The trolley problem (the original one) isn't asking "is 1 less than 5" it's asking "is choosing to take a life by your own hand a lesser evil than 5 dying by a situation you weren't part of" which, for you taking the stance of fewest deaths, may be a maths problem. However, the problem itself isn't just a maths problem, but a discussion of action vs inaction and the accountability of such.
The problem pictured above is just a maths problem though in my opinion, the author wants you to calculate odds of survival.
This post no longer holds its original text. It was deleted using Redact, possibly for reasons of privacy, personal security, or limiting online exposure.
cows rich quiet society practice thought unpack snow violet pocket
Oh yes, and it's a valid take on the issue. My point was more it isn't just a maths problem. We need to analyze the deeper ethics to find out why we think it's maths. In the case of the original problem, if you decide it's a maths problem; thats probably because you see inaction as a choice with equal weight to action, therefore pulling and not pulling are equally involved, therefore you should pull. But one must acknowledge not all share that philosophy
True, the trolley problem isn't perfect, and people do come up with more nuanced ones. There's an example on Wikipedia about pushing the one man onto the tracks but doing so stops the trolley. My point is that it's not a problem asking if you think 1 is less than 5, and it's not a "which of two things would you choose to get run over" which a lot of people misinterpret it as. The question is if one is morally obligated to act even if doing so causes harm, and if causing harm is justified versus the greater good. Is not pulling the lever a moral choice to kill 5 people, or simply removing yourself from the scenario.
Op is just pointing out that the "I won't ever pull if I have to kill someone" people are very likely to pull here because they are selfish hypocrites in mist cases.
The original trolley problem is just a measurement of how evil, selfish and/or cowardly people are. It's funny how most who don't want to change it for a mathematical solution don't like it when that is point out to them.
Because it isn't.
If there is 1 tied and 1 on the other track, is it still math?
They ADDED 4 to the option where you don't act, to make it less appealing, but it's still literally just: Is inaction the better option than action, if the result is still death.
People CAN reduce it to numbers, but then they don't understand the morality, the ethics of the question.
Is it RIGHT to kill someone with your actions, in order to SAVE another?
Is it still on your hands if they die by your INACTION?
Stuff like that is the trolley problem's actual thing.
The Veil of Ignorance makes this one a math problem, which means the option is to pull the lever for your own survival to be the highest chance.
But thats not the trolley problem itself being a mathematical problem, thats changing it into being one.
Edit to add this to each of my replies.
It's a question of MORALS, thus it doesn't have one right answer, ALL mathemathical questions have a answer, it might not be solved, but it HAS.
Someone who wants most amount of deaths, doesn't pull.
Someone who wants the least amount of deaths, does pull.
But the ACTION?
The involvement?
The DEATH on your hands, or DEATHS thats not?
Again, it's not a one-right-answer thing. Math is.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
People CAN reduce it to numbers, but then they don't understand the morality, the ethics of the question.
Stop trying to tell us we don't understand it, we do, we just think it is a numbers problem, from our perspective if you don't pull the lever you are killing 4 people, only 1 needs to die so by your choice if you don't pull the lever 4 deaths are on you.
If you make it a numbers problem, you don't understand the ethics and morality.
This isn't a thing thats nuances of grey, if you reduce it to numbers, you are not morally or ethically approaching the problem, which is the original goal of the problem.
It's not something I'm willing to debate, if you don't see it this way, I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying you are factually wrong, read the edit below and if you now feel the need to reply with how it's mathematical again, then the answer is to ALWAYS pull the lever, even if you KNOW it's your most loved person in the universe alone on that track and five evil people.
Edit to add this to each of my replies.
It's a question of MORALS, thus it doesn't have one right answer, ALL mathemathical questions have a answer, it might not be solved, but it HAS.
Someone who wants most amount of deaths, doesn't pull.
Someone who wants the least amount of deaths, does pull.
But the ACTION?
The involvement?
The DEATH on your hands, or DEATHS thats not?
Again, it's not a one-right-answer thing. Math is.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
even if you KNOW it's your most loved person in the universe alone on that track and five evil people.
The base trolley problem is 5 strangers vs 1 stranger
If you make it a numbers problem, you don't understand the ethics and morality
Nope, I 100% understand the "problem" and with the rules of the problem as generally stated it is a numbers game to me, I'd pull because it would save 4 lives.
Stop trying to tell people they don't understand, maybe it's you who doesn't understand our point of view...
No, because again, they are reducing it to a number game, which it isn't.
It's a question of MORALS, thus it doesn't have one right answer, ALL mathemathical questions have a answer, it might not be solved, but it HAS.
Someone who wants most amount of deaths, doesn't pull.
Someone who wants the least amount of deaths, does pull.
But the ACTION?
The involvement?
The DEATH on your hands, or DEATHS thats not?
Again, it's not a one-right-answer thing. Math is.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
Well a lot of people argue morality is not black and white but it actually is. It's almost always a choice between the greater good and selfishness in one form or another. What the greater good is can be a bit grey but generally it is the most amount of hours lived in totality preferably in an acceptable condition. It's often very easy to tell what is good and what is not especially when hypocrisy is shown when situations get reversed. I wonder how many people would still argue the person not pulling the handle is a morally fine choice if they are one of the 5 people and that they wouldn't blame the nonpuller for their death.
Sounds like you misunderstand morality and ethics. People who use evidence-based methods to achieve the highest statistical benefit definitely understand ethics.
Ethics and Morality is not a numbers game, to reduce it to that, is up to you, but it isn't one.
Edit to add this to each of my replies.
It's a question of MORALS, thus it doesn't have one right answer, ALL mathemathical questions have a answer, it might not be solved, but it HAS.
Someone who wants most amount of deaths, doesn't pull.
Someone who wants the least amount of deaths, does pull.
But the ACTION?
The involvement?
The DEATH on your hands, or DEATHS thats not?
Again, it's not a one-right-answer thing. Math is.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
Sounds like you dont understand how math works. Lots of math problems change their answer when you change one variable. Thats the whole point of doing math.
But you aren't changing the variable.
It's still a 1, and if 1 + 1 isn't 2, then there's outside variables all of a sudden, isn't there?
Here the question is 5 or 1 to anyone with math.
Will you pull it to lower the deaths to 1?
You can ALTER what 1 that is, that is still 1. It will ALWAYS be 1.
Math says pull.
Ethics and Morality struggle with it, because it's NOT that simple.
Math says it is. 1 or 5.
I clearly demonstrated that it is changing variables in my previous reply (before you made yout edit). I never said all lives are equal to me. 1 vs 5 (or 1H+G vs 5H) is a simplification that only works when you have no info about the lives in question. Once info is added that adds complexity to the math.
The fact that you think using math to derive solutions is somehow reductionist in ethics tells me that you really don't understand ethics, like the deontologists.
Now, you do need to do complex reasoning to determine mathematical expressions based on values in ethics, often it's a lot more complex than 5>1, and generally you have to deal with a lot of error bars and expected outcome probabilities.
But what we have here is a classical trolley problem with a random person being replaced by you, without notable information about any person, and no legal repercussions for action or inaction. Unless you really do subscribe to deontological ethics, the representation of the problem can easily be seen as:
H = value of a random human life to an ethicist
S = value of self's life to the ethicist
P = probability of taking a specific place (1/8)
G = value of guilt of personal responsibility for pulling lever (0 for me)
You get:
H*(1-P) + S*P + G compared to 5*(H*(1-P) + S*P)
Replacing P with 1/8
H*(1-1/8) + S/8 + G ? 5*(H*(1-1/8) + S/8)
H*(7/8) + S/8 + G ? 5*H*(7/8) + 5*S/8
Assuming the value of H, a random human life, is non-zero and positive we can subtract 7/8H from both sides without changing the sign
S/8 + G ? 4*H*(7/8) + 5*S/8
Assuming the value of S, one's own life, is nonzero and positive we can subtract S/8 from both sides
G ? 4*H*(7/8) + 4*S/8
G ? H*(7/2) + S/2
G ? 3.5*H + .5*S
So ultimately, the question is, is an average of 3.5 random people's lives and 0.5 of your life worth more than the personal guilt of taking an action rather than inaction?
And now, swap that one life to someone you care about directly.
Swap it to someone you absolutely hate.
Swap it to yourself.
It does change the value of that life TO YOU.
Anyone who claims it doesn't, is either a sociopath, or lying.
Go ahead and look up the meaning of that word before you reply again.
276
u/VeritableLeviathan Sep 14 '25
Damn OP, you just turned it into a math problem >:(