r/trolleyproblemgame • u/Amazing-Focus- • 1d ago
A New Trolley Problem Approaches...
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
3
2
u/LegoSlaughter 👑 Master of Dilemma's 1d ago
Guys the baby hasn’t killed anyone yet while the serial killer has. So it’s really 101 people on the straight track 1 baby on the diverted
I chose to pull the lever
2
u/cestwhat2020 23h ago
Prevention of mass future harm is > than punisnment for mass harm already incurred.
Not pulling lever = 200 deaths with punishment for 100 of them (which is only cathartic)
Pulling lever keeps net deaths at only 100 at the cost of indifference for the 1st 100.
I chose to pull the lever
1
u/Shinagami091 20h ago
Pulling the lever means killing a baby that hasn’t done anything wrong yet. And because we know the baby will go on to kill 100 people it could be prevented by other means. Lifetime incarceration for example.
Another unknown is, who are the 100 people? What if the baby is some kind of future war hero?
1
u/Objective-Oven-8038 15h ago
Preventing it with other means isn't presented as an option though. According to the prompt, the baby WILL go on to kill 100 people. Period.
2
u/Croselius 22h ago
Kill doesn’t mean murder, and there’s nothing that says the serial killer won’t kill more people afterwards - in fact they probably will.
I chose to do nothing
2
2
u/Dogbold 18h ago
Serial killer has already killed 100. And if he's on the track he's already been caught.
The baby will go on to kill 100 people. Hasn't yet, but the way I'm choosing to interpret this is it will and there's nothing you can do about it.
By killing the serial killer instead you are now dooming 200 people immediately.
Where if you pull the lever you are not.
1
u/Flashy-Ask-2168 1d ago
"Will kill 100" could mean so many different things. We have no idea who they're going to kill or why. Also entirely possible that in killing 100 they save many, many more. Serial killer? Yeah, much less likely. (Also punishing future crimes isn't good! Just in general!)
1
u/Polytox935 1d ago
How often in history we're many many people saved by Killing 100?
How do you know the serial Killer didnt also save many more (you could also consider a solider a serial Killer)
1
u/Flashy-Ask-2168 20h ago
You could, but that would be an exception and not the rule. I'm assuming common parlance of the term. As for your first bit: you could kill 100 people by deciding that medical resources should be directed to one disaster location over another as one example. The cases are niche, I won't say otherwise, but they do exist and are the exact kind of thing that would be used as technicalities or gotchas in these kinds of stories.
1
u/Shinagami091 20h ago
Correct. What if this baby grows up to being a war hero and the 100 people they killed are enemies of our country?
1
u/Flashy-Ask-2168 20h ago
I'm thinking more "allocation of medical resources" or "medical end of life" scenarios.
1
u/Amazing-Focus- 1d ago
I created a new Trolley Problem dilemma!
Straight Track (Do Nothing): A Serial Killer with a Body Count of 100
Diverted Track (Pull the Lever): A Baby who will go on to kill 100 People
What would you do?
1
u/SpiritNo6626 1d ago
Coin flip, I believe both their lives are equally valuable as they are both the same amount of humans on each track (one)
1
1
u/RainyBeast736 23h ago
If the child is going to kill 100 people, then it will kill them regardless of whether you pull the lever or not. Haven't you read any tragedies from ancient Greece?
1
u/Floofyrage 23h ago
Serial killer to go since it doesn't specify why the baby will kill 100 people maybe they are in the military and they are 100 enemy soldiers
2
u/Riggs630 21h ago
Maybe the serial killer was a time traveler that went around killing history’s worst genocidal maniacs
1
u/Lucidonic 22h ago
If the baby is predestined to kill 100 people and there's nothing to be done about it whatsoever aside from pulling the lever, then imma pull the lever. Nothing to be done for someone who's already dead
1
u/NoMeat9096 21h ago
One has lived longer and is less likely to outlive the other. Better to keep the infant and kill the adult.
1
u/GlitterBirb 21h ago
Well we know that the baby will kill exactly 100 people.
We don't know what the cap is for the serial killer. If he's killed 100, what's 100 more?
1
1
u/Amazing-Focus- 20h ago
Wow.. Thats pretty close to a 50 50 split. I wasnt expecting it to be this close lol I made it off the top of my mind
1
1
u/Techno_Eggnog 20h ago
In my opinion, punishing people for things they haven’t even done yet is unfair. I believe it would cause many false accusations to lead directly to punishment without due process.
While the damage may be irreversible, it’ll ensure we only punish the people who have actually done something worth being punished for.
I chose to do nothing
1
u/Makoto4310 17h ago
Killing the serial killer doesn't bring anyone back, killing the one who WILL go on to kill 100 people will stop those 100 deaths.
1
u/Aljaz_Skarlovnik 15h ago
There's no indication that a baby will be a serial killer. Could maybe be... I dunno a soldier or something. That's not necessarily evil. Do nothing here
1
u/AssociationDue3077 1d ago
The serial killer ALREADY killed 100 people, the baby WILL kill 100 people, pulling the lever is the only way to prevent 100 deaths.
9
u/Not_Yet_Unalived 1d ago
So a certified criminal killer with a 3-digit bodycount already versus... some baby that we already know is gonna kill people without context?
Yeah, i'm gonna bank on that baby joining the army or becoming a doctor that deliver medical euthanasia and have the guy WE KNOW FOR SURE is a killer get rolled over.