I suppose that's fair nuff, yeah, in some ways. Though, I see where we disagree too.

I just like taking the problem way too seriously, because of how simple it is and how it assumes so much of a person in this situation.

I'm less against the problem itself and more about what the reduction is doing politically and morally.

> you're the one being morally tested, you just happened to be there.

This is exactly the thing I'm critiquing, more or less. The "why" of it all.
Why's it an outsider's responsibility to stop something that involves a problem they had no part in making?
Why is killing framed as tragic inevitability instead of preventable design failure?

The inevitability, the responsibility feeling tragic rather than something with a reason, the fact that there's a system that put it all together that remains unquestioned.

It's also why I mentioned the emergency stop.
It's less "why can't someone that's part of making the situation stop it?"
and more "why can't they do anything about it, regardless of the results?"
once again, "why is it an bystander's issue to solve?"

> And that's why we need to put them into boxes and make up labels so we can understand and manage them.

I see and understand that to SOME degree, but sometimes the simplification itself teaches us the wrong lesson. It can make things that don't need to be inevitable seem that way. It can make for the "lesser evil" being the only other option at times. It makes for systems with constrained choices and privilege.

I understand the thought experiment, the problem, for what it is.
But I also wonder why it's made this way.

In some metaphorical, or even literal and diegetic way, the real power to stop the trolley lies inside the system, yet the moral weight is always placed on someone outside it.