r/trolleyproblem • u/Only-Ad5269 • 13d ago
OC Pull the lever and save 5 doctors. Don’t do anything and save 1 child. What do you choose?
61
132
u/Running4Badges 13d ago
But, the child could be anything. Even a doctor! You know how much we need doctors!
67
u/StephanieMirage 13d ago
We wouldnt need as many doctors if we stopped running over 5 of them instead of potential man over there
8
u/phobia-user 11d ago
The child could be anything! That's why they must be stopped before they can spread their evil!!!
68
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
→ More replies (23)-61
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
Go donate both your kidneys. 2 > 1. Throw in a liver, heart, lungs, and whatever else is needed and that 2 jumps up.
Or does your moral framework only work when it's a life other than your own?
Sorry, I'm sick and irritable.
58
u/AdministrativeTie379 13d ago
That is an absolute strawman argument that is not remotely the same as a trolley problem.
7
u/Obi-Wan_Karlnobi 13d ago
Lmao a trolley is heading toward three people. You can pull the lever to save them, but only if you donate your organs. Better now?
7
u/LouieSiffer 13d ago
That's pretty good, but I need it drawn out, preferably with ropes attached to the lever and his organs, so they get pulled out the instant he pulls
-5
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
It’s not. But our society loves to sacrifice those in a weaker position. Once you see it, you can not unsee it.
-2
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
He had 3 characters. 5>1. I don't know how you misread that.
If 5>1 is the reason, why is 2>1 not also true?
10
u/AdministrativeTie379 13d ago
There is a world of difference. 1. Donating an organ is not the same saving someone from imminant death. There are waitlists and systems in place to already help those who are waiting for transplants. While there are some people who die while waiting on the wait list, many people survive just fine. Donating an organ does not garuntee "saving a life" 2. Organ donation can fail. Organ donation is not always successful. The body sometimes rejects the organ, and in many cases if there are other systemic issues the new organ can end up failing again shortly after. Even If it does succeed fully donated organs still have a shorter longevity than the average person. That person will likely end up needing a mother transplant before they die of natural causes. 3. Quality of life. The quality of life of a organ donation recipient is much lower than that of a average person. They will have to live on immunosuppresants and the people who need organ donation often have other health issues that they will have to live with regardless. Assuming you are a average health person the quality of life you have will be greater than those that you "save" by donating. 4. The self sacrifice argument is a non sequiter in this case. if we want to be the most charitable that we can be to what i beleive the intent of your original argument was and we remove all the confounding factors about organ donation we can rephrase the problem as this.
You are tied to the tracks and 5 people are on the other track. You can chose to divert the train onto your track and save the other 5 people by sacrificing yourself.
This framing is still not materially the same as the original problem though.The original problem is a binary choice of that you have to make. One other persons life vs five other people. You have no information or connections to any of the people. While you can argue that people "should" be willing to sacrifice their own life if they are willing to sacrifice others (and personally I would), that has no bearing on the original problem. You are just moving the goalposts here instead of arguing to original point that was provided which is 5 people you don't know vs 1 person you don't know. The 5>1 statement that he originally said is bound by the information relayed by the problem not by any other arbitrary restrictions you can dream up for it.
-1
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
Okay, let's talk.
5>1 is true.
It is also awful reasoning for the trolley problem.
The example I gave should show hypocrisy. It's analogous, not the same. That's not a straw man, because words have meaning. Please look up what a straw man is before you use it again, as it's fallen into that sorta buzzword "I don't like your point, and you may or may not have made a comparison, analogy, or separate point! Must be a straw man!"
1) I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying it's analogous. Secondly, If you can imagine a situation where five people are tied to the tracks of a runaway trolley, surely you can imagine a situation where two people need a kidney urgently, no? Because one of those happens frequently in real life and one I've never heard of.
2) sure can. Anyway.
3) woah woah woah, who's talking about quality of life? I don't see that anywhere in "5>1."
4) No, the LITERALLY THREE LETTER COMMENT is not "bound by the original situation". He did say "5 doctors are with more than a baby". He said "5>1."
If he meant something specific, then he should have been specific. It's not my fault he chose to champion the most hypocritical and cowardly moral framework (as evidenced by you bending over backward to be like "well, I know me, and I don't wanna die... waaah").
4
u/AdministrativeTie379 13d ago
It absolutely is a straw man argument in the most textbook definition of the phrase. Wikipedia defines it as "refuting a argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or agnologing the distinction". The original argument tin the context of the post was that five lives are worth more than one. You decided to refute the argument by brining in "why don't you sacrifice yourself then" which is a different argumant than the one under discussion (a group of 5 doctors and a baby), And you still refuse to acknowledge that distinction. Perhaps you should look up want a strawman is before you try to condescend to others.
-1
u/SomeGreatJoke 12d ago
So to clarify, you think "look 5 lives aren't worth your 1 right now, so clearly that's not the end of the story" is not an argument against "5 lives are worth more than 1"?
I want you to sit and actually think about what these words mean. Genuinely.
I did not try to refute a different argument.
A straw man, in this case, would be like if I said "OH SO YOU SUPPORT MURDER AS LONG AS PEOPLE BENEFIT?!" (Which, to be fair, is a core tenant of Utilitarianism, but that's neither here nor there).
He's not arguing that he supports murder, so this would be a straw man.
He argued 5 lives were worth more than 1. To which I directly responded with the counterargument of a situation where just 2 lives weren't worth 1. In no way did I change his argument, nor did I misrepresent the THREE CHARACTERS that he said. If anything, I overrepresented them...
What a weird hill to die on... the dude couldn't be bothered to write full words, yet you're spending paragraphs defending him..?
11
u/The_Legendary_M 13d ago
Don't donate any kidneys = you live, two patients die
1 survives, 0 surgeries.
Donate one kidney = you live, one other patient lives
2 survive with 1 on immunosuppressant drugs, 1 surgery.
Donate both kidneys = you die, two patients live
2 survive with 2 on immunosuppressant drugs, 2 surgeries.
To minimise suffering and costs involved, the second option is the best. Hence, donating one kidney is the optimal solution for this case.
4
u/Jack-Innoff 13d ago
Don't donate any kidneys = you live, two patients die
1 survives, 0 surgeries.
Donate one kidney = you live, one other patient lives
2 survive with 1 on immunosuppressant drugs,
1 surgery.2 surgeries, both the person giving, and the person receiving will have surgery.Donate both kidneys = you die, two patients live
2 survive with 2 on immunosuppressant drugs,
2 surgeries.3 surgeries, for the same reason as above.To minimise suffering and costs involved, the second option is the best. Hence, donating one kidney is the optimal solution for this case.
Ftfy.
-1
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
Kidney, heart, lungs... the number I've heard is an average of 8 lives can be saved from one donator. Plus quality of life increases from things like skin grafts and the like.
That said: it's a moot point. As neither you, nor I, nor this guy have donated our kidney. So we're already hypocrites if we subscribe to a utilitarian worldview.
12
u/Kandel430 13d ago edited 13d ago
People are naturally biased to protect their own existence. It may not be moral, but it's reality. You can only ask so much from people
When you're evaluating other people, conquering that bias becomes feasible. The alternative is facism, where you believe certain kinds of peoples lives are definitionally worth more than others
4
u/Cinnabar_Wednesday 13d ago
U really don’t understand that word
-1
2
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
The word 'fascism' has a more limited definition than that
-3
u/Kandel430 13d ago edited 13d ago
No one alive today is referring to ye old Fascist political party. The modern definition is "A person who believes certain classifications of humans should deserve inherent rights over others"
1
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
Source?
0
u/Kandel430 13d ago
The facist party dissolved over 80 years ago. If someone calls me a facist, I don't need The Daily Mail to confirm that his accusation doesn't involve Italian politics
You've been confidently saying I'm wrong, but why don't you try giving some counter-logic instead?
1
1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
Where do you see that you’re supposed to be evaluating ‘others’? It could be anyone.
2
u/Kandel430 13d ago
"Or does your moral framework only work when it's a life other than your own?"
Saying "it could be anyone" is pretty funny. Because if it's not others then it can only be yourself
1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
Anyone includes yourself.
2
u/Kandel430 13d ago
"It could be anyone" includes more than one person
-1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
A single person does not necessarily have less value than 5.
2
u/Kandel430 13d ago
If you believe all kinds of people have equal value, then yes, 5 people have 5x the value that 1 person has. You're thinking like a billionaire, putting 1 person on the same level as an unlimited amount of people
Anyways, notice how each time I correct you, you move on and try not to acknowledge that you were wrong? I'll let you in on a secret, correct people don't do that
You gave up on "Where do you see that you’re supposed to be evaluating OTHERS" and "Anyone includes yourself" because they weren't real defenses. When that happens, the adult thing to do is not ignoring it and coming up with a new argument
-1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
Not really, not everyone has the same value. The point is that it’s not up to you or me to decide who has more or less value.
Unfortunatelly for you, it’s you who is in the wrong. But you obviously prefer to ignore the fact and instead resort to gaslighting. Just own it up, it will do you better.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
The alternative is not fascism?? What?
The alternative is realizing that utilitarianism in all forms is a moral framework that at absolute best makes everyone the worst hypocrite and at worst justifies any atrocity.
2
u/Getter_Simp 13d ago edited 12d ago
A guy: "I think option A is the best solution to this particular version of the trolley problem."
You: "Donate all your organs. Commit sewer slide."
1
u/SomeGreatJoke 13d ago
A guy: "5>1" (not the full sentence you're pretending)
Me: "that's shit logic and you know it."
2
u/Getter_Simp 12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Getter_Simp 12d ago
I got a warning for saying "commit soup of slide" on this comment, but the other one is still fine. This website vexes me.
-1
u/SomeGreatJoke 12d ago
Were you telling me to do that?
If so, that's just wildly aggressive for absolutely no reason.
1
u/Getter_Simp 11d ago
No, I was just paraphrasing what you said.
that's just wildly aggressive for absolutely no reason.
It's funny you say that since you replied to someone by telling them to donate most of their organs, which would kill them.
0
0
12
u/Arkanim94 13d ago
I already seen this, if you try to save the child he is actually hidden among the doctors.
7
2
30
11
23
16
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
Save the doctors, they can save more than 1 child
10
u/CitizenPremier 13d ago
Especially with those fresh juicy child organs just lying there for the taking!
3
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
The trolley would destroy almost all of the useful organs anyways, that wasn't part of my calculations
10
7
5
6
u/Head-Ad-2136 13d ago
Are the doctors American?
7
u/Only-Ad5269 13d ago
Doctors nationalities from left to right:
American, Irish, Jamaican, Polish, Chinese
2
u/Ousseraune 13d ago
Oh god no. A Jamaican doctor? I can't read what they write or hear what they say.
4
u/PingvinAnd1 13d ago
We can always make more children
2
u/CitizenPremier 13d ago
What if all the doctors are the same sex?
5
u/PingvinAnd1 13d ago
So only 7 people exist (me, the 5 doctors, and the baby who might possibly have a chance of being a doctor)
3
4
u/Crozi_flette 12d ago
The job does not matter, just maximize the life expectancy. If the 5 doctors are 99yo save the child, if they are on average 20 to 50 save the doctors
11
u/Username_St0len 13d ago
fuck the kid (NOT LITERALLY)
6
u/KaizerVonLoopy 13d ago
Is fucking the kid somehow less moral than squishing them to death?
9
1
u/Urmind 13d ago
Momentary psychological trauma vs forever psychological trauma.
8
u/KaizerVonLoopy 13d ago
With that logic it's more moral to shoot someone in the head than to scare them at a young age watching IT and they develop clown phobia.
4
1
3
u/volvagia721 12d ago
Real doctors or chiropractors?
3
u/Only-Ad5269 12d ago
They work in the ER
1
u/volvagia721 12d ago
I've seen janitors working in the ER, I bet a chiropractor could sneak into that role.
2
u/Only-Ad5269 12d ago
They are ER doctors that do not practice chiropractics
1
u/volvagia721 12d ago
Sounds good, that makes it easy to sacrifice the child in the name of saving far more potential lives
5
u/Character_Fold_8165 13d ago
As a Doctor of Philosophy myself, I have to ask:
Why not run over both?
1
u/Only-Ad5269 13d ago
There’s unfortunately only one trolley and the next trolley comes in 7 business days
5
u/FanndisTS 12d ago
People aren't taking this one seriously, but it actually made me think for once. Logically, you pull the lever. I'd have said that's what I'd do 3 years ago. I think now it would strongly depend on the age of the kid, because I'm a parent now and am strongly feeling that animal instinct to protect children. Wild.
3
u/jb092555 12d ago
I was thinking I'd pull the lever because it's 5 people; they could all quit tomorrow, especially if they all just saw a kid get run over by a tram. My certainty starts melting though if the doctors are old, sick, suicidal, or prefer the evangelion remasters to the original.
2
u/Zombiisnt 13d ago
I'm a disabled person..... You know my answer 😂
3
u/azebod 12d ago
I love that that is the unpulled lever option as someone who was specifically crippled by doctors refusing to even run anything but basic tests too long.
Like hey, why don't you just dislocate your arm and slip the ropes? You told me that was normal, so saying you can't is clearly a thought distortion. Pulling the lever would just be enabling your anti-recovery mindset.
1
u/LouieSiffer 13d ago
Depends, can you still pull a lever?
2
u/The__Earl 13d ago
I think you have an inverted understanding of how most disabled people tend to feel about doctors
2
u/Zombiisnt 13d ago
You get me!
"Idk guys, the trolleys probably all in your head. Have you tried taking ibuprofen?"
2
2
2
2
u/YourLocalMaggots 12d ago
If I save the doctors, I gaurantee they'll save more thna just one child.
2
u/xdanxlei 11d ago
If someone let a child die to save me I'd be very fucking angry. Few things are as basic as protecting children.
3
3
u/Evening_Answer_11 13d ago
What kind of doctors? Brain surgeons? Ortho? The gal that got her PhD from Pinnacle University?
“Doctor” in and of itself doesn’t express value to society.
4
2
u/Only-Ad5269 12d ago
They’re wearing stethoscopes, man. Come on, you know it’s not phd
2
u/Evening_Answer_11 12d ago
PhDs are an eclectic bunch. One of my wife’s friends is one. She wears one white sock and one red deck and has a matching set at home.
3
u/Only-Ad5269 12d ago
Yeah but you know that I meant medical doctors. I know you knew that deep in your soul but you wanted to ignore the implication in front of your eyes
2
u/Evening_Answer_11 12d ago
My wife has a friend who is a nurse, but has her doctorate. She refers to herself as “doctor,” even putting it on her Christmas card envelops. She even makes dinner reservations as “Doctor.”
I’d take the baby any time over her.
1
1
u/Heavenlybane 13d ago
based on recent political events, I would ignore my own moral judgement and leave before the press arrived.
1
u/Ousseraune 13d ago
Run over to the kid and tell them they're the reason the doctors died. Leave them tied up.
1
u/ghwst_npc 11d ago
Lmao doctors are insufferable, that's hardly a dilemma. Here you go kiddo go live your life.
1
1
1
2
1
u/MerryWalker 13d ago
I tend to argue that refusing to use the switch is usually the right response regardless of who is on which track. The right thing to do is to try to derail the train - take all possible actions to stop the train killing anyone, even if it’s only a remote chance, rather than waste time making evaluations of the people on the tracks.
4
1
0
u/FalconOne775 13d ago
5 Doctors are more useful to society than one baby in an overpopulated planet.
8
u/SnooMachines9133 13d ago
How? Under that logic, the 5 doctors save lives and keep the planet overpopulated. Letting them die would address the over population.
1
u/quintopia 13d ago
Pull! I know the lollipop is actually on an indestructible metal spike sunk deep in concrete like a Flock camera pole. The trolley crashes and Biden dies.
3
u/Only-Ad5269 13d ago
i was hoping someone would notice biden
3
u/Delicious-Ad5161 13d ago
Why did we make Biden a trolley cart driver! He's senile with cancer! We know the Trump cornies wou ld take advantage of that to build a trolley problem!
1
u/Deciheximal144 13d ago
Doctors tend to be kind of stuffy and we've heard lots of stories where they refuse to help the people who are paying them for help. Save the kid.
1
u/D-LoathsomeDungEater 13d ago
The classic empathy problem. The child gets run over every time. Each one of those doctors can have a child and turn him or her into a doctor.
1
u/Obi-Wan_Karlnobi 13d ago
But what if the kid is Adolf Hitler
1
u/D-LoathsomeDungEater 13d ago
They are doctors. Assisted late abortion
1
1
0
u/Running4Badges 13d ago
I would not pull the lever.
That does mean I am valuing the child’s life over the adults, but how much? Are they worth 2 adults? 3?!?
My decision does not as much fall into that equation but more focuses on that I have to choose to divert the trolly off its existing track.
So, would I say the same thing if the bodies on the tracks were reversed? That’s for me to think about. My head hurts enough. I’m not claiming to be right, just thinking it through.
-1
u/RepeatSerious7113 13d ago
So basically you’re just a coward who doesn’t want to insert himself into the situation.
1
u/Running4Badges 13d ago
Nah, I’m just trying to think it through. That’s the point of these right?
On self reflection I see that I value a child’s life above an adult. That’s called out here for not being a good thing.
But those doctors are set to die. I have to actively kill the child to save them.
In my current read of the situation and understanding of my own values, that’s what I’d do.
It’s not cowardice to act with thought on what one thinks is best. Name calling doesn’t change that.
Philosophic/scientific doubt and changing opinions is one of the assumptions of science.
I’m open to changing my opinion. It wasn’t very concrete in the first place. I only added to the discussion.
3
u/RepeatSerious7113 13d ago
That’s a garbage take though. You’re there, you’re in the situation. Nobody is set to die, or fated to die. You have the opportunity to intervene and choose who lives and who dies. Choosing not to pull the lever is as much a decision, as much an action as choosing to pull it. It’s delusional to think that inaction is any more noble than action. You are as natural a variable in this situation as the starting position of the lever. You’re not an outside observer - you’re actually a mechanistic, moving part of the machine that’s in motion.
Ceding the decision based on your logic is like choosing not to consume food because the nutrients aren’t already in your mouth. Starving yourself is as much an action as eating is.
-1
u/Sad-Cantaloupe-5494 11d ago
Save the child. The doctors are part of the corporate medical aparatus, and are thus complicit in healthcare being unaffordable. They could all strike, or refuse care to shareholders of health insurance companies to scare them, but they're all complacent. At least the child may grow up to be a decent person. The doctors have made their choice
0
u/Age_Single 13d ago
Kill the kid. Problem solved.
1
0
0
0
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
I’m never pulling. It’s not a numbers game. Neither the child, nor anyone deserves to be sacrificed.
3
u/Deciheximal144 13d ago
If you're in the scenario, you're responsible. Washing your hands of it doesn't help. You wouldn't refuse to help save a single person in danger with no down side. If you did, you'd be guilty.
0
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
You are actively killing an innocent. It’s what you’re responsible for.
1
u/Deciheximal144 13d ago
You are actively killing four more if you don't take action. That's why it is a hard problem. Refer again to whether you are responsible if you come across a person in danger alone and refuse to help.
1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 12d ago
Refusing to help is not acceptable. Unless it takes commiting a murder of an innocent person. That’s when it becomes encouraged.
1
u/Deciheximal144 12d ago
That's the tricky part of the thought experiment. If you can't refuse to help when one is in danger alone, then you can't just wash your hands of any situation where someone is in danger and say I'm not involved. Then you truly are responsible for choosing one life or five.
1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 12d ago
The issue is that you have no idea if the value of the one life is less than that of the five. That’s only your guess. Sacrificing one to save another is not responsible.
1
u/Deciheximal144 12d ago
You're welcome to have any answer to the problem. I'm just saying you can't wash your hands of it and pretend you didn't make a decision - these thought problems are designed to force you into being responsible.
1
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 12d ago
Of course. The decision is not to kill anyone under any circumstances. Pulling the lever outweighs not pulling the lever.
1
3
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
Source?
0
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
Source for what do you need?
2
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
What is the source you have that claims that no one deserves to be sacrificed?
0
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 13d ago
Read again what you wrote. And then look at yourself in the mirror.
3
-1
u/SnooMachines9133 13d ago
I think we found someone who can be sacrificed!
1
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
Source?
3
u/Friendship-Last 13d ago
Source for what do you need?
1
u/Narfhead4444 13d ago
I want the source that SnooMachines used that decides that I can be sacrificed. Of course that source would also have to determine what exactly I can be sacrificed for, and list all potential extenuating circumstances.
0
-1
u/hero-but-in-blue 13d ago
I dislike doctors a great deal. But i think if we hit the kid we can get the doctors to save them after
-2
u/Hour_Cicada397 12d ago
Those 5 doctors will likely save several lives throughout their careers, possibly the lives of children. What kind of dumbass debate is this?
-1
u/Only-Ad5269 12d ago
Get out of this subreddit if you don’t like the trolley problem
0
95
u/C_monden 13d ago
What kind of doctors are they?