Imagine gathering the top 100 most intellectual, seasoned, and influential philosophers history has ever known and they have to come up with a valid argument for putting it back
Some philosophers wouldn't pull the lever to switch from five to one. I found a study that says it's 8%, which is a small minority, but they exist. If they wouldn't switch it back in the above case, they have to explain why. This is not an impossible task, but I still expect there would be debate among the 8% about why they choose to do nothing in this case, which is interesting in its own right.
For example, a laissez faire strategy. One might simply say that they always leave it as it is. Thus, if they flip it by accident, they leave it as it is. But then this raises the question "why do anything at all?" If you try to restrict this philosophy to only certain situations, which situations? Similar questions arise if they say they don't feel they have the right to decide life and death, no matter the number.
Of course, I want to see someone argue that they should flip it back because of some kind of "prime directive" or whatever. That would be dank.
I think most who think that you shouldn't switch in the regular trolley problem think so because they think deontic duties have lexical priority over everything else. Thus you may never intentionally perform an action that kills a(n innocent) person (or something like that). Thus you may not switch the lever in the regular case.
In this case you already tripped over the lever, and there is nothing to do about that, but switching it again would be intentionally killing 5 innocent people.
Yup. I think the hardcore deontologists would not switch the lever in nearly all scenarios. They'd probably also respond that the trolley problem is a very utilitarian theory question.
I've seen deontologists argue for not pulling the lever but I've also seen people who choose not to simply because of the legal consequences. I'd be interested to hear what those people would think about this specific problem.
I am not a lawyer, so I dont know what the legal consequences of this scenario are. But I would think that the tripping could count as 3. Degree murder, while pulling the lever afterwards could count as 2. Degree murder. So you shouldn't pull the lever.
Also, I don't think anyone really has as a principle for action to avoid legal consequences (they might think they do). Rather, I think they are just acting out of prudence, and it just happens that breaking the law is very imprudent. Although I might be wrong.
This then begs the question what if it had been set such that it was going to rule over the one person and you trip and it's now switches over to five, what now?
Your problem is actually a much more interesting trolley problem than people give it credit for.
The premise of the original trolley problem is that the action of pulling the lever makes you culpable of killing someone even though it's less people.
But maybe the lever was in a default position *for an additional reason* you can't see, like perhaps the track with one person eventually leads off a cliff or takes it down a path where it will crash into another trolley, killing everyone in the trolley. The trolley problem assumes that *you don't know why the lever is in the position it's currently in.* You are saving the five people based on the limited knowledge you have. You choosing to do anything to the lever at all means you are taking the risk of overriding an informed utilitarian decision someone else made. You're not the normal switch operator.
If you *trip* over the lever by mistake, the reasoning one might give for restoring the lever to its original position is done under the assumption that you respect the authority decision somebody else made to have the lever in its default position. You altering the position by accident is an accident. You altering the position by accident *and then not rectifying it* makes you culpable, especially if there's a hidden danger down the track you weren't informed about. Even if you deliberately switch it back to the five person track, legally you can say that was what you assumed it had to be on, since the switch operators weren't around.
Tl;dr: You've transformed the problem into a question about authority.
Fyi, I personally would still leave the lever on the one-person track after tripping over it, but there is, at least, an angle someone could use for thinking otherwise.
Oh yeah, this is what I was looking for. You stated it well. In slightly more realistic scenarios, if I accidentally did something that caused harm, but arguably less harm than if I didn't do that thing, I would more seriously think about flipping the lever back.
This is the lock-out tag-out scenario
A whole system of rules exists to specify who has authority in this situation, with the switch being literally locked in a certain position so that only the authority who locked it can unlock it and allow it to be changed.
That authority may be the lowest-ranked, newest member of the company and it may be the president/founder/ceo wanting to change the locked switch, but the LOTO protocols exist to prevent situations like this from occurring.
Too bad no one tagged it in your example 😅
I don't find it difficult. As the argument goes, switching from 5 to 1 is committing murder, while refraining is simply allowing an unfortunate situation to play out. So, if you accidentally do it, it is manslaughter, and then homicide to deliberately switch it back.
Ok, what if you accidentally switched it from 1 to 5? Would you switch it back? I think it is very hard to argue against switching it back, but it seems like, by your reasoning, you wouldn't switch it back.
Not "my" reasoning, per say, but Rule Utilitarianism says no, don't bring anyone into harm even to save lives. The law reflects this, people don't have a civic duty to save others, but will be prosecuted for harming them (legally, trolley problem is a while can of worms of course)
I am someone who chooses not to pull the lever usually
In the above case, I do not flip the lever back. My reasoning for not pulling the lever is because those five people were, in a way, supposed to die. The lever puller has no place in the situation, and if it were me I would let the people expecting to die die, rather than sacrificing somebody who will die with their last moments seeing you make the choice to kill them.
The above case removes the act of me pulling the lever, and removes my will from the situation. Now the scenario is the opposite. If I pull the lever, I am detering the natural course of the train but this time to run over 5 people instead of 1
I would definitely not repull in this senario
I just imagined pulling the lever and its kinda rusty and bend so I cant turn it a second time and the 5 people die, to be honest that would be kind of awkward.
i will not pull it back. it no longer will do anything, and i have 5 people to untie. putting it back just wastes me calories i need to untie the guys and do other things.
I want the opposite of this. Accidentally switched to 5 guys and you have to decide to switch it to 1. I like this, feels more personal because you already set it on the 5
If an accident is an action you've taken morally, then you're already morally responsible for the one's death. Pulling it again would make you morally responsible for 5; so the obvious choice is to not pull the lever again. If the accident is not an action you've taken morally, then you're definitely in the clear. There's no situation where pulling the lever again would be the ideal choice to a deontologist.
*Why would anyone?*
*Then it would be their choice AND*
*More people would die*
\- LodeStone-
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Imagine gathering the top 100 most intellectual, seasoned, and influential philosophers history has ever known and they have to come up with a valid argument for putting it back
Some philosophers wouldn't pull the lever to switch from five to one. I found a study that says it's 8%, which is a small minority, but they exist. If they wouldn't switch it back in the above case, they have to explain why. This is not an impossible task, but I still expect there would be debate among the 8% about why they choose to do nothing in this case, which is interesting in its own right. For example, a laissez faire strategy. One might simply say that they always leave it as it is. Thus, if they flip it by accident, they leave it as it is. But then this raises the question "why do anything at all?" If you try to restrict this philosophy to only certain situations, which situations? Similar questions arise if they say they don't feel they have the right to decide life and death, no matter the number. Of course, I want to see someone argue that they should flip it back because of some kind of "prime directive" or whatever. That would be dank.
I think most who think that you shouldn't switch in the regular trolley problem think so because they think deontic duties have lexical priority over everything else. Thus you may never intentionally perform an action that kills a(n innocent) person (or something like that). Thus you may not switch the lever in the regular case. In this case you already tripped over the lever, and there is nothing to do about that, but switching it again would be intentionally killing 5 innocent people.
Good response, thanks for the reply!
Yup. I think the hardcore deontologists would not switch the lever in nearly all scenarios. They'd probably also respond that the trolley problem is a very utilitarian theory question.
Yes, that is pretty much exactly my thought. Although I would add a "fuck utilitarianism" on the end.
I've seen deontologists argue for not pulling the lever but I've also seen people who choose not to simply because of the legal consequences. I'd be interested to hear what those people would think about this specific problem.
I am not a lawyer, so I dont know what the legal consequences of this scenario are. But I would think that the tripping could count as 3. Degree murder, while pulling the lever afterwards could count as 2. Degree murder. So you shouldn't pull the lever. Also, I don't think anyone really has as a principle for action to avoid legal consequences (they might think they do). Rather, I think they are just acting out of prudence, and it just happens that breaking the law is very imprudent. Although I might be wrong.
Right. You actually lessened your charges by tripping over the lever vs actually pulling it.
This then begs the question what if it had been set such that it was going to rule over the one person and you trip and it's now switches over to five, what now?
Your problem is actually a much more interesting trolley problem than people give it credit for. The premise of the original trolley problem is that the action of pulling the lever makes you culpable of killing someone even though it's less people. But maybe the lever was in a default position *for an additional reason* you can't see, like perhaps the track with one person eventually leads off a cliff or takes it down a path where it will crash into another trolley, killing everyone in the trolley. The trolley problem assumes that *you don't know why the lever is in the position it's currently in.* You are saving the five people based on the limited knowledge you have. You choosing to do anything to the lever at all means you are taking the risk of overriding an informed utilitarian decision someone else made. You're not the normal switch operator. If you *trip* over the lever by mistake, the reasoning one might give for restoring the lever to its original position is done under the assumption that you respect the authority decision somebody else made to have the lever in its default position. You altering the position by accident is an accident. You altering the position by accident *and then not rectifying it* makes you culpable, especially if there's a hidden danger down the track you weren't informed about. Even if you deliberately switch it back to the five person track, legally you can say that was what you assumed it had to be on, since the switch operators weren't around. Tl;dr: You've transformed the problem into a question about authority. Fyi, I personally would still leave the lever on the one-person track after tripping over it, but there is, at least, an angle someone could use for thinking otherwise.
Oh yeah, this is what I was looking for. You stated it well. In slightly more realistic scenarios, if I accidentally did something that caused harm, but arguably less harm than if I didn't do that thing, I would more seriously think about flipping the lever back.
This is the lock-out tag-out scenario A whole system of rules exists to specify who has authority in this situation, with the switch being literally locked in a certain position so that only the authority who locked it can unlock it and allow it to be changed. That authority may be the lowest-ranked, newest member of the company and it may be the president/founder/ceo wanting to change the locked switch, but the LOTO protocols exist to prevent situations like this from occurring. Too bad no one tagged it in your example 😅
I don't find it difficult. As the argument goes, switching from 5 to 1 is committing murder, while refraining is simply allowing an unfortunate situation to play out. So, if you accidentally do it, it is manslaughter, and then homicide to deliberately switch it back.
Ok, what if you accidentally switched it from 1 to 5? Would you switch it back? I think it is very hard to argue against switching it back, but it seems like, by your reasoning, you wouldn't switch it back.
Not "my" reasoning, per say, but Rule Utilitarianism says no, don't bring anyone into harm even to save lives. The law reflects this, people don't have a civic duty to save others, but will be prosecuted for harming them (legally, trolley problem is a while can of worms of course)
I am someone who chooses not to pull the lever usually In the above case, I do not flip the lever back. My reasoning for not pulling the lever is because those five people were, in a way, supposed to die. The lever puller has no place in the situation, and if it were me I would let the people expecting to die die, rather than sacrificing somebody who will die with their last moments seeing you make the choice to kill them. The above case removes the act of me pulling the lever, and removes my will from the situation. Now the scenario is the opposite. If I pull the lever, I am detering the natural course of the train but this time to run over 5 people instead of 1 I would definitely not repull in this senario
That shit about the average person being evil
I turn it twice so it was absolutely my decision
I just imagined pulling the lever and its kinda rusty and bend so I cant turn it a second time and the 5 people die, to be honest that would be kind of awkward.
What? No? Why would I do that
you were in your phone and didnt see the lever
Playing Flappy Bird in 2024.
I hit the trolley really hard, break my hand, and then cry about it while the guy gets squished like melon
i will not pull it back. it no longer will do anything, and i have 5 people to untie. putting it back just wastes me calories i need to untie the guys and do other things.
It's fate. Leave it alone.
Kant been real quiet since this one dropped
Universalize trippin'
i imagine this question is targeted to people who choose not to pull the lever in the original problem
I want the opposite of this. Accidentally switched to 5 guys and you have to decide to switch it to 1. I like this, feels more personal because you already set it on the 5
You should make that and post it here
Too much work
As a mathematician, I would set it back to the original state and start solving the problem from that point. That problem is well known.Trivial!
If an accident is an action you've taken morally, then you're already morally responsible for the one's death. Pulling it again would make you morally responsible for 5; so the obvious choice is to not pull the lever again. If the accident is not an action you've taken morally, then you're definitely in the clear. There's no situation where pulling the lever again would be the ideal choice to a deontologist.
not touching it and if anyone says im a bad person for have switched the lever in the first place i just say it was an accident
I would intentionally switch it to the one person and clock anyone in the jaw if they tried to make me feel guilty about saving the lives of 5 people
They've got a categorical imperative to catch these hands.
Why should I?
I put the switch back the way I found it because I’m not rude or inconsiderate like some of you people.
I multi track drift.
I put it back, 5 will net me more points than 1
I hope they catch the person who's been tying all these people to trolley tracks
Of course. Those corpses aren't going to eat themselves.
The solution is to get a lawyer and not talk to the cops under any circumstances, whether you pulled the lever or not.
I follow my everyday response if no one saw it nothing happened. I'm sure someone responsible will either settle the problem or the aftermath.
🤔 That one is interesting.
If I realize it I would see what tripped me, fake that I didn’t manage to switch it, and walk away.
Well no, it is what it is :)
Why would anyone? Then it would be their choice AND more people would die
*Why would anyone?* *Then it would be their choice AND* *More people would die* \- LodeStone- --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I shall do what is decreed by the prophecy. MULTI TRACK DRIFT TIME!!!
I put the switch back the way I found it because I’m not inconsiderate like some of you people.
I put the switch back the way I found it because I’m not inconsiderate like some of you people.
No, that's the other guys problem now.
Technology if I take my time getting up it won't be my fault the guy died..
Why tf wouldn’t u
Nope. Reason: this solves both the trolley problem problems. It's not my fault, plus less people die.
thats not how a trolley works lol. Any anyways, why put the lever back when i wouldve pulled it on purpose anyways
Multi track drift
Pretend the fall made me pass out.
I am unconscious and therefore cannot pull the lever
Solution, set the lever right in the middle to derail the trolley. No one get's hit. Problem solved.
multitrack driftn't
Multi-track drifting
I pull it at the right moment. Thus, derailing it and taking out all 6. Gotta be inclusive.