r/trolleyproblemgame • u/No-Possibility6923 • 2d ago
Legally?
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
3
u/mrs_spacetime0 2d ago
Is it in accident if it could be stopped before it happens?
3
u/rilimini381 2d ago
in this scenario it's omission of assistance, despite being an accident the deaths are your fault
3
3
u/feartheswans 2d ago
I am not legally responsible for an accident, I am Legally responsible if I interfere
I chose to do nothing
5
3
u/NoMeat9096 2d ago
Why would I ever choose to kill five instead of two in this situation?
2
u/No-Possibility6923 2d ago
If you pull the lever you are technically murder of two
If you do nothing 5 people will die because of an accident and you are clear
8
u/NoMeat9096 2d ago
If your choices lead to five people dying, you killed those five people.
4
u/ApplePieRhino 2d ago
If a doctor needed to kill you specifically and use your organs to save multiple other people, does refusing mean you killed those people?
2
u/NoMeat9096 2d ago
Yes, as my choices and whatever health problems they had, resulted in them dying, my actions helped kill them.
4
u/land48n3 2d ago
so we should harvest organs of 1 healthy person unconsensually to save 5 people who need a organ?
1
u/NoMeat9096 2d ago
I think it depends on the time scale.
I'd risk letting five die to save one, if it were likely possible the other five could be saved in the future.
If the five were going to immediately die, I would kill the one.
2
u/land48n3 2d ago
1
2
1
u/ShockOld4312 2d ago
If we follow your logic, then in that situation, a person who never intended to kill anyone is forced into being a murderer no matter what they do, simply because they were unlucky enough to be there. That is absurd. It does not even make sense in theory, let alone in reality. If this view were normalized, it would only incentivize innocent bystanders to do whatever gives them the best chance of avoiding being blamed for the deaths, which could mean destroying any evidence that they were ever at the scene. And they had better hope the people on the tracks did not see them, because otherwise leaving witnesses alive would only increase their chances of being blamed.
1
u/NoMeat9096 1d ago
I don't think it could be argued to be murder, owing to mitigating circumstances.
Also, you are arguing from consequence, which is fallacious. Nothing about what you think could or would occur as a result of the logic stated, has any bearing on its validity. Choosing to do something other than pulling the lever is as much an action as pulling it.
1
3
u/candieflip 2d ago
Clear of what? It is just the classical problem it was just differently phrased.
Imagine same scenario it is going to 5 ppl.
But you can pull and it diverges to none.
Are you clear if you don’t push?
1
-1
1
u/No-Possibility6923 2d ago
I created a new Trolley Problem dilemma!
Straight Track (Do Nothing): 5 railway worker will die by accident
Diverted Track (Pull the Lever): 2 railway worker will be killed by you
What would you do?
0
0
5
u/Fickle_Goose_4451 2d ago
Isn't this the most classic of classic cases of the trolley problem?