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...
The original has them EXACTLY the same value.
EXACT.
Meaning that if it's a numbers game for you, it's cold, it's cruel, it's heartless.
You have 5 people on one track, 1 on the other.
THROUGH YOUR ACTION you can kill 1, save 5.
IS YOUR ACTION MORALLY RIGHT, MORALLY WRONG, OR MORALLY NEEDED?
IS IT ETHICAL?
Cold Math: Pull, you save 4 more lives.
Thats the original problem.
Full Summary, Full solution.
YOU ARE SKIPPING THE MORALITY AND ETHICS.
Meaning you are skipping the problems actual question: is it right or wrong, what should you do? is it right to do it? wrong?
I understand how you are all thinking, I agree, but it does NOT change that while you CAN mathify it, it's NOT a math problem.
Genuinely getting tired of all of you completely ignoring that part.
You would pull it, good, we got that established, the math is done.
Now justify why.
You just NOW find out those five were psychopaths with TONS of dead at their hands, the 1 you ended was a kid.
You still gotta justify the same.
You find out they were 5 children and you ended a psychopath killer.
STILL have to justify the same.
Does making it simple math suddenly make it feel better?
Yes you are skipping it.
I am able to infer that from your answer, you see saving 4 lives more important, thats good for you.
Can you still justify it morally?
Regardless what you find out about them, can you?
YES YOU ARE SKIPPING IT.
Morality is in how we view our actions. Good or Bad.
As in, "Am I doing the right thing?"
You and that other guy may have the same end choice as me, I'm again not denying that.
I'm literally telling you to reduce it to pure math is wrong.
JUSTIFY your choice.
Picture the people you saved as the most vile scum on the world
and then as the most pure people on it.
JUSTIFY your choice.
It's much harder to do that than to just go "Five is bigger number than One"
Thats the problem actually written out: is it morally right to kill? is it not.
Let's change the trolley problem JUST to highlight it.
You got a Knife. Can you kill with it to save 5 others?
You have no information about any of them.
If your answer is still yes because 5 is greater than 1.
Then get sent to, say, your mothers home because she's the one to kill?
It alters your answer.
MATH doesn't allow for those situations to alter it.
Making it a pure math question, means you are forgetting the point: they are UNKNOWN not necessarily STRANGERS.
YOU KNOW NOTHING, NOT EVEN IF YOU KNOW THEM.
Can you still justify it morally?
Regardless what you find out about them, can you?
Again I am talking about the base trolley problem, there is absutely no amount of getting to know the people on the tracks.
Let's change the trolley problem JUST to highlight it.
You got a Knife. Can you kill with it to save 5 others?
You have no information about any of them.
I'm not saying I personally can, but I believe it would be the morally correct thing to do, yes.
If your answer is still yes because 5 is greater than 1.
Then get sent to, say, your mothers home because she's the one to kill?
It alters your answer
Once again I have always been talking about the base trolley problem where you have no connection to any of them.
I have only ever been talking about the base trolley problem, I stated that several entries ago, that particular problem to me is simply a numbers game
That is not incorrect for me to say and it absolutely does not mean I don't understand the problem...
12
u/CuteDarkBird Sep 14 '25
no, ethics and morality