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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
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?
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 UA-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)
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.
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 💀💀💀
If the fat man is so fat that he can stop a train, he must consist of some kind of ultradense material, or be the size of a mansion. Either way I'm not sure he would actually die if he was hit.
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.
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? ...
@@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.
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.
So, because our laws are bad for generating optimal outcomes in situations such as this, how do you propose changing the law so that it stops encouraging people to do the wrong thing
@@AfterLife-t8c Who says it is? Outsourcing the choice is still a choice is it not? Wouldn't be a very subjective question if there was a wrong answer.
Google doesn't think the trolly problem doesn't have a solution. You remind me of when you would do a group project in school and that one kid would put "Google" in their sources
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.
The occasional person who gives thought to this kind of question can come to realize how similar our systems of morality and ethics probably really are to past societies that we view as barbaric in certain ways. Once one “realizes” that human sacrifice is needed to avoid famine, the choice is a tough one, but not really a choice. It’s not our sense of right and wrong improving, it’s our understanding of ACTUAL cause and effect vs old wives tales. Old emperors tales?
Interesting point. Say you have 5 people who are really in war with this 1 other guy. If you save them, the first thing that they would do is to go kill that other guy (except that, they are totally normal people tho, not Psychopaths or anything). Then according to this point, you *should* save their lives, becaue: "if the 1 person wasn't there (meaning they wouldn't be in war with anyone), I could do the same and save the 5 people (who are normal now)." But still, I kinda feel conflicted about saving them...
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.
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!
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Realistically, yes. That's what most people think including me. But that point of view is selfish by definition, you are choosing your own sanity/good sleep at night over the lives of others.
@@GenericLooksmaxxernot really. For any of these scenarios to be real, someone would have to be setting these up with malicious intent (except for the fat man, that one’s always impossible). Best response then is to not play their game, cuz no matter what you do they’re the one who put people on the track and are thus in the wrong
...intentionally, almost to show that no ethical system can have perfection, and that sometimes we have to chose between two unethical choices, isn't it!
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
@@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.
@@Good.account7398 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
Every trolley problem forces you into a hypothetical where you are required by the explainant to assume things that could only be known, or assumed, by the type of person who would have tied the people to the tracks in the first place. Even in the transplant version the doctor somehow *knows* this one person, who is visiting a hospital no less, is completely healthy and has organs compatible with each of their other patients. It's as if they specifically invited them there just to kill them and harvest their organs. So the answer to the Trolley Problem is "don't do that," don't tie people to the tracks, don't assume a person light enough for you to push is heavy enough to stop a train, don't kill people for their organs, basically don't be a supervillain.
You're not required to assume things, you're required to make a decision without extraneous information in order to probe your moral reasoning. The only points that matter are that the people tied down don't want to be and are not there due to their own actions, and that your action will only change the trolley's trajectory and have no unintended effects. That's it. Who did it, how it happened, nothing else matters. "But what if they sabotaged..." no, you can't get out of choosing by changing the rules. That is the whole point, the other information confuses the purpose of the thought experiment. It's why the doctor version is the weakest of the questions, since context inherently matters to that situation. You can't rules lawyer your way out of answering, if you try it indicates discomfort in engaging with the problem and moral reasoning required. Or it indicates you've got engineers disease and think philosophy is useless while unknowingly making worse choices than you would if you understood philosophy.
@@cyclic_infinity It literally only requires that you assume things, and it was invented specifically for the purpose of mocking these kinds of unrealistic moral dilemmas in philosphy. I'm sure taking it seriously makes you feel smart, but you're like that guy who watches satire and doesn't realize the joke's on him.
@@futurestoryteller This is literally, factually, incorrect. You can find this out in one minute on Google. Philippa Foot invented it to elucidate the Doctrine of Double Effect, it is not a joke but it's also not "serious" it's simply an accessible example of how moral decision making operates and differs. It's also just a brief example she used in a set of greater examples that grew its' own life. I was unduly rude, and I'm sorry for that. You're clearly a plothole person, should've noted that from the username. But c'mon dude, if you're trying to loophole your way out of a moral problem you're the one who thinks they're smarter than everyone else. I get your comment was "jokey" but it wasn't funny, in my opinion, and its' not a good joke because it misunderstands the source material. I also understood the jokes in the video and don't complain about them because he both takes it seriously enough to engage with answering while joking about it. "I wouldn't push the fat man, but that's ridiculous anyway." It's not even satire, it's a light dry comedy routine about simply explaining "fairness" to make the problem easy, actually.
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
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
@@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).
@@jk-2053 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.
@@jk-2053 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.
Lol doing anything will kill them all lol. Imagine flipping the lever thinking you saved people but then the trolly comes back to kill them all lmao🤣🤣.
The trolley problem is easy. I would do nothing. My reaction time isn't fast enough and I don't pay enough attention to my surroundings, so I wouldn't have time to register what was happening before people died.
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.
@@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.
This is exactly right. Inaction doesn’t make you a murderer any more than not donating to charities that provide food and medicine to impoverished people makes you a murderer. But if you pull the lever, you are now a murderer. You have no right to take that man’s life.
What would I be doing anywhere near a railway line switch in the first place? Last time that happened, like last century, there was a clear sign, “ only to be operated by authoritised personnel
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.
If you pull the switch youd go to jail for man slaughter. Its best to not do anything because you are not a licensed or trained train operator. So touching the lever or switch would be illegal
My answers solve these problems without killing anyone (and even provide additional significant financial benefits for the person who has to decide): − a / b) derail the (seemingly unmanned) trolley by moving the level half-way (this was my own idea, but by reading the comments I found an alleged real life trolley operator that confirmed that this would actually be possible: “hold the lever at the halfway point, since that would derail the trolley in a relatively gentle manner, stopping it before it hits anyone.” If the level could not be moved half-way, then wait for the front wheels of the trolley to cross, and then switch back, which would also derail the trail (not my own idea, but suggested in the comments). − c / d) if the fat man had enough mass to stop a train, it would not be possible to push him off the bridge, but you could ask the fat man to go down to the tracks and throw himself into one or more supports of the bridge, which would collapse the bridge due to his extremely high mass (force is mass times acceleration, so the fat man will be able to exert enough force to collapse the bridge). You could offer to pay for all of his food for the rest of his life, what the saved people would most likely agree to pay for after learning that the fat man was only able to save their lifes due to his life-long discipline of “conditioning” his body with massive amounts of food (if they don't agree to pay all of his food, then you still saved the victims with a harmless lie). If there wasn't enough time to go down, then the fat man could simply jump down to the tracks since his massive ass would break his fall without any damage to him and cause a little local earth quake, which would also collapse the bridge. − e) derail the train as in the previous answer (if the loop had a realistic size then it is very unlikely that the derailed train would hit anyone before coming to a stop) − f) derail the train as in the previous answer (since it is very unlikely that the train would actually hit the man in the yard because the train would come to a stop relatively quickly once derailed since no one has a yard that close to a train track, which might even be prohibited by law due to land zoning regulations) − g) [medical doctors earn a lot of money and they like to invest their money, so] the surgeon founds a for-profit company (that is funded by him and his medical doctor friends) that lobbies politicians to introduce two new laws: 1) anyone passing their driver's license has to official register with the government whether he or she is willing to donate his or her intact organs for organ transplants upon death (whether dying in a traffic accident or not, but traffic accidents will probably produce the most high quality organs), which will ensure enough organs are always available for transplantations (just the motorcycle driver's accidents are going to ensure that) 2) any excess organs that are not needed for transplantations in the own country will be sold (exclusively) by the aforementioned for-profit company to other countries where the company has to pay a special 50 % tax on their capital gains, which the state has to invest into the medical system. This results in the following 6-way-win-situation where everyone benefits: a) there are always enough organs available for transplantations in the own country b) other countries benefit from the excess organs c) the surgeon and his medical doctor friends get very very rich from their initial investments d) knowing that the surgeon will be very very rich and that the 5 people inspired him to lobby for these laws, the surgeon bought the 5 required organs from a foreign country and gifted them to his patients as a thank you in advance e) the own country's medical system is improved with the additional money that the state has available through more taxes f) a few corrupt politicians get rich and they are even praised by the public for their brilliant law proposals − h) derail the train as in the previous answer, or alternative solution [background information: a Nobel Peace Prize recipient receives approximately $1 million in addition to his or her gold medal and diploma]: negotiate (you could also call it blackmail in a life-or-death situation) with the Nobel Peace Prize recipient into donating you his or her $1 million reward if you save his or her life. Save his or her life and let the criminals die. If the Nobel Peace Prize recipient ends up not being so noble (I know, bad pun) by refusing to donate the agreed upon money, then tell him or her that you are also a criminal and that the other criminals were actually your accomplices in order to blackmail him or her into giving you the money (by fixing him or her onto the track), but you decided to kill the other criminals in order to not have to share the money, which will prove to him or her that you are a bad-ass criminal and not messing around. Result: You are a millionaire and the media declares you a hero, who saved a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the derailing one, how could you ever calculate the train would hit a guy on a hammock? You wouldnt know. And what are the chances of a guy on the hammock being near by? Not very high. I would definitely flip that switch!
Psychologists have given me this problem a few times during meetings, and my answer was always the same. "Depends on what you want to achieve" What is the point of taking or not taking an action. Answer that and the answer to the problem will present itself. Is the goal to have as many people live as possible? If so, pull the lever. Is it to be free of responsibility? In that case, is not taking action going to achieve that? If yes, then don't do anything, if no, pull the lever, you did all you could. Ultimately though choices like this don't require that much thinking from me, because I'm kinda used to "No win situations". If there are no right answers, then you can't fault me for choosing the wrong one.
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
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.
In any of these, if you act, you are mirdiring someone. If you don't act, you are letting something happen that was not your fault to begin with. You never get to decide if someone deserves to die.
uhh i think you just hypnotized me into subscribing or something LOL. i was watching the animation intensely, saw you talk about a button and decision, saw the subscribe button on the video and then pressed it before realizing what i'd done. im not complaining, i think it's hilarious.
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?
@@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.
I guess the point of this problem is to tell you that pulling the lever is equivallent to murder, so not pushing it is always the morally correct option, since it's not your fault those five people got tied up in the first place... Also mathematically speaking, the value of a life is immensurable, thus equivallent to a dividing by zero error, or tending to infinity. And multiplying infinity by 5 also gets you infinity, so the results in terms of loss is the same.
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.
If you pull the lever after the first two wheels go beyond the crossing, the train will start drifting across both the tracks and you will be able to take out all the 6 people
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
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.
switch the track after the trolley is halfway past the intersection
Did you try a Tesla valve?
I read this in a Norm MacDonald voice
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
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?
“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 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 UA-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.
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 💀💀💀
If the fat man is so fat that he can stop a train, he must consist of some kind of ultradense material, or be the size of a mansion. Either way I'm not sure he would actually die if he was hit.
@theuncalledfor im not sure if he is alive RIGHT NOW
@@killer_125p7
That is a fair point.
The Henry Kissenger reference was so spot on!
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 You're making Generalizations.
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
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
0:04 “twolley pwoblem”
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.
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 Kissinger joke at the end earned you a big like my man
How do you get to Kessenger from Kissinger? Name was literally spelled out in the video.
@@Jartran72 oops accidental typo
And it's not even a joke...
_”The only winning move is not to play.”_
Wise words, Hirohiko Araki
Not playing is equivalent to not pulling the switch. So there is no way not to play. 😊
But, action and inaction are morally equivalent.
@@uzefulvideos3440 boi not playing means that i wasnt there
@@uzefulvideos3440 No, they aren't.
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.
So, because our laws are bad for generating optimal outcomes in situations such as this, how do you propose changing the law so that it stops encouraging people to do the wrong thing
abusing the law (loopholes). Writing good laws is actually very difficult.
It's a thought experience about moral choices. Legality is irrelevant.
@@AfterLife-t8c Who says it is? Outsourcing the choice is still a choice is it not? Wouldn't be a very subjective question if there was a wrong answer.
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.
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?
2:07 excuse me, this channel went from 49 subs to 300K in TWO MONTHS?!
4 months later and additional 350k
Google doesn't think the trolly problem doesn't have a solution. You remind me of when you would do a group project in school and that one kid would put "Google" in their sources
It’s harder for a machines to forget that five is a bigger number than one. When we tell machines that we value human life, they believed us
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.
The occasional person who gives thought to this kind of question can come to realize how similar our systems of morality and ethics probably really are to past societies that we view as barbaric in certain ways.
Once one “realizes” that human sacrifice is needed to avoid famine, the choice is a tough one, but not really a choice.
It’s not our sense of right and wrong improving, it’s our understanding of ACTUAL cause and effect vs old wives tales. Old emperors tales?
Interesting point. Say you have 5 people who are really in war with this 1 other guy. If you save them, the first thing that they would do is to go kill that other guy (except that, they are totally normal people tho, not Psychopaths or anything). Then according to this point, you *should* save their lives, becaue: "if the 1 person wasn't there (meaning they wouldn't be in war with anyone), I could do the same and save the 5 people (who are normal now)."
But still, I kinda feel conflicted about saving them...
@@GenericLooksmaxxer
You pick a side depending on what they're fighting for. Support the cause you believe in.
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.
I love how this video gets ironically deep and dark, ending by throwning an entire train (of thought) onto the US leaked dark secrets
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
Too bad.
I watched law by mike and i wouldnt touch it at all because if the cops ask who did it im in trouble
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.
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.
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
@@alexiserlexcc Fr same
In real life the switch would probably have a padlock on it anyway because railroad security.
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.
HEDONISMUS ET LOGICA
I agree lol
Yet all those preventable deaths happened because you wouldnt stop it
Realistically, yes. That's what most people think including me.
But that point of view is selfish by definition, you are choosing your own sanity/good sleep at night over the lives of others.
@@GenericLooksmaxxernot really. For any of these scenarios to be real, someone would have to be setting these up with malicious intent (except for the fat man, that one’s always impossible). Best response then is to not play their game, cuz no matter what you do they’re the one who put people on the track and are thus in the wrong
"i'd say the question itself is flawed."
- sensei (blue archive)
...intentionally, almost to show that no ethical system can have perfection, and that sometimes we have to chose between two unethical choices, isn't it!
I'll choose the legal option then. Screw this problem lmao
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 :/
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
@@Good.account7398 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
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.
@@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatmanbro how? It’s going down the middle
I haven't started the video yet but I think if u switch it at the right time the trolley would fall over diving 6 people
Every trolley problem forces you into a hypothetical where you are required by the explainant to assume things that could only be known, or assumed, by the type of person who would have tied the people to the tracks in the first place. Even in the transplant version the doctor somehow *knows* this one person, who is visiting a hospital no less, is completely healthy and has organs compatible with each of their other patients. It's as if they specifically invited them there just to kill them and harvest their organs.
So the answer to the Trolley Problem is "don't do that," don't tie people to the tracks, don't assume a person light enough for you to push is heavy enough to stop a train, don't kill people for their organs, basically don't be a supervillain.
You're not required to assume things, you're required to make a decision without extraneous information in order to probe your moral reasoning. The only points that matter are that the people tied down don't want to be and are not there due to their own actions, and that your action will only change the trolley's trajectory and have no unintended effects. That's it. Who did it, how it happened, nothing else matters. "But what if they sabotaged..." no, you can't get out of choosing by changing the rules. That is the whole point, the other information confuses the purpose of the thought experiment. It's why the doctor version is the weakest of the questions, since context inherently matters to that situation.
You can't rules lawyer your way out of answering, if you try it indicates discomfort in engaging with the problem and moral reasoning required. Or it indicates you've got engineers disease and think philosophy is useless while unknowingly making worse choices than you would if you understood philosophy.
@@cyclic_infinity It literally only requires that you assume things, and it was invented specifically for the purpose of mocking these kinds of unrealistic moral dilemmas in philosphy. I'm sure taking it seriously makes you feel smart, but you're like that guy who watches satire and doesn't realize the joke's on him.
@@futurestoryteller This is literally, factually, incorrect. You can find this out in one minute on Google. Philippa Foot invented it to elucidate the Doctrine of Double Effect, it is not a joke but it's also not "serious" it's simply an accessible example of how moral decision making operates and differs. It's also just a brief example she used in a set of greater examples that grew its' own life.
I was unduly rude, and I'm sorry for that. You're clearly a plothole person, should've noted that from the username. But c'mon dude, if you're trying to loophole your way out of a moral problem you're the one who thinks they're smarter than everyone else. I get your comment was "jokey" but it wasn't funny, in my opinion, and its' not a good joke because it misunderstands the source material.
I also understood the jokes in the video and don't complain about them because he both takes it seriously enough to engage with answering while joking about it. "I wouldn't push the fat man, but that's ridiculous anyway." It's not even satire, it's a light dry comedy routine about simply explaining "fairness" to make the problem easy, actually.
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?
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).
@@jk-2053 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.
@@jk-2053 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.
0:37 I don't think that's the original... LOL
Lol doing anything will kill them all lol. Imagine flipping the lever thinking you saved people but then the trolly comes back to kill them all lmao🤣🤣.
The trolley problem is easy. I would do nothing. My reaction time isn't fast enough and I don't pay enough attention to my surroundings, so I wouldn't have time to register what was happening before people died.
If I'm strong enough to push a man heavy enough to stop the train, doesn't that mean I'm strong enough to stop the train myself...?
The fat man would probably break the bridge I’m standing on so I’m gonna run
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.
6:10 - I was so expecting a random "choose the worst guy to save the other 4 instead."
Best channel I saw for this month, thanks for making my day
Actully the original can be somthing hard, because if you do nothing, YOU ARENT INVOLVED, but if you do somthing, ur tech a murderer
Yea
This is exactly right. Inaction doesn’t make you a murderer any more than not donating to charities that provide food and medicine to impoverished people makes you a murderer.
But if you pull the lever, you are now a murderer. You have no right to take that man’s life.
Any science that Nobel Peace prize winner would have done after being saved would have also been done by others if he had not been saved.
Really love the quality of your videos, and it shows how much time you put into them! 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
6:36
Take the medal and run 😂
What would I be doing anywhere near a railway line switch in the first place?
Last time that happened, like last century, there was a clear sign, “ only to be operated by authoritised personnel
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.
Wait, you only have two videos!? Make more, they are informative and hilarious.
If you pull the switch youd go to jail for man slaughter. Its best to not do anything because you are not a licensed or trained train operator. So touching the lever or switch would be illegal
Morally bankrupt view
Right and wrong doesn’t matter compared with law?
Trying to think of a religion that would accept that
@@SigFigNewton try and think of a religion that accepts riding trains
The actual grown up in comment, how refreshing.
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
WAS NOT EXPECTING THE KISSINGER CAMEO. I FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR
Just pull the switch halfway so that the train stops at the intersection.
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!
Loving the current direction. Plz no lever pulls
Much harder problem: how not to be cyberbullied for whatever choice you made.
Muuuurrrrdurrrrr
i wouldn't do anything because there might be some chances of manslaughter
Law always getting in the way of doing the right thing
I'd be interested to see how combat vets approach these problems.
My answers solve these problems without killing anyone (and even provide additional significant financial benefits for the person who has to decide):
− a / b) derail the (seemingly unmanned) trolley by moving the level half-way (this was my own idea, but by reading the comments I found an alleged real life trolley operator that confirmed that this would actually be possible: “hold the lever at the halfway point, since that would derail the trolley in a relatively gentle manner, stopping it before it hits anyone.” If the level could not be moved half-way, then wait for the front wheels of the trolley to cross, and then switch back, which would also derail the trail (not my own idea, but suggested in the comments).
− c / d) if the fat man had enough mass to stop a train, it would not be possible to push him off the bridge, but you could ask the fat man to go down to the tracks and throw himself into one or more supports of the bridge, which would collapse the bridge due to his extremely high mass (force is mass times acceleration, so the fat man will be able to exert enough force to collapse the bridge). You could offer to pay for all of his food for the rest of his life, what the saved people would most likely agree to pay for after learning that the fat man was only able to save their lifes due to his life-long discipline of “conditioning” his body with massive amounts of food (if they don't agree to pay all of his food, then you still saved the victims with a harmless lie). If there wasn't enough time to go down, then the fat man could simply jump down to the tracks since his massive ass would break his fall without any damage to him and cause a little local earth quake, which would also collapse the bridge.
− e) derail the train as in the previous answer (if the loop had a realistic size then it is very unlikely that the derailed train would hit anyone before coming to a stop)
− f) derail the train as in the previous answer (since it is very unlikely that the train would actually hit the man in the yard because the train would come to a stop relatively quickly once derailed since no one has a yard that close to a train track, which might even be prohibited by law due to land zoning regulations)
− g) [medical doctors earn a lot of money and they like to invest their money, so] the surgeon founds a for-profit company (that is funded by him and his medical doctor friends) that lobbies politicians to introduce two new laws: 1) anyone passing their driver's license has to official register with the government whether he or she is willing to donate his or her intact organs for organ transplants upon death (whether dying in a traffic accident or not, but traffic accidents will probably produce the most high quality organs), which will ensure enough organs are always available for transplantations (just the motorcycle driver's accidents are going to ensure that) 2) any excess organs that are not needed for transplantations in the own country will be sold (exclusively) by the aforementioned for-profit company to other countries where the company has to pay a special 50 % tax on their capital gains, which the state has to invest into the medical system. This results in the following 6-way-win-situation where everyone benefits: a) there are always enough organs available for transplantations in the own country b) other countries benefit from the excess organs c) the surgeon and his medical doctor friends get very very rich from their initial investments d) knowing that the surgeon will be very very rich and that the 5 people inspired him to lobby for these laws, the surgeon bought the 5 required organs from a foreign country and gifted them to his patients as a thank you in advance e) the own country's medical system is improved with the additional money that the state has available through more taxes f) a few corrupt politicians get rich and they are even praised by the public for their brilliant law proposals
− h) derail the train as in the previous answer, or alternative solution [background information: a Nobel Peace Prize recipient receives approximately $1 million in addition to his or her gold medal and diploma]: negotiate (you could also call it blackmail in a life-or-death situation) with the Nobel Peace Prize recipient into donating you his or her $1 million reward if you save his or her life. Save his or her life and let the criminals die. If the Nobel Peace Prize recipient ends up not being so noble (I know, bad pun) by refusing to donate the agreed upon money, then tell him or her that you are also a criminal and that the other criminals were actually your accomplices in order to blackmail him or her into giving you the money (by fixing him or her onto the track), but you decided to kill the other criminals in order to not have to share the money, which will prove to him or her that you are a bad-ass criminal and not messing around. Result: You are a millionaire and the media declares you a hero, who saved a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
Blackmail is threatening to release sensitive information. What you described is coercion.
0:46 Because I.. I don't know how to animate them LMAO
Next video: "animating is easy, actually"
bruh ur gonna blow up. i predict it. good content and u got the algorithm by the balls.
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.
2:02 "What are you doing? Press and hold ZR and be ashamed!" aah moment.
Escaping a prison cell is easy, actually
I would keep switching and switching very fast until the Train is stuck and the track is broken
Kissinger joke made me lough out loud. Man, you are on fire. Keep doing what you doing
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
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
How many miles per hour would that be?
because it’s just a hypothetical of course a person couldn’t stop a train
You didn't tie the people to the track, thus you are not choosing if they die (killing) only choosing who dies
Remind me not to get tied up to train tracks near this guy
I think about the trolley problem all the time lmaoo, thank you for this video!
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.
Plot tiwst, the 1 person on the train had the cure to cancer and the 5 people where murderers
throw the switch as the train is on top of it, derailing the train, and sending it sliding into this video
When discussing derailing are we just all gonna forget there’s at least 1-2 train operators who’s lives are also in jeopardy lol
1:02 pull the lever mid switch to cause the train to derail saving everyone :D
nah, multi-track drifting
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.
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
Whatever you do, make sure you wipe your fingerprints off the lever.
The trolley problem unfortunately becomes really simple when you choose to not get involved at all, i chose no to every option 😂
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.
What would happen if I werent there?
- person determined not to leave the world a better place
@@SigFigNewtonLeaving the world the same honestly is pretty good. At least you’re not leaving in a worse place.
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.
That ending was too good lmao
For the derailing one, how could you ever calculate the train would hit a guy on a hammock? You wouldnt know. And what are the chances of a guy on the hammock being near by? Not very high. I would definitely flip that switch!
Psychologists have given me this problem a few times during meetings, and my answer was always the same. "Depends on what you want to achieve"
What is the point of taking or not taking an action. Answer that and the answer to the problem will present itself. Is the goal to have as many people live as possible? If so, pull the lever. Is it to be free of responsibility? In that case, is not taking action going to achieve that? If yes, then don't do anything, if no, pull the lever, you did all you could.
Ultimately though choices like this don't require that much thinking from me, because I'm kinda used to "No win situations". If there are no right answers, then you can't fault me for choosing the wrong one.
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
@@sssvedenExcept the problem states you can, thus the guy must be in an unstable equilibrium that you can disrupt
@@sssveden Inability to engage with hypotheticals is a sign of low intelligence.
Why is bro hating😭😭 00:30
I respect him for that
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 😂
In any of these, if you act, you are mirdiring someone. If you don't act, you are letting something happen that was not your fault to begin with. You never get to decide if someone deserves to die.
uhh i think you just hypnotized me into subscribing or something LOL. i was watching the animation intensely, saw you talk about a button and decision, saw the subscribe button on the video and then pressed it before realizing what i'd done. im not complaining, i think it's hilarious.
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.
I guess the point of this problem is to tell you that pulling the lever is equivallent to murder, so not pushing it is always the morally correct option, since it's not your fault those five people got tied up in the first place...
Also mathematically speaking, the value of a life is immensurable, thus equivallent to a dividing by zero error, or tending to infinity. And multiplying infinity by 5 also gets you infinity, so the results in terms of loss is the same.
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.
The easiest solution: walk away for plausible deniability.
If you pull the lever after the first two wheels go beyond the crossing, the train will start drifting across both the tracks and you will be able to take out all the 6 people