8 ms·

This was quite easy for me. The principles: 1. Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. 2. Don't believe

This was quite easy for me. The principles: 1. Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. 2. Don't believe everything what you see or are told. If you doubt do nothing. Imagine you killed many people because you have been lied to and pulled the lever. In this case it is better you did nothing. 3. An action of yours might kill someone. This is a very heavy responsibility you assumed. You need to be very sure and the odds need to be extreme. None of the problems managed to tip the odds. So whenever I was afraid that pulling the lever kills someone, I didn't pull the levers. 4. If my life is at stake, I pull the lever to save myself. 5. If I am extremely sure that no lives are at stake and I am relatively confident that pulling the lever will avoid lots and lots of damage, then I pull the lever. If I am unsure, I do nothing. 6. In all other cases responsibility is too high and I won't do anything. The idea: don't touch the damn thing. The website told me that I decided differently than the majority of people and finally that I "have solved philosophy" EDIT: The top comment made a good point. I had to click a button to do nothing. This made me realize that I a had a silent assumption: 7. Time to decide is short. The trolley is already coasting. So I didn't think long and hard because I didn't have time and when I was unsure I would have let the trolley coast past without having pulled the lever.

lumenwrites 4y ago
> Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. Letting people die just because I don't feel super comfortable assuming the responsibility sounds pretty close to the definition of evil to me.
renewiltord 4y ago
Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.
- cranekam 4y ago
  Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.
  - mcv 4y ago
    > Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is. In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.
    - _nalply 4y ago
      No. It is only the case if you don't kill someone to save someone else.
    - sethammons 4y ago
      Curious which countries. Fwiw, in the US, you can pull up a lawn chair and watch someone drown instead of offering them any assistance (not saying that is moral). Legal liabilities have been explored including the case where a person is pulled from a burning auto accident and the act of saving them caused back injuries and paralysis. Cue Good Samaritan laws to protect would-be do-gooders but also the acknowledgment that there is no legal liability to act (aside from designated first responder types).
      - mcv 4y ago
        I don't have an exhaustive list for you, but I know it's the case in Netherland. I suspect we're not an exception in this.
  - _nalply 4y ago
    Think responsibility. Even if you watched the thing roll you don't have a lot of responsibility. Only a little. Because as you said that I am involved. Let's say there will be an investigation because of criminal liability by inaction (civil law jurisdiction). First you aren't in guarantor status (one example is the surgeon during a surgery), and second if you explain that you tought it through and showed that the what-if case is dangerous, you won't be punished for inaction. So, no, it does not really matter that you are involved by being there. And now I am sure that many people could develop post traumatic stress disorder because they feel they have failed to save people. I am sure that these people can be helped if they are shown the possible outcomes of action and inaction, especially that action is often more problematic than inaction.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Since you've observed the system, you've already interacted with it. Sorry, nice try. (if you don't click on the link though, you're fine)
wruza 4y ago
Nice to meet a reasonable man who solved philosophy as well. So many think that they have a right to project their idea to someone else’s reality without a doubt.
once_inc 4y ago
I think I did the exact same thing you did (except for 1 problem which I misread).
- _nalply 4y ago
  This happened to me too, I answered one problem a bit differently than I intended. But exactly that's the case in point! That damn lever is way too dangerous to touch. Only touch if you are extremely confident.
SilverBirch 4y ago
Yeah one of the issues with the trolley problem is how literally you take the problem. If you take it perfectly literally and say "5 vs 1" (for the pure example) no other context I think you can very easily come to a conclusion that is the opposite of what you'd do in real life, where either due to lack of certainty, lack of perfect knowledge or some iterative game theory interpretation, you would act differently.
- _nalply 4y ago
  The problem is the responsibility. If you aren't willing to take over responsibility, it's better not to do anything. If you already have responsibility then it's a different matter.
  - addandsubtract 4y ago
    The problem I have with the premise, is that as soon as you're standing next to the level, you're responsible. You had the opportunity to pull the lever, but didn't, which makes you responsible. Similarly, if you're diving a car and someone walks across the road in front of you, are you not responsible for their death if you choose not to step on the brakes? Does inaction relieve you of any responsibility?
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > if you're diving a car ... then you accepted responsibility by getting in the driver's seat and taking control of the vehicle. In the case of the trolley, you are an onlooker.
galfarragem 4y ago
The ultimate trolley problem is one where you pull the lever to save a larger amount of people that have chosen a unsafe area while punishing a smaller amount of people that have chosen a safe area (unless someone pulls the lever)... Ultimately this is politics. Morality is not math, but, as always, things might be more foggy: lack of free choice and a really skewed ratio (e.g. punish one to save 100 million) may test the limits of morality.
- _nalply 4y ago
  Please be explicit. Do you mean something like insurance: a small amount of people has insurance but someone decided to insure even the people who haven't paid insurance? In that case it's clear that I won't pull the lever. It's not a question of life and death, and because I am not sure whether pulling the lever helps preventing lots of damage, I won't do anything, especially because perhaps it's just a vague and abstract story you made up.
  - galfarragem 4y ago
    An extreme example: Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a lever" to flood the safe area instead and save 99K lives. They don't have time to evacuate anybody. Should they pull the lever? By limits of morality I mean: - Free choice: if the people living in the unsafe area didn't understand the danger or didn't have another choice but to live there? - Skewed ratio: if only 10 people lived in the safe area and 1 million had chosen to live in the unsafe area?
    - fendy3002 4y ago
      It's easy if you're politician that's up to reelection. If it's your base voters, then pull it, it's 100K of potential voter. If it's not your base voters then let them perish. If you're enterpreneur, see whether 100K people is more beneficial than the other 1K. For example if you have a factory that needs many workforce and can utilize the 100K, save them. If somehow you pull the lever, make a press conference showing sorrow and guilty face telling it's inevitable. If you don't pull the lever, don't expose the info until asked. If you're not a decision maker, leave it to your supervisor. If somehow you have the loved one in 100K, pull the lever anyway. Sadly this is the shape of our world right now.
mcv 4y ago
I noticed I kept switching between several principles. Possibly triggered by the details of the problem. Some of the principles: 1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not. 2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.) 3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me. All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent. Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.
- karategeek6 4y ago
  Not sure why you state #2 contradicts #1. If you are in a position of ignorance, choosing inaction (unless and until said ignorance can be rectified, anyway) is the correct action.
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  Imagine being at a railyard at the time of a crash and being seen throwing a switch in front of a moving train. There’s no real-world case where that person is not considered responsible. Not to mention that trains really cannot go over switches at speed. A runaway trolley would probably derail at the switch if it was set on the side track.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    I think it’s reasonable to assume the trolley goes fast enough to do the deed, but not fast enough it couldn’t round the bend.
    - _nalply 4y ago
      If you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      That's clearly a reasonable assumption, since a trolley will kill people underneath at any speed, no matter how low (the slower, the more horrible the death will be though…)
drom55 4y ago
> and finally that I "have solved philosophy" I guess it displays that to everyone, I chose to kill someone to get my amazon package sooner, I don't think that's solving philosophy
littlestymaar 4y ago
> 4. If my life is at stake, I pull the lever to save myself. I find this answer really interesting, because in the entire corpus, this was the most morally unambiguous question of all, and the answer is diametrically opposed to yours. Would have I the courage to do so in real life, I don't know, and it's probable that I would not. But from a moral perspective it's damn clear: the only people I am unambiguously allowed to kill to save someone else is myself. Killing someone to save someone else is a moral dilemma as it makes me take someone's life, but killing myself isn't.
- YPPH 4y ago
  I also find it interesting. I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people? A solipsistic view might say that those people are part of our own consciousness. If we let them die, we continue to exist. If we sacrifice ourselves, all of us cease to exist since they are just manifestations of our consciousness. As Christopher Hitchens once said, beware of solipsism...
  - addandsubtract 4y ago
    > I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people? On the other hand, how many people would you need to save to sacrifice yourself? 5? 2? 1? Does that one person need to be younger than you? Not disabled? Not a criminal?
- darkerside 4y ago
  Interestingly, I had almost the opposite reaction. In the absence of information, I don't know how these people got here or why. Maybe they're being executed as criminals, maybe they are suicide attempts, maybe they are truly heinous people in the hands of a Just God. But, I do know, if it's me on the track, I don't want to die. It's almost the only truly inarguable choice. With everything else, you think you know best for other people. With that one, you just know you don't want to die.
  - deleted 4y ago
UweSchmidt 4y ago
re #4: There are many instances of people sacrificing themselves to save others, Chernobyl workers, figher pilots not ejecting but steering the plane away flightshow visitors etc. I expect these people to act this way routinely, give hazard pay to their entire profession to compensate for the risk, but likewise consider it my obligation to act likewise when the situation is clear (like in the Trolley Problem).
Tepix 4y ago
I did nothing and it says i killed 91 people. My lawyer disagrees.

lumenwrites 4y ago

> Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. Letting people die just because I don't feel super comfortable assuming the responsibility sounds pretty close to the definition of evil to me.

renewiltord 4y ago

Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.

cranekam 4y ago
Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.
- mcv 4y ago
  > Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is. In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.
  - _nalply 4y ago
    No. It is only the case if you don't kill someone to save someone else.
  - sethammons 4y ago
    Curious which countries. Fwiw, in the US, you can pull up a lawn chair and watch someone drown instead of offering them any assistance (not saying that is moral). Legal liabilities have been explored including the case where a person is pulled from a burning auto accident and the act of saving them caused back injuries and paralysis. Cue Good Samaritan laws to protect would-be do-gooders but also the acknowledgment that there is no legal liability to act (aside from designated first responder types).
    - mcv 4y ago
      I don't have an exhaustive list for you, but I know it's the case in Netherland. I suspect we're not an exception in this.
- _nalply 4y ago
  Think responsibility. Even if you watched the thing roll you don't have a lot of responsibility. Only a little. Because as you said that I am involved. Let's say there will be an investigation because of criminal liability by inaction (civil law jurisdiction). First you aren't in guarantor status (one example is the surgeon during a surgery), and second if you explain that you tought it through and showed that the what-if case is dangerous, you won't be punished for inaction. So, no, it does not really matter that you are involved by being there. And now I am sure that many people could develop post traumatic stress disorder because they feel they have failed to save people. I am sure that these people can be helped if they are shown the possible outcomes of action and inaction, especially that action is often more problematic than inaction.
littlestymaar 4y ago
Since you've observed the system, you've already interacted with it. Sorry, nice try. (if you don't click on the link though, you're fine)

wruza 4y ago

Nice to meet a reasonable man who solved philosophy as well. So many think that they have a right to project their idea to someone else’s reality without a doubt.

once_inc 4y ago

I think I did the exact same thing you did (except for 1 problem which I misread).

_nalply 4y ago
This happened to me too, I answered one problem a bit differently than I intended. But exactly that's the case in point! That damn lever is way too dangerous to touch. Only touch if you are extremely confident.

SilverBirch 4y ago

Yeah one of the issues with the trolley problem is how literally you take the problem. If you take it perfectly literally and say "5 vs 1" (for the pure example) no other context I think you can very easily come to a conclusion that is the opposite of what you'd do in real life, where either due to lack of certainty, lack of perfect knowledge or some iterative game theory interpretation, you would act differently.

_nalply 4y ago
The problem is the responsibility. If you aren't willing to take over responsibility, it's better not to do anything. If you already have responsibility then it's a different matter.
- addandsubtract 4y ago
  The problem I have with the premise, is that as soon as you're standing next to the level, you're responsible. You had the opportunity to pull the lever, but didn't, which makes you responsible. Similarly, if you're diving a car and someone walks across the road in front of you, are you not responsible for their death if you choose not to step on the brakes? Does inaction relieve you of any responsibility?
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > if you're diving a car ... then you accepted responsibility by getting in the driver's seat and taking control of the vehicle. In the case of the trolley, you are an onlooker.

galfarragem 4y ago

The ultimate trolley problem is one where you pull the lever to save a larger amount of people that have chosen a unsafe area while punishing a smaller amount of people that have chosen a safe area (unless someone pulls the lever)... Ultimately this is politics. Morality is not math, but, as always, things might be more foggy: lack of free choice and a really skewed ratio (e.g. punish one to save 100 million) may test the limits of morality.

_nalply 4y ago
Please be explicit. Do you mean something like insurance: a small amount of people has insurance but someone decided to insure even the people who haven't paid insurance? In that case it's clear that I won't pull the lever. It's not a question of life and death, and because I am not sure whether pulling the lever helps preventing lots of damage, I won't do anything, especially because perhaps it's just a vague and abstract story you made up.
- galfarragem 4y ago
  An extreme example: Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a lever" to flood the safe area instead and save 99K lives. They don't have time to evacuate anybody. Should they pull the lever? By limits of morality I mean: - Free choice: if the people living in the unsafe area didn't understand the danger or didn't have another choice but to live there? - Skewed ratio: if only 10 people lived in the safe area and 1 million had chosen to live in the unsafe area?
  - fendy3002 4y ago
    It's easy if you're politician that's up to reelection. If it's your base voters, then pull it, it's 100K of potential voter. If it's not your base voters then let them perish. If you're enterpreneur, see whether 100K people is more beneficial than the other 1K. For example if you have a factory that needs many workforce and can utilize the 100K, save them. If somehow you pull the lever, make a press conference showing sorrow and guilty face telling it's inevitable. If you don't pull the lever, don't expose the info until asked. If you're not a decision maker, leave it to your supervisor. If somehow you have the loved one in 100K, pull the lever anyway. Sadly this is the shape of our world right now.

mcv 4y ago

I noticed I kept switching between several principles. Possibly triggered by the details of the problem. Some of the principles: 1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not. 2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.) 3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me. All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent. Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.

karategeek6 4y ago
Not sure why you state #2 contradicts #1. If you are in a position of ignorance, choosing inaction (unless and until said ignorance can be rectified, anyway) is the correct action.
eurasiantiger 4y ago
Imagine being at a railyard at the time of a crash and being seen throwing a switch in front of a moving train. There’s no real-world case where that person is not considered responsible. Not to mention that trains really cannot go over switches at speed. A runaway trolley would probably derail at the switch if it was set on the side track.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  I think it’s reasonable to assume the trolley goes fast enough to do the deed, but not fast enough it couldn’t round the bend.
  - _nalply 4y ago
    If you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    That's clearly a reasonable assumption, since a trolley will kill people underneath at any speed, no matter how low (the slower, the more horrible the death will be though…)

drom55 4y ago

> and finally that I "have solved philosophy" I guess it displays that to everyone, I chose to kill someone to get my amazon package sooner, I don't think that's solving philosophy

littlestymaar 4y ago

> 4. If my life is at stake, I pull the lever to save myself. I find this answer really interesting, because in the entire corpus, this was the most morally unambiguous question of all, and the answer is diametrically opposed to yours. Would have I the courage to do so in real life, I don't know, and it's probable that I would not. But from a moral perspective it's damn clear: the only people I am unambiguously allowed to kill to save someone else is myself. Killing someone to save someone else is a moral dilemma as it makes me take someone's life, but killing myself isn't.

YPPH 4y ago
I also find it interesting. I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people? A solipsistic view might say that those people are part of our own consciousness. If we let them die, we continue to exist. If we sacrifice ourselves, all of us cease to exist since they are just manifestations of our consciousness. As Christopher Hitchens once said, beware of solipsism...
- addandsubtract 4y ago
  > I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people? On the other hand, how many people would you need to save to sacrifice yourself? 5? 2? 1? Does that one person need to be younger than you? Not disabled? Not a criminal?
darkerside 4y ago
Interestingly, I had almost the opposite reaction. In the absence of information, I don't know how these people got here or why. Maybe they're being executed as criminals, maybe they are suicide attempts, maybe they are truly heinous people in the hands of a Just God. But, I do know, if it's me on the track, I don't want to die. It's almost the only truly inarguable choice. With everything else, you think you know best for other people. With that one, you just know you don't want to die.
- deleted 4y ago

UweSchmidt 4y ago

re #4: There are many instances of people sacrificing themselves to save others, Chernobyl workers, figher pilots not ejecting but steering the plane away flightshow visitors etc. I expect these people to act this way routinely, give hazard pay to their entire profession to compensate for the risk, but likewise consider it my obligation to act likewise when the situation is clear (like in the Trolley Problem).

Tepix 4y ago

I did nothing and it says i killed 91 people. My lawyer disagrees.