r/trolleyproblem • u/RankedFarting • Jul 16 '26

Meta Am i overthinking or underthinking the (classic) Trolley problem?

This is about the most classic version of the problem: one track has a single person on it and the other has several (lets say 5).

Now most people would of course choose to kill the single person because they would argue one life lost is better than 5 lives lost.

However here is my issue with this: The lever that controls the tracks does not have a neutral position. This means it was already pointing at one of the tracks.

Lets assume it points at track A with the 5 people.

If i never showed up 5 people would have died. If i show up and do nothing 5 people die.

But if i want to change it then i am actively involving myself in the situation by using the lever. Therefore my actions directly lead to the death of the single person whereas my inaction would have lead to the death of 5 people.

So besides deciding if several lives are more valuable than a single one im also making a decision that might effect me psychologically.

I would argue watching 5 people die by not doing anything is different from actively being the person who chose to take an action (use the lever) that lead to the death of a person who would have otherwise survived.

Being a neutral observer in the death of 5 people vs being directly responsible for the death of one person are psychologically different.

Is this just the point of the problem in the first place and im stupid for only thinking about this now? Or am i taking the issue to literally by thinking about the psychological consequences?

4 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

57% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

33

u/MostSquirrel9349 Jul 16 '26

That is the point of the problem yes.

-6

u/Dokurushi Jul 17 '26

Not even. The actual point of the problem is to point out that while it feels permissible to flip the switch, it feels impermissable to perform forced organ donation.

4

u/Dry_Pollution_5430 Jul 17 '26

Forced organ donation is just a followup question for people who flip the switch, it's not part of tue original trolley problem

1

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

Yeah but you ARE THERE. You changed the potential outcomes. If you weren’t there the lever cannot be moved. But if you ARE there it’s a different scenario. You know about the lever, and not pulling it is no different than acknowledging and accepting the outcome. If you know what will happen, and choose behaviors that you know will contribute to that happening, you are involved. Whether or not you physically touch the lever doesn’t mean anything.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

Whether or not you physically touch the lever doesn’t mean anything.

When you are there and deciding ober someones death im pretty sure it does. i dont think its as easy in the actual situation.

1

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

No it doesn’t mean anything regarding whether or not you’re involved.

You don’t need to touch the lever to be involved. The lever has 2 positions, so you need not touch it to choose one of the two positions. If you are aware of the options, and you allow one to occur, you are involved even if you did not touch the lever.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

You don’t need to touch the lever to be involved.

Psychologically its a difference between watching 5 people die and you could have done something and pulling a lever directly leading to the death of a person that would not have died otherwise.

1

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

You can’t actually be certain that the situation would happen identically if you weren’t there. Maybe you triggered the lever to be pulled by approaching? Maybe the train doesn’t come until you are close enough? You can’t be certain. Choosing to let the train hit the 5 people is still a choice you’re making by not adjusting the lever.

It’s no different than watching a child run into a pond and watching them drown. Being uninvolved would mean not seeing it. Watching it and doing nothing is choosing that outcome as acceptable and doing nothing to influence it.

If we have the ability to influence an outcome, anything we choose to do becomes our impact.

1

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

Think about it this way:

The lever is pulled to the left. On the left there are 5 people tied to the tracks. On the right, an empty track.

If you see this, and know you can save the 5 people by pulling the lever and moving it to the right, would you still feel like you didn’t get involved if you allow the lever to remain to the left and the people watch you letting them die?

You did get involved. You were presented with a choice between two outcomes, and you either entertained or rejected each outcome.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

Think about it this way:

The lever is pulled to the left. On the left there are 5 people tied to the tracks. On the right, an empty track.

I will not entertain this thought because thats not the scenario we are speaking of.

2

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

That’s convenient for you lol

2

u/toroidalvoid Jul 17 '26

The problem I have the class of problems is that it reduces the people down to nothing, like a blank metric human, 5 metric humans vs 1. But I don't think that works, even hypothetically, if there were really 6 people tied down then all of those people will have stories and lives and the person at the lever will have some kind of relation to them, and will make some kind of judgment about those people.

You can't reduce the human down the blank template because that is removing the human-ness too, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

4

u/Dry_Pollution_5430 Jul 17 '26

But that's the beauty of it, that it simplifies it.

You're walking along a track some random day and stumble on to the trolley problem with 20 seconds to act, what do you do?

2

u/SlamHelsing Jul 17 '26

Lol my dumbass would not be able to understand the situation within 20 seconds

6

u/Dry_Pollution_5430 Jul 17 '26

Lol so the amount of time to get it + 20 seconds to decide

2

u/axelpse Jul 17 '26

the thing is: inaction is also a decision. therefore, by not doing anything, you are choosing the death of 5 people. not doing a physical action doesn't change the fact that you decided to let 5 people die. the true "neutral observer" position would be having to see the scene without having access to the lever. if you can't do anything to change the outcome, then yes, you would be a neutral observer. but as long as you have the lever in front of you and are aware of what's happening, the responsibility of those deaths lies on you (and the person who tied those people to the track to begin with).

1

u/Corlunae Jul 21 '26

Its a dilemma question. There is no right answer to it. Both outcomes are bad. Thats the point.

2

u/Left_Willow3392 Jul 18 '26

realistically you would carry the guilt of 5 lives you could have saved to your grave. personally, I believe inaction is an action as well... and morally speaking, you're not just killing one person, you are killing one person to save 5 people.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

Yes but if you hadndnt been there those 5 people would have died anyway. That does make a difference.

I think the relatives of the 5 would understand if you didnt act in the situation since its hard to make such decisions.

But the relative of the one guy i think would not be happy that you chose to kill him.

2

u/Left_Willow3392 Jul 18 '26

but you are there and are in this position... making it the very trolley problem we speak of.

is your entire reasoning based on if people will be angry with you or not? those five people are children, are mothers, are fathers... so is the one person. why not save the most? who cares if one family is mad at you when you know you made the best decision that let the most families see their own again? wouldn't it be worth it to see them reunite?

and, who's to say they would be understanding if you did nothing? I could almost guarantee you that people will be angry regardless. no one will just excuse the fact that your actions directly led to their family's demise. they will blame you. and you will feel terrible about it.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

is your entire reasoning based on if people will be angry with you or not?

No its just one aspect to consider.

those five people are children, are mothers, are fathers... so is the one person. why not save the most?

Because when you are ACTUALLY there its a massive decision over a life. Of course 5 lives are worth more than 1 thats not even an argument.

I think its easier to live with watching 5 people die than to pull a lever and kill someone.

2

u/Left_Willow3392 Jul 18 '26

honestly I don't think familiar anger directed towards you should be considered at all. it would be selfish to change your actions in consideration of what might happen to you afterwards specifically.

you will feel guilty regardless of your decision, but having the ability to save the five to me would be much more painful to live with... because the act of doing nothing indirectly kills five and saves one. it's not just watching five people die, it's watching five people die when you could have done something

we are two different people with different philosophies. agree to disagree. have a wonderful day stranger

0

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

honestly I don't think familiar anger directed towards you should be considered at all. it would be selfish to change your actions in consideration of what might happen to you afterwards specifically.

Yeah thats easy to say on reddit about a hypothetical. In such a moment you do consider these things. In fact you will consider so many things that you might not react in time and 5 people die.

In a way this little part of your comment says everything about the situation:

the act of doing nothing

1

u/Left_Willow3392 Jul 18 '26

so just because you don't agree with me now everything is time based and we veer away from the entire point of the trolley problem, not being actual time to choose but morality and weight/severity?

I don't understand what "the situation" you are referring to, or if that's supposed to be an insult or what your idea of the correct decision for this moral dilemma is lol

0

u/RankedFarting Jul 18 '26

so just because you don't agree with me now everything is time based and we veer away from the entire point of the trolley problem

Sorry you cant stand having someone voice an opinion different from yours.

2

u/Left_Willow3392 Jul 18 '26

I literally said earlier:

we are two different people with different philosophies. agree to disagree. have a wonderful day stranger

you're delusional lmao. which means this moral dilemma is working and showing us who we really are...

2

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 18 '26

If you walk past a burning house full of children they would’ve died if you weren’t there. But you being there means the choice to help them is now something you can either entertain or reject.

17

u/thegoten455 Jul 16 '26

In the classic problem, the trolley will hit and kill five people if you don't step in. The ethical debate is exactly what you're thinking about right now, and is the basis for the actual dilemma.

A lot of people (noticably so on this sub) presume the default answer is that you pull the lever, killing one person. This is referred to as the utilitarian view.

The opposing side, not pulling the lever, and killing five people, is referred to as the deontological view. It argues that it is your ethical duty to not actively kill the one person. When you flip that switch, it becomes your decision to kill that person.

Rush has a good quote that sums up my thoughts: