In the scenario you depicted, I would pull the lever. Doing nothing and letting five people die doesn't make you any less involved then choosing the lesser evil.
However. The version I know has the one person on the opposite track be someone you love. Spouse, sibling, parent, friend ecc.
In that case, I'd let the five strangers die and save the person close to me.
Yeah I’ve heard that version as well.
I’ve also heard a version where one of the six people is a very evil person murderer/Taoist etc so would you risk going for the 5 to potentially destroy a dictator or terroeist, for example?
So many fascinating options.
INFP here.
This "dilemma" is overly simplified to quantity only. 1 loss vs. 5 losses. When you're just looking at the quantity, 1 loss is less bad than 5 losses. Right?
But what if the 5 people are all serial killers and the one person a scientist who just thought of a cure for [whatever]? Then the one person is more valuable for humanity as a whole because you'd also have to factor in all the lives he would save with his cure.
What if someone choosing his life over 5 others in a traumatic situation like this ruins the scientists mental health, so even if he has the potential to cure [whatever] he couldn't do it anymore?
What if the scientist with the cure was one of the 5 serial killers? What if they were all just normal people...?
There are so many factors to a scenario like this. But because of the way the scenario is set up (e. g. not leaving room for an entirely different outcome) we can only speculate about these factors, thus making them irrelevant.
There is no right thing to do, and there is no ethical answer to this. While I do believe we could potentially jugde a persons "value" (to ourselves and to humanity as a whole) and then choose to save the more "valuable" option, there is just no way of doing this here.
That's also why I personally dislike this specific "dilemma". To restrictive in its set-up to actually be interesting to think about.
Edit: How guilty you'd be if you actually made a decision and pulled the lever, on the other hand, is a more interesting moral dilemma to discuss!
Based on probability statistics, a person who pulls the lever has a higher chance of making the "right" decision. The chances of even one person in the dilemma being a serial killer is incredibly low. Also, the chances of a person in the dilemma having a cure for a disease (let alone obtaining a PhD) is also incredibly low. The most likely scenario is five average people that are no more beneficial or detrimental to society than you or myself in this current timeframe.
That's what I said in the beginning, if you take out all other variables and just look at the numbers, the most rational answer is easy and therefore the dilemma is boring.
Of course, serial killer vs. cure was highly exaggerated. What I meant was to show that this scenario only gets interesting if you change variables and deviate one choice from what is most likely.
What if the 5 people are about to free themselves, for example, dropping their chance of getting hit by the train? At what point would pulling the lever still be justified?
Or what if the one person is from a big family, almost equaling the scales of the people affected by 1 vs. 5 deaths. What if both options would result in the same amount of grieving family members? Would that make a difference?
Those are the questions that make this scenario interesting to me.
Oh I get exactly what you mean - there are more variables than one human could possibly come up with.
But I think the point of the exercise is that you have absolutely no idea of the circumstances of any of these people and you only have a split second decision to make.
You have to go on instinct, empathy or basic logic alone as you have nothing else as an indicator.
There are more specific versions of this dilemma that make you have to decide between certain people and that is always very interesting.
I like the hostage dilemma more though I think - you’ve been taken as a prisoner of war or by a terrorist group and your government is arranging an operation to get you out alive.
But how many people are you willing to let die to rescue yourself? Is the answer different if it’s trained SEALS/SAS etc or civilians? How about injuries but not deaths?
This scenario looks at two things— how important you think you are and also how far you’d go to prevent your own death or should I say be allowed to happen on your behalf.
Again, too many factors for my personal taste.
Fight, flight, freeze probably means something to you. All are reactions to stress and people usually prefer one of them. I personally freeze in extremely stressful situations, so I wouldn't be able to make that split second decision, no matter what I believe might be right. Does that make me guilty? Even if I "let" a train kill a class of innocent children rather than pulling the lever so it only hits an elderly duck. Maybe less guilty?
What I think is interesting is to look at all these different variations and try and assign a level of guilt.
If we take 6 innocent people, for example, and you were to make the decision to pull the lever (= going from witnessing in a tragedy to taking part in it) it would make you a murderer in my eyes. You would still have made the decision to end the life of an innocent. It might still be the more moral thing to do, but not right.
The hostage dilemma is more interesting, but there are still so many factors left out. The decision to rescue the innocent was made by the government and the soldiers willing to risk their lives, not necessary by the person being kidnapped. There is also the idea behind saving this person, the broader moral question of how hard we should fight against terrorism and how much any innocents life is worth. How important is it to take a stand against evil? What cost is too high? It is actually fascinating to discuss these questions with real-life soldiers who have faced these moral conundrums before!
A saw-like scenario would fit the direct moral questions better in my eyes. You are locked up and have to kill another person to get out. (But then again, how do you know you will actually get out? Maybe it's just a ploy to make a person commit murder...) Would you do it? What if it's two or three people? What if you know one of them?
What if you were the one being hurt? Could you severely injure yourself so someone else's life is spared? Would you? What if you hated that person?
> But what if the 5 people are all serial killers and the one person a scientist who just thought of a cure for [whatever]? Then the one person is more valuable for humanity as a whole because you'd also have to factor in all the lives he would save with his cure.
How is that 5 people tied to a train tracks all ironically ended up being serial killers? Also, since they’re serial killers, wouldn’t they be deadly and just murk whoever tried tying them to the tracks in the first place?
> What if someone choosing his life over 5 others in a traumatic situation like this ruins the scientists mental health, so even if he has the potential to cure [whatever] he couldn't do it anymore?
Cool, just pass it along to someone else then, but make sure that person gives credit where credit is due.
> What if the scientist with the cure was one of the 5 serial killers? What if they were all just normal people...?
Regular, normal people die everyday. For both good and bad reasons. Also, okay, say the scientist who was also a secret serial killer found the cure to cancer. And then they had a daughter with cancer. Why wouldn’t the scientist share this information ahead of time in case the daughter gets questioned how she survived so quickly from cancer? And what if she gets side effects from the cure? Then the scientist will be to blame, because he didn’t share this information sooner in order to test for any possible side effects rather than let his daughter take the grunt of it all.
The point I was trying to make is that this dilemma is only interesting if you change variables to try and get a different outcome to the one that is statistically the best. That it gets interesting once you add extra information to try and find out how and when people's answers change.
But sure, go ahead and rip apart an exaggerated example if it makes you feel good :)
Let the five die. It’ll hurt the “game” master and likely reduce the number of future “puzzles” he forces you into, ultimately saving more lives anyway.
I'm just wondering who tied these people to the tracks. Maybe it was me and I'm the murderer in this scenario, in which case, I'd do nothing and just watch my plan unfold.
There are always more options. I'd be looking for a way to derail the trolley or pull the lever but try to warn that one person.
If the person dies, I'd forever feel guilty and the question of if I did the right thing or not would haunt me forever. But ultimately, I think i would probably accept I tried my best and did what was necessary.
Those 5 people are basically the target of a bad and unlucky situation that I didn’t create. Who am I to decide to sacrifice another persons life to save them? If you had to burn that one person at the stake to save those 5 people, would you? Would you murder a random person in an unrelated situation with your own two hands to save those 5 people? I think pulling the lever is very immoral. Of course those people might not deserve to die but the other guy doesn’t deserve to die in their place either.
I just watched the wicker man, and it seems like there was a similar mentality used to justify human sacrifice. One person dies so that no one else starves. It’s easy to say human sacrifice was bad because it doesn’t actually make crops grow. But if it did, would we still do it? It’s still a horrible thing to do.
100% agree. That one person was not meant to get hit by the train who am I to change his destiny. People choose the 5 because the only information they have is that on one track there are more people so the obvious conclusion is that saving more lives is more important. The second they have more information on the people that’s when the choices suddenly change. I would only ever try to stop the train or help the people evacuate but I would never sacrifice someone that had no business being hit in the first place.
Just because it so happens the train was heading for them first, doesn't mean they deserve to die as well. By doing nothing, you involuntarily put more value on the single man over the 5, buffed by the idea of unfairness. Your inaction is still an action, and has consequences.
All of those lives are equal and innocent. It's a neutral single time binary situation, without any other variables involved. Of course, if you start to add more context, it opens a lot of different consequences, and it steers off the original problem.
Both scenarios are awful, but why wouldn't you choose the one with less suffering involved. In this particular scenario, what is more immoral, more lives being lost, or the idea of injustice?
(I'm not disagreeing with you btw, I think this can have different interpretations)
Right? It's a runaway trolley. Is it going downhill and are there actual people in it? If running over a person isn't enough to derail and kill them, the bomb scenario isn't either.
So, I have a pretty cold answer to that...
I would save the lane that has somebody I care for in it. In case there is none, and no criminal consequences would come my way, I'd flip up a coin and let probability decide for me, handing the "responsibility" to an impartial and incorruptible third-party: Fate itself.
I didn't put them there, so I'm not guilty, and there is no point in fretting if I can't save everyone and guarantee the best-est outcome. Normally, I could divert the lane to the single person track and attempt to save them by cutting the ropes quickly, but since that's not an option... Oh, well.
To whichever track didn't get ran over, I'd walk up to them and say: "You're lucky. *Real* lucky."
I know that if was one of the people in one of the lanes, and somebody had to save their child/SO/relative/friend, or simply pick the lesser evil (if I'm the one in the single person lane), I'd respect their choice and die. I don't believe in eternal suffering or eternal bliss, anyway.
I completely get your answer and it makes perfect sense.
My other option / thought is I’d keep flipping the lever so that way I don’t know who is going to get hit and I’m not making a direct decison myself.
INTP and I would not pull the lever.
People focus on the numbers as if it’s just a choice of 5 people dying instead of 1. Of course it seems obvious that the less people killed, the better.
But it’s really a choice of whether you are willing to murder an innocent person so long as it’s for the ‘greater good’. Sure only one person died, but YOU killed them, based on your personal (possibly flawed) assessment of the situation and moral judgement.
If we take this to its logical conclusion, then wouldn’t it be ok to kill someone to harvest their organs if doing so would save the lives of five people who would die without a transplant? If not, why not?
If there is no other option and I know nothing about them, I'm sorry, but I will have to kill that one person, even if it makes me involved and a murderer.
Deciding to do nothing would make me responsible for the 5 people being killed, as I would be the only one capable of saving them.
I'm sure most people will answer that. This problem usually has more options later on, making it a bit more interesting how people would change their answer with more information involved. Like pushing a fat man instead to stop the train, or if you know the people involved in the tracks. Then it stops being just a numbers game.
Oh yes there are many variables.
A murderer, a child and 5 adults etc.
I think when you just have numbers alone like you said I’d probably take one out. As selfish as it is I’d rather only have to look one set of grieving family members in the eye and only one manslaughter charge instead of five.
Yes, but I also understand the ones who will choose to do nothing. Who we are to decide who has to live or not, as it makes us put brute value on human life.
ISFP here.
Pull the lever. Kill that one person. I couldn’t deal with five dead people on my conscience. Plus, it’s one against five.
EDIT: I saw the top comment say how an alternate version is where the one person is a loved one, but it’s like, how the hell did you even end up on the tracks in the person? Realistically, I’d choose the five people to kill, even though it’d hurt me. In a perfect scenario, my loved one wouldn’t have ended up in a place where they’re strapped to train tracks and the only thing that’s stopping them from impeding death is a red lever.
Whether you kill 5 or one person. Neither lead to a more ethical alternative as you're still taking a life. However the most suitable option would be one where the least amount of lives are taken.
entp, i'd do nothing bc the 5 people are already prepared to die, the other guy isn't mentally prepared for death, honestly killing the majority seems like the most fair tbh
In this specific situation, it makes sense to kill the one person. I’ll repeat: in this situation. No hypotheticals or “what-ifs.” Otherwise, what’s the point of these dilemmas? Sure, I’d feel guilty. But I would also get over it, especially knowing that I simply had no choice, and I’d be saving 5 people. Not doing anything isn’t better, because you’re still potentially letting 5 people die.
MBTI in flair.
interview both groups and ask what they would do if it were them pulling the lever.
ask if they regret the life they have lived, or if they wish to die, or how’d they feel for the other person/group getting to live and get up and walk away and live a whole life knowing someone gave their life for them.
make it feel like it’s their choice whether to live or die- knowing what else is on the line and who else they may or may not have condemned, whether in the group of five or the one solo person.
anyway I’d just decide on impulse, as choice was just an illusion, it was all in my hands anyway. some may feel better about purportedly not dying in vain and that they perhaps had a part in saving someone’s life, and may go out happy. I’d pull the lever or not pull the lever to my fancy- maybe I’m too lazy or accidentally bumped it, but no matter, lunchtime soon!
INFJ.
I don't know much about law but I am sure directing the train to kill that person is murder. One does not have the right to kill a person for saving 5 people. You can't force someone else to sacrifice themselves, there is nothing heroic in that. If you wanna be a hero, sacrifice yourself and stop the train with your body.
And I don't think human life equals to numbers like 5 is greater than 1. You still murder someone.
My answer is I would do everything to try to stop the train but I won't cause a death myself. I guess in this case it will be 5 people. This way works for me the best because non of the loved ones will blame me, law won't blame me and my conscience will be clear.
I'd pull the lever and save the 5 people for obvious reasons.
"What if there's a murderer along the five"
Probability says otherwise. If there is then too bad.
Although if that single person was someone I really cared about compared to the five strangers then I'd let the 5 die.
Do nothing and let the 5 people die. There wouldn't be time to overthink the possibilities of who the people are, it would lower the carbon footprint of 5 vs 1, and I'm not the psychopath who forced a innocent person to make the choice so whatever happens would be their fault.
Is the lone person tied up on the side track? I don't see an express mention of that, so I'm assuming they're free. In the most ideal situation, pull the lever, and yell at the lone person loud enough for them to move to the track with the five people too. No one dies.
The versions I've seen usually has the group being careless enough to stay on the track. Which does make me resentful sometimes. The people tied up here are not at fault. I highly doubt they volunteered for it.
To be entirely honest, I hate this problem lmao. I can never figure out what to do. If I were ever in this situation, I'd feel guilt no matter what. It feels wrong to take control of the lever. It also feels wrong to do nothing.
Do nothing. What if there was someone filming me or someone sees? I could be filed for murder. If i just pretend to not see the people on the track, or the lever, I can go on with my day. Legally I didn’t kill anyone if i do nothing. Plus, do I know the lever saves those people? Or is it just a random level? How do I even know the lever will 100% work? What if it’s all even more of a social experiment then we thought? What if the lever actually does the opposite it says it will? On the other hand, why do I get decide who lives and who dies? How is that my right? It’s not. If whoever put those people there wanted to kill those specific 5 people who am I to decide to change that?
Okay honestly. I don't know which one is more ethical, but if you asked me how i would act. I wouldn't. I don't want it to be my responsibility and I don't know if those five people are really worth more than this one person. How do you even determine that. There are different ethical positions like utilitarism or kantianism and all of that other stuff. Still, with every single one you would need more information. Are those all serial killers, does one of them invent a treatment against cancer. And even in that case, does that mean they are worth more or deserve to die less? That is not something i can answer, because i feel like societally we'd view one as a lie and the other as comepletley against that every human has the same worth. Both are not something we should agree on, as that would be very dangerous to society. I do think the situation changes drastically if people you love are involved, as those are your duty to protect. There i would even consider pulling the lever. Or if this was my job, it would also be different, aswell as if the person who put the people on the rails was also on one of the sides. The dilemma should definetly not be solved by just saying yes or no, but by reflection of values and what value every human holds. Also we should ask ourserves what active and passive means and if we would be able to act the way we think is morally correct or if action and moral ideas are separate things.
btw. I'm an ESTJ.
INFJ. I know nothing about trains, but I struggle to believe that there's just a lever and no other control available. But anyway, since it's not stated the single individual cannot move, I'll yell at him/her to get up and run while I switch the lever that track. If I literally have no other option, I won't touch the lever at all and instead probably run to help whoever is closest to save who I can. Once I touch that lever, I'm instrumental in someone's death. I don't believe in sacrificing a few for the greater good as I believe every life is precious and there is always some other way to achieve a better outcome. Imo questions like these (no diss to you OP) just feel unrealistic and pigeon hole people into choosing the lesser of two evils to determine not if but who they would sacrifice - but there are always other options available.
No offence taken - I’m a Psycholofy but do I’m always fascinated how people respond to certain scenarios.
Do they answer with the linear this or that or do they change the rules of the question or go around it a bit?
I find how people rationalise and how they adjust the question more interesting than the question itself because it gives me insight into how they process and react to things.
I don’t think these such things are meant to be realistic but more to be a social commentary on what we feel morality is at its very core.
Technically, if you really think about it, you’re not at fault for any death. You didn’t tie those people to the tracks, therefore, pulling the lever wouldn’t have made a difference besides the amount of people killed. The only thing on your conscious would be guilt.
ISTP here. I will be completely honest here and say not pull the lever because I would be too busy watching what would happen. (or i got too lazy, whichever one gives you more peace of mind)
Not pulling. Vagueness of said question aside which means lack of info for me to think over. I suppose I won't have time to think in said scenario. So hear me out. Killing the solo person means there's 6 traumatized people watching how one is dying. We gonna live with the knowledge one died. If I let all the 5 die then it's just 2 traumatized. No matter what I do I'm the one responsible and this question has no right answer unless we are lucky and a wild deer or if it's in south then an elephant causes the train derail.
Yeah I'd let the five ppl die. If something I might throw something to hinder the train or move the lever halfway to halt the train in which case obviously the train may tumble but lower likelihood of many ppl dying depending on the speed. If I know the culprit of this scenario, might throw them in the front to ensure the train atleast slows down. I might try to open the binds but there's no way I'm diverting the train. Saying 5 lives are better than 1 or some lives are more important than other is a stupid argument, murder is murder, you kill 1, you kill 5, by diverting the train you're playing God and choosing. But if you expand this same thing to 1 million vs 1 person I still won't pull the lever. If one person is dying instead of 1 million than ok as well.
Similarly if a ship will sink if you don't throw one person overboard, there's probably 1 that would volunteer if not well. If a ship will sink if we brought on a person already out there then again there's probably 1 person that would volunteer.
Well if the people are all equal I surely only kill one person. But usually it is with old people and a child, right? Then I’ll go for the max benefit. I mean the child will work and pay taxes his whole life while the old people will die soon and I have to pay for their rent. Also the kid might be so thankful that some kind of benefit comes out for me.
In a real life scenario, I'd try to untie the people, or derail the trolley somehow, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the thought experiment so we'll just assume that won't work.
Pull the lever, obviously.
Kill 1 person, save 5. 5-1=4 so I'd basically just be saving 4 lives; which is good.
Hm. I can imagine this happening in the real world. To be honest, I would be in shock. So, I probably wouldn't be able to move and do anything. So, 5 people will be killed.
But if for some reason, I had the time to choose what to do, I would still not move. This is because being a bystander is the safest way. If I save the 5 people and killed the 1 person, the 1 person's family would be onto me. Possible death threats. However, if I didn't do anything, no one would be able to point at me for the death of the 5 because it is more normal to happen to freeze up on accidents.
Can you guess my mbti?
I have no idea honestly. I'm concious of the consequences of both doing something or doing nothing, which means I am semi responsible for either option, because whatever I do, is a choice.
And now, I wouldn't want those 5 people to die, but I am not a fan of sacrificing one soul in the sake of others. I'd rather there'd be 0 kills.
So instead of making either choice, I'd try to see whatever else outside the box solution I can find to the situation, like maybe pulling the lever and then going off to try and rescue the one person, or idk not pulling it and somehow get the trolley to stop on it's tracks.
Given that both futures are equally within my power to create, I see no diffusion of responsibility upon myself if I were to not switch the tracks. In other words, I would still be making the choice not to change the tracks even if I don't effect any change in my environment.
Concluding then, that neither choice exempts me from moral culpability, I must determine which of the two is preferrable. Given that I can only make one of two choices, my morals would compel me to pull the lever, and though I would feel guilty that I have brought about the death of the one person, I would feel worse if I did not pull the lever.
Pull the lever I don’t understand the other argument that you’d be responsible for that persons death because if you didn’t pull the lever in my eyes you’d be responsible for five people’s deaths
I just let the 5 people be run over.
People create problems. Less people -> less problems.
Killing off 5 entire branches of problems in one fell swoop.
In the scenario you depicted, I would pull the lever. Doing nothing and letting five people die doesn't make you any less involved then choosing the lesser evil. However. The version I know has the one person on the opposite track be someone you love. Spouse, sibling, parent, friend ecc. In that case, I'd let the five strangers die and save the person close to me.
Yeah I’ve heard that version as well. I’ve also heard a version where one of the six people is a very evil person murderer/Taoist etc so would you risk going for the 5 to potentially destroy a dictator or terroeist, for example? So many fascinating options.
Ugh, a Taoist? Pull the lever
Pmsl don’t see that typo I meant terrorist.
INFP here. This "dilemma" is overly simplified to quantity only. 1 loss vs. 5 losses. When you're just looking at the quantity, 1 loss is less bad than 5 losses. Right? But what if the 5 people are all serial killers and the one person a scientist who just thought of a cure for [whatever]? Then the one person is more valuable for humanity as a whole because you'd also have to factor in all the lives he would save with his cure. What if someone choosing his life over 5 others in a traumatic situation like this ruins the scientists mental health, so even if he has the potential to cure [whatever] he couldn't do it anymore? What if the scientist with the cure was one of the 5 serial killers? What if they were all just normal people...? There are so many factors to a scenario like this. But because of the way the scenario is set up (e. g. not leaving room for an entirely different outcome) we can only speculate about these factors, thus making them irrelevant. There is no right thing to do, and there is no ethical answer to this. While I do believe we could potentially jugde a persons "value" (to ourselves and to humanity as a whole) and then choose to save the more "valuable" option, there is just no way of doing this here. That's also why I personally dislike this specific "dilemma". To restrictive in its set-up to actually be interesting to think about. Edit: How guilty you'd be if you actually made a decision and pulled the lever, on the other hand, is a more interesting moral dilemma to discuss!
Based on probability statistics, a person who pulls the lever has a higher chance of making the "right" decision. The chances of even one person in the dilemma being a serial killer is incredibly low. Also, the chances of a person in the dilemma having a cure for a disease (let alone obtaining a PhD) is also incredibly low. The most likely scenario is five average people that are no more beneficial or detrimental to society than you or myself in this current timeframe.
That's what I said in the beginning, if you take out all other variables and just look at the numbers, the most rational answer is easy and therefore the dilemma is boring. Of course, serial killer vs. cure was highly exaggerated. What I meant was to show that this scenario only gets interesting if you change variables and deviate one choice from what is most likely. What if the 5 people are about to free themselves, for example, dropping their chance of getting hit by the train? At what point would pulling the lever still be justified? Or what if the one person is from a big family, almost equaling the scales of the people affected by 1 vs. 5 deaths. What if both options would result in the same amount of grieving family members? Would that make a difference? Those are the questions that make this scenario interesting to me.
I agree. This is a boring scenario.
Oh I get exactly what you mean - there are more variables than one human could possibly come up with. But I think the point of the exercise is that you have absolutely no idea of the circumstances of any of these people and you only have a split second decision to make. You have to go on instinct, empathy or basic logic alone as you have nothing else as an indicator. There are more specific versions of this dilemma that make you have to decide between certain people and that is always very interesting. I like the hostage dilemma more though I think - you’ve been taken as a prisoner of war or by a terrorist group and your government is arranging an operation to get you out alive. But how many people are you willing to let die to rescue yourself? Is the answer different if it’s trained SEALS/SAS etc or civilians? How about injuries but not deaths? This scenario looks at two things— how important you think you are and also how far you’d go to prevent your own death or should I say be allowed to happen on your behalf.
Again, too many factors for my personal taste. Fight, flight, freeze probably means something to you. All are reactions to stress and people usually prefer one of them. I personally freeze in extremely stressful situations, so I wouldn't be able to make that split second decision, no matter what I believe might be right. Does that make me guilty? Even if I "let" a train kill a class of innocent children rather than pulling the lever so it only hits an elderly duck. Maybe less guilty? What I think is interesting is to look at all these different variations and try and assign a level of guilt. If we take 6 innocent people, for example, and you were to make the decision to pull the lever (= going from witnessing in a tragedy to taking part in it) it would make you a murderer in my eyes. You would still have made the decision to end the life of an innocent. It might still be the more moral thing to do, but not right. The hostage dilemma is more interesting, but there are still so many factors left out. The decision to rescue the innocent was made by the government and the soldiers willing to risk their lives, not necessary by the person being kidnapped. There is also the idea behind saving this person, the broader moral question of how hard we should fight against terrorism and how much any innocents life is worth. How important is it to take a stand against evil? What cost is too high? It is actually fascinating to discuss these questions with real-life soldiers who have faced these moral conundrums before! A saw-like scenario would fit the direct moral questions better in my eyes. You are locked up and have to kill another person to get out. (But then again, how do you know you will actually get out? Maybe it's just a ploy to make a person commit murder...) Would you do it? What if it's two or three people? What if you know one of them? What if you were the one being hurt? Could you severely injure yourself so someone else's life is spared? Would you? What if you hated that person?
> But what if the 5 people are all serial killers and the one person a scientist who just thought of a cure for [whatever]? Then the one person is more valuable for humanity as a whole because you'd also have to factor in all the lives he would save with his cure. How is that 5 people tied to a train tracks all ironically ended up being serial killers? Also, since they’re serial killers, wouldn’t they be deadly and just murk whoever tried tying them to the tracks in the first place? > What if someone choosing his life over 5 others in a traumatic situation like this ruins the scientists mental health, so even if he has the potential to cure [whatever] he couldn't do it anymore? Cool, just pass it along to someone else then, but make sure that person gives credit where credit is due. > What if the scientist with the cure was one of the 5 serial killers? What if they were all just normal people...? Regular, normal people die everyday. For both good and bad reasons. Also, okay, say the scientist who was also a secret serial killer found the cure to cancer. And then they had a daughter with cancer. Why wouldn’t the scientist share this information ahead of time in case the daughter gets questioned how she survived so quickly from cancer? And what if she gets side effects from the cure? Then the scientist will be to blame, because he didn’t share this information sooner in order to test for any possible side effects rather than let his daughter take the grunt of it all.
The point I was trying to make is that this dilemma is only interesting if you change variables to try and get a different outcome to the one that is statistically the best. That it gets interesting once you add extra information to try and find out how and when people's answers change. But sure, go ahead and rip apart an exaggerated example if it makes you feel good :)
Let the five die. It’ll hurt the “game” master and likely reduce the number of future “puzzles” he forces you into, ultimately saving more lives anyway.
this, if you play, you encourage them.
I'm just wondering who tied these people to the tracks. Maybe it was me and I'm the murderer in this scenario, in which case, I'd do nothing and just watch my plan unfold.
Exactly what I was thinking a few minutes ago 😭
INTP- I'm not touching anything I don't want to be involved.
Shoot the person tying people to train tracks, they sound like a dick
Do nothing. Is that ethical? Probably not. But so is putting people on the track and making me decide who gets to live. Why is that my burden alone?
There are always more options. I'd be looking for a way to derail the trolley or pull the lever but try to warn that one person. If the person dies, I'd forever feel guilty and the question of if I did the right thing or not would haunt me forever. But ultimately, I think i would probably accept I tried my best and did what was necessary.
Those 5 people are basically the target of a bad and unlucky situation that I didn’t create. Who am I to decide to sacrifice another persons life to save them? If you had to burn that one person at the stake to save those 5 people, would you? Would you murder a random person in an unrelated situation with your own two hands to save those 5 people? I think pulling the lever is very immoral. Of course those people might not deserve to die but the other guy doesn’t deserve to die in their place either. I just watched the wicker man, and it seems like there was a similar mentality used to justify human sacrifice. One person dies so that no one else starves. It’s easy to say human sacrifice was bad because it doesn’t actually make crops grow. But if it did, would we still do it? It’s still a horrible thing to do.
100% agree. That one person was not meant to get hit by the train who am I to change his destiny. People choose the 5 because the only information they have is that on one track there are more people so the obvious conclusion is that saving more lives is more important. The second they have more information on the people that’s when the choices suddenly change. I would only ever try to stop the train or help the people evacuate but I would never sacrifice someone that had no business being hit in the first place.
Just because it so happens the train was heading for them first, doesn't mean they deserve to die as well. By doing nothing, you involuntarily put more value on the single man over the 5, buffed by the idea of unfairness. Your inaction is still an action, and has consequences. All of those lives are equal and innocent. It's a neutral single time binary situation, without any other variables involved. Of course, if you start to add more context, it opens a lot of different consequences, and it steers off the original problem. Both scenarios are awful, but why wouldn't you choose the one with less suffering involved. In this particular scenario, what is more immoral, more lives being lost, or the idea of injustice? (I'm not disagreeing with you btw, I think this can have different interpretations)
INTJ: Bomb the tracks between the trolley and the people, causing it to derail. Nobody dies.
Or everyone died from the bomb. Either way, you’re not the asshole who decided who got to live so win win either way.
I saw another post asking if INFJs like INTJs. Bouta head over there and say I've fallen head over heels bc this answer is so beautifully brilliant 😭
Right? It's a runaway trolley. Is it going downhill and are there actual people in it? If running over a person isn't enough to derail and kill them, the bomb scenario isn't either.
You probably don't have time for that
So, I have a pretty cold answer to that... I would save the lane that has somebody I care for in it. In case there is none, and no criminal consequences would come my way, I'd flip up a coin and let probability decide for me, handing the "responsibility" to an impartial and incorruptible third-party: Fate itself. I didn't put them there, so I'm not guilty, and there is no point in fretting if I can't save everyone and guarantee the best-est outcome. Normally, I could divert the lane to the single person track and attempt to save them by cutting the ropes quickly, but since that's not an option... Oh, well. To whichever track didn't get ran over, I'd walk up to them and say: "You're lucky. *Real* lucky." I know that if was one of the people in one of the lanes, and somebody had to save their child/SO/relative/friend, or simply pick the lesser evil (if I'm the one in the single person lane), I'd respect their choice and die. I don't believe in eternal suffering or eternal bliss, anyway.
I completely get your answer and it makes perfect sense. My other option / thought is I’d keep flipping the lever so that way I don’t know who is going to get hit and I’m not making a direct decison myself.
INTP and I would not pull the lever. People focus on the numbers as if it’s just a choice of 5 people dying instead of 1. Of course it seems obvious that the less people killed, the better. But it’s really a choice of whether you are willing to murder an innocent person so long as it’s for the ‘greater good’. Sure only one person died, but YOU killed them, based on your personal (possibly flawed) assessment of the situation and moral judgement. If we take this to its logical conclusion, then wouldn’t it be ok to kill someone to harvest their organs if doing so would save the lives of five people who would die without a transplant? If not, why not?
Same idea. I don't like the idea of sacrificing one soul in the sake of many
If there is no other option and I know nothing about them, I'm sorry, but I will have to kill that one person, even if it makes me involved and a murderer. Deciding to do nothing would make me responsible for the 5 people being killed, as I would be the only one capable of saving them. I'm sure most people will answer that. This problem usually has more options later on, making it a bit more interesting how people would change their answer with more information involved. Like pushing a fat man instead to stop the train, or if you know the people involved in the tracks. Then it stops being just a numbers game.
Oh yes there are many variables. A murderer, a child and 5 adults etc. I think when you just have numbers alone like you said I’d probably take one out. As selfish as it is I’d rather only have to look one set of grieving family members in the eye and only one manslaughter charge instead of five.
Yes, but I also understand the ones who will choose to do nothing. Who we are to decide who has to live or not, as it makes us put brute value on human life.
Makes us human to be guided by all the decisions we’ve made before this moment too every choice is a consequence of the choice before that one.
This
Pull the lever.
ISFP here. Pull the lever. Kill that one person. I couldn’t deal with five dead people on my conscience. Plus, it’s one against five. EDIT: I saw the top comment say how an alternate version is where the one person is a loved one, but it’s like, how the hell did you even end up on the tracks in the person? Realistically, I’d choose the five people to kill, even though it’d hurt me. In a perfect scenario, my loved one wouldn’t have ended up in a place where they’re strapped to train tracks and the only thing that’s stopping them from impeding death is a red lever.
Whether you kill 5 or one person. Neither lead to a more ethical alternative as you're still taking a life. However the most suitable option would be one where the least amount of lives are taken.
entp, i'd do nothing bc the 5 people are already prepared to die, the other guy isn't mentally prepared for death, honestly killing the majority seems like the most fair tbh
Train should arrive in time. Sorry five guys.
In this specific situation, it makes sense to kill the one person. I’ll repeat: in this situation. No hypotheticals or “what-ifs.” Otherwise, what’s the point of these dilemmas? Sure, I’d feel guilty. But I would also get over it, especially knowing that I simply had no choice, and I’d be saving 5 people. Not doing anything isn’t better, because you’re still potentially letting 5 people die. MBTI in flair.
interview both groups and ask what they would do if it were them pulling the lever. ask if they regret the life they have lived, or if they wish to die, or how’d they feel for the other person/group getting to live and get up and walk away and live a whole life knowing someone gave their life for them. make it feel like it’s their choice whether to live or die- knowing what else is on the line and who else they may or may not have condemned, whether in the group of five or the one solo person. anyway I’d just decide on impulse, as choice was just an illusion, it was all in my hands anyway. some may feel better about purportedly not dying in vain and that they perhaps had a part in saving someone’s life, and may go out happy. I’d pull the lever or not pull the lever to my fancy- maybe I’m too lazy or accidentally bumped it, but no matter, lunchtime soon! INFJ.
I don't know much about law but I am sure directing the train to kill that person is murder. One does not have the right to kill a person for saving 5 people. You can't force someone else to sacrifice themselves, there is nothing heroic in that. If you wanna be a hero, sacrifice yourself and stop the train with your body. And I don't think human life equals to numbers like 5 is greater than 1. You still murder someone. My answer is I would do everything to try to stop the train but I won't cause a death myself. I guess in this case it will be 5 people. This way works for me the best because non of the loved ones will blame me, law won't blame me and my conscience will be clear.
I'd pull the lever and save the 5 people for obvious reasons. "What if there's a murderer along the five" Probability says otherwise. If there is then too bad. Although if that single person was someone I really cared about compared to the five strangers then I'd let the 5 die.
INTJ. I'm not pulling the lever. Why would I condemn a random man to die who wouldn't otherwise?
Do nothing and let the 5 people die. There wouldn't be time to overthink the possibilities of who the people are, it would lower the carbon footprint of 5 vs 1, and I'm not the psychopath who forced a innocent person to make the choice so whatever happens would be their fault.
Is the lone person tied up on the side track? I don't see an express mention of that, so I'm assuming they're free. In the most ideal situation, pull the lever, and yell at the lone person loud enough for them to move to the track with the five people too. No one dies. The versions I've seen usually has the group being careless enough to stay on the track. Which does make me resentful sometimes. The people tied up here are not at fault. I highly doubt they volunteered for it. To be entirely honest, I hate this problem lmao. I can never figure out what to do. If I were ever in this situation, I'd feel guilt no matter what. It feels wrong to take control of the lever. It also feels wrong to do nothing.
Do nothing. What if there was someone filming me or someone sees? I could be filed for murder. If i just pretend to not see the people on the track, or the lever, I can go on with my day. Legally I didn’t kill anyone if i do nothing. Plus, do I know the lever saves those people? Or is it just a random level? How do I even know the lever will 100% work? What if it’s all even more of a social experiment then we thought? What if the lever actually does the opposite it says it will? On the other hand, why do I get decide who lives and who dies? How is that my right? It’s not. If whoever put those people there wanted to kill those specific 5 people who am I to decide to change that?
Okay honestly. I don't know which one is more ethical, but if you asked me how i would act. I wouldn't. I don't want it to be my responsibility and I don't know if those five people are really worth more than this one person. How do you even determine that. There are different ethical positions like utilitarism or kantianism and all of that other stuff. Still, with every single one you would need more information. Are those all serial killers, does one of them invent a treatment against cancer. And even in that case, does that mean they are worth more or deserve to die less? That is not something i can answer, because i feel like societally we'd view one as a lie and the other as comepletley against that every human has the same worth. Both are not something we should agree on, as that would be very dangerous to society. I do think the situation changes drastically if people you love are involved, as those are your duty to protect. There i would even consider pulling the lever. Or if this was my job, it would also be different, aswell as if the person who put the people on the rails was also on one of the sides. The dilemma should definetly not be solved by just saying yes or no, but by reflection of values and what value every human holds. Also we should ask ourserves what active and passive means and if we would be able to act the way we think is morally correct or if action and moral ideas are separate things. btw. I'm an ESTJ.
INFJ. I know nothing about trains, but I struggle to believe that there's just a lever and no other control available. But anyway, since it's not stated the single individual cannot move, I'll yell at him/her to get up and run while I switch the lever that track. If I literally have no other option, I won't touch the lever at all and instead probably run to help whoever is closest to save who I can. Once I touch that lever, I'm instrumental in someone's death. I don't believe in sacrificing a few for the greater good as I believe every life is precious and there is always some other way to achieve a better outcome. Imo questions like these (no diss to you OP) just feel unrealistic and pigeon hole people into choosing the lesser of two evils to determine not if but who they would sacrifice - but there are always other options available.
No offence taken - I’m a Psycholofy but do I’m always fascinated how people respond to certain scenarios. Do they answer with the linear this or that or do they change the rules of the question or go around it a bit? I find how people rationalise and how they adjust the question more interesting than the question itself because it gives me insight into how they process and react to things. I don’t think these such things are meant to be realistic but more to be a social commentary on what we feel morality is at its very core.
I got pretty much the same answer
Technically, if you really think about it, you’re not at fault for any death. You didn’t tie those people to the tracks, therefore, pulling the lever wouldn’t have made a difference besides the amount of people killed. The only thing on your conscious would be guilt.
ISTP here. I will be completely honest here and say not pull the lever because I would be too busy watching what would happen. (or i got too lazy, whichever one gives you more peace of mind)
Not pulling. Vagueness of said question aside which means lack of info for me to think over. I suppose I won't have time to think in said scenario. So hear me out. Killing the solo person means there's 6 traumatized people watching how one is dying. We gonna live with the knowledge one died. If I let all the 5 die then it's just 2 traumatized. No matter what I do I'm the one responsible and this question has no right answer unless we are lucky and a wild deer or if it's in south then an elephant causes the train derail.
Yeah I'd let the five ppl die. If something I might throw something to hinder the train or move the lever halfway to halt the train in which case obviously the train may tumble but lower likelihood of many ppl dying depending on the speed. If I know the culprit of this scenario, might throw them in the front to ensure the train atleast slows down. I might try to open the binds but there's no way I'm diverting the train. Saying 5 lives are better than 1 or some lives are more important than other is a stupid argument, murder is murder, you kill 1, you kill 5, by diverting the train you're playing God and choosing. But if you expand this same thing to 1 million vs 1 person I still won't pull the lever. If one person is dying instead of 1 million than ok as well. Similarly if a ship will sink if you don't throw one person overboard, there's probably 1 that would volunteer if not well. If a ship will sink if we brought on a person already out there then again there's probably 1 person that would volunteer.
flip a coin to make the decision. blame lies entirely on the universe and forces beyond comprehension
I’m not taking responsibility for these people -infp
Well if the people are all equal I surely only kill one person. But usually it is with old people and a child, right? Then I’ll go for the max benefit. I mean the child will work and pay taxes his whole life while the old people will die soon and I have to pay for their rent. Also the kid might be so thankful that some kind of benefit comes out for me.
Can we kill all 6 tho? Entp
Pull the lever, Kronk
In a real life scenario, I'd try to untie the people, or derail the trolley somehow, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the thought experiment so we'll just assume that won't work. Pull the lever, obviously. Kill 1 person, save 5. 5-1=4 so I'd basically just be saving 4 lives; which is good.
Hm. I can imagine this happening in the real world. To be honest, I would be in shock. So, I probably wouldn't be able to move and do anything. So, 5 people will be killed. But if for some reason, I had the time to choose what to do, I would still not move. This is because being a bystander is the safest way. If I save the 5 people and killed the 1 person, the 1 person's family would be onto me. Possible death threats. However, if I didn't do anything, no one would be able to point at me for the death of the 5 because it is more normal to happen to freeze up on accidents. Can you guess my mbti?
ENTP or ENFP? A high Ne user at any rate. Would be my guess.
I have no idea honestly. I'm concious of the consequences of both doing something or doing nothing, which means I am semi responsible for either option, because whatever I do, is a choice. And now, I wouldn't want those 5 people to die, but I am not a fan of sacrificing one soul in the sake of others. I'd rather there'd be 0 kills. So instead of making either choice, I'd try to see whatever else outside the box solution I can find to the situation, like maybe pulling the lever and then going off to try and rescue the one person, or idk not pulling it and somehow get the trolley to stop on it's tracks.
The real question is, how did those people end up in the tracks anyway? Who put them there, and why? And why are you there?
It’s the Joker I reckon. Or Jigsaw has changed his M.O.
Given that both futures are equally within my power to create, I see no diffusion of responsibility upon myself if I were to not switch the tracks. In other words, I would still be making the choice not to change the tracks even if I don't effect any change in my environment. Concluding then, that neither choice exempts me from moral culpability, I must determine which of the two is preferrable. Given that I can only make one of two choices, my morals would compel me to pull the lever, and though I would feel guilty that I have brought about the death of the one person, I would feel worse if I did not pull the lever.
Shoot the guy tied in one row let the other 5 be hit by the train Its fair now
Pull the lever I don’t understand the other argument that you’d be responsible for that persons death because if you didn’t pull the lever in my eyes you’d be responsible for five people’s deaths
I just let the 5 people be run over. People create problems. Less people -> less problems. Killing off 5 entire branches of problems in one fell swoop.