https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in moral philosophy and moral psychology with many variations, involving hypothetical ethical dilemmas about whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number of people. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway trolley (tram) or train is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) tied to the tracks, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial, etc.) are posed, each containing the option either to do nothing—in which case several people will be killed—or to intervene and sacrifice one initially "safe" person to save the others.
The motion states that it is better to pull the switch killing less people than it is to do nothing
Sign in to share your stance.
Your stance can change. Your earlier arguments stay where you posted them.
5 participating members
No arguments for this motion yet.
Whoever set up the trolley trap obviously wants you to kill the one person instead of the five, and is also obviously evil. The five people are probably pedophiles or work in spam call centers or are those people who stick chewing gum all over shit in public, where as the one is probably a much more moral person, as the evil person wants them dead.
First, there is no way of telling if five lives are worth more than one, there is no telling if its even morally justified to sacrifice some to save more, and there is no telling just who gets to decide that when such decision has to be made, is it a truly moral and capable agent?
Second, even if this logic worked in theory, it has rarely worked in practice. This logic was merely used to justify countless wars, crimes, and countless of bad economical policies which in the end actually achieved opposite of what logic originally intended.
Third, people who calculate too much regarding morality always produce inevitable result of miscalculation and when more groups and countries do calculations of course their calculations dont match, producing conflict.
So even if principle was true morally, practically its still an epic failure, because people are not morally good and the idea that they wont abuse the shit out of such a principle which offers countless ways of misuse, is silly.
wouldn't you doing nothing just make it a tragic accident?
