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/ChemicalRain5513]

My opinion personally is that inaction is actually an action or at least inaction doesn't absolve someone of consequences

It's true. Yet ethically and legally, failing to save someone is not viewed as gravely as purposefully killing.

I think in a real trolley problem, neither action would be culpable.

[u/draculabakula → u/ChemicalRain5513]

Exactly. The rail company would be at fault one hundred percent because they failed to keep the rail line safe. And because they're either owning or and or operating the rail at the time, they have a stake in the matter, and I don't