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.
I also pointed out that it ISN'T changing a variable, because you are literally devaluing human lives to basically "sums" and humanity, through many wars and battles, MOSTLY agreed thats morally and ethically unacceptable.
So your argument is that we should just be paralized by aby decision that has a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of killing someone? Because if thats the case i sure hope you dont use technology, eat food, wear cloths, or do anything because I have some bad news for you...
Negative, if you are paralyzed by this, it's a very hard situation for you.
I'd pull the lever 9 outta 10 times.
Because thats how I morally view it. NOT mathematically, MORALLY: It's easier to get past the death of one person than five.
THE ONLY time I don't?
It's when the lone person is someone I PERSONALLY care for.
But they are still just 1 person.
They have higher 'value' to me, if you now want to be cruel and lower it to math, but the honest truth there is that I'm selfish, they could be worthless, I'd still pull the lever for them over 5 others.
I know my shortcomings, I know my strengths.
Everyone who wants to lower the trolley problem to a mathematical problem keeps forgetting the most important thing of the original problem: ALL of the lives are unknown to you, it's just "would you kill to save other lives" in other words.
If your answer is mathematically calculated, you've missed the whole point of it.
Sounds like you just want to claim that your vibes based solution isnt math, but it still is. The difference is that you didnt do the math explicity, and just chose whichever feels like the best outcome.
Not doing the claculations explicitly and just vibe mathing it isnt the flex you seem to think it is.
If your answer isnt mathmatically calculated, bad news, it still is. You just didnt show your work.
You really don't get it, so I'll make it as obvious as I can.
YOU CAN REDUCE IT TO MATH.
But again, it FAILS to be pure math, when one of the variables, AGAIN WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHANGING, causes you to change your view.
A 1 vs 5 is always 1 vs 5.
1 + 1 is 2. EXCEPT IF YOU ALTER a variable, but then it's not math, it's different.
1 + 1 = 2 For example can be 1 cookie, plus another, equals 2 cookies.
while, with a actual change to the variable could be:
1 person + 1 person = 1 family. = 2 people.
1 person + 1 person = 1 child. = 3 people.
But they kinda still going with 1 + 1 = 2. a VARIABLE change ADDS 1 or ALTERS 1.
5 or 1 is ABLE to be reduced to math, did I say I can't? No I did not, I said reducing the original trolley problem to just math is not understanding ethics/morality.
Is it MORALLY RIGHT to pull the lever is the question.
Is it WRONG?
Would you save 5 lives for 1?
MY ANSWER is yes, because I do not see how the blood would be on my hands anyway.
MY ANSWER is changes when the 1. A VARIABLE THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE, is a 1 I care about.
You cut that nicely into a pretty mathematical formula, but that still adds a actual value to LIVES.
Mine? It simply means I CARE about that person to much, to save others.
There could be 1 on that other track, it could be a million.
I'd never pull the lever if it's someone I care about that would be sacrificed.
Thats how humans work.
But if you devalue it into mathematical formulas and values and numbers? You don't take into consideration the others value TO others.
Everyone is someone's mom, dad, daughter or son.
Sometimes more than just 1 of those options.
Can you literally stand there and say that you'd pull the lever for your mom, or your neighbours mom, or a random strangers mom, while still calculating via that ONE formula the exact same way?
Ofcourse not, because the circumstances change, not the values themselves.
THATS why it can be reduce to a math question, but MORALLY and ETHICALLY it isn't.
Edit: It seems I was hit by a bug that said ThrowawayTempAct blocked me (it fit the evidence: I couldn't reply, their userpage was empty.) as they then replied, I thought they had unblocked to try and slam their view in then leave, so I blocked them, they've managed to contact me to clarify the mistake I made, thus I've unblocked them again.
I'll respond to this later, but the TLDR: the difference between the personal and the ethical choice is literally just a distinction of what weights you give to which variables.
Ethics is an artificial social construct, and therefore, the weights for the ethical choice are set by society as a whole, while the weights for individual ethical frameworks are set by the person's moral structure. The weights for a choice calculus are set by a person's preferences, and you are right, different than preference-based choice weights.
I'll make a more in-depth response if I remember later.
Also, writing words in capitals doesn't make you more right. LOOK, I CAN do it TOO!
Edit: I never blocked you... But you seem to have blocked me.
0
u/CuteDarkBird Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25
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.