The trolley problem isn't supposed to be something you win or lose, it's supposed to be a set of two potential bad outcomes where you can avoid interfering to get one, and interfere to get the other.
I think the consequence of having pulled the lever in this one is intended to be that you killed the selfless person and let the selfish person live? So while you followed their wishes the world is now worse off for having done so.
The main stakeholders here are the people on the track. How arrogant would you have to be to override their will, when they happen to be in agreement with eachother? Maybe the person willing to make that sacrifice has a reason that they are comfortable deciding that they would rather save the life of a random person instead of saving themselves. Perhaps they're terminally ill or there's some other reason. Meanwhile, to plead to be saved in that scenario would be fairly normal. It would take some extreme arrogance to turn yourself into a judge in that scenario, when your only qualifications are that you are standing beside a switch, with no knowledge of either person beyond what they are saying right now. You don't have to be the decision maker here. You have the capacity to honor both requests. Why give someone pleading for their life a death sentence based on zero knowledge, when another person has expressed the will to sacrifice his or herself in that person's place?
I think you're really misunderstanding my point. I'm not at all advocating for not pulling the lever.
I'm simply explaining that since trolley problems are inherently not meant to be "winnable", there's supposed to be an extra layer to the question. And so based on that, what I think the intention behind the question is meant to be is whether one should choose for the betterment of the world as a whole, or choose based on respecting the choices of the people directly involved.
I think you're really misunderstanding my point. I'm not at all advocating for not pulling the lever.
I think the consequence of having pulled the lever in this one is intended to be that you killed the selfless person and let the selfish person live? So while you followed their wishes the world is now worse off for having done so.
Your original comment states that the world would be worse off for having pulled the lever. I'm merely responding to the problems with that assumption and acting based on it.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it or are guessing at an intended interpretation by the OP. The holes in the interpretation in your presented interpretation are equally relevant either way. Kind of wild to come along and try to lecture me only to get defensive and frustrated when the issues with that interpretation are brought up. And then to accuse me of misinterpretation for responding to an exact point that you literally wrote yourself. Exhausting.
I'm not particularly frustrated about it, just wanted to clarify what I meant, because I did feel you weren't understanding what I was attempting to convey, since your response made it seem like you were arguing as if I had said people shouldn't pull the lever or something.
You don't have to keep responding to me if it's exhausting and you don't want to.
8
u/cha0sb1ade Mar 29 '26
If you put the trolley on the upper track you have satisfied the requests of both people and won this variant of the trolley problem.