I love the trolley problem and think that this wording does it much better faith than more "pop-philosophy" phrasings. The crux of the question isn't whether it is better for one person to die than five, it is about the moral implications of inaction vs action. The trolley problem asks of us "is murder excusable if it will save many lives."
This is a question many refuse to grapple with, instead boiling the question down to a simple proof of utilitarianism. I always find that I struggle significantly to choose an option.
Regardless, most civilizations these days have their laws built around the assumption that it is always better to kill 5 through inaction than 1 through action. Funny to see this be so consistently the case when the average person does not align.
In any case, much like the red vs blue button question, this question revolves much less around which choice is more ethical, tolerable, or wise, and more upon how much agency the person being asked sees themselves as having.
This is a question many refuse to grapple with, instead boiling the question down to a simple proof of utilitarianism. I always find that I struggle significantly to choose an option.
Regardless, most civilizations these days have their laws built around the assumption that it is always better to kill 5 through inaction than 1 through action. Funny to see this be so consistently the case when the average person does not align.
In any case, much like the red vs blue button question, this question revolves much less around which choice is more ethical, tolerable, or wise, and more upon how much agency the person being asked sees themselves as having.
0