In a Pachinko game, a ball is let to roll down an inclined board spiked with nails to impede its progress, each nail the ball hits imposing a binary choice as to whether to go left or right past the nail. And in the fall, the ball follows rules - there's no magic involved - ending up in one of a number of slots at the bottom of the run. The point being that notwithstanding that the inputs seem the same, the results can and do differ across the entire available range.

And the notion from this is that the consideration of the Trolley Problem, while hypothetical, is not an exercise in the abstract. And it is thus not what I should do, but instead what I will do. And as the pachinko balls line up in different slots, so also in the ultimate necessity of choice individuals will make different decisions, and none intrinsically in itself better than the other, just as there is no right place for the pachinko ball to fall.

Of course that leaves the reason for the choice, if it can be determined, and on that basis the choice may be bad, but that not the question of the Trolley Problem.

OK, but let's make Trolley Car even more ridiculous by having 999 people tied on the track and 1000 in the car. If a person decides not to pull the switch, do you think they did something wrong? Would you condemn them? — RogueAI

Yes, because this is again, not an emotional problem. Morality is not about our emotions. If you can save 1000 over 999, in this very restricted situation, you do so. If all human beings are the same value in the scenario, this is what you do. If you wish to change the scenario, then of course the answer can differ. With the scenario as is, I see no other reasonable answer.

In the light of the video above, where folks were placed in a situation that they really believed that was almost exactly the trolley problem, it is clearly a possible scenario, — unenlightened

How often would that type of scenario actually happen in the real world. Answer - almost never. Given that, why has this become such a centerpiece of moral philosophy?

one has to suspect that you have other reasons to hate it. — unenlightened

Naughty, naughty. You know that questioning motive is not a valid philosophical argument. Perhaps you have another reason to make that kind of argument.

How often would that type of scenario actually happen in the real world. Answer - almost never. Given that, why has this become such a centerpiece of moral philosophy? — T Clark

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. In a proper philosophical discussion in which the limits are clearly laid out, it gives us a small window to evaluate what we think would be the proper decision and why. Its a starter problem one can build off of. It is not the answer to morality in general.

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

Sorry, I feel like I've waylaid your discussion. I know this wasn't the direction you wanted to take it.

Sorry, I feel like I've waylaid your discussion. I know this wasn't the direction you wanted to take it. — T Clark

No worry! Its not my OP. I didn't think it was off topic though.

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

I don't agree. Most philosophical thought experiments are silly. To have any value, a thought experiment should take into account the issues we see in the real world. It can still be simple, but it has to be real.

Not on the ballot paper. Personally, I found it bad enough beheading a chicken. I do not believe either of us would even behead Putin or Trump. — unenlightened

There's the blank vote, the no vote, the manual write in of another candidate as well. Take your pick if you can't handle the revolution.

Why? Morality is often thought of as, "What ought to be/happen." If you think the moral actions is that the lever should be pressed, then you think its moral to do so. Your guilt or emotions over the issue don't change whether something is moral or not. — Philosophim

I do not always do what I think I ought to do. I base what I thought I would do on my feelings on watching the video. But one of the things I believe one ought not do is calculate the moral value of lives in the way the problem and the situation invites, because every life has infinite value. But neither do i think it is right to make the opposite calculation of course, that one life is worth more than five. and neither do I believe there is any more virtue in inaction than in action. So I have nothing. I do not think there is a moral problem at all, there is no right thing to do, and whatever someone does in that situation,
I would neither laud or condemn, but sympathise with the stress of the crisis. In other words, I am not a consequentialist.

I don't agree. Most philosophical thought experiments are silly. To have any value, a thought experiment should take into account the issues we see in the real world. It can still be simple, but it has to be real. — T Clark

That's fair. If you're looking for a more complete moral theory, the trolley problem is useless. Proper philosophy is built upon several small arguments that should logically co-exist together. The trolley problem is just a small example as an introduction into philosophical thoughts. Its no surprising that a person like yourself who I feel has a much broader and deeper understanding of philosophy sees little value in it.

I do not always do what I think I ought to do. — unenlightened

Which is fine. I can acknowledge that smoking is immoral, but do it anyway. We can say that lying is wrong, yet lie when it conveniences us. The question of morality is not what we do, but what we ought to do and why.

But one of the things I believe one ought not do is calculate the moral value of lives in the way the problem and the situation invites, because every life has infinite value. — unenlightened

Interesting. That still does not absolve the issue however. There are five equally infinitely valuable lives vs one equally valuable life. And yes, there can be multiple infinities.

But neither do i think it is right to make the opposite calculation of course, that one life is worth more than five. — unenlightened

True, and that can be reasoned that one is not more than 5. But can we not reasonably extend that to 5 is more than one?

and neither do I believe there is any more virtue in inaction than in action. — unenlightened

Why is that? That seems very important to your conclusions. This is not merely acting, this is acting with a choice on who lives and dies. What reason is behind this?

So I have nothing. — unenlightened

No, you have something here. You have some reasons, and an impetus that you haven't quite tackled yet. That's philosophical thought. Trying to make sense of what we do beyond an animal instinct.

In other words, I am not a consequentialist. — unenlightened

No one would say you are in this limited instance. I would not fear thinking on matters because you think it will give you a 'philosophical identity'. They are simple digests of complex ideas for beginners and the masses. Real philosophers just think, and what conclusions can be gleaned from situation to situation should be based on the context and logic of the discussion at that moment.

I think "The Trolley Problem" is a variation on the lesser evil dilemma which is political (re: surviving (e.g. triage)), not moral (re: thriving, flourishing), because both horns of the dilemma are repugnant and, at best, the positive outcome of "potentially saving more lives by sacrificing fewer lives" is only instrumental (i.e. an output of an arithmetic calculation). However, while the option of ignoring "the problem" is also political, non-interference in this kind of situation is immoral too because the non-interferer – bystander – becomes an accomplice by inaction to the "greater evil" outcome. These sorts of lesser evil dilemmas presented in ethics courses seem to me mere academic pseudo-problems (i.e. idle puzzles).

Anyway, what would I do? I'd throw the damn switch; then, one way or another I'd hunt down the murderous SOBs who set this human-rat trap.

My action killed one, but your inaction killed five. — unenlightened

Ah, but I'm afraid that's an inaccurate representation of cause and effect.

My inaction didn't do anything. Whoever put those people there is the one responsible for their deaths, and not me.

Most philosophical thought experiments are silly. To have any value, a thought experiment should take into account the issues we see in the real world. It can still be simple, but it has to be real. — T Clark

Some people are just interested in morality just because they are interested in morality, regardless of practical application. For them there is no reason to cast away such thought experiments. They are just as informative about morality as anything else. Why people have differing opinions on these experiments tells you about how people think and their view of morality or what motivates moral action.

What if you had to execute the 999 people yourself?

What if you had to execute the 999 people yourself? — Apustimelogist

If you change the thought experiment, then its a different question. Is what I'm stating wrong within the confines of the basic trolley problem? Equally valued human beings stuck on a track with an unstoppable train. The only decision you have is whether to press the lever to divert the train to another track with less people trapped on it. People will die no matter what you do.

I choose to divert the train to the track with less people on it because its simple math. If everyone is of unknown value, then we must assume equal value. In that case, we make the choice that sacrifices less lives. It is a problem of context, not a decision that universally applies in all other contexts. Feel free to disagree within the confines of the problem's intent. Any disagreement outside of its intent is again, not what I'm discussing.

Yes, I hate the trolley problem. It's one of those things that gives philosophy a bad name. It's nothing like any person will ever have to face in the real world. — T Clark

I am not sure that I agree. For simple, totalizing moral theories, such as classical utilitarianism, it is very much relevant (perhaps as a reductio).

In other cases it depends on degree of similarity and how that factors into your moral thinking. Most of us at least contemplate public policies. Public policies not infrequently involve life-and-death decisions. Do we do this and save this many lives, or do we do that and save that many, or do we do nothing? How about emergency room or field hospital triage? Battlefield decisions? Relatively few people are directly involved in those, but it's not a negligible number.

The trolley problem is a thought experiment where you’re asked to either watch five people be killed or pull a lever so that only one person gets killed — Captain Homicide

All of the variables and so many more facts are important to understand before we can judge morality from this.

Did I just wake up and find myself at the controls of the speeding trolly somehow knowing what levers are for and immediately I’m also aware that I had a few seconds to act? Or am I a seasoned trolly driver, responsible for whatever happens on either track and just having a bad day at work as a seasoned trolley driver. How did I get to be in this predicament?

Are there passengers on the trolly?

If the trolly driver thought I am less likely to derail if I hit one person, and I have to protect the passengers and other people standing near the tracks, so I’ll pull the lever, would that make the driver more moral for affirmatively killing the one person? Or did they affirmatively avoid the five people?

If I found out someone was magically transported into the driver’s seat of a trolly and within seconds of arriving they killed somebody or five people or twenty, the thought of blaming that person for any of their decisions, or making that person responsible for any outcomes, wouldn’t even occur to me.

Who put that person in that position? Who rigged the experiment? Find that person and we can start to analyze what may have been moral and immoral. Or add all variables that would enable us to pass judgment or right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral regarding that trolly driver.

And we all have to assume we all think people are valuable and good, and that we know what good means, and what immoral means, and that our judgment of this scenario has any value or itself could be a good judgment or an immoral judgment.

All of the variables and so many more facts are important to understand before we can judge morality from this — Fire Ologist

The key to a thought problem is to solve it within its limitations, then afterward extend it into interesting discussion. None of the factors are relevant to giving an answer to the problem as presented. If its not mentioned "People on the trolley could be hurt" for example, its not relevant. After you give your answer, then you can ask the more interesting questions. But the question as it is is designed this way for a very specific reason and purpose. In THIS limited situation, what is more moral?

Morality has to do with intent.

So is the variable here inaction of watching people die, or affirmative action pulling the lever to kill one of them? Is this inaction versus action?

Or is the question whether it is better to kill one person or five people in this scenario?

then its a different question — Philosophim

Well, what's your answer to the different question?

Some people are just interested in morality just because they are interested in morality, regardless of practical application. — Apustimelogist

Ok, but I don't understand. Moral philosophy describes how we should treat other people. How can you talk about that without talking about how it works in the real world?

Some people are just interested in morality just because they are interested in morality, regardless of practical application.
— Apustimelogist

Ok, but I don't understand. Moral philosophy describes how we should treat other people. How can you talk about that without talking about how it works in the real world? — T Clark

Completely agree. That’s what makes these thought experiments of such limited value. It’s an unreal scenario and doesn’t factor in intent, which is essential to defining an ethical act between people.

How can you talk about that without talking about how it works in the real world? — T Clark

When I say regardless, I am not implying exclusion of practical application, not to say that a trolley-type problem can never arise or that people's reactions to a trolley problem won't tell you about how people think about ethics more generally.

It’s an unreal scenario and doesn’t factor in intent, which is essential to defining an ethical act between people. — Fire Ologist

Surely you can incorporate intent into your consideration of it though?

Is was just told not to add anything by Philosophim.

So the trolley driver thought that the single person was the son of his neighbor and he hates his neighbor so he intended to hurt his neighbor by pulling the lever.

And he was thrilled that he woke up and found himself in this situation.

A valiant attempt. But the "tram problem" is lost - not even a mention of Philippa Foot. I can't help but suppose the over simplification occurred as the problem drifted across the Atlantic, and the tram became a trolly.

A trolly is that from which one serves tea.

might check out The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. The issue is not what you might think it is, and cannot be simplified into a mere calculation.

It's about the poverty of mere expediency in our ethical considerations.

Here's a twist to the dilemma.

Sacrifice yourself to save 5 other people instead of another person.

Since the whole dilemma is so pretentious, and morally devoid of agency, then I think the twist of sacrificing yourself instead of another person, no matter your wealth or standing in the situation, is morally permissible.

Morality has to do with intent.

So is the variable here inaction of watching people die, or affirmative action pulling the lever to kill one of them? Is this inaction versus action?

Or is the question whether it is better to kill one person or five people in this scenario? — Fire Ologist

I believe those are both of the variables involved.

You have to figure out if you do, or do not value one life over five. The second part is responsibility. Are you responsible? There is variability within the argument, and its up to you to decide what those variable values should be.

then its a different question
— Philosophim

Well, what's your answer to the different question? — Apustimelogist

I don't mind answering, just wanted to point out that we can make an infinite number of variables problems like the trolley problem, but the OP is trying to get an answer to the trolley problem.

If I have to kill 999 vs 1000 personally, I would still choose the 999. If you're noting that if I don't kill 999 people, 1000 people will die, I would kill the 999. We are of course speaking in absolutes where there are no other options.