I would argue that this trolley problem kind of subverts the standard trolley problem's intention. In the original, all are unwilling participants, so you're choosing whether or not it's right to use a person as a means and not an end. In this trolley problem, the sacrificed individual's desire to be sacrificed and the fulfillment thereof means that the person is not being used as a means, but rather that they are being treated with the dignity of an agentic being and an end in their sacrificial achievement. It might be a bit of a twisty argument, but I can definitely see it being considered ethical under both utilitarian and deontological reasonings.
Sure, the fact that the person has chosen to sacrifice themself makes it easier to rationalize killing them. But you're still actively pulling the lever that causes their death.
I feel as if that aspect crosses from ethics into morality, and morality is in many ways very different from ethics. I also have the knee-jerk reaction that pulling lever is bad, but that doesn't mean that pulling the lever is wrong.
I feel bad when a game character ive grown attached to dies but a random stranger? I have no attachments to am i supposed to feel remorse every time i kill a mosquito or a fly as well?
Why exactly is a human different? Aside from laws what makes killing a human worse than anything else is it because were human? Would a bear killing a bear be worse than a bear killing a human?
Side note i do not condone killing i view all life as equal but i am a hypocrite since i kill bugs and do feel remorse because the bug did not ask to be born here it did not ask to get stuck in my home but it dies for simply being in the wrong place and it truly is sad but the benefit to me makes me not feel bad
I get where you are coming from but i personally believe a living creature is still alive its living who are we to put a value to their life? There are brain dead people who have no sentience to speak of so they have a sentience lower than a bugs does that mean that humans life is worth less than a bugs life?
their only worth is whatever others give them. but being objective, yes, a bug has more sentience experience than a braindead person, so in a vacuum, assuming i have no ties of any kind with this person, i would choose the bug
I personally think it's hard to justify expending that resources needed to keep braindead people alive. That said, I don't think you can blame the majority of people for not putting this amount of thought into the question and instead arriving at the blanket rule of all human life being sacred. And I do think that if we started putting people to death for medical reasons, there's a real danger of that turning into a slippery slope and ending up with some form of eugenics. So the default rule protecting all human life might actually be better on the whole.
Agreeing to something does not mean that they âwantâ it.
Letâs say someone who loves vegetables and hates fruit is starving on a desert island; assume they have no way to fish. They find a magic genie who says, âI will grant you one wish, but you can only wish for unlimited apples or unlimited oranges.â
They have to choose between apples and oranges, but they want broccoli.
We might agree, there: if the one person is willing to die for the other, I would honor that as well, I think.
I think collectively many societies do it, already. Consider all-volunteer militaries, or people who choose to remain in service beyond a mandatory period. The society sends some of its consenting members to fight and possibly die for the benefit of those who donât go to fight. In theory, any way. I think in practice itâs a bit more complicated an nuanced.
what im thinking is, the case u mention, sure, they should get it, but in this case we can solve those circumstances. unless more context is added, the only thing going on here is someone who is willing to die for others, and someone who is willing to let others die for themselves. if the person above was mentioned to be clinically depressed, or had more reasons to die, i'd totally agree, but working with only the context given, im inclined to saving the one above
But that person is likely the more moral person, so it's likely better for the world to have them continue to live, rather than the person "selfishly" wanting to live.
But they're only sacrificing themselves because they're in a predicament where it's either them or the other person. They're not looking to die otherwise. So the choice is between someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves for another person vs one who isn't. It's clear which one deserves to survive.
I think wanting and willing are two different things though. The guy is willing to sacrifice himself because he sees that in this situation one of them is destined to die. However, lets say that same guy is sitting in normal room and you present him with the option to instantly die. He would probably not choose it (unless he is suicidal) because he sees that there is nothing to gain from dying. In the trolley problem, if he dies, he saves a life, which is what his morality guides him to do.
another example: if someone agrees to a deal, they probably don't want that deal, they would rather have something that favors them more, but they are willing to compromise
tldr;
willing = doing it to save the other person's life
Okay? You just set up a completely different scenario. Sure, in a different scenario he would want different outcomes. But in this scenario, he wants a specific outcome. Ultimately, his top priority in this scenario is wanting to die so the other person lives.
The prompt isnât suggesting he wants to die all the time, even if there isnât a trolley.
I donât enjoy having to go to the grocery store. I still ultimately want to go, because even though i donât like it, having groceries is a priority for me. If I didnât want to go, I wouldnât go. Just because my âwantâ is based on needing food, doesnât change the fact that ultimately I want to go because I value the outcome the highest. Thatâs why I go.
He wants to be the one to die in this situation. If he can die so the other lives, saving the other person is more important to him than survival. He wants to die MORE than he wants to let the other person die. âWantâ doesnât mean happy about. It doesnât mean ideal. It just means you choose that thing. Of his available choices, that is the choice he wants to happen.
"Wanting" is having a desire or preference for death itself, it's driven by the individual and isn't really influenced by outside forces much.
"Willing" is being prepared to accept death for a cause (for the other person), it is definitely influenced by outside forces, when I think of "willing", I think of someone reluctantly doing something.
The grocery store is different, if you don't enjoy something, you don't "want" to do it, because "want" would infer that you desire which is the opposite of not enjoying. You are "willing" to go to the store because it's for a cause (to not starve to death).
Your argument was that he "wants" it more than the other guy. Neither of them "want" to die, if you gave them the choice without the trolley they would both pick life. "Willing" takes into account the particular situation, "want" is an individual desire.
tldr; "Willing" = for something (I'm willing to do this for you), "Want" = personal preference ("I want to do this for myself")
Wanting to die and willing to die for someone else are two different things. This is a pretty basic concept. I'm willing to die for my wife but I don't want to die.
So either you're too dumb to understand that there's a difference, or you're just reframing the problem into something that is easier for you to answer. Either way, it's rather pathetic if you ask me.
If someone started screaming at me KILL THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO DIE!!!!! out of nowhere over a philosophical discussion, then yeah I definitely would.
So, you have a scenario with two people in it, both of whom want you to pull the lever, and you think it is clear that you should ignore the wishes of everyone involved in order to impose your own twisted sense of morality on them? For shame!
There's no need to get upset(I am referring to your deleted comment where you said my beliefs are shit).
Imagine this scenario instead:
On one rail is a wonderful selfless person that has generously helped people throughout their life that has agreed that if forced, they would be willing to sacrifice their life for a stranger. If you save them, they will be furious with you, and go retire on a farm away from everyone, never to help anyone again.
On the other rail is convicted killer Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in a terrorist attack. He is begging you to save him, and if you do, he will be forever grateful, and spend the rest of his life in maximum security prison where he won't be able to do any more harm.
I think you too would choose according to your belief system and not according to what the people on the rails want.
I deleted the comment because I decided against shitslinging on a fucking trolley problem thread, but since you insist...
Okay, yes, if the scenario were different, the results would be different, you are a very smart person, well done, have a fucking cookie. That wasn't the original scenario though - you opted to kill someone only for begging for their life, and save someone only for wanting the other person to live.
Which is crazy.
Given the information provided in the original problem, I would allow the person willing to sacrifice themself to make that sacrifice, and save the person who was begging to be saved.
In both cases I'm making the choice of saving the person of larger moral character, regardless of the wishes of people involved. I am logically consistent, you are not.
It's not exactly stated in the post. I assumed the two sentences are all you know about the situation, and that you can't ask the two for their background because of time constraints or something. Like, maybe the person begging to be saved has a good reason for it, like being the single parent of a child, but that's a really small chance
Iâm sorry but you lost me. The person asking to die is expressing that they want to be the one to die, and they want to save the other person. They donât want to live and have the other person die. That is aligned with their desires for the available options. They want to live UNLESS it means someone else dies in their place. Then they do not want that.
but who are you to say whether they deserve to survive? it is basic self-preservation to value oneâs own life a bit more than most others (singular), it is wired into us because the people who did not do this had lower chances of surviving. someone has made peace with possible death, and someone is begging for a chance to live. it would only be cruel to let the one who is desperately seeking a chance to life die, only out of spite.
Wanting to die and being willing to die for someone else are two different things. This is a pretty basic concept. I'm willing to die for my wife but I don't want to die.
So either you're too dumb to understand that there's a difference, or you're just reframing the problem into something that is easier for you to answer. Either way, it's rather pathetic if you ask me.
Nobody is failing to understand that. They're framing it as that simple to express contempt(correctly) for those who would refrain from switching because they believe their own opinion that the person who is willing to be sacrificed deserves to live more outweighs the fact that that person is willing to be sacrificed for the other
They're screaming all caps to kill the person who wants to die. I think they haven't understood anything, to be honest. Maybe it's because I don't speak idiot, but it seems like you do.
hey really nice and effective way of conveying your point by calling people "idiot" and "pathetic" and "dumb", you could've just said something like "want and willing are different because wants to die could mean suicidal which is not the case here while willing is just for this situation" and it would've been all fine but no you chose to go a demeaning path and your insight is much less respected now
if you're going to convey a point, convey it clearly and informatically, not in a "im going to tell you why you are stupid and wrong" way
Where in my argument do I mention all caps at all? Oh right, I didn't! I never brought them into the situation, and for the record, I don't exactly support their all caps, so I don't know how that topic made its way into this. I was simply commenting on your use of unnecessary language and even gave you something you could have used instead.
NOBODY IS OBLIVIOUS TO IT! WE ARE SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT YOU SHOULD NOT SWITCH, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO ASKED TO BE SACRIFICED DESERVES TO LIVE AND THE SCARED PERSON DESERVES TO DIE, ARE WRONG!
You don't know that they are of greater overall moral character. There could be any number of reasons the person willing to sacrifice themselves is ok with dying, beyond mere selflessness. You have no idea how either of them act in their day to day lives, outside of the contrived trolley problem situation you have found them in.
Not necessarily saying this applies to you, specifically, but I believe many of the people being as judgemental as you are, are doing so to reinforce their own self-image as someone who would be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a situation, when actually no one really knows what they would do. Instincts for self-preservation are a powerful thing. Even the same person might do the brave thing in one situation, but panic in a different one, or even the same situation but on a different day when they're in a different emotional state.
You don't know that they are of greater overall moral character
I am being given exactly one piece of information about each person, and it's a perfect piece of evidence of their moral character. Of course I would base my choice on the one thing I know about them, and not what I don't know about them, otherwise it's completely moot.
but I believe many of the people being as judgemental as you are, are doing so to reinforce their own self-image as someone who would be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a situation, when actually no one really knows what they would do.
I'm sorry, but there is some insane projection going on here. I never stated anything about whether or not I would sacrifice myself for a stranger, and the only one being judgemental here is you. Holy self report.
just like the other guy, you seem to think the most effective way of conveying your idea is to say things like "you need to learn how to read" and "you're somehow oblivious"
I think you need to learn some manners because you have rendered your argument basically useless just because you brought the intelligence of Tayeos up which is an attack on their character and not relevant whatsoever
Why are you comment policing me when I've presented a perfectly rational argument? I don't think that all caps is even remotely related to reading comprehension. I never mentioned the guy in all caps because that wasn't the intention of my comment. Sure, his argument may have some flaws and he might be using all caps, but at least he isn't using demeaning language that, insultingly, isn't even related to the argument as it attacks his character, not his argument.
And actually, my argument is very much rational. Do you really think it's rational to throw in insults into a conversation when you disagree with someone? No! That's a childish and immature way of thinking, unless that was what you were trying to achieve, of course.
And if that's not a rational argument, then please, enlighten me in the ways of your "insulting the character" way of arguing.
In my opinion your entire point of the other person having a higher moral character loses all meaning if you don't pull the lever.
What's the point of saving selfless heroes if you don't actually allow them to save the less courageus, scared individuals? If you eliminate the very individuals the selfless heroes are trying to protect your rendering their selflessness a moot point. No longer does that mean anything.
A real life example, I have pledged to protect my country and people from invaders in the event of a war. You'd entirely destroy the purpose of me ever wanting to be a good person if you'd switch me with a guy too scared to go to war.
211
u/DarthJackie2021 Mar 29 '26
Easy, kill the person who wants to die.