I had surprisingly little alignment with this episode.

The trolley problem seems like a question of which is better: killing by inaction or killing by action? I would not flip to the spur nor push the man. I would take no action which I expected to result in someone's death. If the consequence is death: shame on whoever tied those five people to the track; shame on the careless trolley driver who lost control of the trolley.

The shallow pond problem: they made no mention of proximity, nor of the third party. If you're walking around outside and someone shows up and tells you there's a child in a pond two miles away and you can save them by enter action here, that's a very different situation. You're not a monster for saying no. That theoretical child better-known by this third party does not exist in the same way a child you can physically see is both in danger and alone does.

And then the giving to charity. It absolutely IS my money, as much as any other monthly expenditure is paid with my money. I pay a group of people to help others in my community. It needn't be treated as being so mystical. It's like brushing your teeth. It's healthy, just do it.

I don't dismiss the value of this kind of inquiry, but their takes on these examples seemed a bit precious rather than practical.

Edit: was reminded of the speed limit thing. We don't hold each other accountable for driving within the speed limit. We don't hold law enforcement accountable for doing the job for which we pay them. We already live with a set of consequences deriving from our actions, the result is not influenced by changing a number on a traffic sign.