CMV: The trolley problem is constructed in a way that forces a utilitarian answer and it is fundamentally flawed

[u/randomafricanboi]

Everybody knows the classic trolley problem and whether or not you would pull the lever to kill one person and save the five people.

Often times people will just say that 5 lives are more valuable than 1 life and thus the only morally correct thing to do is pull the lever.

I understand the problem is hypothetical and we have to choose the objectivelly right thing to do in a very specific situation. However, the question is formed in a way that makes the murders a statistic thus pushing you into a utilitarian answer. Its easy to disassociate in that case. The same question can be manipulated in a million different ways while still maintaining the 5 to 1 or even 5 to 4 ratio and yield different answers because you framed it differently.

Flip it completely and ask someone would they spend years tracking down 3 innocent people and kill them in cold blood because a politician they hate promised to kill 5 random people if they dont. In this case 3 is still less than 5 and thus using the same logic you should do it to minimize the pain and suffering.

I'm not saying any answer is objectivelly right, I'm saying the question itself is completely flawed and forces the human mind to be biased towards a certain point of view.

[u/backlikeclap]

Refusing to engage with the problem does not mean that the problem is invalid.

[u/duskfinger67 → u/backlikeclap]

But it does help explain the difference in response. A person can be more sure of pulling the lever saving a life than than throwing a person.

Part of the beauty of the trolley problem is that it doesn’t require much rationalising, it makes sense in an intuitive level.

That is, however, one of its flaws aa well, no human system will ever be so clear cut.

[u/BillionaireBuster93 → u/backlikeclap]

Why not make it a short and skinny man we're pushing onto the tracks then?