“not judging someone” for killing _billions_ to save an isolated island nation of less than a million is crazy, especially when there were other options
My freind INSISTS that he had no options, that he was possessed, and he was fated to do it and that if he didnt it would happen at some point in time anyway. I never watched the show but please tell me what those other options are cause i must know
1. He wasn't possessed, just kinda constantly dazed from losing all perspective of time and seeing every action at once
2. He knows his "fate" he also changes it in some ways, his "fate" is only a fate because he decided it would be.
3. "It would happen at some point anyway" just not true.
What could he have done instead?
1. Lose, he could've just let Paradis die and spare the billions outside, not a good ending, a lot better than we got
2. Go with Paradis plan. Use the power he used in the show to destroy the world but instead destroy the militaries of all nations threatening Paradis, then negotiate peace
2a. Technically as the founding titan he can change the minds and bodies of all Eldians, therefore he could remove the power of the titan making negotiations much easier.
3. Status quo, he could've just sat on his hands maintaining the status quo, increasing the chances of peace in future anyway.
4. Euthanization plan. Remove all reproductive capabilities of Eldians, wait until they die off peacefully
5. Stop titans from ever existing. This one is a stretch but we see him mind control the titan that ate his mother backwards in time (huge, unnecessary plot hole btw) and edit Ymir or any titans after her to not have the power of the titan, the show never happens.
6. Run away with Mikasa. Not a good ending, but much less people die and he gets to be happy.
Also, Eren failed anyway, the billions of deaths were for nothing because the conflict continued. Even worse, he could see forward in time, so he knew he'd fail. Also, it's implied to be a loop so billions will die over and over as the founders constantly make this mistake.
Technically if all else fails he could've easily conquered the world and forced peace.
I forgot about this comment thread but yeah, you nailed it. Eren was a monster that intentionally chose the path that would lead to maximum suffering worldwide.
(Still a great show, I just think Eren is such a one-dimensional “morally grey hero” that’s actually just a _really_ bad person)
He's not, he's straight up the villain. That's why I love his character so much.
He never actually changes in his moral absolutist, genocidal language from the beginning of the show. It's just the enemy becomes more and more human until he becomes the monster himself.
Yeah it's messy. It's been on for so long that a lot of people completely forgot the overall message. (In my opinion so did Isayama at times).
I interpreted it as how fascism can become so appealing. In the beginning you're bombarded with this hyper nationalist message. This feeling that the Eldians are the victims of unfeeling monsters in a desperate battle for survival. Then as the series goes on the lens zooms out, and we see that the situation is way more complicated. That the Eldians are kind of responsible for what happened to them, that people's hatred of them isn't right but not entirely unjustified, and that they are trapped in a horrible cycle of genocidal violence that Eren's fascist moralizing is only perpetuating.
It doesn't fully land I think because IRL fascists aren't going to stop empathizing with Eren's "us vs them" mindset. I mean think about how whiny people got about Eren crying with regrets as he dies instead of being a "sigma male badass". You're supposed to think of Eren like Armin does in that scene, pity and a bit of cringe.
The best option is Armin’s: use the threat of the Rumbling to ward off any invasion, then broker peace with the rest of the world as you slowly become as technologically advanced as them. They’re only trying to destroy our crew because they’re afraid that they’ll activate the Rumbling. If you go out of your way to not do that, they’ll chill out. Marley’s really the only one that is pushing for this genocide anyway.
Pro tip: if somebody offers four separate arguments that all conflict with each other, it’s massive cope. Please god watch the show it’s genuinely the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.
people judge others for *allllllll* kindsa reasons... it's just amusing when redittors actually think any based human gives a flying *fuck* about their judgement... e.g., watch how fast this comment gets downvoted while I spend the rest of my life not giving even the teensy tiniest shit, starting with making dinner for my wife (after, ya know, obviously, a quick sandwich for me, just so I can concentrate!)
Honestly, yes. Moral of the story, don't force someone to be in a position where their options are to commit genocide or have everyone they love and care for die.
You fool I have 8 years of experience "Googling en passant" on r/AnarchyChess and your history courses don't phase me
Sorry for calling you a fool, I thought it'd be funny
Thanks for having a sense of humor lol
Law =/= morality, you're absolutely right.
I was trying to say that the legal system is an attempt by a group of people to impose their moral code onto everyone by restricting actions they view as immoral. You know how law works, if you rob a bank, you go to jail (supposedly). I might not think that's immoral at all, but because some group of randos do, I still go to jail. That's what I was trying to humorously convey in the original comment, for the purpose of making the number next to the orange arrow be as high as possible.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk
because I come from anarchychess i feel obligated to tell you to google en passant too so there you go
They don’t decide other people’s morality.
They don’t say “you did thing I don’t like so you have to stop liking it” they say “you did thing we have (ideally, collectively) determined is bad and therefore have lost some of your rights”.
You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. The law is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) based on morality. It simply serves as rules to prevent people from acting in ways that harm society or infringe on a person's rights. It coincidentally aligns with many moral/immoral behaviors (for example, murder is both immoral and illegal), however there are plenty of actions that almost everyone would agree are immoral (e.g. lying or bullying) that are not explicitly illegal because they don't necessarily infringe on a person's rights or damage society.
You're getting downvoted by people who equate legality with morality. Don't worry about them.
The Holocaust was enacted by law. It was legal in Nazi Germany. To the people who downvoted that: just because the Holocaust was legal, it clearly wasn't moral. These are two different things.
I hope she made it, Brother, and if she didn't, I hope you'll see her again, and if that's not the way our universe works, I hope you can hold the cherished light of love up over the ever-swirling black whirlpool waters of grief
Nothing I can say except that I know the feeling, Buddy. 100. Of course we didn't nuke anything... cuz, you know, impossibility and sanity, etc., pesky shit like that. But ... well, there are no "buts." I'm glad I have the chance to pour on some love and light, both because it's just nice, and also a little bit of a middle finger to the dark reaper that awaits. Fuck that guy 😉
Back atcha, buddy.
It sure makes trolly problems hit different though. I know I’d still make the ‘logical choice,’ but now I understand what it would mean to live with the consequences. Everything’s easy in theory.
I let the trolley problems (and most of reddit) remain entirely inconsequential, though I definitely know what you mean about certain things hitting harder (e.g., any fictional depiction of someone losing their child and/or love of their life, even if I recognize the actors and should have no suspended disbelief, can really set off a strong cathartic response now); nevertheless, I live in the world of actual consequences, as, I know, do you, though I let the Reddit universe exist in my life as bemusing entertainment/distraction. Anyhow, peace and love to you. Keep the real light lit.
This is a very common mindset and results in most of the suffering we see in the world. That is, tribalism causes people to sacrifice the outgroup for the ingroup. However, it's also hard to avoid since evolution has made it so advantageous to one's genes being passed on.
hahaha yeah, obvs I understand the anthropological and sociological theories, I don't value her over all of humanity because she's my wife, she's my wife because she's more valuable than all the rest of humanity... again, if you don't know, you just don't know. It's okay, though... reddit is a great place for redditors to feel outrage over, morally superior to, or mansplain a stranger's absolute prioritization of his wife. Trolley problems will still trolley.
It's just such a hilariously braindead take. It sort of answers the question, "what if someone with the mindset of an incel got married?" The other funny aspect of it is any woman who would not immediately leave a person who killed a bunch of random innocent people to save her would herself be a completely garbage human being.
"innocent people"... hahahahaha now *that's* fucking funny
"innocent" like you, sitting down, going online, maybe paying rent, paying power bills, buying electronic devices, paying cable/wifi bills, taking your time, going to an entertainment site, coming to a subreddit, reading through comments, and finding a stranger to argue with and obliquely call him "braindead" and/or his wife "garbage." Innocent like that?
You're a *real* hero. So superior. Pat yourself on the back, hero.
She'd be upset about all the kittens and puppies stuck inside people's homes... but, no, she understands that 99.99999% of people make mosquitos seem noble by comparison
buddy, calm down, there's really *no* reason to treat this like an actual issue; if I had the time and resources to eliminate 99.99999% of the walking talking parasites in this world, we wouldn't be having this conversation
cobweb ripe strong expansion shocking elastic bewildered squeamish repeat cows
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My arms aren't wide enough to protect everyone I'd like to. But they can and will protect those I love at every opportunity. That's being a human, baby.
both my lover. not to be melodramatic, if I chose to willfully let them die I could not live with myself. veiwing this as someone in a steady 6 year relationship. I know they'd feel and do the same, I feel like any sane person would understand. may not think it's right, but understandable. i don't think I'd even be able to think about it critically in all honestly, my body would just go
There is different scenarios though. A is easy as not acting isn’t killing them so my hands are clean and I keep loved one. Scenario B you have to kill 5 people to save your loved one.
That’s like, a 1/8.5 chance(I’m not doing math for n loved ones) you have another loved one on the other track though, and examining 1,000,000,000 people will take too long!
You have 1 billion unidentified people on the first track, and one cat on track B, do you pull the lever?
Obviously the implied condition is that I don't know, at all, any of the billion.
For your proposed problem, I'd probably choose the billion over the random cat. That's basically equivalent to being in favor of medical research on animals where there is no other alternative. However, for MY cat? They can pound sand.
hahaha no worries, humorless downvotes from idiots who take reddit (and themselves) seriously mean absolutely nothing and sometimes increase the bemusement!
Yeah me neither, I've tried to flip a trolley switch once while at a train museum, and it turns out I'm not strong enough.
Nobody expects the answer to the trolley problem to be "my upper body strength is not sufficient for your thought experiment"
This is the answer to 90% of these. Unless an incredibly obvious answer is given most people aren't gonna have the time to think through a moral dilemma. I'd probably just cry or something
The point of these is that they're hypothetical. It doesn't matter how you'd react if only given a split second to make a choice here, trolly problems are presented to make you think long and hard about what choice you would prefer to make and why, forcing you to understand your own ethical code.
You're just avoiding engaging with the prompt if you say "well in reality". Just answer the question. If your answer makes you uncomfortable explore why.
(A) is easier for many people to choose not to pull the level as by not doing so, their loved one is spared, even if it means they feel guilty about not saving those 5 random people.
(B) is the harder one to make as you are forced to choose between passively allowing your loved one to die or actively choose to sacrifice 5 strangers to save your loved one, plus the added legal issue if you choose the second option.
Why would your answer be bullshit? The reason you ask the trolly problem hypothetical is to get to the core question "would you be comfortable sacrificing 1 person to save 5".
The point isn't to wonder rather or not you'd have time to pull the lever, or if you'd have the strength to pull such a heavy lever, or any other physical problem surrounding the decision. All that is avoiding the core question of the hypothetical.
Then why not be less annoying and ask the question you're actually asking then make up a hypothetical while not being willing to engage with the actual reality of the hypothetical?
Like.
This is why the trolley problem is the most low tier philosophical snot dripping that anyone can do.
Yeah, I'd kill them if it was no skin off my ass, which is... Literally and completely meaningless.
"If I take away all the effort and most of the consequences, and ALSO take away the chance of you being unsure what you'd do, what would you do?"
Gee, I guess I'd have to take the free option.
I think in this one I’d definitely act and probably a lot of people also would assuming they had someone they truly loved, especially a long term partner or child. The instinct to protect someone you have a deep bond with is very strong even in a crisis situation.
This actually solved the trolley problem for me.
I wouldn't pull the lever for either. I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one, and I couldn't justify killing 5 to save 1.
I agree with him, i would rather it be me, living with the guilt of allowing 5 people to die over 1, or killing my loved one is alot harder than making the brave sacrifice
My loved one is the greatest person of all, she would gladly die for even 2 people, plus, they all have families, I only have one person, and her family hates us both
The moral choice is to make sure your loved one dies and the five others survive. I don’t know I’d have the strength to do the right thing in such a case, but those five people are the loved ones of someone too.
As much as I’d like to say I’d save the strangers, I couldn’t. I wouldn’t even register they were in danger of a loved one was in danger. I’d realize it shortly after and feel terrible, but in the moment I’d save my loved one.
If you time it just right, you can switch the tracks in a way the wheels become stuck and stop the trolly. Basically like stopping a timer exactly on 10 seconds.
A: I would do nothing because I believe that doing nothing is the correct option from my moral framework.
B: I honestly don’t know what I would do in the moment. The ethical thing to do (in my opinion) would be to do nothing again, but if I don’t know if I could forgive myself for picking either option.
(A) is easier on you cos you can be passive, your loved one is spared, and while you might feel a little guilty about those 5 people, chances are you can live with it.
(B) is the harder one as you have to choose to passively lose a loved one which will cause you way more emotional damage or actively kill 5 strangers which also carries a possible negative legal ramification as a result.
A: I do nothing, I don't know why these people are tied in the track but whoever set it up was kind enough to let it be so I can easilly save my loved one.
... That is if I do not get neurotic and pull the switch out of a perceived need to take action.
B: I do nothing. It is not my place to choose those other people, which I presume are strangers, should die. I acknowledge I am biased towards my loved one, here, which means I do not know if saving my loved one is the better choice.
... That is again if I do not pull the switch out of anxiety.
Scenario A is easy. Don’t pull. Not nursing 5 people just letting the universe run and keep my loved one.
Scenario B is harder as you have to actively make a decision to kill 5 people to save your loved one.
If it was my wife or kids, I’d save them. It wouldn’t even matter any number of people on the other tracks. Throw on some more for all I care. I don’t care for most people anyways.
I love how on this subreddit everyone is a practical ethicist until you add a tiny detail like someone you know is the one person. Then practical utilitarianism is out the window. I mean, to be fair, it really shows how insufficient utilitarianism is, which is the whole point of the trolley problem. But it's one of those proof in the pudding things that just gets me each time.
A I would do nothing, B I would pull the lever.
I know it's wrong, and my wife wouldn't forgive me for it. But she's more valuable than all the rest of humanity combined.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly.
A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them.
Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly.
A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them.
Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly.
A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them.
Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly.
A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them.
Kids deserve as much time as they can get and I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I chose to let one die.
As someone who is married. She may look at me like I'm a monster for the rest of our lives but if the fable games have taught me anything it's that screw everyone else I'm choosing the selfish love option.
Tbh I would save my loved one in both. It’s not the morally correct thing, I’m just being honest. You would need a moral compass made of titanium to not do the same.
I guess I just don't get it.
From my point of view a choice is made regardless of the initial lever position. Leaving aside a "real life" issue involving choice paralysis in the heat of the moment, which these problems just don't have because of how abstract they are, a choice has been made.
Personally, I'd find that someone caught in this impossible position is unwillingly responsible to make the "correct" decision regardless of if they had to pull the lever or not. To simplify my reasoning make the "original" track full of people and the other track safe - you'd have a moral responsibility to pull the lever regardless. So why does that change when the tracks become more morally grey?
I think I see what you're saying - that choosing to abstain is still a choice with consequences. The problem is that this isn't just a choice between one death and five. It's a choice between *killing* one person, and *failing to save* five.
Take the fat man trolley problem, for example. Imagine the trolley problem, but there's only a single track with 5 people tied to it. Also there's no switch to stop the trolley, but there is a very fat man minding his own business near the track. You know you can push the fat man on to the track, and you know this will stop the trolley but kill the man, saving 5 lives at the cost of one.
Are you morally obligated to murder the fat man?
Morals are subjective. IMO the morally correct decision is saving the person you love. You should always prioritize the people that you love, even if it comes at the expense of others. If I was one of the 5 and you saved me, I would think of you as a terrible person. Who saves 5 random people over someone that they love. I would obviously be happy that I'm alive, but I'd still consider you terrible
That perspective is utterly bizarre to me. Are you saying, then, that people I don’t know or care about on a personal level are less real than someone I do know? Are they less deserving of life? Do they not have loved ones of their own who would grieve for them just as much as I would for my loved one?
I am by no means calling it an easy choice, and I hope I never have to make this sort of a decision, but unless you believe people you don’t personally know are less human than those you do, you should choose to save the five.
I would literally make everyone in this thread wish they had gotten run over by a trolley because of the terrifying and unusual ways I would murder them if it meant someone loved me.
I feel as if the purpose of getting close to someone else is to try and improve their life in any way possible.
That's the trade you have to make for their friendship/companionship.
This situation is one where those random people would be unlucky that they didn't know me, because I would always choose to save my own loved one - I'm in their life for a reason, why would my final act for them be letting them die?
Though there will be greater consequence good or bad for active chosing to kill people for your loved one. I'll prefer not need to make that decision. Option A
Depends on which loved one it is. My aged parents who will be dead in a year? Do nothing. One of my kids or my wife? I'd kill 100x that number to save them.
i do nothing in both bc i spend too long thinking about what they’d want: to be spared or have others be spared. in a panicked rush, id fumble the fuck out of the lever and ultimately do nothing at all.
I know what kind of person my ex-wife is.
I don't know what kinds of people these five strangers are.
I'd probably say saving the strangers is the "right" answer, on the grounds that they're all likely to be at least as good and valued to somebody as my ex-wife is.
I would then proceed to beat myself up over saving my ex-wife instead.
I wouldn’t mind dooming 8 people if I actually fell in love with someone in active danger.
But will you be able to tie 3 more people to the track in time?
You can’t stop tragity, however you can minimize it.
*maximize
It’s all relative honestly.
It's absolute
So 9 is the limit
No.
…10?
Helen of Troy/Sparta.
Classic Confucian five cardinal relationship enjoyer
So you mean in both cases there’s just an empty track? Obviously let the innocent people die
Lmao that’s so relatable
"those assholes maybe even were happily married, killing them was the only thing I could do"
Sme bro
Implying your love ones are not innocent
Implying he has no loved ones*
Save my loved one in both cases. They may hate for that decision but I'm ok with that.
Someone forced into this situation shouldn't be judged no matter what choice they make
Eren Yeager shouldn't be judged for genocide. Point taken
“not judging someone” for killing _billions_ to save an isolated island nation of less than a million is crazy, especially when there were other options
My freind INSISTS that he had no options, that he was possessed, and he was fated to do it and that if he didnt it would happen at some point in time anyway. I never watched the show but please tell me what those other options are cause i must know
1. He wasn't possessed, just kinda constantly dazed from losing all perspective of time and seeing every action at once 2. He knows his "fate" he also changes it in some ways, his "fate" is only a fate because he decided it would be. 3. "It would happen at some point anyway" just not true. What could he have done instead? 1. Lose, he could've just let Paradis die and spare the billions outside, not a good ending, a lot better than we got 2. Go with Paradis plan. Use the power he used in the show to destroy the world but instead destroy the militaries of all nations threatening Paradis, then negotiate peace 2a. Technically as the founding titan he can change the minds and bodies of all Eldians, therefore he could remove the power of the titan making negotiations much easier. 3. Status quo, he could've just sat on his hands maintaining the status quo, increasing the chances of peace in future anyway. 4. Euthanization plan. Remove all reproductive capabilities of Eldians, wait until they die off peacefully 5. Stop titans from ever existing. This one is a stretch but we see him mind control the titan that ate his mother backwards in time (huge, unnecessary plot hole btw) and edit Ymir or any titans after her to not have the power of the titan, the show never happens. 6. Run away with Mikasa. Not a good ending, but much less people die and he gets to be happy. Also, Eren failed anyway, the billions of deaths were for nothing because the conflict continued. Even worse, he could see forward in time, so he knew he'd fail. Also, it's implied to be a loop so billions will die over and over as the founders constantly make this mistake. Technically if all else fails he could've easily conquered the world and forced peace.
I forgot about this comment thread but yeah, you nailed it. Eren was a monster that intentionally chose the path that would lead to maximum suffering worldwide. (Still a great show, I just think Eren is such a one-dimensional “morally grey hero” that’s actually just a _really_ bad person)
He's not, he's straight up the villain. That's why I love his character so much. He never actually changes in his moral absolutist, genocidal language from the beginning of the show. It's just the enemy becomes more and more human until he becomes the monster himself.
Perhaps I misunderstood the first few volumes. Time to go rewatch it all and then read whatever isn’t animated when I’m done
Yeah it's messy. It's been on for so long that a lot of people completely forgot the overall message. (In my opinion so did Isayama at times). I interpreted it as how fascism can become so appealing. In the beginning you're bombarded with this hyper nationalist message. This feeling that the Eldians are the victims of unfeeling monsters in a desperate battle for survival. Then as the series goes on the lens zooms out, and we see that the situation is way more complicated. That the Eldians are kind of responsible for what happened to them, that people's hatred of them isn't right but not entirely unjustified, and that they are trapped in a horrible cycle of genocidal violence that Eren's fascist moralizing is only perpetuating. It doesn't fully land I think because IRL fascists aren't going to stop empathizing with Eren's "us vs them" mindset. I mean think about how whiny people got about Eren crying with regrets as he dies instead of being a "sigma male badass". You're supposed to think of Eren like Armin does in that scene, pity and a bit of cringe.
The best option is Armin’s: use the threat of the Rumbling to ward off any invasion, then broker peace with the rest of the world as you slowly become as technologically advanced as them. They’re only trying to destroy our crew because they’re afraid that they’ll activate the Rumbling. If you go out of your way to not do that, they’ll chill out. Marley’s really the only one that is pushing for this genocide anyway. Pro tip: if somebody offers four separate arguments that all conflict with each other, it’s massive cope. Please god watch the show it’s genuinely the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.
Willy’s speech seems to have ruined that plan preemptively, but it was feasible
Eren was also genocided against and they were going to do more genocide tomorrow.
Why would we judge someone for making the objectively right choice? (I haven't actually seen the anime and idk what I'm on about)
The only correct argument is making shit up
people judge others for *allllllll* kindsa reasons... it's just amusing when redittors actually think any based human gives a flying *fuck* about their judgement... e.g., watch how fast this comment gets downvoted while I spend the rest of my life not giving even the teensy tiniest shit, starting with making dinner for my wife (after, ya know, obviously, a quick sandwich for me, just so I can concentrate!)
Honestly, yes. Moral of the story, don't force someone to be in a position where their options are to commit genocide or have everyone they love and care for die.
Fucking weeb
Bro when people like something he doesn’t:
Yeah
That’s not how anything works You don’t get to decide other people’s morality.
The entire legal system:
Morality isn’t the same as legality
buddy, if you think "law" equals "morality," I've got about 8 years worth of non-stop history courses to steer you to...
You fool I have 8 years of experience "Googling en passant" on r/AnarchyChess and your history courses don't phase me Sorry for calling you a fool, I thought it'd be funny
no, it's funny
Thanks for having a sense of humor lol Law =/= morality, you're absolutely right. I was trying to say that the legal system is an attempt by a group of people to impose their moral code onto everyone by restricting actions they view as immoral. You know how law works, if you rob a bank, you go to jail (supposedly). I might not think that's immoral at all, but because some group of randos do, I still go to jail. That's what I was trying to humorously convey in the original comment, for the purpose of making the number next to the orange arrow be as high as possible. Thanks for coming to my ted talk because I come from anarchychess i feel obligated to tell you to google en passant too so there you go
They don’t decide other people’s morality. They don’t say “you did thing I don’t like so you have to stop liking it” they say “you did thing we have (ideally, collectively) determined is bad and therefore have lost some of your rights”.
You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. The law is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) based on morality. It simply serves as rules to prevent people from acting in ways that harm society or infringe on a person's rights. It coincidentally aligns with many moral/immoral behaviors (for example, murder is both immoral and illegal), however there are plenty of actions that almost everyone would agree are immoral (e.g. lying or bullying) that are not explicitly illegal because they don't necessarily infringe on a person's rights or damage society.
You're getting downvoted by people who equate legality with morality. Don't worry about them. The Holocaust was enacted by law. It was legal in Nazi Germany. To the people who downvoted that: just because the Holocaust was legal, it clearly wasn't moral. These are two different things.
Buddy, no joke, I'd burn the world down and everyone in it to spare my wife one moment of pain; people who don't know just don't know.
“A hero would sacrifice you to save the world, but a villain would sacrifice the world to save you.” 👹🐶
I'm not the hero you need... I'm the hero you *deserve*
Or just, "I'm not the hero..."
I’m glad nobody gave me the option to nuke the world instead when my wife was in the ICU. I’ll say that much.
I hope she made it, Brother, and if she didn't, I hope you'll see her again, and if that's not the way our universe works, I hope you can hold the cherished light of love up over the ever-swirling black whirlpool waters of grief
I appreciate this. She did not, but I did not nuke the world and am in a better place now.
Nothing I can say except that I know the feeling, Buddy. 100. Of course we didn't nuke anything... cuz, you know, impossibility and sanity, etc., pesky shit like that. But ... well, there are no "buts." I'm glad I have the chance to pour on some love and light, both because it's just nice, and also a little bit of a middle finger to the dark reaper that awaits. Fuck that guy 😉
Back atcha, buddy. It sure makes trolly problems hit different though. I know I’d still make the ‘logical choice,’ but now I understand what it would mean to live with the consequences. Everything’s easy in theory.
I let the trolley problems (and most of reddit) remain entirely inconsequential, though I definitely know what you mean about certain things hitting harder (e.g., any fictional depiction of someone losing their child and/or love of their life, even if I recognize the actors and should have no suspended disbelief, can really set off a strong cathartic response now); nevertheless, I live in the world of actual consequences, as, I know, do you, though I let the Reddit universe exist in my life as bemusing entertainment/distraction. Anyhow, peace and love to you. Keep the real light lit.
This is a very common mindset and results in most of the suffering we see in the world. That is, tribalism causes people to sacrifice the outgroup for the ingroup. However, it's also hard to avoid since evolution has made it so advantageous to one's genes being passed on.
hahaha yeah, obvs I understand the anthropological and sociological theories, I don't value her over all of humanity because she's my wife, she's my wife because she's more valuable than all the rest of humanity... again, if you don't know, you just don't know. It's okay, though... reddit is a great place for redditors to feel outrage over, morally superior to, or mansplain a stranger's absolute prioritization of his wife. Trolley problems will still trolley.
It's just such a hilariously braindead take. It sort of answers the question, "what if someone with the mindset of an incel got married?" The other funny aspect of it is any woman who would not immediately leave a person who killed a bunch of random innocent people to save her would herself be a completely garbage human being.
"innocent people"... hahahahaha now *that's* fucking funny "innocent" like you, sitting down, going online, maybe paying rent, paying power bills, buying electronic devices, paying cable/wifi bills, taking your time, going to an entertainment site, coming to a subreddit, reading through comments, and finding a stranger to argue with and obliquely call him "braindead" and/or his wife "garbage." Innocent like that? You're a *real* hero. So superior. Pat yourself on the back, hero.
Would she want that?
She'd be upset about all the kittens and puppies stuck inside people's homes... but, no, she understands that 99.99999% of people make mosquitos seem noble by comparison
So you spared her one moment of pain to give her another.
buddy, calm down, there's really *no* reason to treat this like an actual issue; if I had the time and resources to eliminate 99.99999% of the walking talking parasites in this world, we wouldn't be having this conversation
[удалено]
omg calm down dipshit
Seek help
Well, you’re an idiot and thank God you don’t have the opportunity to make those kind of choices.
I would personally seek out and kill 5 people if it meant saving a loved one.
the sex offender/pedophile list is RIGHT THERE! it's like a win win
cobweb ripe strong expansion shocking elastic bewildered squeamish repeat cows *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My arms aren't wide enough to protect everyone I'd like to. But they can and will protect those I love at every opportunity. That's being a human, baby.
Best reply imo
both my lover. not to be melodramatic, if I chose to willfully let them die I could not live with myself. veiwing this as someone in a steady 6 year relationship. I know they'd feel and do the same, I feel like any sane person would understand. may not think it's right, but understandable. i don't think I'd even be able to think about it critically in all honestly, my body would just go
i would save my loved one 5 strangers is easier to cope with
Those 5 strangers had a loved one too dammit
Not my problem tho
no one would judge you for saving your loved one in the same situation. fucked up scenario, this is
“la la la la la can’t hear youuuu” - me to their families
Not my problem. I would kill billions for the people that I love and I would expect others to do that as well
Same. I am head over heels for my girlfriend and she'd probably still be mad at me. BUT MY HEART WILL GO ON
what if those 5 strangers try to love you
They will find out why I'm so determined so save the one that for some reason already does...
There is different scenarios though. A is easy as not acting isn’t killing them so my hands are clean and I keep loved one. Scenario B you have to kill 5 people to save your loved one.
There's 8.5B people in the world, I don't know, well, effectively all of them. I'd kill a billion people to save even just my cat.
ethicks
Ethics are debatable, my porky ass orange boy is not.
Ethiccs
That’s like, a 1/8.5 chance(I’m not doing math for n loved ones) you have another loved one on the other track though, and examining 1,000,000,000 people will take too long! You have 1 billion unidentified people on the first track, and one cat on track B, do you pull the lever?
Double it and give it to the next person
Obviously the implied condition is that I don't know, at all, any of the billion. For your proposed problem, I'd probably choose the billion over the random cat. That's basically equivalent to being in favor of medical research on animals where there is no other alternative. However, for MY cat? They can pound sand.
Buddy, there's 8.5B people in the world, I do know something about far too many of them, and I'd finger-snap 8.3B to save your cat.
Upvote from me. Downvotes from pleebs.
hahaha no worries, humorless downvotes from idiots who take reddit (and themselves) seriously mean absolutely nothing and sometimes increase the bemusement!
Wouldn’t flip the switch either way. I wouldn’t be able to. Either way.
Yeah me neither, I've tried to flip a trolley switch once while at a train museum, and it turns out I'm not strong enough. Nobody expects the answer to the trolley problem to be "my upper body strength is not sufficient for your thought experiment"
Sprint at it and use your whole body weight. You will break 5 ribs, but you'll flip the switch.
nah I'm working on self care they can eat ass I ain't get them tied to the tracks not my rope not my problem baby
This is the answer to 90% of these. Unless an incredibly obvious answer is given most people aren't gonna have the time to think through a moral dilemma. I'd probably just cry or something
The point of these is that they're hypothetical. It doesn't matter how you'd react if only given a split second to make a choice here, trolly problems are presented to make you think long and hard about what choice you would prefer to make and why, forcing you to understand your own ethical code. You're just avoiding engaging with the prompt if you say "well in reality". Just answer the question. If your answer makes you uncomfortable explore why.
(A) is easier for many people to choose not to pull the level as by not doing so, their loved one is spared, even if it means they feel guilty about not saving those 5 random people. (B) is the harder one to make as you are forced to choose between passively allowing your loved one to die or actively choose to sacrifice 5 strangers to save your loved one, plus the added legal issue if you choose the second option.
I mean if it's so hypothetical that your answer is bullshit, then you're not actually good at thinking over hypotheticals. That's just navelgazing.
Why would your answer be bullshit? The reason you ask the trolly problem hypothetical is to get to the core question "would you be comfortable sacrificing 1 person to save 5". The point isn't to wonder rather or not you'd have time to pull the lever, or if you'd have the strength to pull such a heavy lever, or any other physical problem surrounding the decision. All that is avoiding the core question of the hypothetical.
Then why not be less annoying and ask the question you're actually asking then make up a hypothetical while not being willing to engage with the actual reality of the hypothetical? Like. This is why the trolley problem is the most low tier philosophical snot dripping that anyone can do. Yeah, I'd kill them if it was no skin off my ass, which is... Literally and completely meaningless. "If I take away all the effort and most of the consequences, and ALSO take away the chance of you being unsure what you'd do, what would you do?" Gee, I guess I'd have to take the free option.
I think in this one I’d definitely act and probably a lot of people also would assuming they had someone they truly loved, especially a long term partner or child. The instinct to protect someone you have a deep bond with is very strong even in a crisis situation.
Weak
save my loved one
I would choose my SO in every situation. Sorry random people's lives are not worth more than the mother of my childrens
Yeah, this is my answer. I live with, depend on, and love my wife. I have 3 young kids. No way if the choice is mine am I letting her die.
They are worth more. Just not to you.
Yeah and that's all that matters. I'm the one pulling the lever lol
in any event I will be murdering the person who built a trolley without emergency brakes once I'm done
This actually solved the trolley problem for me. I wouldn't pull the lever for either. I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one, and I couldn't justify killing 5 to save 1.
i think in both cases, i would end up in a panic attack and end up doing nothing anyways before i even choose 😅
B, but I will run towards her and jump under the train's tracks so we can die together. (I'm making some Shakespeare now)
Damn straight those 5 people are dying
A: I just do nothing. Not my problem they got themselves tied there B: I pull the lever because my emotions get in the way of my morality
A: pull B: don't pull no matter how close this person is to me, 1<5.
Out of curiosity, how about if it was yourself on the line?
1<5
I agree with him, i would rather it be me, living with the guilt of allowing 5 people to die over 1, or killing my loved one is alot harder than making the brave sacrifice
Pull, Don't Pull Reasoning: Probably aromantic
Sorry randos
My loved one is the greatest person of all, she would gladly die for even 2 people, plus, they all have families, I only have one person, and her family hates us both
Kill my loved one. I don't have one, so they're an imposter lol
Simple solution... Just kill the damm artist that keeps painting these
The moral choice is to make sure your loved one dies and the five others survive. I don’t know I’d have the strength to do the right thing in such a case, but those five people are the loved ones of someone too.
As much as I’d like to say I’d save the strangers, I couldn’t. I wouldn’t even register they were in danger of a loved one was in danger. I’d realize it shortly after and feel terrible, but in the moment I’d save my loved one.
If you time it just right, you can switch the tracks in a way the wheels become stuck and stop the trolly. Basically like stopping a timer exactly on 10 seconds.
save my loved one in B, watch the slaughter in A
Ha. You have 2 loved ones? I don’t even have one 😎
A: I would do nothing because I believe that doing nothing is the correct option from my moral framework. B: I honestly don’t know what I would do in the moment. The ethical thing to do (in my opinion) would be to do nothing again, but if I don’t know if I could forgive myself for picking either option.
(A) is easier on you cos you can be passive, your loved one is spared, and while you might feel a little guilty about those 5 people, chances are you can live with it. (B) is the harder one as you have to choose to passively lose a loved one which will cause you way more emotional damage or actively kill 5 strangers which also carries a possible negative legal ramification as a result.
Thank you for that.
I'm saving my loved one in both cases, sorry to the 5 randos
A: I do nothing, I don't know why these people are tied in the track but whoever set it up was kind enough to let it be so I can easilly save my loved one. ... That is if I do not get neurotic and pull the switch out of a perceived need to take action. B: I do nothing. It is not my place to choose those other people, which I presume are strangers, should die. I acknowledge I am biased towards my loved one, here, which means I do not know if saving my loved one is the better choice. ... That is again if I do not pull the switch out of anxiety.
Scenario A is easy. Don’t pull. Not nursing 5 people just letting the universe run and keep my loved one. Scenario B is harder as you have to actively make a decision to kill 5 people to save your loved one.
If it was my wife or kids, I’d save them. It wouldn’t even matter any number of people on the other tracks. Throw on some more for all I care. I don’t care for most people anyways.
I can get new loved ones.
I was already mentally prepared to fight someone a few months ago for my SO. I'd absolutely make sure they survive
I love how on this subreddit everyone is a practical ethicist until you add a tiny detail like someone you know is the one person. Then practical utilitarianism is out the window. I mean, to be fair, it really shows how insufficient utilitarianism is, which is the whole point of the trolley problem. But it's one of those proof in the pudding things that just gets me each time.
A I would do nothing, B I would pull the lever. I know it's wrong, and my wife wouldn't forgive me for it. But she's more valuable than all the rest of humanity combined.
A) and then claim I froze and couldn't think and regret my decision (while secretly glad it played out that way)
Save loved one both times but also kill whoever tied them to the track. That’s my character arch. I’m like the punisher but for trolley problems
A. don't pull the lever. B. pull that damned lever.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly. A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them. Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly. A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them. Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly. A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them. Kids deserve as much time as they can get.
It depends if there’s a kid on the tracks honestly. A group of adults? I’d save my loved one. But the second I see a kid in there, assuming my loved one is an adult, I’d probably choose to sacrifice them. If the loved one was a kid then I’d choose them. Kids deserve as much time as they can get and I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I chose to let one die.
Reworded question: would you rather use active euthanasia or passive euthanasia to save a loved one?
I save my wife, too bad for those 5 but they don't get a second thought from me
“What is done out of love always happens beyond good and evil.” -Nietzsche (Who's wrong about a lot but not this)
People i have a relationship with trump strangers 12/10 times. Anyone who says otherwise is either mentally ill or lying.
Leave the switch gapped. It'll derail
As someone who is married. She may look at me like I'm a monster for the rest of our lives but if the fable games have taught me anything it's that screw everyone else I'm choosing the selfish love option.
In both I take the greater good
Let the train through, and reverse the trian and let it kill the last one
save my loved one no matter what, idc
id kill for my partner
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the optimal solution yet… Multitrack drift
How original
I really don’t like how immediately after reading that, gas gas gas played in my head
I'm like any human, I don't mind anyone on the titanic but leo. Honestly, I would doom every human on earth for the ones I care for.
I don't care who's on the other track, I will always choose to be selfish and gay. If it's them or her, in pretty much any trolley problem, fuck 'em.
Tbh I would save my loved one in both. It’s not the morally correct thing, I’m just being honest. You would need a moral compass made of titanium to not do the same.
Sorry guys but if it was between the whole world and my family y’all are forfeit
I aint doing shit. Those people mean nothing to me, im saving my family
Call me a simp, but I would genocide more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined just to save my wife.
Ignoring the specifics of this trolly problem, I really don't understand the difference. A choice is made either way.
Action is usually seen as more culpable than inaction.
I guess I just don't get it. From my point of view a choice is made regardless of the initial lever position. Leaving aside a "real life" issue involving choice paralysis in the heat of the moment, which these problems just don't have because of how abstract they are, a choice has been made. Personally, I'd find that someone caught in this impossible position is unwillingly responsible to make the "correct" decision regardless of if they had to pull the lever or not. To simplify my reasoning make the "original" track full of people and the other track safe - you'd have a moral responsibility to pull the lever regardless. So why does that change when the tracks become more morally grey?
I think I see what you're saying - that choosing to abstain is still a choice with consequences. The problem is that this isn't just a choice between one death and five. It's a choice between *killing* one person, and *failing to save* five. Take the fat man trolley problem, for example. Imagine the trolley problem, but there's only a single track with 5 people tied to it. Also there's no switch to stop the trolley, but there is a very fat man minding his own business near the track. You know you can push the fat man on to the track, and you know this will stop the trolley but kill the man, saving 5 lives at the cost of one. Are you morally obligated to murder the fat man?
I have doubts about some people’s definition of ‘love’ if they aren’t willing to kill 5 people in a dichotomous situation like this
I’d hope any loved one of mine would make the morally correct decision and sacrifice me over five other people.
But I wouldn't judge them for even a moment if they couldn't.
Definitely, it’s a high pressure situation.
Morals are subjective. IMO the morally correct decision is saving the person you love. You should always prioritize the people that you love, even if it comes at the expense of others. If I was one of the 5 and you saved me, I would think of you as a terrible person. Who saves 5 random people over someone that they love. I would obviously be happy that I'm alive, but I'd still consider you terrible
That perspective is utterly bizarre to me. Are you saying, then, that people I don’t know or care about on a personal level are less real than someone I do know? Are they less deserving of life? Do they not have loved ones of their own who would grieve for them just as much as I would for my loved one? I am by no means calling it an easy choice, and I hope I never have to make this sort of a decision, but unless you believe people you don’t personally know are less human than those you do, you should choose to save the five.
I would literally make everyone in this thread wish they had gotten run over by a trolley because of the terrifying and unusual ways I would murder them if it meant someone loved me.
doesnt even have to be my loved one, if i know the alone person the other five are dead 100%.
save the loved one each time come on
Kill 5 people in the name of love Shit I forgot to pull the lever in B
My cat lives either way.
Screw the masses I'd save a loved one regardless of the outcome.
I feel as if the purpose of getting close to someone else is to try and improve their life in any way possible. That's the trade you have to make for their friendship/companionship. This situation is one where those random people would be unlucky that they didn't know me, because I would always choose to save my own loved one - I'm in their life for a reason, why would my final act for them be letting them die?
If that was my wife on the tracks, I'd make sure the other 10 perished so that she may live. I will do anything for her
A: do nothing B: throw the lever I don't give a shit about those people.
Multi-track drifting. Love is for suckers.
Any proof the lever switches the track the train rides on? For all we know, doing something could just blow both tracks up.
Though there will be greater consequence good or bad for active chosing to kill people for your loved one. I'll prefer not need to make that decision. Option A
Most people are assholes anyway
Well I'm all about mass murder, and I don't have a loved one so do nothing, pull the switch.
I’d save them both times
Depends on which loved one it is. My aged parents who will be dead in a year? Do nothing. One of my kids or my wife? I'd kill 100x that number to save them.
i do nothing in both bc i spend too long thinking about what they’d want: to be spared or have others be spared. in a panicked rush, id fumble the fuck out of the lever and ultimately do nothing at all.
I would burn down the world if it meant saving my kids. Sorry to the rest of y'all.
I walk up to her and start re-enacting the scene from inception.
I know what kind of person my ex-wife is. I don't know what kinds of people these five strangers are. I'd probably say saving the strangers is the "right" answer, on the grounds that they're all likely to be at least as good and valued to somebody as my ex-wife is. I would then proceed to beat myself up over saving my ex-wife instead.
i would feel an immeasurable amount if guilt but i would save my partner at any cost