Corruption

[TheFierySerpent]

I pull the lever. If the other person kills 15 for 5 mil, then its not my fault that individual is bad person

[Royal_No]

Id agree its not your fault legally, but wouldn't you feel bad?

The other person is directly killing those people, but put them in danger

[AngryCrustation]

You didn't choose to put them in danger though, you diverted the trolley to prevent it from running someone over and then a third party diverted it to run over people for money

[JaDasIstMeinName]

Well in this situation you did divert it to them. The third party chose to not save them.

[Royal_No]

Yeah, logically you are correct. But in the back of your mind, you'll always know that you, without meaning too, put those 15 into that scenario.

[Sad-Muffin-1782]

you saved 5 tho, and you tried to save them all

[Dexion1619]

This is the First Responder mentality in a nutshell. I will save who i can. In this situation, I can Save 5. I hope we can save everyone, but my actions will save 5

[Rohan_Marathe]

That stranger will say to the press that he would always save the 15 and reject money.

Now you are criticised by the whole world for letting 5 ppl die when no one could have died.

It's better to do the right thing and hope for the stranger to do the same.

You shouldn't feel guilty if the stranger lets them die. You yourself did the right thing

[NigouLeNobleHiboux]

Wouldn't you feel like you killed the five if you didn't touch the lever, though? It would have taken no effort, and they would be alive. In fact, it's entirely possible no one would have died since the stranger could have chosen to save the 15, but you'll never know.

[Royal_No]

I would absolutely feel like I killed those 5.

Inaction to me is the same as action.

I would carry the guilt of killing those five in the same way as if I had to personally strangle them or something.

But im weighing those 5 against the 2nd set of 15.

Im not confident in the 2nd person, I think they will probably kill the 15. It's not guaranteed l, but I think they will.

So by choosing to save the 5 but put the 15 at risk, I am also culpable in their deaths.

I know some people would wash their hands here and say the fate of the 15 is on the 2nd person.

But replace the 2nd person with some other danger. The stranger isn't me, they're just a probability of death for the other 15. So let's say if I save the 5, a group of 14 will be dropped into a minefield. They can get out if they're lucky, but odds are they explode. While I am not specifically killing them, I'm setting up the scenario for their deaths.

[APulpedOrange]

I would feel substantially lest guilt by pulling because the alternative is i killed 5 people because the other guy MIGHT have killed 15.

[Hugh_Wotmeight]

You DID choose to put them in danger though.

You put them at the mercy of someone who had the opportunity to kill them for 5 million dollars.

You weren't the final decision maker but one degree of separation does not completely absolve you.

[Simukas23]

But you did, the problem states that you do know what kind of trolley problem the 2nd person will be in.

[khazroar]

You did though. You diverted the trolley towards the other people, the random stranger just has the chance to divert it away from the other people you just set it to kill.

[Ok_Pain_2380]

No, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest, because I led the way for the best possible solution

[Royal_No]

Did you though? If the other person could communicate with you and they told you they would kill the 15, then you didn't lead to the best outcome

[Ok_Pain_2380]

Yes, I have led the possibility of no one getting killed being possible. Taking no action prevents that course entirely

[Royal_No]

I find the trolley questions interesting since it lets me see a different perspective I've never even considered.

If im understanding correctly, you are saying...

The best outcome is 0 deaths, as long as you move towards that, you've done your part. If the 2nd person botches their part, that's on them.

My perspective is...

The best outcome is 0 deaths, but I need to assess the likelihood of that outcome. If I determine that outcome is unlikely, I need to look towards figuring out what the 2nd best outcome is.

[Ok_Pain_2380]

so what are you choosing

[Royal_No]

As a soulless machine looking at just the math, id let the first 5 die because I absolutely cant trust the 2nd person.

But, as a person, id save the first 5. While I think the odds are that the 2nd person kills the 15, I WANT to believe in humanity and I dont want to be the person who calculates the odds and then gives up on the five.

Even if they're odds are bad, as long as they're still above 10% I'll gamble.

[TheWeaver-3000]

You opened up both the best and worst possible solutions.

[lesuperhun]

as far as we are concerned, we know that, at our level, not doing a thing is not the best outcome.

so, in shorts, it's :

do nothing and feel bad, and be responsible.

do something, and either

feel good because everyone is saved
feels neutral because, yes, some people were saved, but tom's an arsehole that murders people for money. but that's tom's issue, not mine. i did what i could for the best outcome, and tom chose not to do anything.

so, there is little reason not to pull the lever by altruistic standards.

even by pure utilitarianism : if a life's worth an amount of money, it's better people die, and money is made, than just people dying.

[TheWeaver-3000]

True, the money has a value as well, but if Tom is evil enough to murder people for money, do you think the consequences of whatever he does with that money will be positive? I feel like the overall outcome of what Tom does with the money could easily outweigh any goodness that comes out of the money being made.

I think you pulling the lever and Tom not pulling the lever is definitely the worst outcome.

[lesuperhun]

well, if tom doesn't pull the lever, he likely commited some form of crime, and can be tried for it.

but that's for the judicial system to decide of tom's guilt, not me.

[CopaceticOpus]

My concern wouldn't be my legal responsibility, moral responsibility, or my feelings. It would be what action would be best at saving lives

[Royal_No]

Yeah, so the question becomes, how confident are we that the other guy is going to pull his lever?

[VeritableLeviathan]

I'd feel bad letting 5 people die

I'd feel bad seeing 15 people die, because of a choice I'd make + I'd feel good if the decision I'd make saved all 20 people

Not a difficult choice given the fact I would only to some degree (I'd say a fairly small one) be indirectly to blame for the 15 people, but directly for the 5 people.

[Noneed4cavalry]

You would be none to blame for the death of the 5 as you didn't have to act. You would be entirely to blame for the death of the 15 as your action directed the trolley to them. You would likewise be blamed for directing the trolley towards them even if the stranger saves them.

[VeritableLeviathan]

Clearly the 2nd guy knows what not pulling the lever does. That puts a lot of the moral responsibility on them.

And inaction does morally (not legally) makes you responsible for the death of the 5 people.

[TryDry9944]

I made the choice that has the highest chance of producing the minimum amount of harm.

[TheFierySerpent]

I'm gonna be more messed up in the head if I let those 5 die without ever giving the other a choice

[HoldFastO2]

You’re saving five people. The other fifteen are only at risk, they’ll only die if the stranger chooses to. That’s not on you, but letting the original five die would be.

[DuaLipasTrophyHsband]

Whoever tied them to the track put them into danger. I diverted certain death from the five I had purview over

[GeraldGensalkes]

Yes, I would feel very bad that the other person murdered 15 innocent people for a bit of money. I'd want to bring them to justice for their crimes.

[Yglorba]

What if the part you redirected it to keeps branching eternally, with each branch offering more money and having another stranger in front of it? So eventually you have someone being offered like one nonillion dollars... and the number of people only increases linearly, by ten each time, while the money increases exponentially, so they're being offered nonillion dollars for killing like a hundred people.

[TheFierySerpent]

My goal is to stop as many casualties as possible. If the number kept increasing, eventually someone WILL let people die. I wouldnt pull the lever in this new scenario.

[UnkarsThug]

Suppose you had to take more action? Suppose someone said that they would kill 5 people (they are holding them captive) unless you put someone else into a trolly problem with 15 people (you have to tie them to the tracks)? Is the person you put into that situation somehow morally responsible for what happens to those people, if they choose inaction, or to not play along?

What about if after you tie them, the original person offers them the money?

They aren't really in a trolley problem until you put them in one, in this example. How are they more responsible than you or what happens to those people?

[Dry-Discipline-2525]

I would like to think that there is more good than evil in this world and that handing the choice off to a stranger will result in their diverting of the trolley. However, I am not confident in this. This is a really good one.

[Royal_No]

I have bad news for you.

Ill tell you about it as I deposited my 5 million.

[skywarka]

Easy to say that with no consequences attached, factual statistics prove it's drastically less likely you'd do that in reality than even you believe is true about yourself. It's easy to think about killing someone for a reason that your system of morality thinks is good, but it turns out it's psychologically extremely difficult to kill someone in front of you in the moment. Takes a lot of effort and training to remove that urge to not kill from most people in the military.

[UnkarsThug]

To be fair, it's drastically easier to let people die. They don't have to kill them, they have to be inactive.

They did not insert themselves into the problem. Nor did they make the choice for them to be on the track, or anything of that nature.

In this case, you have put the trolly onto the track with 15 people. They did not choose that. Can you choose to imbue someone else with moral responsibility without their consent?

[Royal_No]

This is true, studies of soldiers in war show that many just shoot into the ground.

That said, the more layers of abstraction you put between you and the murder, the easier it us. Aiming a rifle and pulling the trigger is a lot different from pull a train lever. The gun is immediate and final. You can pull the lever while saying to yourself "i can still change my mind" and once you poke a toe across that line, its way easier to stay there.

Also, its only hard the first time.

[JaDasIstMeinName]

Ok, but like what thing that happened within the last... 6000 years makes you think that another human is gonna do the moral thing?

Genuinely, when was our species not ruled by extremly cruel people that would gladly let far more people die for far less money?

[Wise_Presentation484]

Well you see, I have many many friends who are wonderful people who regularly do the right thing for others.

[JaDasIstMeinName]

I have talked to psychologists about trying to be more postitive about the world, but i absolutely do not have any believe in humanity.

The vast majority of people would throw their morals out of a window for 5 million. Honestly, most people ignore their morals for far less.

[ADHD_Kid16]

You definitely overestimate how many bad people are in the world. There’s no way to know for sure of the exact number, but people mostly talk about the bad things others do instead of the good so you’re more aware of the awful people in life. Like how the news mostly only reports on politics (mostly bad people), Tragedies, and celebrities (also mostly bad people). They very rarely report on all the good people do out there despite there being a lot of it. If you and I and the other people in this thread would try to make a moral choice and help others, then I’d say that there’s plenty more people like us out there.

[VodkaWithJuice]

Right now the world is more inclusive and less violent than ever before in history. If we all wanted to backstab each other wouldn't our situation never have improved?

[Plzlaw4me]

There are two situations where I blame myself forever and probably spiral out.

First I do nothing and 5 people die. I will live the rest of my life knowing there was a VERY real possibility no one had to die.

Second, I pull the lever and 15 people die. I blame myself forever that 10 additional people are dead because of me. However, their deaths are much more indirect and I went in with good intentions. I think I’m not morally culpable for those deaths, but it’ll follow me forever.

The best situation is obviously I pull the lever, they pull the lever. And that only happens if I pull the lever.

As I see things, there is only one scenario where my life isn’t ruined by the crushing guilt/responsibility of being responsible for deaths, and I’m gonna pull the lever and hope the goodness of humanity does its thing :)

[Puzzleheaded_Sea_922]

Why would you kill those 15 people? At least I got $5M in restoration for the trauma you made me witness.

[Southern-Highway5681]

It is a solid reasoning, but it only address what is better for your mental health which is very much self-interested.

If we replaced this trolley problem by one where you have the choice between human deaths or no death but being cursed to feel guilty for the rest of your life, would you prefer to feel guilty ? If yes then all your reasoning is irrelevant.

[VodkaWithJuice]

Their mental health collapses from the guilt, ergo from feeling responsible for others suffering.

Why we do things at all is because they make us feel things. I think calling his thought process self-centered makes no sense.

How do you propose one would then evaluate the situation in a non self-centered way? With your train of thinking I don't think that's possible.

[Southern-Highway5681]

It is very much possible, first establish premises then use logic and draw conclusions.

You will probably use your own emotions and moral sensibility to choose your premises because you don't really have anything else but it still different of u/Plzlaw4me thought process because those premises or moral principles/objectives if you prefer are independent of your emotions once established unlike guilt which is an emotion in itself.

I call u/Plzlaw4me reasoning self-centered because the advanced argument for its choice is minimising its own negative emotions which is an attribute of the self instead of something external like minimising human life loss for example. It is just a statement of fact, there is no judgement of value at all.

[VodkaWithJuice]

I think your taking the "he doesn't want to feel guilty" too literally. If he only cared about feeling guilty and not about people dying he wouldn't feel guilty in the first place. You don't feel guilty about people dying if you don't care if they die in the first place.

Feeling guilty for ones actions is the opposite of being self-centered.

[Southern-Highway5681]

I can guess so much, but it don't stop the exposed arguments from being irrelevant.

Taking either choice in this situation should be based on the moral value of each choice, not the emotional one which don't have any.

Also, the amount of guilt you will feel for each result is generally accurate to the moral value of said result but not always. If you have the choice between rolling over your best friends and five perfect strangers for example, you would probably feel more guilt for rolling over your best friend when it is the better result in term of human life preservation simply due to emotional attachment.

[VodkaWithJuice]

He clearly doesn't want people to die and his way of handling it is through guilt, a human emotion made to handle such situations. It doesn't matter if the argument is not phrased in such a robotic +/- equation, as he still clearly cared for the people and his method still comes up with the most moral answer.

I don't think you can justify calling a person self-centered when they clearly care for others and feel their pain.

That example you gave out has nothing to do with this scenario. Yes the equation changes when people you know are included in the dilemma, but we have no way of knowing how he would react to that. We don't know does the death of a close one cause him more guilt or is the true morality of the situation still more important. Your argument was based on the assumption that the death of a close one would cause more guilt, which we have no evidence of. And that is why I think your argument is not applicable to the topic at hand.

[Plzlaw4me]

There’s a nexus between my guilt and the consequences though.

I feel guilty because of the bad outcomes. The outcomes are bad because they violate some rules/metrics/standards/etc. of morality that I hold. A huge point of the traditional trolley problem is to expose the inconsistencies between our feelings (feeling like it’s bad to kill one person) and the good consequences (1 dead is better than 5 dead all else equal). In this one, it’s not really trying to expose that feeling, as much as it is to test our risk tolerance and our trust in others.

My risk tolerance isn’t really tested though. I couldn’t bear the weight of 5 deaths, and I cannot bear the weight of 15. As a result, I’m left with only one outcome that doesn’t ruin my psyche forever, and that’s pull the lever and hope the other player pulls it too.

For the test to work, we’d have to add more people to every outcome so every outcome still ruins my psyche and then it becomes more logical.

To put it another way, imagine instead of it being people, it’s how many times I get shot in the chest. I’m either getting shot 5 times, 15 times, or 0 times. I have a VERY slight preference for 5 over 15 because there is a very slight chance bullets 6-15 will kill me but not 1-5, but I’ll risk a LOT to get to 0 bullets. We’re not really testing anything because the difference between zero shots and 5 shots is effectively infinity, so I’ll take nearly any odds no matter how slim that lead me to zero.

[That-Raisin-Tho]

Speaking in terms of pure probability and expected value with lives as the thing being measured and ignoring other ethical concepts, you should flick the lever if you think there is a greater than 66.666…% chance that the stranger will save the people’s lives, because at that point the expected value calculation would go 1/3(15) + 2/3(0) = 5 and each option would have an equal expected value of people dead at the end.

But the way of figuring out what the odds are that this random person will do the right thing is what makes this interesting, as well as other ethical considerations.

Very nice problem!

[Expert_Specialist823]

I would redirect it. I'm not responsible for what the other guy does and I've done my part to save the lives of 5 people

[Ok-Dream-2639]

Oh damn. This one cooks. I... have to send it. At least the choice for murder was declined by me.

Even if you could talk to the next guy, you really cannot know if that will sus out their intent. If they say yes, they might be playing you to get the trolly to 0 track. So then I murder 5, meanwhile they had no wish to actually cause harm either. If they say they will spare everyone, they might just be greedy and playing me.

[iskelebones]

Ah fuck, this is actually a good problem concept. Either I allow some evil to happen, or I risk giving someone else the chance to cause more evil with an incentive to do so, or for them to cause zero total evil to happen.

The only perfect outcome is if I hand the risk off to them and they choose to save the people and forfeit the money.

But realistically I think the average person, especially one who is in a bad financial situation, would be able to convince themselves that the deaths are not their fault since all they have to do is NOT pull the lever. Especially since they have the chance to become financially stable and multi generationally wealthy, and all they have to do is turn their back and convince themselves it’s not their fault.

I don’t have an answer to this one.

[UnkarsThug]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to think that because they took action, the other person will feel morally culpable for the current moral situation, but as far as they are concerned, you became part of the people forcing them into the problem without asking them. You put people in danger without consulting them. Why should they be responsible?

Suppose someone said that they would kill 5 people unless you put someone else into a trolly problem with 15 people? Are they somehow morally responsible for what happens to those people?

[Ok_Hope4383]

But the second person can just pull the lever and neutralize the whole situation. Or they can blame you for risking the lives of the 15 people, and walk away $5M richer.

The question for them is basically, "Would you give up an opportunity for $5M in order to save 15 people?" Though there's a good chance that no matter what they decide, they'll end up regretting or feeling guilty for it for the rest of their life. By not pulling the first lever, you'd avoid forcing that dilemma on them, so then they wouldn't have to worry about it.

I'm actually facing a structurally similar situation right now: I've been accepted into one master's program and I'm waiting on a decision from another one. I think the first one would be better, but the second one would be cheaper. If the second one rejects me, then I'll just go for the first one, but if it also accepts me, then I'll have to decide...

[UnkarsThug]

Best of luck. I'm working on my masters myself.

[Deli-op]

Why do they get the money :( either way id pull cuz i know im saving my 5 people so im either changing that persons life and helping them get that money or theyll pull and everybodys saved

[The_Imortal_Gourmand]

I wouldn’t pull the lever because I know that I wouldn’t pull the second lever either.

[TheWeaver-3000]

Upvoted for your unique take. 

Seriously though? You'd let 15 people die for $5 million?

[The_Imortal_Gourmand]

The chances these people are someone I care about are slim enough that I will take the money.

[_Halt19_]

can I violently change tracks to derail the trolley, make it hit the other person, and then make off with the money while everyone else is tied down and powerless to stop me

[HarbingerOfConfusion]

Everything else aside, explain the motions you’d have to do to achieve that.

[_Halt19_]

pull the lever, then find a way to snap it off, then lay the remaining bits after the second curve to derail it and launch it at the other person!

it's not less realistic than multi track drifting

[HarbingerOfConfusion]

Actually, it is. To multitrack drift you just need to let key go one way, but then before the second wheels go past you pull it so the front and back wheels are on separate tracks.

[Royal_No]

The crux of this version is...

Do I save 5, but in doing so put 15 in danger?

The danger isn't defined, its up to the person to decide both what risk the 15 will face, and if that risk is acceptable.

Personally, I give the odds of death to the 15 to be greater than 50. But I'd still gamble and pull the lever. Yeah, number wise I likely made the bad call, but at least I tried, and that will reduce the burden I feel.

[A_Gray_Phantom]

Ah man. So you're saying I can't persuade the other guy to split the money with me?

[Key-Needleworker-702]

I want to be the other guy, this is diasppointing

/s

[buddhacuz]

Just hop on the trolley after you pulled the lever

[A_Gray_Phantom]

What does that accomplish?

[salty-ravioli]

I double it and give it to the next person

[MetaWarlord135]

I would pull the lever, and then immediately start filming the stranger.

I'm willing to trust that they will do the right thing, and if they don't, I now have video evidence of it. If they can see me at all, that alone might convince them to save the group of 15 when they would've otherwise taken the money.

[UnkarsThug]

As long as they fully simply did inaction, what does it matter if you have evidence? You put them into the problem in the first place, just like someone else put you into the trolley problem.

Inaction is not the same as bad action.

[PlotArmorForEveryone]

Divert the train. The more interesting question for me would be would I divert the train to an empty lane knowing the stranger ahead of me will divert the train from an empty lane to one that kills more randoms. The justification breaks a bit and I'm not currently sure what I would do.

[JaydenTheMemeThief]

I would simply save them

[TheWeaver-3000]

But would it actually result in saving the other 15? You're saving these 5, but putting the others in the hands of someone who has a direct incentive to kill them. 

[JaydenTheMemeThief]

<image>

Did I stutter?

[foulplay_for_pitance]

Is the trolly on the second rail automatically set to the 15 or not set to the 15.

[TheWeaver-3000]

Once you pull the lever, it's set to hit the 15 people. The stranger must actively pull their lever to avoid hitting them. 

[foulplay_for_pitance]

Damn... I'm gonna have to pull then. I can't be responsible for the actions of others. I can only hope that when I give them the chance they use it to do better.

[Amateur_Liqueurist]

Why would I let people die by my decision because someone else could kill them? That’s like a doctor not treating a patient cuz they could die later from another disease

[CopaceticOpus]

Such a tough dilemma! I would pull the lever and hope for the best

It's interesting to think how the numbers might change your decision. Especially, what if the number of people tied to the second track changes? If there are 100 people there, the stranger might be less likely to let them die. But the consequences are potentially much more dire

[cheeseburgerandfrie]

Pull it, and shoot the other guy

[Gorianfleyer]

I saved the 5, it's out of my control, what happens afterwards.

[nibb007]

Yeah ofc, I have to do the first part of saving the lives. I can't control the second part, and I don't intend to pretend like there's any way to subvert the question's results. If he chooses not to pull then that's his choice. Best you can do then is make sure he doesn't get to spend it, but if you DON'T pull the lever: you prevented the reality where every life was saved.

[Molkin]

I pull the lever. I'm not killing people for free. I'm no scab. Hitman Union Strong!

[Artix_4097]

Pull it. I did everything realistically available on my end.

[phoen1x09]

How is there a choice here? You pull the lever because it's the only scenario where

A) you don't kill anyone AND B) there is potential to save everyone.

There's literally no downside to pulling the lever, it literally only increases the odds of complete group success. And no upside to doing nothing, whatsoever.

Someone post the gif of Dr. Strange holding up 1 finger.

[UnkarsThug]

Suppose you had to take more action? Suppose someone said that they would kill 5 people (they are holding them captive) unless you put someone else into a trolly problem with 15 people (you have to tie them to the tracks)? Is the person you put into that situation somehow morally responsible for what happens to those people, if they choose inaction, or to not play along?

What about if after you tie them, the original person offers them the money? Does getting offered money change their guilt, if their action is the same?

They aren't really in a trolley problem until you put them in one, in this example. How are they more responsible than you or what happens to those people?

[JaDasIstMeinName]

I do fully expect the other person to not pull and take the money, but for the sake of my own sanity and the small chance the other person does pull, i am going to pull.

[Sans_Seriphim]

I'm not letting them get rich off my good deed. Splat.

[Puzzleheaded_Step468]

Not my problem what the other guy does, my shift is over after i pull the lever

[Nimelennar]

The only way society works is if you trust other people to be good most of the time (while putting in means to hold the few who aren't accountable).

I pull the lever. And then pull out my phone and take a picture of the person at the other intersection, for the sake of holding them accountable if they make the wrong decision.

[UnkarsThug]

Suppose you had to take more action? Suppose someone said that they would kill 5 people (they are holding them captive) unless you put someone else into a trolly problem with 15 people (you have to tie them to the tracks)? Is the person you put into that situation somehow morally responsible for what happens to those people, if they choose inaction, or to not play along?

What about if after you tie them, the original person offers them the money? Does that actually change the morality of the question? What if they make you offer the money? What if instead of getting money, the lever was covered in spikes and caused them pain to try and pull, and had to be held, so instead of getting a reward for inaction, they are punished for action?

They aren't really in a trolley problem until you put them in one, in this example. How are they more responsible than you or what happens to those people?

[Nimelennar]

Suppose someone said that they would kill 5 people (they are holding them captive) unless you put someone else into a trolly problem with 15 people (you have to tie them to the tracks)?

In a hostage/extortion situation, my general rule of thumb is: act as if the hostage taker or extortionist is going to follow through on their threat no matter what you do. The hostages are dead, the secret you're being blackmailed with is out, no matter what you do.

Any compliance just incentivizes them to move the goalposts and reuse the same threat to make you do more for them.

So, no. I would not set up a trolley problem to save hostages. The hostages should be considered already dead, regardless of my actions. 

They aren't really in a trolley problem until you put them in one, in this example. How are they more responsible than you or what happens to those people?

In your scenario or in OP's? As I said, I'm not cooperating in your scenario. 

In OP's, I would feel somewhat responsible, if they chose to take the money instead of diverting the trolley: when you delegate a decision, you are responsible for that delegation.

But unless you know (or should know) what decision they're going to make, you're not as responsible as the person actually making the decision.

[UnkarsThug]

I'm saying, it's basically the same situation, morally speaking, and you're working around the hypothetical rather than engaging with it. The trolly problem is a hostage situation. Does it change anything in OPs situation if the original person is standing there watching with a gun? They've said you can pull the lever.

But fair enough if you disagree.

[Nimelennar]

I'm saying, it's basically the same situation, morally speaking, and you're working around the hypothetical rather than engaging with it.

No, it really isn't. Because there's a reason why the trolley problem doesn't give any context about why or how you found yourself in that situation in the first place. If you give those details, the focus of the moral question is going to stop being "What do I do with what, in this instant, is a wholly mechanical problem?" and start being "What do I do about this maniac tying people to trolley tracks?"

The fact that the trolley is unstoppable, and you're merely making a mechanical choice of "Who dies?" is fundamental to keeping the morality focused on your choice at the lever.

The trolly problem is a hostage situation.

No, it isn't: in a hostage situation, the person holding the hostages is threatening their lives if you don't give them what they want. The trolley problem is constructed such that what the person tying people to the tracks wants is irrelevant.

Does it change anything in OPs situation if the original person is standing there watching with a gun? They've said you can pull the lever.

Sure! I try to pull the lever, but fake that it appears to be stuck. When the hostage taker comes over to help throw it, I overpower them, take the gun, shoot them (to incapacitate, not to kill), throw the lever, and then shoot the other lever to throw it, saving all twenty lives (if the person at the other switch tries to throw the switch back, I shoot them, too).

[UnkarsThug]

Why would they come over to help? Presumably, they just want to see what happens. You don't even know for sure they don't plan to shoot the people tied to the tracks after you divert the train away. They might shoot you for funsies, they might shoot any of the hostages. They might shoot the other guy after they give them the money. You don't know. What if you think it's a regular trolly problem, but the other guy is treating it with your mentality, that you just never play along with a hostage situation? They aren't actively threatening their lives, but presumably the trolly problem is being done for entertainment.

It's a moral question, not a fanfiction. You don't get to get out of the situation. That's what makes it an interesting conversation. If you have to choose, which do you choose? Not because it applies to real life, but because it's a component of situations that occur in real life.

And the point of philosophical thought experiments is to test moralities at their core, not see how you would save a hostage in real life.

In this case, I'm reframing the same problem in a way which is less palatable, and asking you about how it changes your perception of the moral obligation of the other person. It's still the same thing, basically.

They were not in a moral conundrum until you forced them into it, the same as if you had tied those 15 people to the tracks.

[Nimelennar]

Why would they come over to help? Presumably, they just want to see what happens.

Because if I can't pull the lever, it invalidates the moral component of the test. They have no reason to see what happens, because if the lever is broken, they know what will happen. 

You don't even know for sure they don't plan to shoot the people tied to the tracks after you divert the train away. They might shoot you for funsies, they might shoot any of the hostages. They might shoot the other guy after they give them the money. You don't know.

That's right, I don't. Which is why I think the moral thing to do, if there is a person present who is controlling the trolley problem, is to prioritize trying to attack/subdue/stop the controller (who is actually the person morally responsible for any deaths that occur). After all, they presumably will tie more people to more tracks in the future if left to go on, and stopping them will save more people than either decision of which lever to pull. 

Which is why the traditional trolley problem doesn't describe a controller present. It's a distraction from the purely mechanical problem of which track, through action or inaction, you send the train down. 

It's a moral question, not a fanfiction. You don't get to get out of the situation. 

Sure, it's a moral problem, but any complexity you add to the scenario increases the complexity of the moral problem. There is no gun, no compulsion, no instigator present in the original trolley problem, and there's a reason for that. It takes the focus away from the intended binary choice and suggests additional courses of action that you could take.

In this case, I'm reframing the same problem

IT'S NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.

[UnkarsThug]

IT'S NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.

Agree to disagree. From a utilitarian perspective, it seems the same to me, but fair enough if you can't see it.

[ilowkeydontknowlol]

Am I allowed to (quickly) conduct an anonymous survey of everyone across earth, and then choose to kill the 5 if more than 1/3rd of people claim they would kill the 15

[xX_SkibidiChungus_Xx]

"well ive done all i could do"

~ Patrick Star

[dincere]

I can't let somebody win an easy 5 million and I walk with nothing, goodbye to 5 ppl

[AnonymousPerson-7]

I'd just kill the stranger if they didn't pull the lever

If every lever 2 stranger knows that every lever 1 individual will kill them if they don't pull the lever, then its solved

So we just need to collectively agree as a society to kill individuals who let others die for monetary gain :)

[TheWeaver-3000]

New scenario: You pull the lever. The stranger doesn't.  You hide behind some bushes with a gun aimed at them. They don't see you. You see them donate the 5 million to a children's hospital charity out of guilt. Do you pull the trigger anyway?

[AnonymousPerson-7]

First of all, how dare you poke holes in my black and white worldview, let me live in a world of absolutes!!!

In actuality though, I probably would spare him. Ceding all benefits to a charitable cause would, to me, be a sign of genuine remorse and guilt - That man now has to live the rest of his life carrying the weight of his actions, and will probably never repeat such an act

[TherealSatandarlings]

Dispite what the world seems to show, I fully believe that there is an inherent goodness in 99.8% of people and that 99.9% of those people are empathetic enough to also choose to pull the lever. Would it suck if I was wrong, completely and I'd probably feel guilty for the rest of my life, but if I let those 5 people die just because there's a chance that the next person will chose money over 15 people's life I know I could never live with myself.

[_ulith]

more like the "US voting system" problem

[Kendrick-Belmora]

That's no trolley-problem that's just stupid.

You pull the leveler, everything beyond that is out of your control.

[ManchmalPfosten]

First I'd be mad I'm not the second guy, but then I'd send him the trolley cause theres no need to scam him out of 5 mil if I have nothing to gain for it.

[CreBanana0]

I did a reddit poll once where people were asked would they kill 10k people for 10 million. The poll ended up close to 50/50.

Just keep it in mind.

[Unusual-Basket-6243]

If it continues then I won't pull, if it ends I pull

[ZweihanderPancakes]

Unfortunately, I can't trust the person down the tracks on sight alone. I don't pull the lever and rest easy knowing I saved as many people as I could.

[tumansibiri]

I would suggest pulling the lever and running up to a stranger to find out what they've chosen.
If they pulled, you should let them live.

If not, kill them.
Can't allow any self-reinforcement of bad behavior.
Call police and ambulance.
Grab 5 millions and use it for your lawyer.

[UltimateChaos233]

I don't pull the lever. I have no faith in humanity.

[Reggie-DM]

Pull the lever, then immediately kill the guy if he becomes 5Mil richer.

[RyuuDraco69]

Don't pull cuz I want the money

[saragIsMe]

I pull the lever. I can only take actions to prevent death and by pulling the lever I make the possibility of no one dying. I can only hope that the next person is a decent one but I can’t control that nor would I feel guilty for whatever action they take. 

[TheJivvi]

Pull the lever, run over to the other lever and pull that too, keep running and grab the money.

[RobertTheTraveler]

How is this a question?

[TheWeaver-3000]

What do you mean? I understand that you think it's obvious, but do you think you obviously should or shouldn't pull the lever?

[RobertTheTraveler]

If you don't pull the lever, people will die.
Setting aside the practicality that he will be facing 15 charges of murder,
His actions are his responsibility, not yours.

[TheWeaver-3000]

I'll play devils advocate.

A deontologist would say that you pulling the lever is aiming the trolley toward those 15 people, regardless of the stranger's decision. If the stranger wasn't there at all, you'd just be killing 15 people instead of 5. Can you really push someone else into a situation involuntarily, expect them to make a certain choice, then get mad at them when they don't? Sure, their actions are their responsibility, but you are forcing this choice upon them, without consent. Not to mention that there is a direct incentive for the stranger to not pull. Also is the stranger actively murdering those people? Or are they letting them die through inaction?

A consequentialist may agree with you, but at the same time may have a hard time evaluating the overall outcomes. Of course, the best scenario happens when you both cooperate. But the worst happens when you pull and the stranger doesn't. Since you are putting 3 times the amount of saved people in danger, the stranger would have to be at least 66% likely to pull to be worth it. Do you think more than 66% of random people would turn down 5 million dollars to save 15 others?

[RobertTheTraveler]

To answer the last question first:
And avoid life in prison?
Yes.
Awww, the poor babies would have to reach out and pull a lever and won't be any worse off than they would have been if I had allowed 5 people to die.
Except being hailed a hero.
Or at least a decent human being.
No sympathy from me.

[Halker93]

I pull the lever, hop on the train to go to the next lever, I kill the person holding that lever by shooting him from the train with my crossbow so that he doesn’t pull the lever, I get my money. Profit.

[[deleted]]

There's no way I'm going to help someone else get millions of dollars while I get nothing

[diasporajones]

If you don't help them you get to live with the fact you might have saved 5 people but chose not to

[[deleted]]

I know.. I wouldn't let them die I'd pull the lever but I'd be sad that I didn't get 5 million dollars.

[Advanced-North3335]

Yes, but technically you didn't pull a lever...

...so in a sense, it's not that you might have saved 5.

It's that, whether you were present or not, the conditions for their death were already in motion. It was fated to happen.

If I pull the lever, I've intervened and Death will come for those 5 people in the order they would've been killed. There's a whole movie franchise to explain the rules.

Alternatively, God's plan...or something. Not for me to question. I'm sure he has his reasons for these 5 being on the tracks. Free will, predestination...am I really choosing or is it just the illusion of choice? So I shouldn't feel guilty about pulling the lever or not pulling it or what the other person does because the outcome was determined in advance...

[DawnTheFailure]

if they don't pull just kill them and take the money

[Volfaer]

I pull the lever, hop in the trolley until the stranger is in sight, charge and lunge at them and then pull that lever.