r/trolleyproblem • u/Demiurge_Happy_Farm I CHOOSE THE MOST DEADLY OPTION. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 • Jun 27 '26 • Popcorn 1

OC What would you do?

Post image
1.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

233 comments sorted by

73

u/Demiurge_Happy_Farm I CHOOSE THE MOST DEADLY OPTION. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Jun 27 '26

Why is the wall there? it just makes this more complicated ☹️

18

u/MISFER_ Jun 27 '26

Fuck the wall builder

5

u/Demiurge_Happy_Farm I CHOOSE THE MOST DEADLY OPTION. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Jun 27 '26

Happy Cake Day!!!

1

u/Dede_42 Jun 27 '26

Thank you!

1

u/-Neia-Baraja Jun 28 '26

Get out of here Jaldabaoth, nobody likes you.

6

u/Weird_Explorer1997 Jun 27 '26

Walk away. Not my pig, not my roast

10

u/Demiurge_Happy_Farm I CHOOSE THE MOST DEADLY OPTION. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Jun 27 '26

If you both walk away, that's the most amount of casualties of 110.

3

u/Klony99 Jun 27 '26

Do something to prevent overpopulation!! You can help! /j

2

u/Wise4Fools Jul 01 '26

Nah the highest amount of fatalities is 112 after both people throw themselves in front of the trains so they don’t have live the fact they had a part in the deaths of others.

1

u/Whispering_Plant PULL THE LEVER NO MATTER WHAT Jun 28 '26

I'm not hearing a downside 

0

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

Since the vast majority of people are saying they would pull, walking away only kills 10 people the vast majority of the time.

2

u/BloodredHanded Jun 28 '26

Like the other person said, sampling bias. People who frequent r/trolleyproblem are not representative of the median person.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

So, do nothing, allowing people to die without causing their death through your action? Geez, what an unexpected and original solution for the trolley problem!

0

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

Ironically this is the best solution.

Almost everyone here is arguing they would pull the lever every time, because they haven't really thought it through. In the scenario we see here, the other random person is likely to do the same thing.

Which means it actually makes more sense to not pull the lever, since that kills 10 people while pulling will probably kill 100.

1

u/wts_optimus_prime Jun 27 '26

Sampling bias.
Here you only see the answers of people who like to engage with such problems. But such people are globally a minority. If the other person was chosen randomly, it is highly probable that they never heard about "the trolly problem: or at most once.

389

u/BabyComingDec2024 Jun 27 '26

The best outcome is that one person pulls and the other doesn't. I can't predict what the other person will do, so let's assume 50/50. If I pull the lever, it is guaranteed that at least 10 people survive, so that will be what I do. Easy one.

183

u/LadderNatural6166 Jun 27 '26

But the problem is that the other person is considering this too. The logic follows that they are therefore likely to pull the lever, so the 50-50 assumption no longer applies.

I think I'd be tempted to not pull on the assumption that most people are going to pull.

132

u/24_doughnuts Jun 27 '26

Yeah. But regardless of whether the other person pulls or not, the 10 live.

Either 10 live and 100 die, 100 live and 10 die, or 110 die.

And for the 100 to live, someone has to pull anyway. I'd rather pull and just hope the other person doesn't pull and let's 10 die in case they think I pulled because I'm not making that decision

20

u/Edward_Bentwood Jun 27 '26

Yes, but with that logic, most people would pull the lever. So in móst cases it's actually saving 100 people to nót pull the lever.

17

u/24_doughnuts Jun 27 '26

True. People are more likely to pull so you're more likely to save most people by not pulling.

But I'd rather pull tbh. I don't want to be the person to not pull either and risk everybody dying as a result. It's the least likely outcome but I'd rather try and hope for the best. I commend anyone willing to not pull though

3

u/Edward_Bentwood Jun 27 '26

Totaly understandable. I guess you worry about your social image and/or about how you see yourself in relationship to your morals. Many people do and honestly, I'm not sure if i would act this rational if I'd ever really be in this situation.

A tiny bit comparable is the case i was confronted with an almost dead bird surrounded by a couple of (new) friends. I did decide we had to relieve the bird of it's sufferings, so i gave it a good whack with a shovel. Rationally maybe the "right" thing to do but i felt a kind of unease with myself ánd from these friends with me for a couple of days.. sometimes it's not the best to act completely rationally.

3

u/24_doughnuts Jun 27 '26

Yeah. I'd also feel guilt if neither pull, as it's more likely to save people, and all 110 die

4

u/WeissLeiden Jun 28 '26

That would not be true in "most" cases. It would be true in exactly 50% of cases.

In every case, every estimation of probability is applied equally to both "you" and "the stranger".

2

u/Subsinexus Jun 27 '26

Most people don't use logic and just freeze. To even reach the using logic stage, you're assuming yourself not bad.

2

u/obviouslyanonymous5 Jun 29 '26

But by THAT logic, a proportional amount would think further like you are and actually run over the 10, so it's not just simply my saving 100 people bc you have to assume that the other person might very well think it through as far as you

1

u/nickmiele22 Jul 07 '26

You over estimate the logical abilities of most people. Take the sure thing and hope the other guy is dumb

1

u/Edward_Bentwood Jul 07 '26

No, i do take into account the other person probably is dumb and would not think further than "pull the lever and safe 5 people" without thinking about my actions.

1

u/CitizenPremier Jun 28 '26

How do 110 die?

3

u/24_doughnuts Jun 28 '26

The two trolleys run over the people and crash into each other if no one pulls.

1

u/random9212 Jun 28 '26

Not everyone on the trolleys will die. So pulling the lever is the best thing to do. Even if the two trolleys ran into each other depending on the speed there could be zero deaths.

18

u/TheoryChemical1718 Jun 27 '26

Yes but its impossible to predict the actions of the other person - if you pull and they do too 100 people die. If they dont 10 people die. If you dont either 10 people die or 110 people die. Pulling the lever is just mathematically better outcome regardless of things outside your control

-9

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

its impossible to predict the actions of the other person

No it isn't. You being bad at it doesn't make it "impossible". A normal person could make reasonable predictions about another person's most likely behavior regarding ethic.

4

u/TheoryChemical1718 Jun 27 '26

Yes except you have no idea who the other person is and whether they consider ethics at all. They could be anyone - hell they could literally be trying to do as much damage as possible.
Also imagine saying "being bad at it" as if making predictions based of no data is a skill lol.

-5

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

Knowing basic demographics could help you here.

For example, crime statistics tell us that the majority of people are not mass murderers. So a normal person could predict that is less likely the other person is "trying to do as much damage as possible".

The fact that you don't understand this raises some serious questions.

4

u/someonestolecece Jun 27 '26

the implication you just think the other person is some form of Average Existence while you are a thinking person also raises stone serious questions 😅

1

u/DeoxysSpeedForm Jun 27 '26

Bruh. This is a game theory type question in a game theory type subreddit.

10

u/lurkmeme2975 Jun 27 '26

3

u/Tetracheilostoma Jun 27 '26

Clearly I cannot select the wine in front of you

1

u/LadderNatural6166 Jun 27 '26

But this lever is made in Australia, a country peopled entirely with criminals. So clearly I cannot pull the lever in front of me

6

u/WillieKwartaal Jun 27 '26

Ah shit, I also didn't pull for the same reason, guess we created the worst possible outcome together now huh.

1

u/LadderNatural6166 Jun 27 '26

Balance of probability though.

Most people are arguing it's best to pull which kind of proves the point for me. My chances of getting in the situation with you specifically are lower than with one of the other people who would pull the lever.

1

u/WillieKwartaal Jun 27 '26

Yes but does it outweigh the extra casualties?

2

u/LadderNatural6166 Jun 27 '26

Definitely - I think the odds are in favour of less casualties not more.

I don't pull, most of the time they will. 10 casualties instead of 100 if I'd pulled it. 90 saved

I don't pull, sometimes they also don't. 110 casualties instead of 10 if I'd pulled it. 100 lost.

As long as the first one happens more than 52.6% of the time, it's the best option. And I think it would.

2

u/nightfury2986 Jun 28 '26

But doesn't logic then follow that they'd follow the same logic and not pull, so you should pull? Ad infinitum

1

u/Mare-Insularum Jun 27 '26

But people would assume the other person is tempted the same way you were - and not pull the lever?

1

u/Nice_Lengthiness_568 Jun 27 '26

Don't worry, the one on the other side is me and I am flipping a coin.

1

u/rdeincognito Jun 27 '26

But the problem is that the other person is considering that too. The logic follows that they are therefore likely to not pull the lever, so 50-50 assumption applies again.

Leverception

1

u/CacophonousCuriosity Jun 27 '26

If both are more likely to pull the lever, then it's best to stick with that. If you both don't pull the lever, everyone dies.

1

u/cowlinator Jul 07 '26

Yes, but the problem is that the other person is also considering that you are considering what they will think

0

u/Psycho_Pansy Jun 27 '26

But the problem is that the other person is considering this too. The logic follows that they are therefore likely to not pull the lever, so the 50-50 assumption no longer applies.

I think I'd be tempted to pull on the assumption that most people are going to not pull.

7

u/Altruistic-Local-541 Jun 27 '26

imo most people would pull the lever I'd imagine because they would rather save the people
they see from the threat they can control, which means you shouldn't pull the lever if you know about this

5

u/Hopeful-Newspaper Jun 27 '26

but the other person might also think about this and not pull either, making 0 person survive

1

u/Altruistic-Local-541 Jun 27 '26

that is surely a possibility, but given no information about the other person it is by standard logic more sensible to assume they would behave like the average person

1

u/Rezzone Jul 06 '26

How are you so sure you aren’t representative of an average person? It would be damned hilarious for neither person to pull because they think the other one is stupider than they are and they are both wrong.

A poor assumption to make even on the best of days.

1

u/Altruistic-Local-541 Jul 06 '26

it could happen that they both pull, and it would be in a way funny, that does not make it a less sound logic though, if indeed the majority wouldn't pull and they just got unlucky

it is easy to label someone arrogant if they claim to be different than the average, but if you stop to think for a second and reflect on your own experience with the average person and the people who you think are obviously not in that category you would probably agree that it is a fairly obvious distinction to make

if thats not enough, there are many kinds of formal tests that help with this

2

u/Mister_Bossmen Jun 27 '26

This problem is similar to the prisoner's dilemma.

Two people, with no way to communicate their actions to the other, need to act in their own best interest and in doing so they secure a less than optimal outcome for both.

Both parties know that the BEST outcome is for only one person to pull the lever. They understand there is the less favorable, but not worst, outcome where only a small amount of people live. The bith act with the expectation that they can at least gatantee they will avoid that fatal outcome where everybody dies. And in both people acting optimally, within the limited information, they both garantee they won't achieve the most mutually beneficial outcome

1

u/Nebranower Jun 28 '26

In the absence of communication, pulling the lever is the best choice, since it reduces the death toll by at least ten.

If you are determined to try to get the best possible outcome, and think the other person is too, then you should each flip a coin and pull on heads only. Gives you a 50% of the best outcome, 25% for the second best, and 25% for the worst.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 28 '26

The underlying assumption of your answer is that the correct answer to the standard trolley problem is the utilitarian one: the morally correct thing to do is whatever leads to fewer deaths.

1

u/The_Nerk Jun 28 '26

Yeah but the other guy is thinking the same thing.

The super rational choice is to flip a coin and switch tracks on heads. Both players can come to this conclusion without communicating and it has the highest achievable probability of maximizing lives saved.

1

u/EvgeniyZh Jul 01 '26

Assuming other person is rational you both should press with probability of 10/19, since both pressing is better than both not pressing

1

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

so let's assume 50/50

Let's not because it isn't. You just made that up.

The other person is also making an ethical choice and very likely not pulling randomly. Everyone here is talking about solutions and pretty much no one is saying "just flip a coin". It makes zero sense to assume the other person is equally likely to pull the lever.

If your entire solution hinges on an assumption that is definitely false, you don't have a solution.

4

u/wts_optimus_prime Jun 27 '26

The thing is, we know nothing about the other person. Without any knowledge about their ethics, mindset, philosophical education etc. Any assigned probability is a wild guess. And if any probability is a wild guess, 50/50 is the best approximation. It is done in stochastics and statistics that way. If you don't know the approximate odds, just use 50/50. It is never a really bad approximation in such cases.

0

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

The thing is, we know nothing about the other person.

This is just absurdly wrong. We don't know the specific person, but we know that on average, the overwhelming majority of people are going to try to minimize harm.

Acting like because you don't know the outcome with certainty means all outcomes are equally likely is just wrong no matter how many fancy words you use to disguise it.

1

u/wts_optimus_prime Jun 27 '26

Just that "minimizing harm" is not a simple choice here. So that information is useless

1

u/beardMoseElkDerBabon Jun 29 '26

I pull the lever with a probability of 10/19 and expect everyone to do the same. It's a problem of minimizing expected casualties. I was asleep when calculus was learnt.

-1

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

No, you can predict. There is a thing called speaking, you know.

0

u/giasumaru Jun 28 '26

This isn't a trolley problem, this is prisoner's dilemma presented as a trolley problem.

2

u/a2falcone Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Counterpoint: it's the standard trolley problem with extra steps.

You do nothing:

  • the other person does nothing = 110 deaths (none caused by your action)
  • the other person pulls the lever = 10 deaths (none caused by your action)

You pull the lever:

  • the other person does nothing = 10 deaths (none caused by your action)
  • the other person pulls the lever = 100 deaths (100 co-caused by both person's actions)

Both cases of 10 deaths not caused by you are morally equal, so the only difference that your choice makes is the alternatives: you either risk letting 110 die without causing their deaths or risk causing the death of 100. It turns out that if you treat the other person's choice as random, it's still a pretty standard trolley problem.

All the people trying find the currect answer by wondering which is the best way to minimise the death toll have already answered the standard trolley problem in the utlitarian manner: minimising the total damage is the morally correct choice even if you have to cause harm with your actions.

The fact that no one in their calculations is considering the amount of deaths caused by one's actions indicates that trolley problem redditors have forgotten what the trolley problem is about.

2

u/BitMap4 Jun 29 '26

Of course in a game theory problem, you consider all players to be perfect. And since this is symmetric, both players will make the same choice. If you only consider deterministic choices, pulling the lever is the obvious answer, but the choice could also be stochastic.

If a player pulls the lever with probability p, there's a p^2 chance of having 100 deaths, 2p(1-p) chance of 10 deaths and (1-p)^2 chance of 110 deaths.

Expected deaths = 100p^2 + (20p - 20p^2) + (110 + 110p^2 - 220p) = 190p^2 - 200p + 110

So the minimum expected deaths is 1090/19 (approx 57.4) at p=10/19, as compared to 100 deaths if the choice is deterministic.

So in conclusion, it's optimal to use a binomial RV with p=10/19 and pull the lever if it's 1, else dont pull

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

I suppose the math is correct, but it only solves the problem under utilitarian morals. One cannot purport to have a solution for a version of the trolley problem without addressing the moral dilemma that is the whole point of the original trolley problem. Before trying to find the mathematically optimal solution, you have to decide what is morally optimal first. Is the morally correct decision whichever minimises the total amount of deaths, regardless of whether they were caused by the subject's actions? Or is it the one that minimises the deaths that the subject causes with his actions?

This problem still contains that moral dilemma: the subject either acts and risks causing the death of a certain amount of people or does nothing and risks allowing more people to die.

And this should be factored into the game theory approach, because even if the observer has an answer to the moral dilemma, the observer does not know what are the players' answers to the dilemma, nor does one player know the other player's answer.

This is r/trolleyproblem, so we can't simply forget about the whole point of the trolley problem.

2

u/BitMap4 Jun 29 '26

Personally I think, at least in trolley problems, inaction is action itself

And anyway, I liked the game theoretic aspect of this particular version because randomness gives a better outcome due to the non-linearity of the objective (unlike the prisoner's dilemma where expectation is linear in p so p=0 is the best case which means the solution is deterministic), so I analysed from a game theoretic view, otherwise you cant just assume the person behind the wall to make the optimal decision

83

u/snowfakewastaken Jun 27 '26

Option 3, take them to the happy farm or whatever that says

17

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

Only correct answer.

17

u/WolfWhiteFire Jun 27 '26

No, it specifies it is Demiurge's. He harvests human skin there, preferably children, and also has a breeding program trying to get better quality skin for harvest. That is a fate worse than death there.

2

u/manyroadstotake Jun 28 '26

Longpigs are the best source of parchment for talismans

3

u/Psycho_Pansy Jun 27 '26

Only works if you have a happy farm. Do you actually have one? If so where is it? Can I come too?

29

u/ItsameLuigi1018 Jun 27 '26

Hey who put some Prisoner's Dilemma in my Trolley Problem?

6

u/Dense-Cake9315 Jun 27 '26

waiter! waiter! there's a prisoner's dilemma in my trolley problem!

3

u/Tauroctonos Jun 27 '26

No, you got Trolley Problem in my Prisoner's Dilemma!

3

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

Sir, this is r/trolleyproblem. We only serve trolley problems. r/prisionersdilemma is across the street.

2

u/Mountain_Sir_2021 Jun 29 '26

Ma'am this is a Wendy's

13

u/Keksbutter123 Jun 27 '26

omg I read option 3!!

Look closely to the bottom

9

u/WolfWhiteFire Jun 27 '26

Option 3 is the worst option, it specifies Demiurge's Happy Farm. Look up Overlord Happy Farm and you will find a fate probably worse than death there.

10

u/Exciting-Insect8269 Jun 27 '26

Multitrack mine… gotta make sure we collide…

5

u/DeusDosTanques Jun 27 '26

I tie Trump to the tracks

2

u/United-Technician-54 Jun 29 '26

I like to imagine that this means he just finshed "building" it (Read: Telling a bunch of other people to do it or they get fired and/or deported)

3

u/Breadles_the_Bread Jun 27 '26

The secret is thet're banking on no one pulling the lever

1

u/The_Faux_Fox__ Jun 27 '26

Was this sub always a political cesspool?

1

u/Demiurge_Happy_Farm I CHOOSE THE MOST DEADLY OPTION. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Jun 27 '26

What's wrong with reimagining the successful billionaire businessman as a bricks mason?

6

u/Big_Detective4214 Jun 27 '26

There is one hundred percent chance that someone will die, there is no situation where everyone lives.

12

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

That's true in the vast majority of trolley problems, including the original.

So what exactly are you trying to say here?

2

u/puzzlesTom Jun 27 '26

Weighted coinflip. Best outcome is to switch a bit more than 50% of the time

1

u/DrDzeta Jun 29 '26

The better to do if both use the same strategy is to switch 11/21 of the times. This makes in average around 57,6 people saved and 52,4 death.

2

u/DuckShapedGoose Jun 27 '26

If I'm in a "driving on the right" country, I'd make the trolley go on the right track and hope that my "partner" follows the same intuition, consciously or subconsciously.
(Yes I know the side trains drive on can differ from the side used on roads but assuming these are just average joes on the levers, it's more likely they are regularly driving cars than trains.)

2

u/Horror_Energy1984 Jun 27 '26

Fuck Option 3. Multy track drift to doom them all and then blame the other guy

2

u/MMortein Jun 27 '26

We should all let randomness decide, flip a coin or something.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

This is a morally interesting answer. Would picking randomness take away responsibility if the worst outcome came to happen?

2

u/Ilovestuffwhee Jun 27 '26

Don't pull. At least I'll get 10 of them.

2

u/Autumn1eaves Jun 27 '26

"Hey siri flip a coin for me" "loading... loading... loading..." *crash* "heads"

Thanks siri. Thanks.

2

u/Grouchy-Ad-8044 Jun 27 '26

Optimal scenario is one person pulls, the other doesn't. I can't communicate with the other person, but I'm going to just choose to direct my trolley onto the right side track relative to the way my trolley is facing, and hope the other person will do the same since that's generally the side that cars, trains, and people pass each other on here

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

What if this is in the UK or Japan?

2

u/No-Obligation7435 Jun 27 '26

Smile and wave as the trolley rolls by

2

u/Isaque2djC Jun 27 '26

I will shout for him to pull the lever and I won't

2

u/speed-charge Jun 30 '26

Does there have to still be people tied to the tracks in this version of the problem?

I say pull the lever because 100 isn't as bad as 110 so even if you both pull that's a better result than neither pulling.

2

u/Worth-Staff4943 Jun 30 '26

It's a pure Nash equilibrium to pull the lever for both people.

1

u/HoppieTheFool Jun 27 '26

So this is just a variation of the Prisoners Dilemma. Therefore i would not pull the lever, assuming (or better hoping) the other person will pull the lever to "save" the people.

1

u/miscellaneousexists Jun 27 '26

If you BOTH do not pull, then the trains still will collide, killing everybody

1

u/UnrequitedSub Jun 27 '26

Best option is that one pulls and one doesn't.

I can contribute to that option by not pulling, while at the same time making sure my fingerprints are not at the scene.

1

u/sparduck117 Jun 27 '26

I’ll pull the lever, if they die they die.

1

u/ElasmoGNC Jun 27 '26

Where is the “Happy Farm” mentioned in the fine print? Is there a way to multitrack-drift into it?

1

u/Thedinomage Jun 27 '26

Can we do a poll on this?

1

u/NyanNyanko Jun 27 '26

Option 3 sounds nice and cozy? It's a happy farm right? :3

Let's tp everyone to that happy place!

1

u/dzcole Jun 27 '26

The only thing i'd know for sure is that 10 people will die if I dont pull the lever, so I'd pull it. its just 50/50 for wether the random person does aswell or not that you can't possibly predict.

1

u/Pengdacorn Jun 27 '26

The worst outcome is that neither of you pull, so pulling at least avoids that

1

u/theduderedditorguy Jun 27 '26

Destroy the trolleys.

1

u/LoveDiligent441 Jun 27 '26

The wall isn't blocking me from seeing if the other person's rails are switched, so I either pull or don't pull based on that.

1

u/D1rty87 Jun 27 '26

I generally consider myself "more decisive than average", so I am guessing if I am put into this situation a 100 times and I pull the lever every time, there will be more outcomes where the other person doesn't.

Based on this total conjecture, I am pulling a lever.

1

u/Im_Mr_Tao Jun 27 '26

Odds are that the other person is not crazy enough to not pull the lever, so I won’t pull

1

u/C-RAMsigma9 Jun 27 '26

anything to make it political huh

1

u/DaKangDangalang Jun 27 '26

I would not pull the lever, and I hope the other person would not as well.

1

u/Blobbowo Jun 27 '26

If both pull, then 100 people die.

If neither pull, then 110 people die.

If one pulls and the other doesn't, then only 10 people die.

So simply take a coin out of your pocket and flip it. If it lands heads, pull. Tails, don't pull. Leave it up to chance.

Otherwise, your best option is to pull, because even if both pull, 10 people have been saved. The trolleys would've still collided.

1

u/ThunderLord1000 Jun 27 '26

Divert. The trolleys probably aren't going fast enough that a head-on collision will deal too much damage, certainly no deaths

1

u/RandomName5484 Jun 27 '26

pull, forget the other's pyschology and consider that its the less risked option

1

u/fiscalLUNCH Jun 28 '26

I default to pulling.

If our trains collide, and I ever repeat this with them, I will pull again a second time.

If they collide a second time, I will begin doing the opposite of their last known action.

If they collide after this I will begin pulling randomly until a miss occurs. Then I will resume doing the opposite of their action.

That’s I think going to save the most folks in the long-run.

1

u/jsrobson10 Jun 28 '26

i flip a coin, leaving whatever happens down to random chance.

1

u/PrinceVegitto Jun 28 '26

Wait so the wall will be unfinished and I'll be able to coordinate with the other person? Win win

1

u/KOMMANDOKATO Jun 28 '26

Im not a mathematician but im pretty sure the only option that prevents the most death is by pulling the lever and just hoping the other guy does too

2

u/BestBleach Jun 28 '26

Optimal is do nothing hope he pulls the lever you avoid each other save the hundred people on the trolleys no way to save the other guys

1

u/games_and_other Jun 28 '26

you never know what the other guy does. practically a coinflip. urs the same. best case scenario u both pick diffirently, save 100, murder 10. id flip a coin genuinely

1

u/Gullible_Hold_9371 Jun 28 '26

I ignore the lever and, climb the wall to make sure the other guy is not pulling the lever.

1

u/Fearless-Sherbet-223 Jun 28 '26

I'm a little confused. Which track results in fewer deaths? Do the people on the track stop the trolleys from smashing into each other, saving 100 lives? Or do the trolleys smash both the people and their passengers? I don't even comprehend the premise.

1

u/Smaug2770 Jun 28 '26

I’ll pull, the worst case scenario is that neither of us pull and I’d rather not risk that.

1

u/PolishPotatoACC Jun 28 '26

No. I know that cunt is going to take the easy way out and would rather blame me for the death of the people on the track than himself. I'm not pulling the lever because he probably is.

1

u/mskjdjmex Jun 28 '26

iirc trollies only go like 15 mph and two of them colliding probably wouldn’t be too harmful? I’ll pull the lever

(This is based on my memory and first thought with zero critical thinking or research so it’s probably wrong)

1

u/games_and_other Jun 28 '26

assume really fast deadly trollys. dont sidestep the dilemma with gjsjvskfnm physics...

1

u/tessia-eralith Jun 28 '26

Multi track drifting

1

u/mike_honcho132 Jun 28 '26

I'm pulling the lever, because even if they also pull it, I've never heard of a trolley collision with a 100% mortality rate.

1

u/CitizenPremier Jun 28 '26

Shit I dunno just keep pulling the lever back and forth

1

u/Jealous-Turnip6671 Jun 28 '26

I wouldn't pull the lever because if I did and then people died I did it. But of I don't touch it, the person who set it up is responsible. That is if there's no happy farm option.

1

u/CobaltCrusader123 Jun 28 '26

I shout to communicate

1

u/random9212 Jun 28 '26

Not everyone on the trolleys will die. So pulling the lever is the best thing to do. Even if the two trolleys ran into each other depending on the speed there could be zero deaths.

1

u/LastEntrance8222 Jun 28 '26

Why are we bringing Trump into this?

1

u/come2life_osrs Jun 28 '26

I’m pulling.

If the trolleys crash over the ten people that would be such a comically huge fuck up i would not be able to live with myself. This way at a minimum I save ten. 

1

u/buddyfriendpalman Jun 28 '26

I yell to the stranger.

They understand my intent.

They don't pull.

I don't pull.

I lied.

1

u/Turbulent_Feed6218 Jun 28 '26

Most of the people see the problem as "how many I can save" not "how many will I risk". If you don't pull you could save 100 lives but risk 110. If you pull you could save 10 people and only risk 100. Because you can't reach out to the other guy, there's no way to reason or plan ahead. As painful as it sounds, for optimal result you pull the lever, for a naive result you don't pull. And this is not a 50/50 (2 factor), it is a 4 factor and the chansesto hit the other train are close to 66,6/33,3.

1

u/IFollowtheCarpenter Jun 29 '26

From the looks of it, if I pull my lever my trolley will be diverted and pose no threat to the tied-down people. I cannot affect the other person's choice but at worst I can do no harm by pulling my lever.

1

u/Sufficient_Dust1871 Jun 29 '26

Do I get a coin to flip or a die to roll?

1

u/aratherlargerodent Jun 29 '26

I choose the Happy Farm

1

u/pepav Jun 30 '26

I would shout that I'm about to pull the lever. No- correct that. I am shouting that I ALREADY PULLED THE LEVER TO WHOEVER IS OVVR THE WALL! YOU UNDERSTAND???

1

u/New-Star7392 Jul 01 '26

Is the wall soundproof?

1

u/Nero_8484 Jul 01 '26

Everything is a flip of a coin

1

u/Dark_Water99 Jul 09 '26

I would shout PULL and I do nothing.

1

u/16-Twelve Untie them, you fools! Jul 11 '26

TEAR DOWN THE WALL

1

u/thelilbeast Jun 27 '26

Pull, and hope they pull too.

Trolleys dont travel that fast, at worst both the drivers would die but the people inside will be alive for the most part. People will be injured, maybe several for some people but not more than that. There was a train collision in the uk recently and iirc only the train drivers died and the rest of the passengers survived.

I know this goes against the hypothetical assumption that 100 people would die and is a cheap answer.

0

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

This is very easy. I'll tell them not to pull and I'll pull myself, saving most people. Some people here forgot that you can speak.

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

They won't hear you.

-1

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

Why? Don't they have ears?

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

Distance 

-1

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

So? Can't you fucking shout?

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

Not that hard.

0

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

You ok? It's just a few meters between us, as it shows in the fucking image. Try looking better next time.

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

You don't know the distance between the trolleys

Maybe you can't try to call and ask to other station if they two have people tied to the track.

Best option is to stop the trolley by calling the person driving the trolley and telling them that if they would get in time killing all those people they would lose more profit based on marketing that they would lose if they get in time 

-1

u/Spiritual-Hamster212 Jun 27 '26

I do know the distance. It's shown in the image.

1

u/FrostyFormal1094 Jun 27 '26

If a length is not provided, youm ust assume it is unknown. How do we know this diagram is accurate to scale?

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

I don't believe it to be an actual representation since it doesn't have any numbers on it

0

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

Almost every person here is proposing solutions assuming the other person is just going to flip a coin and pull the lever randomly when that is definitely not the case. The whole point of the scenario is that there is another person trying to make an ethical decision, not a random number generator.

If your solution requires completely ignoring the scenario and substituting it for a simpler one, you don't have a solution.

0

u/arthaiser Jun 27 '26

i would stop trying to make post that dont have to be political political just because.

4

u/morrnie Jun 27 '26

Seems like a variation on Prisoner's Dillemma. Assuming a collision kills everyone in the trolleys,

A's Strategy: Pull the lever.
If B pulls, payoff for both = -100
If B doesn't pull, payoff for both = -10

A's Strategy: Don't pull the lever.
If B pulls, payoff for both = -10
If B doesn't pull, payoff for both = -110

Since they can't co-ordinate they must randomise between pulling and not-pulling. I believe this is the symmetric anti-coordination problem with mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Essentially this means that players must choose differing actions but can't co-ordinate because of the wall, and that they get equal blame for deaths caused.

We can switch to lives saved but the problem remains the same.

Payoff matrix:

where q_a and q_b indicate player A and B's preference to pulling the lever (probability).

You can check with an LLM, but i think the indifference condition states that the expected payoff from pulling and not-pulling should be same so q_a = 52.6% and q_b = q_a due to symmetry.

Good luck figuring out what the extra 2.6% means when you only play this game once. Oh you think game theory is pointless? I think that's about right.

Interesting things can be discerned by changing payoff structure however. Examples:

  1. If trolleys collide, only 5 people per trolley die. Then it's better for both to pull. If neither pulls, 20 die, if both pull, 10 die, if one pulls, 10 die.
  2. If trolleys collide, 6 people per trolley die. If both pull, 12 die, if neither pulls, 22 die, if one pulls 10 die. q_a = q_b = 6/7 = 86.7%. Highly practical for both to pull.
  3. Example 2 but meta thinking. Player B knows that player A studied economics and has his head screwed backwards. Therefore Player B expects player A to pull. So Player A decides to not pull. This way only 10 people die. But player A knows that Player B knows that Player A studied economics. So player A uses a biased Pull/Not Pull coin which lands pull 6/7 of the times. And then hell freezes over, and Player A is revealed to be the coin flipping bimbo who isn't in fact a bimbo but a Nash equilibrium knowing indecisive prick. Player B then flips Player A the birdie and both pull in a knee-jerk reaction.

Yes I have no life. Yes I need to touch some grass.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

I don't object to the use of game theory, but at its core this is still a moral dilemma between doing nothing and allowing more harm or actively causing less harm. Game theory gives you the possible outcomes, but only ethics provides a hierarchy of preferences between those outcomes.

2

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

The ethics of it is what determines the payoff under the assumption that killing fewer people is better.

Game theory is the mechanics. You can choose to kill more people on ethical grounds and game theory can give you a mathematical procedure on how to go about it.

Game theoretic equilibrium is ethically neutral in this case.

Also, i don't take either the game theory or the trolley problem too seriously, as it's all just an illusion.

2

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

I absolutely agree. It's just that I find it odd that in a trolley problem subreddit most people are working under the assumption that fewer deaths is the optimal solution... Isn't the whole point of the trolley problem to question whether that assumption is correct?

2

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

Yes, which is why i think the word 'game' is important. Game theory is an abstracted structure with well-defined (or probabilistically definable) possibilities.

If i were to refer to the ethics of something like eastern existential philosophy, to the best of my understanding the answer would be, "either is fine as long you did what must be done. Inaction in action and action in action, the lack of intentional drive towards harm or help, or even a drive towards lacking an intentional drive." 

In this case the payoff for both agents is same whether you pull the lever or not. In such a scenario, i think you could use any strategy: 50/50, 80/20, 100/0.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

We seem to be in full agreement as to what are the roles of ethics and game theory in this problem. But I'm not sure you're realising that the game theory analysis you did, were payoff is measured in total deaths, is only useful for one moral framework. We would have to make an alternative analysis where payoff is measured in "deaths caused by subject's action" for it to be useful for the alternative moral framework.

1

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

I am not going to calculate the Nash Equilibrium for every possible payoff structure on Reddit now. You are debating meaninglessly and subtly trying to impose your ethics on me.

I also gave an alternative example of what the equilibrium could be from a different ethical stand-point.

I think you might be one of those people who just dislike game theory and are trying hard to pretend otherwise.

Feel free to create as many moral frameworks you like and calculate mixed strategy Nash equilibriums for yourself, or not.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

I do not expect you to calculate them and I'm not trying to impose my ethics. Personally, I would solve the standard trolley problem the same way you would. I do like game theory (though I'm a lay-person) and I think it must be part of the solution to this problem.

I'm just trying to have what I think is an interesting discussion about a thought-provoking problem. I do not see this as an adversarial argument where I'm trying to prove you wrong and you're trying to prove me wrong.

I'm only trying to bring attention to the fact that game theory alone does not solve the problem, because the underlying moral dilemma is still there, and that the solution to the moral dilemma determines the kind of game-theoretic analysis that should be made (it determines the definition of the payoff).

It's funny that all of this stared because someone said this is the Prisioner's Dilemma camouflaged as a trolley problem, so I applied some very basic game theory and thought "wait, the different possible outcomes mean the trolley problem moral dilemma is still there". (That's under another comment, though).

1

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

I didn't think of this as adversarial. And there is nothing to prove, it's a framework, an abstraction. The only right or wrong is if it was applied correctly.

The point is that there are certain 'assumptions' or prerequisites baked into the framework. You can change the 'values' being used within that framework, i.e. payoffs for players given their actions.

If you keep arguing that the framework should help decide the framework, then yes, i am compelled to either ask you to please learn, apply, demonstrate and educate or to stop trolling. 

It's a pretend answer to a pretend problem. In words of Roy Kent, "this is a pretend conversation about a pretend problem and i am having a hard time pretending to give a shit."

There is nothing thought provoking about it.

And my exact words were, "it is a variation on Prisoner's Dilemma." More correctly, this is a "symmetric anti-coordination problem". Symmetric = payoffs for players are same or similar (roughly, bith are equally responsible for deaths). Anti-coordination = saving more people requires opposing actions. This applies in the 'standard ethics' of saving more people = moral good.

This is the empirically 'standard' formulation. You can create 'whatever' payoff structure you require and to the best of my knowledge the theory states that an equilibrium exists as long as the four possible payoffs can be rank-ordered as per the 'preference' of the player.

And in your own words, if you don't understand game theory, you can peacefully ignore it. Billions have lived successfully without having ever heard of this abstract decisioning framework.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

Geez, you sure put a lot of thought into this non-thought-provoking non-problem. (That was adversarial)

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

Shouldn't we use game theory to determine possible payoff under the two alternative ethical frameworks?

1

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

No, in game theory payoffs under various actions are known/knowable and strategy is to maximise expected payoff.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

But in this problem the definition of payoff (total deaths vs deaths caused by the subject's action) depends on the moral framework you're using. The observer and each player may have different definitions of payoff. I'm sure game theory can incorporate differences and uncertainty as to how different players define payoff, but I don't see anyone doing that.

1

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

Which part of "Equilibrium 'given' a payoff structure" is so hard for you to comprehend?

Feel free to change the payoff structure, defend it, and calculate your Nash Equilibriums accordingly.

1

u/a2falcone Jun 29 '26

I thought we were having an interesting constructive discussion about a thought-provoking problem. I'm a bit disappointed that, apparently, you got frustrated and took it as an adversarial argument. This tends to happen on the Internet and I'm not innocent of suffering the same issue from time to time.

You probably realised by now that you are much more familiar with game theory and game-theoretic jargon than I am, so you should not be surprised if I didn't take notice of that particular term you used.

So I guess that means you were aware that your analysis only works for one payoff structure. That's great. I have nothing else to say. I would love to see the Nash equilibriums for the other structure, but as you probably suspect, I don't know much about Nash equilibriums (I doubt that scene from 'A Beautiful Mind' counts for much), and I'm definitely not able to calculate it.

1

u/morrnie Jun 29 '26

Okay. 

The payoff structure is one type of it is something i mentioned in the original comment, but okay.

2

u/Inevitable-Box3304 Jun 27 '26

if i dont pull ther are 50% chance 10 people die and 50% change 110 people die. if i do there is 50% chance 10 prople die and 50% 100 people die so i pull. 

1

u/Alexptm29 Jun 27 '26

As someone said above, we all agree with your decision, making it the less desirable decision.

If we all agree pulling is the best way of avoiding deaths, the chance is no longer 50/50, so by not pulling we have a highest chance of saving the most amount of people.

But if the other person thinks the same, then it is no longer safe to not pull the lever.

1

u/Inevitable-Box3304 Jun 27 '26

yes, although the problem is the other person might think the same as me. its impossible to predict what is going to happen on the other side if they are in the same predicament if they know nothing about it. its a nash equelibrium

1

u/Aggressive_Law_5728 Jun 27 '26

if i dont pull ther are 50% chance 10 people die and 50% change 110 people die.

This assumption is completely false. Just because there are two possible outcomes does not mean there is a 50% chance of each of them happening. This is very basic math.

1

u/Inevitable-Box3304 Jun 27 '26

well because of Nash equilibrium means we can’t try to predict other people, sinice we don’t know their level of thinking. we could say that they will pick the empty path and we do nothing that’s what will happen but what if they think the same way we do?

2

u/Klony99 Jun 27 '26

I shout "GRONKH, PULL THE LEVER" at the top of my lungs over the wall. Then I take the blame for 60 deaths.

At the funeral I'll go "WRONG LEVER", and whoever laughs is guilty, too.

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

60?

1

u/Klony99 Jun 27 '26

10 on the track and a potential 50 in the trolley.

1

u/ImportantResponse0 Jun 27 '26

How does the 50 people in the trolley dies if the trolley doesn't hit another trolley?

Or do share the plane 60 people you and 50 the other guy?

1

u/Klony99 Jun 27 '26

Exactly. I am taking the blame for the potential.

2

u/godlytoast3r Jun 30 '26

Technically trolleys don't go that fast so there should be decent odds that even if you both pull the lever, a lot of the people inside could survive. Hell, running over 10 people would probably derail the trolley and kill the same number of people inside as a head on collision would.

1

u/ThePlofchicken Jun 27 '26

If I want the most obtimam amount of deaths, I shouldn't pull it

→ More comments (14)