Comment by zvrba
3 days ago
My objection to the Trolley problem is that it assumes that people are interchangeable like ants and that the only thing that matters is "lifes saved".
Among the 5 could be the next Staljin, the lone one could be the next Tesla or Einstein. Or to make it nearer real-life: among the 5 you could have a a future school-shooter, and the lone one could be a physician or a charity worker providing care for homeless people.
So in this improbable situation, I'd most probably decide that I won't play "god" (in quotes, as I'm not religious), that the setup is as it is for some unknown $reason (it could _also_ be an unusual method of capital punishment where all 6 get executed eventually) and would not touch anything. (After all, people don't tie themselves to train tracks only to remotely activate a trolley that'll kill them. So there's a another party in the play here.)
Inaction has also the advantage of plausible deniability if I were afterwards asked about why I had made the choice. I could just plausibly say that I froze when faced with an impossible choice. Freezing is indistinguishable from conscious choice to do nothing. (Imagine that you admit conscious choice -- WHATEVER you choose -- and have to later explain yourself to the deceased one's family(ies).)
So your objection is that the Trolley problem is difficult to decide? But that's the point of it. The problem itself doesn't assume anything, it's you who just made assumptions about it and use them to make a decision.
> My objection to the Trolley problem is that it assumes that people are interchangeable like ants and that the only thing that matters is "lifes saved".
The problem statement contains no such thing.
Welcome to the Trolley Problem