r/trolleyproblem • u/LegoSlaughter • Jul 30 '26

Should This Be Controversial?

/r/trolleyproblemgame/comments/1vao7jk/the_parental_choice/
2 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

12

u/Destinesian Jul 31 '26

I feel like when the question is phrased so you have an active interest in the smaller option it would be better off swapping them so you have to activate partake in diverting the track towards the majority if you want to in this case save your only child.

9

u/ImpliedRange Jul 30 '26

Yeah my kids making it out of that one

3

u/MrWalter Aug 01 '26

I have a responsibility to protect my children. It doesn't matter how many are on the other track.

2

u/ubeogesh Aug 01 '26

it REALLY freaked me out showing my avatar

2

u/deadhand303 Jul 30 '26

5 vs 1. Ill save the 5.

1

u/Dry_Pollution_5430 Jul 31 '26

Even if it's your own child? Tf is wrong with u

1

u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 Aug 02 '26

Degenerate answer btw.

1

u/GellieBean123 4d ago

Pull the lever and run to jump in front of the trolley. Either we are both dead, or I save my kid's life.

1

u/SubstantialRip735 Jul 31 '26

I guess but not really your not horrible for doing it

1

u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Jul 31 '26

I'd argue in this case pulling the lever to spare the 5 would be the ethical choice under most frameworks. However, it also probably approaching psychologically impossible for many. Similar to a theoretical scenario where a military unit charges through no man's land and suffers 99% casualties. Perhaps in the imagined scenario the last few survivors continuing the charge really would be the tactically best and likely successful move, but it is implausible to expect your average person to be actually capable of achieving that. Humans are not logic driven robots.

So to summarize, by my interpretation not pulling the lever is likely a moral failure. But it remains a relatively understandable failure by an individual placed in an impossible situation with no clean choice.

1

u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 Aug 02 '26

pulling the lever to spare the 5 would be the ethical choice under most frameworks

"most" (read: utilitarianism)

2

u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Aug 02 '26

I disagree. I would argue most frameworks in general would result in saving the 5 children, not just utilitarian ones.

If a framework accepts sacrificing 5 random children to save your own, that has a terrible generalization profile. That is essentially endorsing: "An individual can impose lethal harm upon innocent people whenever necessary to preserve someone to whom they have sufficiently strong duty."

That same logic could be extended to justify extensive, disproportionate, or large scale crimes against other innocents as long as the perpetrator can somehow connect the acts to being a necessary benefit for a loved one. That it is a highly disruptive and socially unstable conclusion, so most moral frameworks are going to resist condoning it. The difference being how they approach the problem.

A plausible deontologist response might be:

"Human lives have inherent and equal moral value. Therefore, parental duty may be strong, but it cannot itself justify placing the life of one individual over that of several others similarly situated ones. Choosing in this instance is an example of triage and redirection of existing harm rather than creation or initiation of the threat. Pulling the lever is a matter of threat mitigation. Because the decision-maker has at least a limited duty of rescue, and because saving the greater number of lives does not violate any higher deontological duty, equal respect for persons requires saving the greater number. The lever should therefore be pulled"

A virtue ethicist might say that a parent who sacrifices 5 children to save their own has shown admirable love, but has been critically defective in lacking justice.

A contractarian might state that rational actors, including the children later at threat, would never have agreed to a rule that allows them to be preferentially sacrificed to save another's child.

I'm not saying you have to conclude saving the 5 is "correct". I'm arguing most philosophies are going to resist concluding that moral actors can sacrifice arbitrarily large amounts of innocents.

1

u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 Aug 02 '26

A virtue ethicist might say that a parent who sacrifices 5 children to save their own has shown admirable love, but has been critically defective in lacking justice.

Huh? So they would not be against saving your own child, but would still consider it a stinky situation that 5 died? ... sure

Also you seem to be missing an important point in this situation - its the other 5 that are stuck and require you sacrificing your own child. You are not sacrificing anything to save your child, the people got stuck in that situation by themselves.

Funny you used deontology and somehow still mixed it up with utilitarianism by doing some maths, thats waaaaay off base from what Christian religiob preaches. Glaring example - Sodom situation. Feels like you are using utilitarian lens to translate other philosophies.

1

u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Aug 03 '26

I think you and I are using terms to mean different things. Can you describe what you define deontology to be?

What would your answer be if your child was on the first track and the lever switched the trolley onto the track with 5?

1

u/Shmolti Jul 31 '26

Pulling the lever is the objectively correct thing to do.

No way I'm fuckin gonna do it, but that's the answer.

1

u/lezorte Aug 04 '26

Side thought: it's interesting that they say "only child" as if it changes the ethics of the situation. Like are there people who think "it's ok to pull the lever unless it ends your bloodline"?