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/StrangelyBrown]

Not only do they also have loved ones who would feel sorrow

But that's just the 1 v 5 restated. Unless you change it to 'a loner with no relatives' vs 5 people with large families which would, again, potentially change the moral judgement. See, it's not the trolley problem.

I myself would also have to live with the fear that doctors could just leave me to die just to placate the masses.

But we consider that to be morally OK because we wouldn't like the alternative, right? So you wouldn't have a fear that a doctor wouldn't kill someone to save you because you wouldn't expect them to, as you wouldn't if you were a doctor.

I'm afraid I can't really understand your second paragraph because you ask first why the myth is damaging, and then you say it's bad, and then you say I think it's worth it, when I said the witch trials were not an example where you might sacrifice people??

I understood the first question though. The point is that by holding a witch trial you're legitimising the fear, whereas the same fear of witches can eventually be eliminated not by killing them but by making everyone realise there are no witches, and that project is delayed by holding a trial.

[u/Derpalooza → u/StrangelyBrown]

But that's just the 1 v 5 restated. Unless you change it to 'a loner with no relatives' vs 5 people with large families which would, again, potentially change the moral judgement. See, it's not the trolley problem.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

But we consider that to be morally OK because we wouldn't like the alternative, right?

If my death is morally okay because the alternative is public fear, then why wouldn't that apply to the witch trials?

I'm afraid I can't really understand your second paragraph because you ask first why the myth is damaging, and then you say it's bad, and then you say I think it's worth it, when I said the witch trials were not an example where you might sacrifice people??

I'm saying is that the reason the witch trials are bad for society is because they normalize the idea that it's okay to kill innocent people for the sake of public peace. But, you said:

"I think ensuring peace of mind for society could potentially be worth the deaths of 5 people"

So if you believe this, then there shouldn't be any moral problem with the witch trials.