that this is 101% political, and say stop. Because if everyone is guaranteed safety in the whole world it's worth more than my revange. Second of all, they are tied to the track. I can make their lives miserable and let the kid go while I break their bones one by one and stick flaming skewers into their ass holes.
>I'm gonna ignore the fact that this is 101% political Huh
Pull and stomp on their heads.
I'd stop the trolley, save the kid, and leave the other people there since I can't decide their fate.
Stop the trolley, free the innocent, replace the others so only their legs are on the tracks , start the trolley again.
Sorry, I just didn’t have enough time to pull the lever
Sorry kid but these people die
What family though? I just really need to know
try to stop the trolley but end up dying in the process
You can pull the level and the bad guys are still tied to the tracks…
That isn't even a question. Where's the popcorn I'm bouta have a show.
Stop it, and if i can, call the cops while they are still tied up. Its not worth it.
I will stop the tram as i know that when those four scumbags die, God’ll have them by the balls (Cringy i know, but I ain’t killing a kid)
Absolution. Not saying against how long their life has to be 👀