Would you sacrifice one person to save five? - Eleanor Nelsen

I'm trying to save these people but this one train keeps killing them

but that one dude is the one only working im gonna save him

Another solution Keep flipping the switch really fast when the trolleys on the intersect. It will break the trolley.

oh man whoever animated this did such a great job all those smooth transitions and abstract but meaningful imagery! wow.

Change the question to this: "Would you sacrifice your self to save five?" And see the result of people answering it

Came after that 2 year old kid who killed all six

I once met a person who told me they would kill the 5 people because it would be easier to explain in court.

The workers be like: hmm yes what that loud noise probably just the wind

a. Save 5 workers but kill one worker b. Save 1 worker but kill 5 workers c. Rigourously flip switch back and forth and dislodge train from tracks, running the risk of killing 20 but saving 6

"Hey! There's a trolley coming! Move out of the way! Thanks!"

I love that the animator sometimes animates simple 2d, sometimes animates smooth 3d, and sometimes realistic stuff like the heart and the hand. It’s cool.

Fun Fact: If you let the trains drive into the 5 people, it wouldn’t count as murder since it was bound to happen anyways. If you turn the cart into that one person, it would technically count as murder, since it was caused by you, whether the intention was good or not. Personally, I would just act like I didn’t notice the lever and rush in to try and do something, as if I was panicking. Edit: You guys have really enlightened me as to how wrong I was. From now on, I firmly believe in moving the train to kill one person then stomping the other five people to death.

Why are these TED-Ed videos always so aesthetic?

schrodinger’s trolley splits in two and rides over all of them

I vaguely remember a similar dilemma, where the answers people gave in a survey differed, depending on exactly how the dilemma was described. It had something to do with one person being gravely ill, and who would surely die if you didn't put five other people at some level of risk of death. Depending on how the question was phrased, the majority of people asked would either put the five other people at risk of death, or not. Sorry that I can't remember the details now. But the point was that this person who is ill will surely die if you do nothing. But if you do something, you might end up killing all six. But you might also end up saving all six. Well, five of them weren't in any risk before, so "saving them" might be a bad choice of words. It bugs me now that I can't remember the two ways the question was asked. Interesting, however, that the exact same ethical dilemma might get two totally different answers from the same person, depending on your choice of words when presenting the problem.

I think its also a demonstration of "gut instinct". I realize this is not a proper or professional term but we are often told to trust it. I think our subconscious can often assemble past experiences and tell us what it the right thing to do while our conscious mind cannot define why.

If you're strong enough to push that heavy guy that could stop the train, just go super saiyan and stop the train yourself

Everyone: Just get the worker to move! HEY! Oh no he has Airpods, he cant hear us!

I think the reason people are so contrary to the first decision when presented with the bridge version is because of how they perceive the aftermath would be like. More specifically a conversation about your choice. It would be a lot easier telling someone you flipped the switch because you felt like you had no choice, rather than push a man because you felt like you had no choice. Only one is considered deliberate murder. The other one is not.

i will forever stand by the answer of leaving the lever in whatever position it was in when you were presented the problem. my reasoning is that if this situation were happening and no one were around to see it, that would be what happens. so i don’t find myself at fault when the outcome would have happened had i been there or jot.