I think the only way a consequentialist can consistently go is to deny that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being: they would have to say that sometimes that is true, and sometimes false. — Bob Ross

Are you saying the switch operator is guilty of murder no matter what she does?

Yes, thinking about it I see what you mean. When I made this comment I was still stuck on the question of whether this had to be some evil agent concocting the whole scenario. One could then look at it in the sense of someone refusing to participate in their game. At the same time, you could argue that in this context, if there is abetter or worse outcome then one should still make it. One could go even further and argue that if the whole scenario waa concocted by an evil genius then some of the moral responsibility is alleviated from making utilitarian-type choices.

If the scenario was totally accidental then one could say that there is no reason to refuse to participate. But then again maybe this applies most to non-trolley scenarios: e.g. a basic rescue mission where you could choose to save 5 or 1 or 0... then the choice is pretty obvious. I see though that the trolley-problem complicates this in the sense of the fact that 5 people were always going to die. I guess then one could refuse to participate in the sense of refusing to make such a choice if it meant killing someone. Then again though, the trolley scenario is constructed in such a way that refusing to participate is indistinguishable from making a choice... did you really refuse to participate or did you make the choice based on the idea that killing someone and encroaching on that person's freedom is worse than allowing 5 people to die who were going to die anyway.



Very interesting. Even if it was the whole human race (including your self?)?

There then comes the irony and absurdity of committing to your moral standards so strongly that you would allow the human race to die and, arguably in doing so, render your value system meaningless.

One could also plausibly argue almost a kind of immoral dimension in the sense of someone would sacrifice the rest of the world just so they personally didn't have to bear any moral culpability (though maybe from someone elses perspective they may still be morally culpable for ending the human race).

This is the mistake of the consequentialists that makes it so appealing: they don’t understand the nature of moral responsibility, and how it relates to actions and intentions. — Bob Ross

I’m not a consequentialist.

And I agree that the trolley hypo in general doesn’t account for intention and responsibility, so it misses the mark as a real platform for a discussion of morality.

And the only time the conversation gets interesting is when people change the hypo because it barely presents an ethical issue, if you play along with it as written.

I hate building off of it to make points, but I do see it reducible to this: This trolley can’t be stopped and will kill someone in a few seconds; if you sit there it will kill five people, or if you pull that lever it will kill one person; you get to choose. Go make your choice.

Sitting there is choosing to kill five and pulling the lever is choosing to kill one.

I see people disagree with that but I only see that as people trying to give the hypo more credit than it is worth.

If you play along with the hypo, there is one choice here - five or one die.

But there is no moral responsibility taken for making either choice, because of intention and duty - which are utterly undeveloped in the hypo and why the hypo barely presents an ethical issue.

You need to know the intentions behind all of the pieces here. The moral issues lie with the person or people who rigged the whole scenario. Why isn’t a conductor who has responsibility and duties regarding the trolley making this decision? Did he leave intentionally as part of the rigged situation or was he thrown off the trolley to bring about this scenario? Why is anyone tied to trolley tracks and who did that? Does the idiot standing on the tracks have any responsibility for standing there?

The moral question for the person on the trolley having this choice thrust upon them by other people (other moral agents) is whether to participate in this at all and make a choice. I actually think it would be immoral to play along with the scene and do anything.

That goes to intention. The person on the trolley who plays along still wouldn’t be guilty of any murder. People can kill people without any intent and it’s not murder.

But if the person on the trolley said “oh, wow, I finally get to hold lives in my own hands - I’ve always wanted to kill people so I’m going to sit here and kill the most people I can.” Now, because of intent, I think he he is culpable for murdering five.

But if the person on the trolley said “I need to save the most innocent people I can” and pulled the lever he wouldn’t be culpable for murder because that was not his intent.

This hypo has no analysis of duty (responsibility taking) or intent (what the act is to the actor).

To bolster the idea of omission versus commission (this hypo not capturing the concept of omission properly) here is an example of a wrong done by omission. A lifeguard sitting on his chair sees a kid drowning. He watches and does nothing and the kid drowns. That is killing by omission because he had a duty to act and omitted his responsibility. It could even be murder depending on how additional facts about intent play out.

On the trolley, why would a duty to make this decision arise in some random person thrust into the situation? It wouldn’t. There is no duty to choose a lane for a passenger. And there is no duty when told about levers and people tied to tracks to quickly choose who dies. It’s an insane world that trolley is riding through and to see some sort of duty here we need that person to have some understanding of insane-world trolley rules like “by agreeing to ride this trolley you agree to take control of the lever (whether you pull it or leave it) as soon as everyone else on the trolley magically disappears and some number of people are on the tracks.” Without a duty, whatever action is taken cannot be called an omission of that duty.

And to say a duty to save the most lives arises in this situation is ridiculous. If you want me to picture myself in a real world situation like this, I need the real world. In the real world, the person who pulled or did not pull the lever would be interrogated for his intent before murder charges and moral judgment could be contemplated, and in the real world the person would be saying “I don’t know! I just thought I should save the most people, or I just thought I would be doing the wrong thing if I pulled the lever.” End of interrogation. The deaths are not his fault or his responsibility.

The key difference is that they aren't experiments, they are theoretical in nature only. You cannot really do these experiments practically and the ethical requirements today are so high that they can't ever be done. — Christoffer

They are experiments. What is being measured is not what someone would do practically but their judgement or opinion. You don't need actual experiments to assess someone's opinion.

An actual moral experiment where people are acting arguably might bring in many more factors than simply someone's belief or opinion on a moral scenario.

So imo your criticisms that these may not be representative of real scenarios is misplaced because the goal I have in mind here isn't to talk about what people actually do, its to yalk about the beliefs they have.

People don't necessarily behave consistently; however, it is usually difficult for people to maintain inconsistent beliefs. People carrying inconsistent beliefs tend to try and explain away the inconsistency with reasoning which is more internally consistent (e.g. you think its bad to hurt living things but okay to kill animals... you need to find an additional reason to explain away this inconsistency).

Asking about people's opinions or judgements as opposed to their actual behaviour is invaluable in understanding what people hold to be a consistent moral framework and why they hold it.

When it goes into the real world then things change... people are perhaps more likely to miscalculate the correct option... people get scared... peoples judgements are clouded... peope turn out to not care or not value morality over other motivations for their own behaviour.

Yes, they work as introduction courses to philosophy, but since there's no validation past the theoretical, and real world examples of similar events show much more complexity in their situational circumstances that they become unquantifiable as statistical data, they end up being just introduction material, nothing more. — Christoffer

So are you suggesting that people change their morality when it comes to complex vs. simple scenarios? Do you personally change your whole moral thinking when it comes to a complex scenario vs. a thought experiment? Or do you believe you are using the same moral framework to tackle different problems? If you agree on the latter then I don't see the obstacle in using simplified scenarios as ways to tap into and clairfy people's reasons on moral scenarios.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing — Christoffer

Well your comment looks like its saying these experiments only pinpoint flaws in people's thinking but I don't see how that can be the case when there is no consensus on a correct answer. I don't really understand how strength and depth in moral reasoning would bring about an optimal, uncontroversial solution to the trolley problem.

sometimes just a question of their current state of mind and mood. — Christoffer

This regularly happens in real life. People often behave in the wrong way and then only realize they were shouldn't have afterwards.

But still, the problem is that people's justifications rarely correlate to how they actually behave in real moral situations. — Christoffer

Again, it depends what you are interested in - the psychology of moral behaviour or moral beliefs, reasoning and frameworks - and no doubt there is overlap.

Just reading the audience discussion around the moral actions in The Last of Us part 2 and how people had problems with everything that happened in that story is more fascinating and revealing as a case study in morality than how people justify their choices in the trolley problem. — Christoffer

Well I can only take your word on that because I don't know anything about that.

the more trivial I've found these thought experiments to be. — Christoffer

Trivial in what way? To me, the lack of consensus
makes the trolley problem non-trivial.

But if the person on the trolley said “I need to save the most innocent people I can” and pulled the lever he wouldn’t be culpable for murder because that was not his intent. — Fire Ologist

What if it was about their own life and not innocent people? What if it was about tge reward of a tasty cheeseburger: " I didn't intend to kill anyone, I just wanted that cheeseburger so bad".

What if it was about their own life and not innocent people? What if it was about tge reward of a tasty cheeseburger: " I didn't intend to kill anyone, I just wanted that cheeseburger so bad". — Apustimelogist

I think the question the hypo poses is: should the person who either pulls the lever or sits still be held responsible for anyone’s death? And the answer is no, under the existing facts. Or should the person be held responsible for anyone’s death and culpable for their murder as a co-conspitator in the whole trolley of death scenario? And the answer is, it depends on their intent and whether they can be held responsible for anyone’s death by participation in the scenario.

If we are going to start changing the hypo and adding intentions and cheeseburgers, we would have to conduct a new analysis of responsibility and intent and actions in furtherance of these.

I wasn't sure how you were using "innocent". But let's suppose you have John Wayne Gacy tied to the tracks and a dozen preschoolers in the car. You wouldn't pull the switch?

If we are going to start changing the hypo and adding intentions and cheeseburgers, we would have to conduct a new analysis of responsibility and intent and actions in furtherance of these. — Fire Ologist

I think this is a strawman because clearly what is not interesting about the trolley problem is not the trolley problem on its own, but the underlying reasons that people make decisions on it. Changing the scenario is relevant because by exploring counterfactual scenarios we are testing and probing the underlying reasons why people make these choices and how they would react in different scenarios.

Changing the context to cheeseburgers is relevant - not in the sense of wanting to analyse a new scenario with cheeseburgers - but in the sense of analyzing whether your use of the notion of intent is really consistent here. If the answer to the question of culpability for murder changes when we replace the goal of saving innocent people with eating cheeseburgers, then clearly lack of intent in the sense that has been described in this scenario is not sufficient to remove culpability.

I think the question the hypo poses is: should the person who either pulls the lever or sits still be held responsible for anyone’s death? And the answer is no, under the existing facts. — Fire Ologist

I think there are layers. Someone may not be blameworthy in some sense that they can't help being forced into a situation where someone had to die. But does that mean there was not a better or worse decision ethically? Not necessarily.

No: I was commenting on what a consequentialist would have to commit themselves to. They would have to claim that sometimes it is morally right (or at least permissible) to kill an innocent human being.

Very interesting. Even if it was the whole human race (including your self?)?

Correct.

There then comes the irony and absurdity of committing to your moral standards so strongly that you would allow the human race to die and, arguably in doing so, render your value system meaningless.

Essentially you are saying: “it can be absurd to do what is moral or/and not to do what is immoral”. Do you really believe that?

Assuming John Wayne Gacy was not moral responsible for anything bad which was occurring in that trolley situation (which is to say that he has not forfeited his right to not be killed in this situation); then, no I would not.

It is always wrong to kill an innocent person; and by 'innocent' I mean innocent in the specific situation---otherwise, it is irrelevant (even if there is other information that would emotionally move us). I would love to pull the lever in the case of John Wayne Gacy but that would still be immoral.

Assuming John Wayne Gacy was not moral responsible for anything bad which was occurring in that trolley situation (which is to say that he has not forfeited his right to not be killed in this situation); then, no I would not.

It is always wrong to kill an innocent person; and by 'innocent' I mean innocent in the specific situation---otherwise, it is irrelevant (even if there is other information that would emotionally move us). I would love to pull the lever in the case of John Wayne Gacy but that would still be immoral. — Bob Ross

Well, let's take it to the most absurd level: unless you run Hitler over with a trolley, the whole world gets destroyed. What do you do?

You don't think there is an absurdity in letting the whole human race die because you don't want to kill an innocent person?

I think regardless of what you think of the morality of that behaviour, it is most definitely absurd.

I think this is a strawman because cleaely what is not interesting about the trolley problem is not the trolley problem on its own, its the underlying reasons that people make decisions on it. — Apustimelogist

I’m not against augmenting the facts to continue the conversation and add more layers. I’m saying that as it initially stands, the hypo has very few layers. The only ethical question posed in the basic formulation of the problem is: should you participate at all in the demand that you make the decision? My answer to that is no - you didn’t set up the scenario, and it would be irresponsible of you to take action on these facts. And I still don’t know that, if you do decide to participate and take action (and so act irresponsibly towards the overall scenario), you could make a wrong decision on who dies or a right decision on who lives. 5 versus 1 living certainly seems better but why did someone give me this choice? Why didn’t they just say “pull the lever, pull the lever!” ?

Do I trust the murderer who set up this predicament for me that pulling the lever will save five people by killing only one? I don’t know how you build that trust - maybe you can see the people coming fast, but are you supposed to know that the lever will effectuate the choice the murderer who set this up is telling you it will?

Before we can judge the passenger, we have to know they heard and understood the instructions, and that they believed them to be true. They weren’t just playing around with levers.

These aren’t incidental facts. These aren’t facts that can just be layered on top. They are essential considerations before you could analyze any moral/ethical issue for the passenger.

If you stick to the raw, initial facts first, before moving this into more layered situations and questions - what do you see as the moral issues?

I see only whether to make any choice at all as the moral question - should you trust anyone who drops this into your lap and do anything they say? Or if you do trust them, are you implicating yourself in a wider conspiracy that you would likely agree you would not intend to be a part of?

Someone may not be blameworthy in some sense that they can't help being forced into a situation where someone had to die. But does that mean there was not a better or worse decision ethically? Not necessarily. — Apustimelogist

So “not blameworthy”, but worthy of a judgment of “worse ethically.” Hmm.

You need to define (so layer into the hypo) some things to clarify that.

If you are forced to either kill one or five people, with seconds to choose, and you had no interest in killing anyone at any point, and you can’t be held blameworthy for the outcome, how is the decision you do make better or worse ethically? I would say the decision (should you decide to risk participation in this death trap) is a practical one, not an ethical one. Less death is practically speaking a better outcome. Why ethically? What is the duty on these facts?

So you are saying the scenario is asking us whether, in these circumstances, a duty arises to act at all, and then complicates it by then asking if you fail to act at all, or pull the lever, are you culpable for committing murder, or culpable by omission for committing the murder of five? — Fire Ologist

Yes, part of the trolley problem requires us to determine the nature of such omissions.

That’s not what I am saying about omission. I am saying there must be an affirmative duty prior to there being an intentional omission of acting on that duty.

If you intend to kill five you can sit still, but you are committing an act of sitting still.

If you see you have a duty to save five and you sit still intentionally, you are committing a wrong because of your duty by your act of omission. — Fire Ologist

This is a different point, and it goes back to my claim that an omission and an immoral omission are two different things. You have continually been unable to make this distinction.

What you said is, "It’s not an omission if you intend to kill five people," and the premise is almost certainly that, "Nothing which is intended can come about by omission." You're mixing up two separate arguments. This latter claim says nothing about duties.

the premise is almost certainly that, "Nothing which is intended can come about by omission." — Leontiskos

No it’s not almost certainly, because it’s not the premise at all. I’m saying sitting still doesn’t reveal an intention, you have to seek more facts (such as ask the person) what their intention is by sitting still.

A lifeguard sees a person drowning and does nothing and watches the person drown. That is intentional conduct. It is a wrong done by omission of a duty.

I notice that in the paper the situation is portrayed as "killing one or killing five",but that would be an inaccurate representation of cause and effect. The omission of pulling the lever does not kill anyone. — Tzeentch

I don't claim that the paper exactly parallels the trolley case, but later in the paper that portrayal is specifically disputed, so it does not depart in this manner.

Negligence, culpability, these are legal terms, and I think under most legal systems you would be charged with second-degree murder if you pushed some innocent bystander on the tracks, regardless of your intentions.

If you are talking about these terms in a moral sense, I think they need to be explained in more detail. When is one morally culpable? Negligence implies a failure to do a duty - what duty are we talking about here, and when can one be said to be morally negligent? — Tzeentch

This is a fair point, although I do not think that negligence and culpability are primarily legal in the sense of being non-moral. My guess is that the etymology and cultures within which they arose did not think of the legal sphere as a non-moral sphere. Our age which tries to talk about non-moral legal realities strikes me as odd indeed. So I think they are legal and moral.

No it’s not almost certainly, because it’s not the premise at all. I’m saying sitting still doesn’t reveal an intention, you have to seek more facts (such as ask the person) what their intention is by sitting still.

A lifeguard sees a person drowning and does nothing and watches the person drown. That is intentional conduct. It is a wrong done by omission of a duty. — Fire Ologist

Here is what you said:

It’s not an omission if you intend to kill five people. It’s how you carry out your intention. It’s a physical act to stay seated in order to kill five. — Fire Ologist

Here is how I characterized it:

1. Nothing which is intended can come about by omission.
2. Suppose the death of the five is intended.
3. Therefore, in that case the not-pulling of the lever which results in the death of the five is not an omission. — Leontiskos

As to your reasonable declaration that killing innocent people is wrong, sure it is, but folks do things that are wrong all the time (though perhaps not with such severe consequences). Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to performing an action. — LuckyR

Sure, and people get math problems wrong all the time, too. That doesn't mean anything with respect to the question at hand. Suppose you are on a math forum and they are discussing a math problem and you say, "Ah, well it seems that you have arrived at the right answer, but people get the wrong answer all the time. Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to arriving at an answer." This is an ignoratio elenchus at best, unless it is being proposed as an argument for mathematical (or moral) relativism.

You may be right on something I said and meant to say. I’m not sure I agree I was wrong.

But my simple point is, you need a duty in place before you can perpetrate a wrong by omission. It’s omission of a duty. The act is not the point. Sitting still is an act. Sitting still doesn’t tell you anything about whether that act perpetrates a wrong by omission or a wrong by commission, or anything.

The trolley problem, to me, creates a simple switch, if you switch the switch one way, five people die and the other way one person dies. The way you physically operate that switch is by sitting down or pulling a lever.

If we all have a duty to save the most lives at every opportunity to do so, then sitting still could be wrong by omission of that duty. If you switch the people on the tracks and put 5 on the lever side and 1 on the rolling side, then failing to pull the lever would be a wrong by omission as well.

But my simple point is, you need a duty in place before you can perpetrate a wrong by omission. It’s omission of a duty. The act is not the point. Sitting still is an act. Sitting still doesn’t tell you anything about whether that act perpetrates a wrong by omission or a wrong by commission, or anything.

The trolley problem, to me, creates a simple switch, if you switch the switch one way, five people die and the other way one person dies. The way you physically operate that switch is by sitting down or pulling a lever.

If we all have a duty to save the most lives at every opportunity to do so, then sitting still could be wrong by omission of that duty. If you switch the people on the tracks and put 5 on the lever side and 1 on the rolling side, then failing to pull the lever would be a wrong by omission as well. — Fire Ologist

Here is the original statement I disagreed with:

The heart of the trolley problem is this:
“Without any context or explanation, if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?” — Fire Ologist

Here is what Bob Ross said (and I agree):

I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome. — Bob Ross

This is precisely the sort of answer that your construal cannot account for. You can't conceive of an omission, and therefore you assert:

What’s the difference? You are killing someone mo matter what you do. — Fire Ologist

The point at stake is omissions simpliciter. When you refuse to talk about any kinds of omissions that are not immoral omissions you are missing the point. Bob is omitting to pull the lever in order to omit killing. Is he allowed to do that? Bob thinks his omission is morally praiseworthy and someone else will think that his omission is morally blameworthy, but we first need to simply recognize that it is an omission.

You don't think there is an absurdity in letting the whole human race die because you don't want to kill an innocent person?

I think regardless of what you think of the morality of that behaviour, it is most definitely absurd. — Apustimelogist

I think it is "most definitely absurd" to justify killing innocents as a means to an end. Hitler was already brought up, and that's why we think Hitler was bad, after all!

Here is what Bob Ross said (and I agree):

I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome.
— Bob Ross — Leontiskos

Well, actually, I would not pull the lever either. Because by pulling the lever I would be demonstrating my willingness to participate in the whole scenario at all.

I take the hypo to be an attempt to force you to participate. It assumes you have to make a choice - choose five or one deaths. And under these circumstances, they are all innocent deaths.

Then, now playing along, now playing your role in this scene, you then have to choose how many innocent deaths happen. To effectuate that choice you either sit or you pull a lever.

But a third option that the hypo was trying to block is to instead say “no - I’m not making any choice, I’m not conducting any act towards your goals for my participation in it. My act of sitting here has nothing to do with which way the trolley goes because I have no duty to follow any of these instructions or participate in any way. I take no responsibility for any of these deaths - rightly so.”

That, to me, is the right moral response - to stay out of the whole bloody death trap scenario.

Failing to pull the lever could be wrong by omission, and sitting still could be an act of intentional murder. To answer that you don’t look to what the act is (sleeping in your seat or flipping lever), you look to what duties exist, what intentions exist and then what actions are taken.

I take the hypo to be an attempt to force you to participate. — Fire Ologist

Then I would say you are misunderstanding the trolley problem. But the deeper problem is that you are unaccountably assuming that the trolley problem was set up by an evil genius. It wasn't. It's just supposed to be a dilemma. The question is simply, "What would you do if you found yourself in this situation?" It's not, "Would you like to participate in the machination of an evil genius?"

It assumes you have to make a choice - choose five or one deaths. And under these circumstances, they are all innocent deaths. — Fire Ologist

It assumes you have to make a choice between pulling the lever or not pulling the lever. Everyone who finds themselves in that situation would be forced to make that choice. But there is a difference between choices about levers, choices about deaths, and choices about killing. You are claiming that by refusing to pull the lever Bob has killed five people, and this is a controversial claim on your part.

That, to me, is the right moral response - to stay out of the whole bloody death trap scenario. — Fire Ologist

Life happens whether we consent or not, and at times it involves tough decisions. — Leontiskos

You are claiming that by refusing to pull the lever Bob has killed five people, and this is a controversial claim on your part. — Leontiskos

No I’m not!

If we are supposed to think that no one set this up, that it is just one of life’s predicaments that we get to decide, then we are further from a moral dilemma. No one can be charged with or accuse themselves of murder of killing an innocent person. No one could be faulted for action or inaction. Pulling the lever is both killing an innocent person and saving 5 innocent people. Sitting still is both killing five people and saving one. Those are just the facts. Why would anyone hold whatever happens against the random person who made a choice quickly to do anything there? Their involvement was part of the accident! Pulling the lever is saving 5 people. Sitting still is saving one person. Or both of these are a rash decision exigent circumstances. If you can assume the whole thing is just an accident that you are caught up in, there is no moral culpability or wrongness.

If you had the poise to think you could make this ongoing accident better and intended to make it better by pulling the lever, you are not intentionally killing one person.

You are claiming that by refusing to pull the lever Bob has killed five people, and this is a controversial claim on your part. — Leontiskos

No I’m not! — Fire Ologist

You literally say it in this very post:

Sitting still is both killing five people and saving one. — Fire Ologist

-

If you had the poise to think you could make this ongoing accident better and intended to make it better by pulling the lever, you are not intentionally killing one person. — Fire Ologist

Why not? (enter the doctrine of double effect)

What’s wrong with the doctrine of double effect? But I don’t really know what that is.

“What was your intention?”

“I thought if I pulled the lever I would be preventing a horrible accident that killed five people.”

“Did you know you would be killing one person?”

“Well, yes.”

“So you intentionally killed one person?”

“No I intentionally steered the trolley away from five people - should I have done something else?”

“Yes, you murderer, you should have realized that by sitting still you would not have been called before we moral adjudicators for sentencing your unethical, immoral heart.”

Bring in the next participant.

“What was your intention?”

“I hate you! And all society. I contemplated pulling the lever to feel the power of killing as I killed, but quickly realized I could kill more people if I sat still - so I intentionally sat their on the seat’s edge so that I could know I was the reason four more than just one would spill blood.”

“Ok, as long as you didn’t touch the lever. Good man.”

What’s wrong with the doctrine of double effect? But I don’t really know what that is. — Fire Ologist

It's the intellectual part of the trolley problem. Clearly not meant for this thread.

I feel like you just pulled a lever on me. Honest conversation over here.

Honest conversation over here. — Fire Ologist

Looks like caricature to me.

It's the intellectual part of the trolley problem. — Leontiskos

Can you lay out the reason it is ethical right to pull the lever, or not pull the lever?

You said you would not pull the lever because then you would be killing an innocent person, and killing an innocent person is always wrong. Is that your position?

Do I need to know anything more to capture your assessment of how to respond riding the trolley of death?

Is it essential to this position, that the circumstances are accidental (meaning no one has rigged the trolley and the tracks to create this situation) or does it not matter whether the situation is rigged or accident, since killing innocent people is always wrong, you can’t justify ever pulling the lever?