the trolley problem is easy, actually
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ม.ค. 2024
- Philosophers and academics think they released the most confusing thought experiment out to the world. Little did they know, it was multiple choice.
It's one of the coolest problems in psychology, philosophy, and even ethics.
*disclaimer: not a philosopher, yes i know the answer depends on the person
Also: part D) the fat villain -- what if the guy standing on the bridge was the one who put the victims on the track in the first place? What if meant to set up the whole disaster? Would you push him off?
Answer: obviously lol
the new community tab: / discord
Nice to see you here
Part D) the fat villain -- what if the guy you wanted to push off the bridge was the one who set up the victims on the track in the first place? What if meant to set up the whole disaster? Would you push him off?
Answer: obviously, too easy
ofcourse duh
If he does look significantly weaker than me yes 🎉
Your comment isn’t pinned yet btw
As long as i’m not going to jail or something
imagine trying to push the fat guy of the bridge but you fail cause youre too weak. and then ur gonna explain the situation to him while the train just killed 5
If the man is heavy enough to stop the trolley, you couldn't push him off the bridge anyway. That's the real reason to say no. There is no point.
This is actually so reasonable it's scary
my first thought
IKR
PLUS if you try to push him and do not succeed in doing so, more than likely you will be sitting next to the five people pretty soon lol
@2a-le6lrThen you show it a video from easy, actually on being smart
I’d switch it once, to bait them, and then I would switch it back
MULTITRACK DRIFTIIIIIIIIIIING
Ayooo😅😅😅
We do a lil trolling
Troll ey problem officer?
@@moshroomm trolleying*
"Well, obviously the dilemma is clear. How do you kill all six people?"
drift the trolley
the good place?
@@bobsquaredme The Good Place
Google "multitrack drifting meme" to get the answer.
obviously you let the train hit the 5 first then hit the switch and wait for the next train. reason for hitting the 5 first is there is a chance unforeseen circumstances might prevent the 2nd colission so you should prioritize the highest bodycount in the beginning
This is the most elaborate Kissinger dead joke i have encountered so far.
Yeah, I LOST IT at the end there.
Now I see where it's going!
Everyone was so proud of their video edits of grave raves, they should be ashamed. Low effort. This, this is glorious
How in the world did Henry Alfred Kissinger manage to get a Nobel Peace Prize though?! He's one of history's greatest monsters... next to that one painter with the toothbrush mustache, and the guy who invented commercials where people talk to each other.
“Justifying murder is easy, actually”
deep
The opposite actually. Leaving it up to determinism and fairness
@@janfkarel92 wdym
@@goldy6772 to not appoint random people to sacrifice their lives for others when they are not involved
Welp then it's not murder if it's justifiable
The one with the organ transplants doesn't even make sense. If the 5 people are all missing a different organ, then why would they cut open the one healthy guy? If 1 person is gonna be sacrificed, why wouldn't they use one of the 5 to give those organs to the other 4?
This is one of the biggest plot holes in the problem and I think the people who proposed the problem weasled out of that by saying the 5 people wouldn't be compatible with each other, but the new healthy person is compatible with all of them somehow
@@easyactually you legit grew giant with three videos. Proud of you man. Just waiting for your "how not to be a dumbass" video. Someday a stickperson will give me that wisdom
@@oddabandonI look forward to that video also. Because being smart doesn't make you not a dumbass
that argument matters irl, but not in the thought experiment
Im not a doctor, but I am sure there could be circumstances causing this. For example some organs probalby need to be of a certain size - you cant give a kids heart to an adult - while for other operations you only need a part of a liver or something, so probably you can give a childs liver part or whatever to an adult.
Mabey all the patients have only one kidney and two of them need a new one - sacrificing one patient only yields one kidney, helping only one of the needing. The healthy guy has two kidneys, saving both.
You see, they just simplified the question, all the details to make it be logical probably exist, but are not relevant to the problem, so why make it complicated?
IRL trolley operator here!
(a) I'd hold the lever at the halfway point, since that would derail the trolley in a relatively gentle manner, stopping it before it hits anyone. The passengers get a few bumps and bruises, and everyone lives.
(b) If he's fat enough to stop a trolley (25 tons?), I won't be able to push him off the bridge no matter how hard I try.
(f) Who installed a derailment catapult in the track? Was it the same guy who tied the 5 people to the track?
Holding the lever at the halfway point is a great choice even if it we are not sure that it will derail the trolley. The other two positions are sure to lead to a bad outcome, so let's choose the only action that gives a chance of success.
@@erintyres3609 so you derail it then it rolls over on you, great plan yall, use your brain
(a) Derailing the train was not one of the two specific actions so, while you were trying to hold it in the middle, either 1 or 5 will die.
(b) It states that the fat man CAN be pushed off the bridge and that doing so WILL stop the train
@@Kyrelel I suppose OP's point was that the problem itself is clearly impractical because practically, someone whose body has the mass to stop an entire train probably couldn't be moved by some puny human, and practically, it's apparently possible to gently derail a trolley, and it's the problem which impractically assumes it isn't.
I think the trolley in the problem has no passengers anyway
Honestly I would have said no to every one of these cause I wouldn't wanna get involved in any of that
Also a very common solution to the problem. By touching the lever you've taken accountability for what happens. By doing nothing you have no part in the catastrophe that occurs. I wouldn't say refusing to get involved when you could save lives is the moral answer, but it's a common thought process.
@@nyanSynxPHOENIX I wouldn't change the switch since in reality you just won't have the information.
f.e.
What if the one guy actually checked the switch position to make sure it was safe for him, while the others didn't check the switch
What if the 5 people actually want to die and that's why they are on the track?
What if the 5 people aren't tied well to the track or there is someone else there helping, so they would escape while the one guy can't escape?
...
@@Robbedem According to the thought experiment, you know for sure what will happen with both outcomes though.
Then assume you're a juror judging someone who did pull the lever. Do you vote to convict or aquit knowing the circumstances?
@@BitcoinMotorist I love this version actually because it removes the ambiguity of what will happen next. I'm actually really interested in how differently people would react to other people's choices after the fact in comparison to their own decision at the moment. More of a test of empathy than morality maybe though.
The problem with this problem is that it can't really be tested in real life. However, it actually was tested once by Micahel Stevens in his series Mindfield. I think it's a TH-cam exclusive so it might not be available to everyone.
They conducted the test with a University board approval, and with psychologists to screen candidates filtering those who may have severe trauma after deciding that one person or five should die. The setup, long story short, they were for a moment in an office where a man will remotely control the rail change in a working site. The workers can move, but they were wearing ear protective gear and a train approached. After the man had to leave the office for a moment, the unknowing participants were put on the situation. The train looked real, but it was CGI. Most people froze. And those who didn't had real dilemas as they were saving lives, but they were also condemnign a family to live without the loved one.
Those who freezed had many reasons why. Most of them, pointed out by you.
So the second question does not assume that you were lying in the first. The second question makes you think twice and deeper about your easy "Yes" at first.
That video was really entertaining and it made me think, cause I feel like many people didn't pull the switch cause they were also scared of messing something up even though the conductor taught them how to use the switch before hand
@@easyactually Yeah I might have froze too and another thing on the surgeon one what if the "healthy" guy was in a coma/brain death and had only 50% chance to wake up or even one percent. Then what do you do (assuming the doctor had "some" experience with killing for saving to also eliminate the chance of freezing)
the people shown in that video were of the type that would act they way they did
which might be the majority of people
Trolley problem became pratical in era of driverless cars.
That series used to be on youtube premium but it's free to watch in his channel Vsauce now. It's an amazing series. I watched it when it came out on youtube red. I would recommend it to anyone. I'm watching it again with my 8yo nephew and he loves it.
The trolley problem is only a problem if you believe saving more people to be a good thing.
Sychopaths be like :
for real
This 😂
Which everyone does, so...
@freshrockpapa-e7799 I dont think you don't understand if you had to kill some people to save a lot of people you probably wouldn't. Because you're not a cold logical thinking psychopath presumably.
The trolley problem always stumped me. No matter how many ways I thought about it, I never could figure out how to hit both the group and the solitary guy with the same locomotive.
MULTI TRACK DRIFTING!
If the trolley only has front and rear axles, switch the track once the front wheels of the trolley pass over the pivoting rail, but before the rear wheels do.
The difference in answers is basically whether the "sacrifice" is a necessity or a byproduct of saving the other lives. Basically, if the 1 person wasn't there, could you do the same thing and save the 5 people?
In the case of levers, yeah, you could just push the lever and nobody would die, but in the fat man and organ variations, you cannot save them without the "sacrifice" being present.
Oh I actually like your explanation a lot
That explanation makes a lot of sense.
3:43
"He kind of had it coming" lol 😂
You don't need math if you know that half of these are illegal
You need math to know what half is.
I think nearly all of them...
So then it's a matter of what is best for you vs what is best for other people and whether you care (enough), correct?
using law as a basis for ethics and morality is absolutely wild
is there any relationship between legality and morality?
flick the switch = you murdered someone, dont flick = train accident
yeah but you could have still saved more people
Doing nothing in this situation is also a crime, at least in my country
@@net6406 I'm pretty sure touching anything related to the train going somewhere else would be a crime. Imagine no one was on either track, and you flipped the switch for no reason, that is illegal. So, you couldn't be arrested for doing nothing because flipping the switch would be illegal in the first place. You not a fn train conductor. That would be my closing argument to a jury. Pretty sure I'm not going to jail.
I think you need to learn about CONSEQUENTIALISM.
@@niceguyeddie5036 what if I flipped the witch and it didn't work or made the problem worse. Because I'm not qualified to know if flipping that switch is good or bad, I could argue that I should leave it alone.
As an academic I can comfortably say that the question becomes way easier when you use a train instead of a trolley.
haha how funny😂
with a train it'll either keep flying forward at that speed, or derail completely lol
@@TruffulaTrees If you derail the trolley the train cant run over people in the tracks
@@mobgabriel1767 exactly
@@mobgabriel1767but by derailing the train you could potentially kill even more people including the conductor and whoever else may be on that train
Short answer - you can't do math with lives. Work out what you believe and do your best in the moment.
What if I believe math?
You can, it is called Utilitarianism
@@Schabulla Exactly, and when its just 5 theoretical random lives vs one random life it is moronic to argue against a objective right answer.
@@marlonjormungand7845 it isn't because pulling the lever makes you a murderer
@@thedisintegradorof one person. Not pulling it makes me the murderer of 5.
There's a solid legal answer to the problem as well. Most states in the US do not require you to actually save a person, strike for some special relationships like teacher/student doctor/patient etc. or if the danger is due to your own actions. So that being said if you let the 5 people die you are not obligated to save them. If you pull the switch you are obligated to save that 1 person you just put in danger yourself, even though you just saved the other 5. Now in case you did pull the lever you do of course have the right to a jury trial in which case you'll very likely be excused because most people do believe in the lesser evil/greater good thing. But if you don't touch anything and walk away you wouldn't have to stand trial to begin with because you didn't commit a crime.
i said no to all of them because its a skill issue from your side if u get stuck in a railway and are about to be hit by an train
this. also if i pull the lever i can be accused of murder while if don't do anything it just ain't my problem
@@soph5976 Yup, it aint my responsibility to save people about to die in a railway because i didnt put them there
if i saw this happen in real life i would just be confused and not even notice the switch
@@poonalex8008 Fr same
In real life the switch would probably have a padlock on it anyway because railroad security.
I would not pull the lever in the original trolley problem because the trolley has places to go, and I wouldn't want them to get sidetracked. I don't know why nobody ever considers this.
The train crashing into the fat man might kill more people on the train. Why does nobody ever care about the people on the train?
Because people are only thinking about what the trolley problem is supposed to be about: 1 or 5 kills ?
Thus you're right, in a real situation you would have to consider this, but here the trolley is just seen as a mean to kill more than an actual trolley with passengers in it.
Hopes it answers you question!
@@shibfrite9038good
because it wont, thats not part of the problem
thats like assuming that baseball players cant delay a game, and must cancel it instead
You do realize that the train will be delayed whether you pull it or not? Trains usually stop when they run over five people. I mean, you can’t just drive away from a car accident you caused, same with trains.
tying all of this in with Kissinger at the end made me laugh so hard. Earned a sub and look forward for more great videos brother.
3rd video and already a home run?! Kudos and thanks
This is such a phenomenal video man , you 100% deserve all the subs
Man keep up the quality videos. Get this man some subscribers! They are well deserved already, I’m just proud to say I’m here to witness the start of something great
6 minutes of nonsense to get to a poor joke :/
my answer is basically no to all of them since i wouldnt want to live in a society where i can be sacrificed for someone elses benefit. like if you wouldn't want to be killed to save someone random, then that other person probably feels the same
yeahh, agree. this is the same as asking: would you kill millions to save billions lives?
You seem afraid of responsibility. 🤗
@@marlonjormungand7845 That emoji was placed there for a reason and it's doing its purpose. Annoying ashshyt
@@marlonjormungand7845 sacrifice isnt responsibility you punk.
But you are sacrificable?
Very interesting video and thought processes! Comes relatively close to how I think about the problem, I always pictured this as "what would I do / what would happen IRL?".
Also I like your sense of humor!
Instant sub! I love your style of content, and have high expectations. Keep it up!
glad to be a veteran of this channel BAHAAHAH, love the dry humor and editing style and everything like GO ON MY MAN GO FORTH
Really love the quality of your videos, and it shows how much time you put into them! Keep it up!
This channel is so underrated, I'm so glad i stumbled across this.
I love how this video gets ironically deep and dark, ending by throwning an entire train (of thought) onto the US leaked dark secrets
the main thing I would say is that besides the basic question, the dat villain and the loop question all of them come back to the "fair game point" that was made. When you have a shitty scenario were you only get to control how many people will die then its the best the minimaze death. But in the other they all are cases were you actively choose to kill someone that has nothing to do with the situation so other people can live, yes its "less deaths" but its not the same, because its not fair for that unralated person to die so someone else can be saved, while in the first one everybody is already in a unfair situation
The fair game point is dumb af, it's not like the people chose to be put on the train tracks
@@majorbajor but theyll be aware that if the get killed is to save someone who is right there
@@majorbajor The 5 people didn't choose to be on the track, but they're already in danger. By pushing the fat person onto the track, you're putting someone innocent/unrelated from safety into danger, hence it's more unfair to the fat individual than a single person on the track, making the person/people on the track fair(er) game.
Ofc, whether that fairness should outweigh x lives is another question. Perhaps it wouldn't be fair to push the fat person if it were only 1 person on the track, but does that justify 5 deaths? How many people need to be on the track before people would push an innocent fat person to stop the train? Framed this way, I think people might reconsider what's moral (or maybe not, idk how people think).
@@jackychen7769 the one person on the other track is not in danger because the trolley isn't going down that track. The only danger they're in is the danger that you pull the switch. Just like it's "dangerous" to stand on a bridge near the railing because someone can push you down.
@@jackychen7769 the difference I can admit to is that the person on the tracks is probably more afraid than the man on the bridge, which is probably what your point is. The implication would be that killing someone who is afraid/expects they might die is more moral than killing someone who doesn't expect to die. But it also implies that when you expect to die you become less worth saving and your worth as a human being diminishes, which I find a pretty strange idea.
Best channel I saw for this month, thanks for making my day
This is amazing, wishing you the best of luck on your content endevours
it is truly amazing
The Kessenger joke at the end earned you a big like my man
switch it so that the train derails
the diverter takes time to move
YES
The one proper answer without other specifications.
Then it rolls on you great plan 🤦
@@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman this idiot -.-
switches for trains are never in front of them.
If the trolley problem actually existed, I would just run away
That's why the answer to "Would you actually" is a no. In reality, I probably would want nothing to do with it too.
@@KillFrenzy96From an ethical point of view that doesn't make sense. In a theoretical sense flick the switch, you save 5 people at the cost of 1. Don't flick the switch/run away/not touch the switch you lose 5 people, save 1 and probably blame youself for the deaths.
lol I was thinking the same thing
@@egecandir7967 it isn’t but we would just get scared and have a freeze, fight, or flight reaction. And most people would freeze of flight/run away from the situation
Same
0:37 I don't think that's the original... LOL
The intuitive difference that people have between scenarios is dignity. In the 1st cast, the one who dies is a secondary effect of the the decisions to save the others. We would still act the same whether that one person is there or not and would prefer he wasn't. In the case of the fat man and the organ donor, we are using a human being as a means to an end, we need that person, but don't want to ask for his input or consent. Most people (at least in the West) are emotionally repulsed on an intuitive level by the idea of using a person as a means to an end, especially if it involve the use of their body. People who say Kant wouldn't pull the lever in the first scenario don't quite understand the categorical imperative.
A caveat though is that the answers people give might be different in cultures where the idea of individual dignity and autonomy is not as widely known or accepted, ex) North Korea.
You totally have th Grail. There's a huge difference between having to sacrifice someone in orrder to save more and reducing the life of others' to a tool.
You are going places my man! 2 videos, only 4 days on this channel and.... already 1.56k! congrats!
Dude I’m loving the direction of your channel. I think the last two videos have been some of the best stuff you’ve ever put out on here!
totally agree with this!
If you shift the tracks at the right time you can derail the trolley, so you can easily dispose of everyone on the trolley too
You shouldn't be thinking if you would push the fat man or not you should be running away 💀💀💀 the bridge is about to collapse with that much weight 💀💀💀
Wait, you only have two videos!? Make more, they are informative and hilarious.
I think about the trolley problem all the time lmaoo, thank you for this video!
This is by far the most simplistic and intelectual analysis of the trolley problem I have ever seen. Also, the irony at the end and the reference to Kissenger, hats to you!
It's also wrong.
I would never choose to do anything. Cuz it's not my business. If I mess up, which is more likely, I don't want to blamed for something I wasn't engaged with in first place. That doesn't mean I would be okay to know one person died afterall. It's just not my job to pull rail switches.
I wouldn't blame you if you pulled that lever or not.
Two ways of going about this as far as I can tell. The first is simply doing math to maximize life saved. The second, and my preferred, is to save life without impeding upon the freedom of choice of others. I would pull the lever to divert the trolley because the victims are already tied to the track, and so I'm not robbing someone of their autonomy while trying to save lives. They by some means ended up without the ability to choose for themselves already, and have no choice in the matter now, so I may as well do the best I can in a bad situation. The sleeping guy, on the other hand, simply chose to sleep in his yard, and involving him would be wrong because only bad luck put him near the situation. And obviously, don't commit murder and push any onlookers infront of a trolley, regardless of size or physics. Basically I will always preserve free will. That means that I can only save someone if it doesn't take away someone else's free will.
This is a smart and well thought out answer
Wouldn't diverting it impeded the free will of the one guy on the other track, though?
@@debrachambers1304 No. He is tied to the track, very likely by someone else. His free will and those of the other five have unfortunately been taken away. They're all completely in your hands in this scenario, since they didn't choose to be there and can't choose to leave. Interestingly, if they were all simply on the track of their own will, and didn't know the train was coming for some reason, I don't think I would divert the train.
In order to be objective in ethics all actions must be separated thus you pulling the lever is still murder which is objectively immoral even if you saved lives and its not self defense or defense of others as the one who dies is not forcing you to pull the lever or threatening you. In order to remain morally null you must never pull the lever. In order to be acting morally you would have to save people without others dying or being harmed by pulling it. No disrespect meant simply pointing out how objective moral equations work.
@@Mornings I don't think being objective necessarily means thinking about actions instead of consequences, I don't accept that line of logic.
Kissinger joke made me lough out loud. Man, you are on fire. Keep doing what you doing
I think the answer is simple.
Pulling the lever: Murderer
Not pulling the lever: Bystander
Failing to act in a stressful situation is not the same as willful inaction. It's only a war crime when you've had time to decide what you feel is right (and since society would have decided that what you think is right isn't right, you'll be punished).
People act in self preservation before following their morals. In this situation, I wouldn't act. However, the ethical choice is to pull the lever.
(It's ethically correct because there is a greater probability that 5 saved lives will put out more good back into the world than 1, decade the chance of that one doing enough good to outweigh the rest (like becoming a Nobel Peace Prize Winner) is slim to none. Realistically, you would know nothing about these people. No one can argue "But this one person is Gandhi" or whatever because ethics is determined by perceived outcome and not actual. Because you only have so much time to act and you cannot be accused of making the wrong choice when you don't know any better.)
Modifying the problem is not solving the problem.
The law also considers extenuating circumstances, so none of these would actually land you in any trouble.
The problem series is designed to record ethical standards within a group and if/how it changes over time.
Today, many of the answers given are different to those given when the test was first released and, not surprisingly, the greatest variance from the "accepted ethical standard" is in North America
Much harder problem: how not to be cyberbullied for whatever choice you made.
6:36
Take the medal and run 😂
bruh ur gonna blow up. i predict it. good content and u got the algorithm by the balls.
The Henry Kissenger reference was so spot on!
The final joke💀 i love everything about this channel 😂
Caseoh would be big enough to stop a train
These unrealistic simplistic academic exercises are devoid of the complexities of the real world.
Ever heard of "hypothetical scenario"?
And that's why they're fun to talk about
That’s the point. We’re isolating the morally relevant features of the cases
They actually assume a moral standard which higher academics in general reject.
that’s exactly the point of philosophy. if you can isolate variables, you can find the truth.
"i'd say the question itself is flawed."
- sensei (blue archive)
Apart from the last one, I'd say thanks for all the model answers!
“Would you pull the switch/make an action?”
My answers:
a) original - NO
b) original (IRL) - still NO
c) the fat man - NO
d) the fat villain - NO
e) the loop - NO
f) the man in the yard - NO
g) the transplant surgeon - NO
h) the Nobel Prize winner - NO
Any action causing the death of someone else who wasn’t previously going to lose their life (but has lost it because of me) feels very wrong. No matter the situation!
Very funny video tho🤣🔥
So what if everyone else other than you and the sacrifice are tied to the default tracks? You can assume that the trolley has enough energy to plow through every living person
@@syndicatiusI guess they will be besties then
i wouldn't do anything because there might be some chances of manslaughter
LOL
"As many as I can" - was my immedeate response to the last one
4:54 the bro is already sleeping.
Now he'll have an even better one.👍😀👍
I say no to all of them. Think this way: "what would happen if i wasnt there?" Exactly, i would just do nothing.
Unless of course there was nobody on the other track and i could save a life without sacrificing any lives.
Do you do video suggestions? I'd like to see something like "Why do we have morals?" Start with the baseline logic "There is no objective morality". I mean I could just ask ChatGPT but I'd like to see your take please.
Morality is objective, actually. It's the choices to do various immoral things that are subjective and based on impulse or perception of others rather than what's actually right or wrong.
@@RoninCatholicno 😂
My solution was to pull the lever at just the right time, causing the front and back half of the train to go on separate tracks, causing it to do a sick drift.
Not possible
I love this video !!! Putting ourselves in very realistic situations like these ones ! Definitely useful.
gotta point out that reintroducing factors in decision making like “what people would think of you” is exactly not the point of the trolly problem
0:46 Because I.. I don't know how to animate them LMAO
Next video: "animating is easy, actually"
My first immediate thought about scenario f is yes to derail it:
Once derailed, There’s no actual guaranteed chance the train will hit the sleeper in the hammock, therefore if it does you got plausible deniability. It also means derailing it has a possibility of saving everyone.
always pull and switch the lever as quickly as possible. this makes the gacha more exciting!
My take (unhinged):
a) No, because I don't want to get involved. If anything, the question is how do you even know that lever will change the direction of the trolley? And even if it's obvious that it will change direction, why should I do anything? If I don't do anything, it's just an unfortunate accident that I will have seen. If I get involved I might forever be traumatised by the fact that I killed 1 person, even if I saved 5. Also, there's chances I might end up in prison.
b) Same answer, why would I answer differently than what I would actually do in real life, what's the point of the question if I just answer it theoretically?
c) Same answer, but this time there's a very real possibility that I will end up in prison, even saving the 5 people.
d) Same answer as c.
e) Same answer as c and d, but with the same chances of ending up in prison as a.
f) No, why would I get involved? Same answer as a. Also I might end up in prison.
g) Ok, this time you will seriously, 100%, end up in prison IF you get caught. I don't see how you would not get caught. Seriously.
h) Same answer as a, I don't want to get involved. Also I might end up in prison.
only moral answer here
2:53 trains can casually go 200 km/h the man has to be way heavier than a building to stop the train, and you can't push him off then anyways, that one makes no sense at all
I would never pull the lever unless the person I was saving was important to me. This is because I wouldn't want to interfere with what's going on, and just let it do its thing.
I was once asked a version where it's 5 children playing in a tunnel or the other tunnel with an old man cleaning the tracks, doing his job, and trusting you (the controller) to not do him dirty. In this case, I originally picked the children, but eventually, I realised (especially after speaking with my left friend) that maybe getting the 5 kids out is best. It's fair game and then the old man lives doing his duty (supposing he won't die from the news that he cost 5 childrens' lives).
On the first question, if we include physics on this, assume the train was a passenger train, and moving at 100 km/h, then ipushing the leverwould absoloutely derail them and cause more deaths, including the 5 people in the track
The problem states that that will not happen
I legit answered no, cause I would just look not make any decision
Can’t believe you’re a new channel. Keep em coming, yr hilarious
A very good twist at the end; well done.
0:04 “twolley pwoblem”
That ending was too good lmao
The nobel peace prize is a very poor indicator of character.
What is more, if the one person were a literal saint, they wpupd demand they be sacrificed for the criminals
New sub as soon as I saw the train fly into Wyoming 5:05 That was such a specific state to choose for this scene. 😂 The least populated per amount of land. Less dangerous to land there. 😅
wow then I finished the video. and came back to say that my subscription to your channel is solidified. thank you for your service!
I would not push the lever in any scenario.
When you choose to alter fate, you are in some part becoming morally responsible for whatever happens and culpable. You are responsible for the deaths you cause by pressing the switch.
Whereas if you don't do anything, you are not morally responsible for any deaths.
Acting on an underlying principle like this allows you to make a consistent choice every time, rather than flip flopping for slightly different situations.
You don't have to consider whether they're criminals or Nobel laureates. You just base it on your own principles.
yes but that's just a copout. people are responsible for inaction just as much as action. if someone was drowning, would you avoid helping them just because you can't risk being morally responsible?
@@evrimklc7433 not a cop out.
You're not forcing anyone's death by action in the scenario you describe.
@@Draddock yes but you are still aware of it. being aware implies some level of responsibility.
@@evrimklc7433they mean that choosing to save someone from drowning doesn’t risk a separate, innocent person’s life like the trolley problem does
@@evrimklc7433No. If the path to saving others includes taking the life of an innocent, that murder is unjustifiable no matter how many other people are saved.
bro saying he wouldnt push the guy in part c cuz "oh he might not be able to stop the train" but the problem says he can so he obviously can and you know that in the problem and "oh he doesnt deserve this" well and what did the 5 ppl there did to deserve it
If he is heavy enough to stop the train, then it's impossible for you to push him
@@szymonmajerowicz313Except the problem states you can, thus the guy must be in an unstable equilibrium that you can disrupt
This reminds me of that one episode of The Good Place where they explained this (and demonstrated almost all these examples) really well and funnily
This guy joins youtube and right away starts dropping bangers
Your answers are based on what different philosophers talk about in deontology and consequentalism. I don't know what the "academic character" is supposed to exactly convey but all of them have given similar reasoning as what you have done in this case of what is fair, who is culpable or in general what kind of constraints we might have that aren't just about looking at consequences. Also the intuitive answer is down to metaethics.
Just a headsup to all the people that the so called academic here doesn't convey actual reality of the field of ethics in their answer. The answer is that for these people it's also easy, actually but philosophy and science as a whole is supposed to dive deeper than our gut feelings and be able to explain and analyze the content. Not just "yeah that's how it just goes bro".
I do understand that as a content this is required to be done like this and quite likely people have enough media literacy to understand this.
Plot tiwst, the 1 person on the train had the cure to cancer and the 5 people where murderers
The answer to the trolley problem depends on various ethical perspectives. Some argue for utilitarianism, choosing the option that results in the least harm or maximizes overall well-being. Others advocate for deontological ethics, prioritizing principles like not actively causing harm regardless of consequences. There's no universally agreed-upon answer, as it often sparks philosophical debates.
I guess that channel grew a lot, 250k already, and about 200 in the endcard^^
2:01 lol
I hate trolley problems because they encourage binary thinking.
yet another example of the woke agenda, wanting non binary thinking
im in love with this channel
6:34 is the best answer 😂
the answer is very simple, if you pull the lever, you are a murderer. your logic in this video is difficult to watch, and contradicts itself constantly.
if you pull the lever, you have decided to take life into your own hands, and the law agrees with this. if you intervene and pull the lever, you killed someone. if you do nothing, fate takes its course. the people who are in the way of the track die, like they were meant to by being in front of the track.
we did this in my college class at penn state and everyone but me voted to pull the lever to shift the train onto the 1 person (killing them) and not just sit there and let it kill the 3
remember that the trolley problem is not “choose who to kill: 3 people or 1 person” like most people think. the trolley problem is “the train is heading along a track, and you can choose to intervene to shift the train to another track.”
the trolley problem will try to throw you off of this principle by adding in things like “if you pull the lever you kill 1 fat person (or a convicted felon etc).” but no matter how the test tries to persuade you, you can’t give in.
the people in the way of the track are not your responsibility, and every decision outside of refusing to pull the lever is a decision that you made about who deserves to live and who deserves to die. you can’t make that decision, so don’t pull the lever. you are only a murderer if you pull the lever. you are always innocent if you refuse to pull the lever, or refuse to push someone from the bridge. even the person who rightfully shoves the evil person off the bridge is a murderer. this is also how the trolly problem would likely turn out in real life. we subconsciously understand that the people in the way of the track have it coming, the person on the other track, or the bridge, is “innocent.” you are not a train conductor or responsible for any of this in any way. you are a witness
do not pull the lever or you will go to jail, as you should. good luck using this trolley problem logic in court to a jury. you will be inevitably convicted
Exactly.I think the same.
from an ethics standpoint, it doesn’t matter what you’re labeled as, murderer or bystander or whatnot. it’s about values and whatnot.
personally i’d do the same, but more on the grounds that, if you use a person’s life to save other people’s life, then you disregard what gives life value: agency. using that dudes life to save others denies his humanity, showing that nobody’s life matters in the first place.
what if all 5 poeple are mrbeast and the one guy is adolf hitler would u still not pull it?
Ah yes, cause if you pick a group of random people they'll all think like you do, despite the fact this comment section, and even the fact the video was made provide plenty of evidence against that. Juries aren't some paragon of justice, they are just groups of regular people like you and me. And I think you've seen enough people with differing opinions on this that you can't actually believe a group of randomly picked people would all think like you, right?
@@tntblast500 admittedly i don’t agree with the guy who made this comment in his reasoning, but using the video as a source is pretty shoddy because the guy doesn’t take it serious at all, and his reasoning is packed full of nonsense and fallacies.
3:19 i said yes though
1:01
No, pulling the switch would be murder, not doing so might lead to more deaths, but they'd be about to die anyway.
It only makes sense to pull the switch if you have a ethics that cares more about the results then other factors like the ethics of an action in the first place.
If you think that hurting one person to save more of others is okey, then where fo you stop?
Is torturing someone suddenly okay?
Soldiers dying?
Also, let's say that you *think* that you'd save those people by redirecting the trolley, but unbeknownst to you there's actually 49 people further down the line where that one is, would your action suddenly be okay if you *thought* you where saving people?
The real easy answer to all the questions is no.
You take no action to interact with the lever. Whatever fateful scenario set up the inevitable tragedy isn't my problem and I'm not being paid (at all) to solve it.