the trolley problem is easy, actually 

Nice to see you here Part D) the fat villain -- what if the guy you wanted to push off the bridge was the one who set up the victims on the track in the first place? What if meant to set up the whole disaster? Would you push him off? Answer: obviously, too easy

If the man is heavy enough to stop the trolley, you couldn't push him off the bridge anyway. That's the real reason to say no. There is no point.

I’d switch it once, to bait them, and then I would switch it back

"Well, obviously the dilemma is clear. How do you kill all six people?"

IRL trolley operator here! (a) I'd hold the lever at the halfway point, since that would derail the trolley in a relatively gentle manner, stopping it before it hits anyone. The passengers get a few bumps and bruises, and everyone lives. (b) If he's fat enough to stop a trolley (25 tons?), I won't be able to push him off the bridge no matter how hard I try. (f) Who installed a derailment catapult in the track? Was it the same guy who tied the 5 people to the track?

The one with the organ transplants doesn't even make sense. If the 5 people are all missing a different organ, then why would they cut open the one healthy guy? If 1 person is gonna be sacrificed, why wouldn't they use one of the 5 to give those organs to the other 4?

“Justifying murder is easy, actually”

This is the most elaborate Kissinger dead joke i have encountered so far.

The trolley problem always stumped me. No matter how many ways I thought about it, I never could figure out how to hit both the group and the solitary guy with the same locomotive.

The trolley problem is only a problem if you believe saving more people to be a good thing.

The problem with this problem is that it can't really be tested in real life. However, it actually was tested once by Micahel Stevens in his series Mindfield. I think it's a RU-vid exclusive so it might not be available to everyone. They conducted the test with a University board approval, and with psychologists to screen candidates filtering those who may have severe trauma after deciding that one person or five should die. The setup, long story short, they were for a moment in an office where a man will remotely control the rail change in a working site. The workers can move, but they were wearing ear protective gear and a train approached. After the man had to leave the office for a moment, the unknowing participants were put on the situation. The train looked real, but it was CGI. Most people froze. And those who didn't had real dilemas as they were saving lives, but they were also condemnign a family to live without the loved one. Those who freezed had many reasons why. Most of them, pointed out by you. So the second question does not assume that you were lying in the first. The second question makes you think twice and deeper about your easy "Yes" at first.

Honestly I would have said no to every one of these cause I wouldn't wanna get involved in any of that

You don't need math if you know that half of these are illegal

As an academic I can comfortably say that the question becomes way easier when you use a train instead of a trolley.

Short answer - you can't do math with lives. Work out what you believe and do your best in the moment.

flick the switch = you murdered someone, dont flick = train accident

0:37 I don't think that's the original... LOL

3:43 "He kind of had it coming" lol 😂

The Kessenger joke at the end earned you a big like my man

i said no to all of them because its a skill issue from your side if u get stuck in a railway and are about to be hit by an train

I would not pull the lever in the original trolley problem because the trolley has places to go, and I wouldn't want them to get sidetracked. I don't know why nobody ever considers this. The train crashing into the fat man might kill more people on the train. Why does nobody ever care about the people on the train?

The difference in answers is basically whether the "sacrifice" is a necessity or a byproduct of saving the other lives. Basically, if the 1 person wasn't there, could you do the same thing and save the 5 people? In the case of levers, yeah, you could just push the lever and nobody would die, but in the fat man and organ variations, you cannot save them without the "sacrifice" being present.

If you shift the tracks at the right time you can derail the trolley, so you can easily dispose of everyone on the trolley too

There's a solid legal answer to the problem as well. Most states in the US do not require you to actually save a person, strike for some special relationships like teacher/student doctor/patient etc. or if the danger is due to your own actions. So that being said if you let the 5 people die you are not obligated to save them. If you pull the switch you are obligated to save that 1 person you just put in danger yourself, even though you just saved the other 5. Now in case you did pull the lever you do of course have the right to a jury trial in which case you'll very likely be excused because most people do believe in the lesser evil/greater good thing. But if you don't touch anything and walk away you wouldn't have to stand trial to begin with because you didn't commit a crime.

tying all of this in with Kissinger at the end made me laugh so hard. Earned a sub and look forward for more great videos brother.

my answer is basically no to all of them since i wouldnt want to live in a society where i can be sacrificed for someone elses benefit. like if you wouldn't want to be killed to save someone random, then that other person probably feels the same

Very interesting video and thought processes! Comes relatively close to how I think about the problem, I always pictured this as "what would I do / what would happen IRL?". Also I like your sense of humor!

This is such a phenomenal video man , you 100% deserve all the subs

Man keep up the quality videos. Get this man some subscribers! They are well deserved already, I’m just proud to say I’m here to witness the start of something great

Two ways of going about this as far as I can tell. The first is simply doing math to maximize life saved. The second, and my preferred, is to save life without impeding upon the freedom of choice of others. I would pull the lever to divert the trolley because the victims are already tied to the track, and so I'm not robbing someone of their autonomy while trying to save lives. They by some means ended up without the ability to choose for themselves already, and have no choice in the matter now, so I may as well do the best I can in a bad situation. The sleeping guy, on the other hand, simply chose to sleep in his yard, and involving him would be wrong because only bad luck put him near the situation. And obviously, don't commit murder and push any onlookers infront of a trolley, regardless of size or physics. Basically I will always preserve free will. That means that I can only save someone if it doesn't take away someone else's free will.

I hate trolley problems because they encourage binary thinking.

These unrealistic simplistic academic exercises are devoid of the complexities of the real world.

the main thing I would say is that besides the basic question, the dat villain and the loop question all of them come back to the "fair game point" that was made. When you have a shitty scenario were you only get to control how many people will die then its the best the minimaze death. But in the other they all are cases were you actively choose to kill someone that has nothing to do with the situation so other people can live, yes its "less deaths" but its not the same, because its not fair for that unralated person to die so someone else can be saved, while in the first one everybody is already in a unfair situation

glad to be a veteran of this channel BAHAAHAH, love the dry humor and editing style and everything like GO ON MY MAN GO FORTH

I say no to all of them. Think this way: "what would happen if i wasnt there?" Exactly, i would just do nothing. Unless of course there was nobody on the other track and i could save a life without sacrificing any lives.

You shouldn't be thinking if you would push the fat man or not you should be running away 💀💀💀 the bridge is about to collapse with that much weight 💀💀💀

Really love the quality of your videos, and it shows how much time you put into them! Keep it up!

If the trolley problem actually existed, I would just run away

Instant sub! I love your style of content, and have high expectations. Keep it up!

This channel is so underrated, I'm so glad i stumbled across this.

Best channel I saw for this month, thanks for making my day

6:36 Take the medal and run 😂

I love how this video gets ironically deep and dark, ending by throwning an entire train (of thought) onto the US leaked dark secrets

This is amazing, wishing you the best of luck on your content endevours

switch it so that the train derails the diverter takes time to move

Dude I’m loving the direction of your channel. I think the last two videos have been some of the best stuff you’ve ever put out on here!

Caseoh would be big enough to stop a train

Can’t believe you’re a new channel. Keep em coming, yr hilarious

You are going places my man! 2 videos, only 4 days on this channel and.... already 1.56k! congrats!

Wait, you only have two videos!? Make more, they are informative and hilarious.

This is by far the most simplistic and intelectual analysis of the trolley problem I have ever seen. Also, the irony at the end and the reference to Kissenger, hats to you!

“Would you pull the switch/make an action?” My answers: a) original - NO b) original (IRL) - still NO c) the fat man - NO d) the fat villain - NO e) the loop - NO f) the man in the yard - NO g) the transplant surgeon - NO h) the Nobel Prize winner - NO Any action causing the death of someone else who wasn’t previously going to lose their life (but has lost it because of me) feels very wrong. No matter the situation! Very funny video tho🤣🔥

I think about the trolley problem all the time lmaoo, thank you for this video!

gotta point out that reintroducing factors in decision making like “what people would think of you” is exactly not the point of the trolly problem

0:04 “twolley pwoblem”

im in love with this channel

0:46 Because I.. I don't know how to animate them LMAO

My take (unhinged): a) No, because I don't want to get involved. If anything, the question is how do you even know that lever will change the direction of the trolley? And even if it's obvious that it will change direction, why should I do anything? If I don't do anything, it's just an unfortunate accident that I will have seen. If I get involved I might forever be traumatised by the fact that I killed 1 person, even if I saved 5. Also, there's chances I might end up in prison. b) Same answer, why would I answer differently than what I would actually do in real life, what's the point of the question if I just answer it theoretically? c) Same answer, but this time there's a very real possibility that I will end up in prison, even saving the 5 people. d) Same answer as c. e) Same answer as c and d, but with the same chances of ending up in prison as a. f) No, why would I get involved? Same answer as a. Also I might end up in prison. g) Ok, this time you will seriously, 100%, end up in prison IF you get caught. I don't see how you would not get caught. Seriously. h) Same answer as a, I don't want to get involved. Also I might end up in prison.

I would never choose to do anything. Cuz it's not my business. If I mess up, which is more likely, I don't want to blamed for something I wasn't engaged with in first place. That doesn't mean I would be okay to know one person died afterall. It's just not my job to pull rail switches.

New sub as soon as I saw the train fly into Wyoming 5:05 That was such a specific state to choose for this scene. 😂 The least populated per amount of land. Less dangerous to land there. 😅 wow then I finished the video. and came back to say that my subscription to your channel is solidified. thank you for your service!

bruh ur gonna blow up. i predict it. good content and u got the algorithm by the balls.

Kissinger joke made me lough out loud. Man, you are on fire. Keep doing what you doing

I love this video !!! Putting ourselves in very realistic situations like these ones ! Definitely useful.

The Henry Kissenger reference was so spot on!

i wouldn't do anything because there might be some chances of manslaughter

2:01 lol

4:54 the bro is already sleeping. Now he'll have an even better one.👍😀👍

I was once asked a version where it's 5 children playing in a tunnel or the other tunnel with an old man cleaning the tracks, doing his job, and trusting you (the controller) to not do him dirty. In this case, I originally picked the children, but eventually, I realised (especially after speaking with my left friend) that maybe getting the 5 kids out is best. It's fair game and then the old man lives doing his duty (supposing he won't die from the news that he cost 5 childrens' lives).

Much harder problem: how not to be cyberbullied for whatever choice you made.

2:53 trains can casually go 200 km/h the man has to be way heavier than a building to stop the train, and you can't push him off then anyways, that one makes no sense at all

I guess that channel grew a lot, 250k already, and about 200 in the endcard^^

The final joke💀 i love everything about this channel 😂

I think the answer is simple. Pulling the lever: Murderer Not pulling the lever: Bystander Failing to act in a stressful situation is not the same as willful inaction. It's only a war crime when you've had time to decide what you feel is right (and since society would have decided that what you think is right isn't right, you'll be punished). People act in self preservation before following their morals. In this situation, I wouldn't act. However, the ethical choice is to pull the lever.

On the first question, if we include physics on this, assume the train was a passenger train, and moving at 100 km/h, then ipushing the leverwould absoloutely derail them and cause more deaths, including the 5 people in the track

Apart from the last one, I'd say thanks for all the model answers!

My solution was to pull the lever at just the right time, causing the front and back half of the train to go on separate tracks, causing it to do a sick drift.

bro saying he wouldnt push the guy in part c cuz "oh he might not be able to stop the train" but the problem says he can so he obviously can and you know that in the problem and "oh he doesnt deserve this" well and what did the 5 ppl there did to deserve it

I would not push the lever in any scenario. When you choose to alter fate, you are in some part becoming morally responsible for whatever happens and culpable. You are responsible for the deaths you cause by pressing the switch. Whereas if you don't do anything, you are not morally responsible for any deaths. Acting on an underlying principle like this allows you to make a consistent choice every time, rather than flip flopping for slightly different situations. You don't have to consider whether they're criminals or Nobel laureates. You just base it on your own principles.

Idk if you meant to but I have not laughed this hard at a RU-vid video in ages man keep it up ❤❤❤😂😂😂

A very good twist at the end; well done.

That ending was too good lmao

The intuitive difference that people have between scenarios is dignity. In the 1st cast, the one who dies is a secondary effect of the the decisions to save the others. We would still act the same whether that one person is there or not and would prefer he wasn't. In the case of the fat man and the organ donor, we are using a human being as a means to an end, we need that person, but don't want to ask for his input or consent. Most people (at least in the West) are emotionally repulsed on an intuitive level by the idea of using a person as a means to an end, especially if it involve the use of their body. People who say Kant wouldn't pull the lever in the first scenario don't quite understand the categorical imperative. A caveat though is that the answers people give might be different in cultures where the idea of individual dignity and autonomy is not as widely known or accepted, ex) North Korea.

This guy joins youtube and right away starts dropping bangers

"As many as I can" - was my immedeate response to the last one

Do you do video suggestions? I'd like to see something like "Why do we have morals?" Start with the baseline logic "There is no objective morality". I mean I could just ask ChatGPT but I'd like to see your take please.

I legit answered no, cause I would just look not make any decision

subscribed... i havent seen a good content in long time... enjoyed

The trolley problem makes me think of The Good Place and that is why I always get a chuckle from it

Plot tiwst, the 1 person on the train had the cure to cancer and the 5 people where murderers

3:19 i said yes though

My first immediate thought about scenario f is yes to derail it: Once derailed, There’s no actual guaranteed chance the train will hit the sleeper in the hammock, therefore if it does you got plausible deniability. It also means derailing it has a possibility of saving everyone.

The nobel peace prize is a very poor indicator of character. What is more, if the one person were a literal saint, they wpupd demand they be sacrificed for the criminals

the answer is very simple, if you pull the lever, you are a murderer. your logic in this video is difficult to watch, and contradicts itself constantly. if you pull the lever, you have decided to take life into your own hands, and the law agrees with this. if you intervene and pull the lever, you killed someone. if you do nothing, fate takes its course. the people who are in the way of the track die, like they were meant to by being in front of the track. we did this in my college class at penn state and everyone but me voted to pull the lever to shift the train onto the 1 person (killing them) and not just sit there and let it kill the 3 remember that the trolley problem is not “choose who to kill: 3 people or 1 person” like most people think. the trolley problem is “the train is heading along a track, and you can choose to intervene to shift the train to another track.” the trolley problem will try to throw you off of this principle by adding in things like “if you pull the lever you kill 1 fat person (or a convicted felon etc).” but no matter how the test tries to persuade you, you can’t give in. the people in the way of the track are not your responsibility, and every decision outside of refusing to pull the lever is a decision that you made about who deserves to live and who deserves to die. you can’t make that decision, so don’t pull the lever. you are only a murderer if you pull the lever. you are always innocent if you refuse to pull the lever, or refuse to push someone from the bridge. even the person who rightfully shoves the evil person off the bridge is a murderer. this is also how the trolly problem would likely turn out in real life. we subconsciously understand that the people in the way of the track have it coming, the person on the other track, or the bridge, is “innocent.” you are not a train conductor or responsible for any of this in any way. you are a witness do not pull the lever or you will go to jail, as you should. good luck using this trolley problem logic in court to a jury. you will be inevitably convicted

Your answers are based on what different philosophers talk about in deontology and consequentalism. I don't know what the "academic character" is supposed to exactly convey but all of them have given similar reasoning as what you have done in this case of what is fair, who is culpable or in general what kind of constraints we might have that aren't just about looking at consequences. Also the intuitive answer is down to metaethics. Just a headsup to all the people that the so called academic here doesn't convey actual reality of the field of ethics in their answer. The answer is that for these people it's also easy, actually but philosophy and science as a whole is supposed to dive deeper than our gut feelings and be able to explain and analyze the content. Not just "yeah that's how it just goes bro". I do understand that as a content this is required to be done like this and quite likely people have enough media literacy to understand this.

always pull and switch the lever as quickly as possible. this makes the gacha more exciting!

"i'd say the question itself is flawed." - sensei (blue archive)

6:47 I have one problem with that Wikipedia paragraph and that's when people were calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal, those aren't accusations those are pure black-and-white facts.

Bro Yapping 7:00 Minute Straight

Just tiday I watched a lecture in uni on exactly this topic in regarding ethics and morality. You cant imagine the amount of laughter this is giving me. Its so funny

Awesome video, made me laugh so hard. Keep up the great work!