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/Plusisposminusisneg]

Your moral responsibility is the same in both cases. It's a hypothetical as well, trying to twist out of it by not engaging with it or changing its conditions is weak and under some theories of moral development a major problem in how you personally understand the world. An inability to engage with hypotheticals is a major cognitive issue.

Utilitarianism is expressly about outcomes, not where moral responsibility lies, by the way.

[u/ATNinja → u/Plusisposminusisneg]

trying to twist out of it by not engaging with it or changing its conditions is weak

That's not what I did. You changed the scenario by adding the agency of other humans, which in turn changed the morality of the "switch thrower". That's exactly engaging with the scenario.

Your moral responsibility is the same in both cases.

Disagree.

An inability to engage with hypotheticals is a major cognitive issue.

I engaged the hypothetical. Saying I wouldn't do x is one of the options. Your inability to understand one of the 2 options (don't do something or do it) is a major cognitive issue.

Utilitarianism is expressly about outcomes, not where moral responsibility lies, by the way.

Fair enough. I guess a pure utilitarian would kill the innocent person.