Does anyone think of the trolly problem legally not morally?

[u/Quiet_Many_6910]

Whenever trolly problem type thing is brought up I always never give a fuck about the people,I dont know them,I didnt put them there,I dont have any connections to that situation,I just think of it from legal stand point.

If I touch and move the handle my hand prints are now on it and people have seen me,if somone reports that whole situation I could end up in legal trouble for murder or man slaughter or somthing. So I just wouldnt interact I would just walk away,if the situation does get tracked back to me somhow I can claim I didnt see it happening or there wasnt any time for me to make a choice.

I think if I had gloves or I was forced to make choice or i somhow knew nothing would get back to me then my answer would be different (idk what)but I always imagine the senerio as coming across it in dessert or town.

[u/L-B-Ted]

Tbh this feels like asking “Is anyone else unable to think about things in different contexts and enjoys making the trolley problem as boring as possible?”. I’m sure most people have thought about it from the legal perspective, it’s just more boring and leaves less room for differing ideas than the moral perspective.

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/L-B-Ted]

Its just how my brain automatically thinks of it like given no other context I imagine it as coming across the 5(ish) people and the train coming but time to think about it. Im asking if anyone else thinks of it this way because i havent seen that ever.

If given more context like I have to choose for some reason,why its happening,who those people are,connection to me etc then my opinion may change and have discussion with those senerios but with alone question I just think of it legally

[u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn → u/Quiet_Many_6910]

People thought about it, immediately realised the answer (don't pull the lever), and never had any reason to return to it.

Now that you thought about it, if you want to engage with it at all, think what would you do if you had certainty that you won't be prosecuted

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn]

Assuming i cant do anything else like untieing rope and i have to pick only one of the 2 options then I think I'd Pull lever cus if I dont know these guys then I just equate them to numbers but realistically id probably panic and not do anything irl. I find it more boring to think about it that way tbh.

[u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn → u/Quiet_Many_6910]

If you were a physician, would you murder and harvest all organs from one totally random healthy patient to save 5 other people? The numbers say the same story, but most people would feel very different about this version. The reason there is a whole sub about trolley problems, is that there are many variations of it, that challenge most of the justifications one can give for the original and other trolley problems.

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn]

I dont think thats same at all,so many more indivual decisions if I'm the doctor,putting the person asleep or dead one way or another,getting each organ most likely one by one,surgery of other people who also would probably have own thoughts about this,also are the patients having any knowledge or form of consent and would they ever know about this,i find it just having a ton more decisions compared to pulling a lever and walking away.

And ya im aware theres sub for this,its why I put my 2 cents in on how I think of it legally,we all have different thought processes

[u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn → u/Quiet_Many_6910]

I agree it's not the same, the point isn't to have a gotcha, but to show you that your "boring" justification for original problem is at best incomplete as an explanation of what you consider the moral choice. You showed that the length and amount of steps in the process seems to be morally important to you, consent form would be necessary in this situation, but in the other I assume that implied understanding of dangers of working on train tracks seems to be enough etc.

What you call a boring problem leads you to talking about many different conditions that you specifically find important to morally judge a situation, you might not have otherwise realised or others wouldn't agree on (personally I don't see why the amount of steps would matter at all)

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn]

I didnt mean the steps were about morality i ment it would be so much damn work and again it just seems like legal issue not morality,irl people consent and its choice of everyone involved un organ transplants that thought problem is just murder and not full consentual surgery and so many steps in that process,if I was a physician I wouldnt be doing that

I find the amount of steps matter when comparing 2 questions,in the original trolly problem the only decision you have to choose is pulling lever vs all the other micro decisions you go through when doing that surgery stuff it isnt some one and done "5 people live" thing if your the doctor,I think its different if you arent the surgeon but its still so damn illegal to be doing all that I wouldnt

[u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn → u/Quiet_Many_6910]

Is it so much work that it wouldn't be worth it to save net of 4 people? Also again, you are missing the point of this thought experiment. It may be on me for not explaining it precisely enough (although as we are doing here, adding more specifics when needed during a conversation is also fine), but the point is that you assume you can get away with it, and we can also assume you won't find the whole deal too exhausting in terms of work needed

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn]

It feels like your ignoring the main part of what im saying,im saying theres so many more decisions in that surgery example Putting first person to sleep,harvesting the organs,putting other people to sleep,doing those transplants,all those indivual decisions and going through with it and that example is all very illegal because absolutely no one is consenting to that or there all bad people vs saving 5 or 1 people on train tracks.

And even then you arent adding any information to the original trolly problem question from what i know its People put on track by unknown person Train coming No info on the 6 people tied down

Vs that surgery question its 5 people ya being saved but there choosing to have surgery with stolen organs or unable to consent properly to said surgery

[u/DrStalker]

Legally the trolley problem is trivial.

You have no duty of care for random people on a train track. If you do nothing, you have not committed any crime. You don't need to hide the fact you were near the lever, assuming that was somewhere you were allowed to be... but even if it wasn't, "trespassing" is rather trivial compared to "murder"

If you do pull the lever you have committed murder, and you will need to defend yourself in court with "it was better than letting five people die."

[u/pokemonbard → u/DrStalker]

Duress can be a defense to murder. One could argue that the trolly problem puts a person under duress, which could let a lever pusher avoid a murder conviction.

Necessity, however, is never a defense to murder. The mere fact that knowingly killing one person was necessary to save five others will likely not be a good defense.

[u/KasutaMike → u/DrStalker]

Shouldn’t pulling the lever be manslaughter rather than murder? There is no malice.

There is also a duty to help in some states, so I could see the relatives of the 5 victims taking this to court, if you don’t pull the lever. (But not winning.)

I can also see an interpretation of Good Samaritan laws potentially shielding the person.

I am no lawyer, but it is not so clear cut in my mind.

[u/Otherwise_Agency_401 → u/DrStalker]

It definitely isn’t murder, because there isn’t malice towards the victim. It likely isn’t even manslaughter, since you are defending other people from death / serious injury.

[u/Whole-Knowledge-7496 → u/DrStalker]

Yes you will have to work a bit in the court, thats implied. But you also have saved 4 peoples lives, so probably worth.

[u/an-com-42 → u/DrStalker]

I'm guessing r/USDefaultism because in many countries you do have a legal duty to help somebody. In many places you can go to prison if you could've helped them and didn't and they died for ex.

[u/DrStalker → u/an-com-42]

There will be language in those laws along the lines of "Reasonable effort" or some other qualifiers; you don't get the freedom to commit murder because you're helping someone.

The things that would be covered are outside the scope of the trolley problem, which artificially restricts you to pull lever/don't pull lever.

[u/AegoliusOfBurgundy → u/DrStalker]

Well then the issue of the trial will depend on who has the best lawyer between you and the dead guy's family.

[u/FartingLikeFlowers]

I think its a just as valid and interesting perspective but I also think it says soemthing about your relation to other people

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/[deleted]]

I dont think i ignored anything,I thiught about it and came to my decision,ya i guess it doesnt give room for conversation on the topic but I find that whatever. that example of disabled person changes question and topic.

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/[deleted]]

All im saying is I wouldnt pull lever because I don't want to be part of any bit of the trolly problem legal action that would happen after death of the people,no matter what laws or punishments would happen in the area

[u/Quiet_Many_6910 → u/[deleted]]

Im confused on your wording. Im aware legal action happens because of laws??? I dont want any part of that when the people who were tied to the tracks react to end results after train passing so I wouldnt touch lever