The Trolley Problem 

The alternative solution is to get the absolutely random dinosaur at :30 seconds to block the trolley.

Who's here after watching the video of the toddler picking the guy on the first lane and placing him with the other five on the second lane and calmly run the train over the six people serving equality..

why is Charlie Chaplin working on the train in the first place?

Tokyo drift and get all 6. Make it 7 by jumping in front.

My school did a debate on this. One person said that he wouldn't do anything, and kill the 5 people. His reasoning was that if you do something, whether that's pulling a lever or pushing someone, you're killing someone intentionally, whether it's done directly, or indirectly. So choosing to do something would make you a murderer, even though pushing someone off a bridge sounds more like a murderer. I thought that his idea was understandable. After the debate, we talked about that this can be referred as a false dichotomy. This trolley problem is a good debate topic.

The Psychology behind this is that switching a lever makes the act of sacrificing one life for five indirect. Pushing the man however, requires touch directly with the one we are sacrificing, and that touch activates a different part of our brain responsible for dealing with emotions.

Here's what you do, walk away and pretend you never saw anything.

Thanks for the explanation, Principal Skinner!

multitrackdrifting

Man... those illustrations using silent film era stars are spot on. I love it.

If they insist on standing on some rails while trains are still operating, there's nothing you can do about that. People are responsible for their own choices

If they are on the middle of a railway line and they died is pure darwinism.

Guys - there was never any 'solution' to this problem! The point of the exercise is to make us think about the MORALITY of the situation. It's a MORAL dilemma, not a practical one. If your mind immediately goes to "maybe I can shout to them to get off the track!" you're missing the point, and should go check out the amusing cat videos. As members of any society we need to consider situations in which our actions, however well-meaning, have consequences: and we must weigh our moral choices in response to those situations (and in this we might treat action and inaction as equivalent). There isn't meant to be a 'solution' to this problem. It worries me that so many people, when confronted with a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT such as this, are unable to THINK about it and appreciate the moral complexity of the real world to which the example alludes. Many of the commenters here seem to think that they must come up with a solution. These same people would no doubt propose stealing the cat from the box when Schrödinger isn't looking! Thought experiments seek to distill the essence of a problem, so that we can think about the ways in which we behave in the more complex world around us. For example, one of the interesting facets of the problem is that it forces us to consider notions of action versus inaction, and realize that in many situations, these two apparent opposites are morally equivalent. We make utilitarian decisions all the time - weighing the 'least harm' options. The Trolley Problem forces us to see those consequentialist decisions for what they frequently are: selfish, callous and arbitrary choices based on very little information and made with no real knowledge of what the ramifications might be.

my perspective on the trolley problem is when the question is presented you were chosen as a (hero) that you need to save either 5 people or 1 but what you did not see is you are not a hero becuase it is a choice between you being a witness to an accident or you becoming a murderer. If you switch the leaver you would become a murderer because you are the reason why that single person died but when you do nothing and watch the five people die you just become a witness to an accident.

Mr. Roger's Neighborhood Trolley taught me the trolley problem since childhood. Now, as an adult, I'm learning the trolley problem at a different level. :)

There's a kid solve the problem, instead of switching the track, the kid put the one man along with 5 men, and the train kill them all

The clarity and depth of this content are impressive. A book with related subjects enriched my cognitive skills. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell

People hesitate to say "I'd push the fat guy" because it's significantly more personal than pulling a lever. When you pull the lever, it's almost as though you're being heroic. You saved 5 innocent people! But when you push an innocent person off a bridge in order to save 6 people, it's not the same. You feel more like a murderer and less like a hero. That innocent fat person had no involvement in working on the tracks at all. It feels harsher - pushing a person off a bridge. You killed someone with your own two hands.

im sure others said the same thing but I'm not going to read a bunch of comments. However, I would do nothing. If I pull the switch, I am causing death. That makes me responsible and will land me jail time. If I do nothing, I am nothing but a witness to a terrible accident.

People would rather pull a lever over pushing someone for the simple reason that the lever distanced themselves from the outcome: the death is farther away, and you would feel less guilt doing so. This is the same reason we have internet fights at such a magnitude of animosity towards one another.

"Help ! A train is going to kill us !" "What do you want from me ? I can only sing you a song !" (cit.)

I like how BBC has some obscure intriguing videos on random topics. never to be known otherwise. almost hard to make up your mind but you know you want to watch. thank you

Absolutly beautiful illustration of that philosophical problem

If the trolley doesn't see the people and it plans on going forward, it probably has a greater speed than if it was going to turn. And the average person has limited knowledge of train tracks or switches. So pulling the lever could potentially derail the trolley, in which case one might not only injure/kill the initial 5 victims but also some of the passengers on the trolley or even other passengers not on the track. Don't get involved if the problem might require knowledge you don't possess. You may only make things worse.

This video reminds me of variations of the Milgram experiment - where, when people could see the subjects they felt more guilt and wouldn't obey as easily. Pushing someone off the bridge makes you feel more directly responsible for their death.

I asked my dad this question and myself. Both our choices was don’t push the man off, and the train will kill the single dude. My reasoning was that it has nothing to do with me and best outcome. My dad’s was that we don’t value them as people at that point, we value them as lives. 4 lives win over 1 and involving the man from the bridge would be in the same outcome of killing only 1 person, just that we’d be murderers in that case

The difference between the 2 scenarios is that: A) one is hands on killing of a person, which is unsettling. B) pushing the person is not going to stop the trolly anyway, so it's adding a death. I 1st heard this and the 2nd scenario was said to be a boulder (mistakenly), to which a really heavy person may/might stop the boulder.

I bet that many people change their answer because, if this was a realistic scenario, the fallen man might not stop the trolley. So you have a chance of turning the death count from 5 to 6. If you redid the test with different wording, the answers might change. I'm sure that the point the "pushing" scenario was trying to measure is whether the pushing is seen as more intimate/evil/culpable/violent of an act than pulling a lever, but the question introduced a new variable (whether the trolley would really stop).

“Would you push the man off the bridge” Me: looks like your going to the shadow realm jimbo

What some people don't realize is that a person's inaction IS action. Simply standing there knowing you could have saved the 5 lives is just as bad as pulling the lever if the number of people on the two tracks were switched.

I honestly have no idea how I would react of this actually were to happen. Probably freeze up in fear (telling myself to do something) and regret not doing anything for the rest of my life. Because I don't handle myself well under pressure, if I'm being honest. However, I would like to think that since the track with only one person is closer to me, he would have a better chance of hearing me when I yell "GET OFF THE TRACK" and then pull the lever. But then again, there are many flaws in this plan. I don't know what I'd do if the tracks were reversed and the 5 people were closer. Honestly I really don't know so I probably shouldn't be commenting.

What kind of psychological horror is this? My brain is fucked i need more of this.

My question is this: Do the five workers know that they can get hit by the trolley? If they are workers they should know to ONLY work on a track while it is not active or know when to look to move out of the way at least. Without this information, I'll assume they are negligent and say that they deserve the fate they get. If they did not know (I.E: The track was scheduled to be inactive during that time), and I knew this at the time, then I would switch, as it is 5 > 1.

"Well obviously, the dillema is clear; how do you kill all 6 people?" -Michael from The Good Place

The simple fact is that the one guy down the railway might just notice the train and run away - whereas if you would push a heavy guy off the bridge for the purpose of stopping the train you are making a sacrifice on purpose, essentially killing a man. It is more unlikely that he would be able to withstand the fall and not hurt himself so that he could get away from the train, further damning to your actions.

I think most people would choose to pull the lever because they can't help thinking of it as merely risking one life instead of five. After all you can't know for sure if they'll die until they die. While pushing the dude in front of the trolley is certainly murder or attempted murder

It's a good thought experiment, but they would be a lot variables in a real life scenario. Workers can see the trolley coming, while you can't warn them there're others that might, pushing a large man in front of it might not stop the trolley.

Thank you, Principle Skinner.

I wonder if the reason is because when you are pulling a lever, it’s different to PUSHING someone down to their deaths. Pulling a simple lever doesn’t feel as if you are doing something immediately wrong at the time and usually doesn’t make you think of what you are doing at first, maybe leaving the horrible guilt and realisation of what you have done for the end.

these comments are extremely interesting. this is the first time i've ever agreed with so many opposing views at once.

If there are 5 workers on the railroad line, they should be able to at least hear the train or see it coming (at least one should). It wouldn't be hard for them to get off the rail (it takes like 2 or less seconds). The video applies that we must choose between saving these people in a situation where they technically can save themselves if they realize what is going on (Hey, I hear/see a train coming, we should get off the rails and let it pass). A good worker is aware of their surroundings (through sight, smell, sound, etc). We can try to save the 5 workers (or lone worker as well), but in the end it really comes down to whether or not THEY realized a train was coming down the railroad. (I understand the main idea of the scenario being brought up, but logically people are smarter than to just sit on the rails when a train is coming, even without a warning. 2 seconds is all it takes). Possible solutions? Pull the lever, the train will go towards the 1 guy. Chances are the guy will hear/see the train and get out of the way. Everyone gets saved. (P.s, why even bother pushing off the big guy, let him do his own thing).

I shouldn't be watching stuff like this just before i go to bed, i have trouble sleeping now lol... Carl

If you pull the lever, there's still a chance the single worker could get off the track in time, so you would save 5, but the lone worker may still survive. But pushing someone off the bridge, you're dooming him to death.

Imagining that this is narrated by Principal Skinner makes it that much better.

A runaway train is heading towards five workers on a railway line. There is no way of warning. But your standing near a lever that operates the points. Switch the points and the train goes down the spur. trouble is there's another worker on that bit of track too. but it is one fatality instead of five. should you do that. Many people think the right thing to would be to switch the points. to sacrifice one to save five. since that produces the best outcome possible. now imagine the train heading to the workers again. this time it can only be stopped by pushing a very large man of a bridge. his great balk would stop the train. but he died. should you do that. most people say no. but why not. both thought experiments are cases of sacrificing one to save five. what the trolley problem examines is whether moral decisions are simply about outcomes or about the manner in which you achieve them. some utilitarians argued that the two cases are not importantly different from each other both have similar consequences. consequences are all that really matter. each case one person dies and five are saved. the best option in each harrowing situation. but lots of people say they would switch the points but they wouldn't push the man of the bridge. are they simply inconsistent or are they onto something.

Love the artwork! Made me want to keep watching

I would shout to the one worker to move out of the way and then pull the lever, Ez saved them all

Who put me in charge of the lever in the first place? I'm completely unqualified for such a thing.

Another way to pose the trolley problem is this: would you be able to live knowing that you let 5 people die, or knowing that you're the cause of someone's death? Edit: shit my bad english is showing i meant rather, not be able to, fuck.

I wonder can we warn the one person and then switch the lever?

With the way switches work, if you throw it only halfway, the trolley may derail and possibly not kill anyone.

The problem is the problem it really comes down to ur moral aspect cuz no one can judge whats right n wrong in this situation

There is an old saying, *"The needs of the few are the survival of the many."* .

"five of them can stop it, nothing's stronger than family" - vin diesel

0:17 'you can't shout because sound hasn't been invented yet' THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS

very well animated.

Disturbed by the amount of people who overlook the fact that once you pull the lever you become a murderer.

At an acting class I took, I was asked to make a film in which I play a man who is about to commit suicide. Since being dumped or losing someone seemed to clise to me I went for something more complex: not wanting to live with the guilt for the choice made in the trolley problem. So here's the trolley problem I created for my character: A helicopter gunship pilot is assigned to providing cover for a team trying to capture a terrorist leader. Suddenly the team is ambushed by several terrorists shooting rocked and heavy machine guns. The other gunships are shot down and the protagonist's co-pilot is also killed by machinegun fire, leaving the protagonist as the only gunship pilot still in the battle. Now that the terrorist gave away their position he can easily level the building from which the terrorist are shooting before more of his teammates are killed. But here's where the trolley (helicopter in this case) problem comes in: The building is a school filled with children. What's the right thing do here: 1. Kill the terrorists and the children 2. Let the soldiers die and the terrorists escape (and kill even more people in the future) but give the children a chance to live. The character of course makes the worst decision: he hesitates and 2 transport helicopters are shot down killing over 20 soldiers and only then he fires rockets at the building, killing everyone inside. It's things like this that the trolley problem really about, not literal careless people standing on the tracks.

The reason for it is that, when you push a man off the bridge, he has no way to avoid dying, or getting seriously hurt at least. Whereas, when one has the option to direct the runaway trolley to the one man, he is given a better deal, where he can possibly notice it and get aside.

For anyone who is wondering, the people are based on real famous silent film era comedians: The man sitting on the train at the top of the screen is Buster Keaton. The train is from his 1926 film The General. I'm not sure who the man sitting in the train cab is. The two men on the bridge are Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. The three men on the track near the bridge are The Three Stooges: Curly, Moe and Larry. The man next to them holding the mallet is Ben Turpin. The man on his knees is Lloyd Hamilton. The lone man on the other track is Charlie Chaplin. The man with the glasses is Harold Lloyd. (The three people on the platform with names below them are well-known philosophers.) I'm not sure who the other two men on the platform are, the man with the moustache might be Chester Conklin? The dinosaur is from a 1914 animation called Gertie the Dinosaur. There are several other famous silent film comedians, but I can't match them for sure to the three questionable ones. Any ideas?

Surely they could hear the train coming. Why don't they just...get out the way?

Beautifully animated

The answer is hope, if you pushed the man off the bridge he would have no chance to save himself if the directed the train towards the the guy on the track he would have a chance. Even if the outcome in this scenario is locked, hope still prevails

error 1: "1 dead is better than 5" error 2: "you have to interact" just dont do anything and you stay free of guilt

In any moral dilemma, it's important to think about your own morality, think about how YOU (not other people) would weigh the value of each subject. Only then you could see the right answer. Ex: In this case: do nothing (a), save 1 & kill 5 (b), save 5 & kill 1 (c). Choose a, or b, or c. Skip to the end for a single sentence solution. I (myself only) would experience a negative feeling much larger; when I choose (a), compared to all the consequences from individual (b), or (c). So, I (others may not) put (a) out of the equation. Between (b), and (c). To be honest, in case all of them are strangers; I feel like killing 1 or 5 has no significant difference. But the thing that affects my decision is that compensating for 1 family is easier than 5. So, (c) death to the one guy this will be. In the case of one fat guy, I would say "Even if the guy is replaced with a big rock, I still wouldn't push it." That is way too much "work" compared to compensating for up to 99 families. If any of these people is a person that I value different, the answer may vary. If you can end a day saying I do not regret it, I would say "you made the right choice".

I like the detail of the engine in the background that doesn't do anything and is there for the looks

My solution: Yell as loud as you can to the five people then go full speed towards them , They might live if they're fast enough

I refer you to the TV show THE GOOD PLACE. In that there's about a dozen variants of this problem, including whether or not the man on the bridge offers you bribe not to kill him! ;)

The workers will know the train is coming hence they will move out of the way by themselves. People are smart.

what if the only way of saving those people would it be you sacrificing yourself? and if you choose not to would it be consider as a bad thing?

Simple. People feel disconnected from the consequences of an action if they just have to interact with a lever. But if you have to physically push someone off a bridge and murder them. The act becomes more connected to you. In short, the more an action with a morally bad consequence is disconnected from an individual, the easier it gets. Just like a lever in fact. Your Morales are like a lever, if you grab closer to the bottom of the lever it's harder to switch, but at the other end it's a lot easier. The only difference between people is where pivot point is.

it depends. do I get into trouble if I act? If I am a random bystander, than I have no responsibility over any of the things that are happening, hence cannot be taken accountable for not taking any action

I wouldn't touch the switch, because then I have made an active choice to kill someone, valuing 5 lives over 1. The lever really is no different from pushing the fat man, except you do it from a distance, but either way it is still your action that kills the single person. If the people on the tracks are random strangers, how could you measure their lives worth? For me the quantity is unimportant, it is my action or lack of action which is important.

A good explanation of the problem!

You could just put some leaves on the line. That'll stop it.

what do you mean by "they are on to something"??

When you had the option to push someone else down on the track to stop the train you could instead do like Black Widow and Hawkeye and fight each other for the honor of sacrificing yourself.

How I think about it is you are voluntarily pushing the man over deciding his fate . But the guy that’s on the railroad track was already placed there . But either way I’m deciding his fate . Damn this is hard .

Even though the man on the below section of track isn't seemingly in danger, he is still standing directly on a railroad track, his death would in some sense still be his own fault of unawareness. The fat man on top of the bridge, however, is not in danger and could not be faulted for having been pushed off, his death would not directly correspond in scope to what would happen to the other man. Trains run on tracks, they don't suck people off of overhead bridges.

I wouldn't throw the switch because that messes with fate and put me in control. I'd let it take it's path without interfering

These days most people would just get their phone out and record what happens.

It’s like the kobayashi-maru test from Star Trek Do you go into the neutral zone to rescue the ship but violate a treaty possibly starting a war and have your vessel fired upon? Or do you stay out of the neutral zone and keep the treaty in tact but 381 people on that ship die In both cases the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one

Bruh just switch the tracks and then switch them back so the train comes off the tracks.

The answer is a risk ratio of 1:1 in terms of given information and the variable of responsibility. There is not enough information of the individuals to conclude who they are and what could come of them. And what scenarios could play out after their survival. The so called 'good' and 'bad' risks that can come from them is contingent on if it is reality or a hypothetical situation. If reality, the situation is contingent upon your capability to respond and your knowledge of the individuals.

As a centrist and someone that values life I can say this, the problem will most likely never arrive where you are forced and directly responsible for people's death. It really isn't about morals but about "what did you do to try and stop it". If you were working a train yard and a train was barreling down the track and fixing to hit 5 people or turn it and hit one, the most logical explanation would be to try and force the train to de-rail. Only half turn the lever to where its in between the tracks then either the wheels get get caught and you throw the train off the rails, or the speed forces the train into one of two positions and fate decides which side gets hit. Therefore you can say "I did what I could to save everyone"

I am so amazed to the last question in this video😅.

I think it would be morally wrong to get involved in both cases. The problem with utilitarianism (in my eyes) is that it fails to differentiate events happening naturally and human hand in things. If the train runs over the five workers it may be tragic, but no one can truly be said to be responsible, but as soon as you flip the switch you are directly responsible for killing the sixth worker. If you fail to see the difference between things unfolding naturally, and human action; imagine you're a hostage negotiator talking to a group of terrorists. The terrorists say they'll free five of the hostages if you give them a civilian. Would you consider it moral to put another innocent person in danger to save a greater number?

The 1 thing which confuses me is even if there's no warning about the train itself, it only takes a second for people to get off the tracks no?

I would probably just pretend that I don't see anything. I could get branded as a murderer by letting any of them die but if it seemed like I didn't know, then no blame is rested upon me.

It’s a 1v5. I don’t even understand why that’s even a question.

If they're standing on the rails, it's not your responsibility to begin with. You aren't letting them die; they're killing themselves.

Both scenarios dismiss responsibility. You take action, you are responsible. Its why people witnessing a crime hesitate to intervene. Youve now inserted yourself into taking responsibility and being held accountable for any circumstances that result from your intervention

There is a real story of a man raising a bridge, killing his son who was on it, to prevent a ferry from striking it.

1 man dying after the track switch would still be an accident but pushing a man off the bridge would certainly be a murder. So there's my justification.

I think there will never be a solution to this problem. Deciding whether you should save one’s life or saving the life of the other five, is both evil. A person’s inaction is action. Even if you only let 1 person die, you would still bring the guilt for the rest of your life. You will tell yourself that you should have done everything. But what is there to choose if there’s nothing good about the situation? We must weigh our moral choices according to this situation. Simply standing there knowing you could’ve saved the 5 lives is just as bad as switching the number of people on the two tracks. But if I really have to choose, I would choose not to pull the lever because I would kill someone who didn’t even do anything wrong. I would not want to put his life in my hands. We can’t really distinguish the good from the bad but we can weigh our moral choices.

I mean, if you have the time to push a man down the railway, and the time to switch the lever, why wouldn't you have the time to shout at the lone man while switching the lever? Then maybe the lone man can just directly jump out of the way. In that case wouldn't there be the slightest possible chance to save all of them if they were fast enough, and grab that slightest bit of possibility?

This guy sounds like the priest from the simpsons

I wouldn’t do anything that makes me less responsible in responding to one person's family if I save five people, and later on, those five I save could do something terrible, which I will be responsible for it as well since they were meant to die.

The trouble with this is that people automatically put themselves in that position and of course hesitate to choose pushing the fat guy for a number of reasons. If the question was posed, but caveated with the fact that you could watch this video before the scenario and understand completely that the push would be successful, his bulk would stop the train and their would be no legal ramifications for you, then a lot more people would be willing to push him.

Not sure how trolleys work, but what if you pull the lever and while the trolley is passing, find a way to have the lever cause the tracks to return their original position?. It will cause the trolley to derail and may mean all lives can be saved.