Philippa Foot | The Trolley Problem's Creator 

A video on Ascombe would be nice to see

I had an exam on Philippa Foot's "natural Goodness" not even 5 days ago

Another great video Individuals are confronted with ethical conflicts challenges when their values, ethics, and morality clashes with the experience. WHY IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO HAVE A SOLUTION???

Great video you should do one on Han Ryner!

I think an abortion debate video would be cool, so long as both sides were represented equally. I don't want you to tell me how I should vote.

Aren't the social consequences radically different between the two? In the original dilemma, I see no point in seeking to reward or punish the trolley driver regardless of which path he chooses. It's ethically inconsequential to me that way. What is of ethical significance to me and a problem to solve is the malfunction of the trolley brakes and the people trapped on the tracks. So the ethical solution I'd seek out is to correct these two problems. In the mob variant, the negative consequences of condoning the framing of an innocent person seem to grossly outweigh the consequences of failing to appease the mob. Especially if something similar happens repeatedly, this would likely create complete social chaos. No innocent person could ever feel safe living in such a society since they might be the next one framed. At least this is why my intuitions want to provide differ answers between the two. It's not because of a violation of negative vs. positive duties, but because the consequences I can intuitively predict to the best of my knowledge and ability radically differ between the two scenarios. I don't find this distinction morally significant, since I can think up some examples where violating a positive duty could have disastrous consequences for society, while violating a negative one fairly benign. To me the moral weight of one choice vs. another has entirely to do with expected consequences.

When OG speaks you listen

Amazing video,go on,keep going

The thing is, if the mob in the Judge Analogy is as vicious as suggested, the innocent man would probably die anyway, at their hands. I initially missed the point about execution, and, as a citizen of a country without capital punishment, imagined the outcome to be imprisonment instead, and in that scenario, I actually think passing the sentence would be the better option, because the innocent man is better shielded, and more work can be done in proving his innocence and satisfying the mob. Regarding the trolley problem, that death occurs either way shows for me an equal culpability in both action and inaction, and for that reason, I'm not convinced I see as stark a difference between positive and negative rights. Maybe I'm an oddball on this, but they seem quite an arbitrarily defined, and in some cases egoistic distinction. There is materially very little difference between the right to life, and the right to be provided life-saving essentials when you can't yourself. Where that relates to abortion is interesting, because it would suggest that the right to one's body would only stretch as far as where the lives of others become entangled, but pregnancy isn't really comparable to anything else, and as no other person has the right to unilaterally use anyone else's body as life support, this would keep abortion as a fundamental part of bodily autonomy even if foetal personhood was granted. On the other hand, I'd argue that in the serial killer analogy, the person told to kill or else further murders will happen has no real autonomy at all, and are therefore not responsible for either what they do or don't do here, or at least not as much as they would be under duress. But regardless of their own autonomy, I still think their inaction would count as an action. Utilitarianism is often strawmanned as a kind of nightmarish ends-justify-the-means atrocity permitter, but I genuinely think that applies much more to the Doctrine of Double Effect. It's a 'motive-justifies-the-means' and if you can egoistically justify your motive, then you can almost completely ignore the consequences. For utilitarianism, the motive cannot be egoistic or individualistic, because it's about maximising overall wellbeing and minimising overall suffering. True, what counts as overall (average vs total) is a matter of dispute, but this doesn't strike me as nearly as brittle as DDE. Neither motive nor consequences are unimportant when considering ethical choices, but I can't be dissuaded from the notion that consequences are more important. Though a lot of people remember Bentham's 'greatest good for the greatest number', everyone seems to forget the felicific calculus, which acts as a decent safeguard to at least the most ridiculous strawmen of utilitarianism. Deliberately killing someone to increase others' wellbeing (?) is hardly going to work, given it violates the felicific variables of duration, certainty, fecundity, and purity (to put it in simple terms, you're going to generate a lot of confused upset by killing someone). Most objections to consequentialism are justified by consequentialism.