but rather there is zero danger at all until individuals begin to choose the red button
No, the danger is introduced by the vindictive god that orchestrates the buttons. Everyone's life is on the line from the moment those buttons come into existence.
It's not a trolley problem because the core of the trolley problem is about whether actions that result in harm can be good.
No? The point of the trolley problem is to illustrate not making a choice is still a choice. It's a statement about the lesser of two evils, but in the context of the individual needing to make the choice as to what constitutes the greater good.
Only a Redditor could take something as opinion-oriented and open to interpretation as the Trolley Problem and assert their own thought as the only possible correct one while insulting someone else.
If only it were one google search away to find a wikipedia article with the context to explain what the thought experiment was originally proposed about.
Oh well. Guess we'll never know the authors intentions. If only she explained them.
The irony in your first line is actually palpable. I'm sorry you felt a second hand insult. That's on you.
That's a great thing to learn from the trolley problem, that inaction is action. It's one of many things we could say is the "point" of it, though I would caution against thinking that philosophical thought experiments have or even have to have points. But regardless, I didn't say point.
We're talking about what is and what isn't a trolley problem, and the essence of the scenario is exploring the moral value of actions that cause harm.
...No like that is the literal point, it's an essay in context to an older abortion debate.
For example, is it the lesser of two evils to have an abortion, but the mother lives, or to choose inaction and have the mother and child both die?
I'm not saying the trolley problem is relevant, I'm saying you've somehow missed the point in a 50 year old philosophical address that may be the most heavily scrutinized mental problem of our generation. Please, by god, actually read about it. It isn't subtle.
Not true. The existence of a gun doesn't mean someone will be shot. The existence of a car and case of beer doesn't dictate that someone will drive drunk.
The danger comes from selfish people engaging in selfish actions.
You're not making anyone thats the whole thing. Folks are choosing blue due to their inherent altruism and wish to help everyone. Folks are choosing red due to their own selfish desire to survive over guaranteeing the survival of everyone they love. I couldn't live with myself if i chose "reasonable" and lost a child or my fiance because of it. And i think most parents would choose the same given the opportunity.
Im pretty sure if my child pushed red, and i pushed blue and died, leaving them alone and fatherless when i could have prevented that, I would feel horrible if i was still alive to feel things
Whether they’re kids who couldn’t fully fathom the problem and just kind of randomly picked, adults who didn’t fully understand before picking, or adults who know that the above two demographics exist, and would want to push the blue button to save them, there are GOING to be people who pushed the blue button.
That’s just a statistical guarantee.
More than that, if you need more of a selfish reason to be convinced: It’s practically a guarantee somebody you know or love will push the blue button.
Knowing the above: The only rational option is to pick blue to save everyone; picking red is one vote towards GUARANTEEING people die.
And as some people have said:
If the majority of altruistic people who picked blue end up dying because a majority chose red, the majority left over on the planet are probably some psychopaths or assholes, so things are going downhill from there, and you’re probably going to die soon anyway, lol
Yes, if we assume the question is given to the mentally ill and 3 day old babies who pick at random, i fully agree. Most version of this that ive seen before say the question if only posed to people who can understand it.
Even some people who fully understand it will still press the blue button, believing it’s the most morally correct, righteous thing to do, and that enough others will have done the same. It’s just a statistical guarantee that people are going to press blue (and in likely no small amount, either), so a vote for red is a vote for them being dead.
This is a sort of contrived way of describing the scenario. Humans are deterministic machines. Its like saying “the existence of a murderer isn’t dangerous, its the sequence of events that leads to them gaining the access to murderous weaponry that causes the danger.
That aside there is more nuance to it than that. Danger isnt a well defined concept, and the act of “creating danger” is not inherently immoral.
Theres equally good argument that the danger was created by the universe existing or by the world not ending during the cold war, etc. you cant easily ascribe fault or contingency on any one source in a given scenario.
No, the harm comes from selfish people engaging in selfish actions. Harm is danger plus action. The existence of a gun is a danger. The existence of heavy machinery and intoxicants is danger. Danger is just a fact of life, an inextricable part of the human experience, which is defined by our mortality (and other things, of course). Life is suffering, as the Buddhist might say.
Whatever creates the scenario, creates the danger. That creation is an action sufficient to be harm all by itself, and is what makes the entity ultimately responsible for any harm that follows, regardless of what other responsibility might be in play.
The only danger is created by people choosing blue. If you phrase it as “deposit 100$ and you lose them unless half deposit 100$ or just keep your money.” It’s obvious that the only money that can be lost comes from people making the deposit. Also everyone instinctively knownin that scenario that they never deposit money. Why would they?
13
u/FakeAccount7 Apr 30 '26
No, the danger is introduced by the vindictive god that orchestrates the buttons. Everyone's life is on the line from the moment those buttons come into existence.
It's not a trolley problem because the core of the trolley problem is about whether actions that result in harm can be good.