Alright so you have two choices lets see your solutions

alright so you have two choices lets see your solutions

Multi track drifting

...

I would let the cart go straight and kill the group, opposed to killing the one. My reason being the world is over populated, plus fuck those twats.

Easy.
>Wait until the tram reaches the mid-point
>pull the leaver halfway.
>The tram gets stuck on the track.
>save everyone

solved

Shog of lit

Underrated

I guess the assumption is the 5 are random people and the 1 is someone I know?

Let it go straight, fuck do I care about them?

This.
Derail
OR be railed.

from a legal stand, doing nothing would be murder by negligence, but changing the tracks could be seen as attempted emergency relief.

Just call me Edgemeister Edge

Train flips and rolls across both tracks killing all 6, good job.

...

Head straight o kill.group and swing katana with left hand to kill the single one.

i think its that the 5 are gonna die without you, do you take the initiative and switch the track and kill the one dude. you would have an active hand in the guy's death

Log of shit

LOG OF SHIT!

Kill the 1 person to save the greater numbers

I've never understood this image.
It makes no sense, are people retarded?

You know how slow trolleys move? Once he flips the switch the train slows down even more on the turns giving him more than enough time to release the 1 guy on that side.

It´s easier now to decide

Dejavu?

Oh, that's a little different then I guess.

I'd still do nothing, in Murica' you'd get sued by the family of whoever died due to your actions.

...

Fuck you

...

...

hey don't do that

Not bad. I was wondering why no one was considering trying to stop the tram versus choosing which people to kill. Even without the political editorial.

What if you're blind and deaf? Murder by negligence because you couldn't see or hear where cart is going?

Underrated post

...

because Sup Forums is too edgy.

The dilemma is that you cant choose between human lifes and in the moment you make your decision its like you kill the others yourself. At least for most ethical ways of thinking.
In the US people would usually choose to save the four people since their ethical view is more influenced by utilitarianism. However in europe the ethical view is more based on Kant which would lead to the conclusion that you cannot choose for either side since you cannot judge on human lifes and most importantly you cannot choose to kill someone, even if you were to save a larger number of people by doing so.

...

...

...

Redirect the track half way so the car derails.

There is only one moral decision, it's the utilitarian decision.

In this situation it isn't possible to renounce your power over life and death. If you chose not to touch the lever and let "fate" decide, you are still responsible for the outcome becuase it was within your power to exercise control. You cannot renouce your power.

Kek its perfecto

no c'mon.. trap thread again?

underrated get

tbh, i would try to stop that train, i wouldnt know if the switch actually killed more people or if it did anything at all.

>takes 4 minutes to make a new scenario like this in paint


>Sup Forums still reposts old shit instead of making OC

Only John Mayer can stop this train

>murder by negligence


No it wouldn't. that's bullshit. Nobody knows what some lever is going to do. You're not even supposed to change tracks like that unless you are going at a low speed. He could derail and kill everyone around.

Honestly, most people would just walk the fuck away and if the police ask, what the fuck are they going to say? "Hey, why didn't you pull the lever?"

Simple, officer. I have no fucking idea what the lever does and I have nothing to do with that shit, I was just there. End of report. Thank you, goodbye.

Log of shit

kek

If I saw that shit about to happen, I would do what anyone with any fucking sense would do, and go try to untie whoever isn't roadkill already.

The lever is just some moral relativity bullshit. Nobody would ever pull the lever because there are too many variables at play.

If you want it to be a purely moral dilemma you need to change the situation into one where it's not some alien mechanics involved which most people would never even do in the first place.

This is a pretty underrated post, tbh, fam.

both decisions are wrong. thats the point of a dilemma.

Log of shit

...

This is supposed to be a moral dilemma, but in reality, it's a legal one. Touching the lever at all makes you responsible legally for someone's death, while doing nothing will clear you of any liability. that's how the law works.

The person responsible is whoever tied the people up, not some random bystander who literally can't do anything to stop a tragedy.

shit, you beat me to it, missed that

>Log of shit

Log of shit

log of shit

Are you religious? Why don't you just go ahead and convert to Catholicism and buy a bunch of blessed baubles and such protecting you from the supernatural?

Or hang a picture of immunity cat or whatever pseudo-deity in your house? Don't you feel like a fucking tool knee-jerking to every post like that?

Kek

>no immunities
so a carpenter won't save you

I came

He doesn't have to is my point. Some random picture has no power over me or you or anyone unless they will it to have power over them.

It's completely absurd to even give it a second thought, and it astounds me how many (dozens in some threads, several hundreds a day) people respond to those, religiously.

It honestly makes me wonder why they are like that. If they are superstitious or supernatural, have they no faith in their deity? It's just absurd.

give the opportunity to any user and they'll kill the majority

>both decisions are wrong. thats the point of a dilemma.

There are three possible decisions. All of them are "wrong". The question regards the least "worst" outcome. The utilitarian outcome is the least worst, with the limited information available.

You are assuming that the people on the rails contribute a net positive utility, which may not be the case. They could be convicted felons who, in the process of committing sadistic terrorist crimes were tied up on the rail.

There is no correct answer because unless you are God or somehow omniscient, you can not be certain of any aspect of the situation or what your actions will cause. The scenario is poorly written, and anyone in practice wouldn't even touch the lever, they would either leave or try to get someone untied - probably after the train already smashed one or more people because fuck getting in the way of a train.

>You are assuming that the people on the rails contribute a net positive utility,

No I'm not.

I have limited information: five people on one track, one on another. That's it.

>There is no correct answer because unless you are God

As I said, all three decisions are "wrong". As you said: "it's a dilema".

> The scenario is poorly written, and anyone in practice wouldn't even touch the lever

The lever is role is to switch the runnaway train. That much is clear.

That's just the easy answer, m8. Any child could figure that out. the real trick is to completely deconstruct the situation into its nearly infinite component parts to highlight the absurdity of the whole thing.

Most people who answer that they would pull the lever would likely do no such thing in reality. It's just the PC answer.

No.

The answer most people would give is based on the information they are given: the lives of five people verses the life of a single person.

With no information other than they are given, people would choose to sacrifice the one person.

If you introduce new information, it's a different dillema.

Help the guy on top, he helps me untie the other 5 or die trying.

What if the others are child rapists and murderers? Or the one guy is a hitler type?

So much kek

SAVE HITLER

New information, new dilemma.

What if the five are retards and the one knows the cure for cancer?

Fuck you little bitch

child rapists and murders or just murderers? what about just child rapists? Why do they always get grouped together?

what about murderers and democrats? Or child rapists and Wendy's chefs? Or child rapists and red light runners?

...

Yeah, but that is not realistic. You're just looking at it like an equation on paper.

It's nothing like that in real life is my point, and I am correct in the fact that people would choose differently in reality.

If you don't think so, then you aren't even thinking about it. You're just kneejerking with the obvious answer.

fuckin andy biersack

no /lit/ fag here, who can drop?

The answers most people would give have no foundation in reality and are the product of a fantastic situation.

The entire premise is bogus and 2 dimensional. Nobody in their right mind would do anything because doing anything would open them to severe criminal liability whereas not doing anything is par for the course.

The vast majority of people saying they would pull the lever and save 5 people would sit there and stare as they got smashed.

But is this not just "an equasion on paper?" give us more info. Change the variables. Otherwise the other user is right

> You're just looking at it like an equation on paper.

I'm looking at the information I'm given. I'm making no assumptions.

>It's nothing like that in real life is my point,

This is a hypothetical question.

> I am correct in the fact that people would choose differently in reality.

Where has this exact senario occurred in "reality"?

It is just on paper, and that's my point. It is nothing like reality where an infinite number of hazy variables are at play.

I didn't write the stupid scenario. If I did it would be something familiar with people, not some weird bullshit about pulling a suspicious lever.

>suspicious lever

The lever isn't suspicious. Shifting the lever shifts the rails and the direction of the train. This much is clear.

I didn't say it had ever occurred, buy my psychology professor indicated that in this scenario in particular, which is one of a set of classic "moral dilemma" scenarios, people would rather not do anything in practice.

This is contrasted by other scenarios where intervention will save one or more people with no ill effects, or choosing between several others and yourself.

People are far less likely to intervene when there are more variables at play, which in reality is all the fucking time.

im a fag

>people would rather not do anything in practice.

"Rather"?

Many people freeze in the face of a dilemma, this much is true. But, this isn't a "choice", it's a reflex action. It's out of their control.

This presents an interesting question about someone's power over the lever. If they lose power over their own bodies, temporarily, does this absolve them of their power over the lever?

If so, they no longer face the dilemma. They are unable to act.

I'll add that in the psychology scenario, you are a train engineer and it's your job to switch the track, which skips the whole "I don't have anything to do with this decision" excuse which 95% of people will default to.

People like you are the scum of the earth. Log of shit

no decision necessary

Why don't you just let it go? Why do you believe the words on your screen have any power over you?

Log of shit

...

Making a choice that kills people, even if it saves more, is a choice that people usually choose not to make at all.

When it's a clean little one sentence scenario though, everyone is going to try to pick the "right" answer, which is more a narcissistic aspect of each person wanting to "get it right" than any indication of their altruism, whatsoever.

A weapon to surpass metal gear.

Kek

>"I'll let you tie me up"

>Making a choice that kills people, even if it saves more, is a choice that people usually choose not to make at all.

Not true.

Many people are trained to deal with life and death situations and some have had to sacrifice a few individuals in order to save others.

>everyone is going to try to pick the "right" answer

There is no "right" answer, this is why it's a "dilemma". The "answer" is what will be the least worst outcome. Intuitively, most people will sacrifice one person to save many.

> than any indication of their altruism, whatsoever.

hahahahaha

Your mask has slipped...

log of shit

lol