4 ms·

This is exacerbated by the summary at the end, giving you your "kill count". For cases where you did nothing, you did not kill anyone. The trolley did.

• smeej 4y ago
  This gets at what is, to me, an extremely important distinction between "killing" and "allowing to die." Death happens to everyone eventually. No way around that, at least not yet. The most I can do with a trolley switch is possibly affect the timing. It seems to me that any time I pull the lever to direct the train toward a person (as opposed to toward other trains or lobsters or money), I'm causing the death of whoever is on the other track to happen sooner. I'm killing them. But if I don't pull the lever, if I don't intervene, I'm allowing death, which was already coming, to come to whoever's on the original track. As a principle, the distinction between killing and allowing to die really starts to make itself felt when we're talking about the difference between, say, turning off a respirator to allow someone to die, versus actively euthanizing someone by administering medication to stop their heart, even though in this case, both involve an action. To me, those aren't the same act. There's no moral obligation to try to extend life as long as technologically possible. Death comes and that's OK. But there is an obligation not to cause death, and an obligation not to pursue it as its own end.
  • throwaway27727 4y ago
    I'd imagine that turning off someone's life support (respirator) is akin to killing them, but something like a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order would be allowing to die.
  • kitkat_new 4y ago
    > There's no moral obligation to try to extend life as long as technologically possible. For me there is, if there is something to save (i.e. not brain dead).
    • smeej 4y ago
      Even if someone isn't yet brain dead, if there's no hope of recovery and it's just going to be a long slog of supporting more and more organs artificially until either the brain gives up or we hit an organ we can't save, I have no problem with allowing death to come because we stop supporting at least one organ, without which the person cannot survive.
  • ant6n 4y ago
    It kind of depends on whether you are some innocent bystander, or some employee of the trolley system who is actually trained and certified to pull that lever to divert that trolley and tasked with minimizing the loss of life. Given that the way the problems are presented as if the decider is an innocent bystander, perhaps inaction is the most sensible choice.
• onionisafruit 4y ago
  It just says "kill count: 54" (my result). It doesn't say who is responsible for the killing.
  • dwd 4y ago
    Ultimately the mechanic who was responsible for maintaining the brakes, but you as the controller of the switch have an illusion of free will that causes you to act accordingly to your predetermined nature and upbringing.
• ASalazarMX 4y ago
  I think that's the beauty of the trolley problem: you decided who was going to die, because it was in your power to change the outcome. Some people will accept the moral responsibility, while others will say their inaction absolves them of legal responsibility.
  • llimos 4y ago
    It's two different things. Yes, it totally is a question about moral responsibility. But it's still not called "killing" by any reasonable definition of the word. It'd be fine if it said "death count" or even "you oversaw x deaths". But not "you killed" or "you caused x deaths", because you didn't.
    • ASalazarMX 4y ago
      I think it's a problem that invites our cultural biases more than we realize. If you see a baby falling from a second floor, and you can easily catch it but don't because you dislike babies, is the baby's death your fault? Different cultures would probably have different answers to this question.