This classic problem was proposed as a poll by jacob66. I had to shorten the text a bit because the database text field is too short...

You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903

Previous Poll Results:
Question: Which is the most annoying question?
Choices:
How? - votes: 288 (10.2%)
When? - votes: 127 (4.5%)
Where? - votes: 90 (3.2%)
Why? - votes: 1470 (52.1%)
What? - votes: 571 (20.2%)
Who/Whom? - votes: 275 (9.7%)
There were 2821 total votes.
The poll ended: November 7th 2020

Why can't it just end? (referring to the US elections)

A just ruler amongst tyrants

The only correct answer.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/Su6i3HZ.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.dragonflycave.com/wpay/mew.gif[/img]

Go left, killing 1. It's what Zack Snyder would want me to do:
https://i.imgur.com/gflTuwL.gif
This gif never gets old.

I also read EU/US comics and am a librarian.
Manga-Masters, My ANN-Lists + Imdb

Ah, the old trolley problem.
Either you chose to let one person die, and have that person's life on your conscience
…or you don't change the track and, through that choice, have chosen to let X people die, instead, thereby having those X people on your conscience.
The former is typically an active act, whilst the latter is the choice of doing nothing, but that is nevertheless what it boils down to.
(with a core part of the "dilemma", naturally being that these are strangers you know nothing about)

I don't see how can be seen as a problem or dilemma.
Naturally you have to kill the one person.
To do otherwise, would be unconscionably immoral.

Quote from zarlan

I don't see how can be seen as a problem or dilemma.
Naturally you have to kill the one person.
To do otherwise, would be unconscionably immoral.

What if the one person tied up was MLK? Would it still be "moral" to do it to save the five others? What if, of the five tied down, one was MLK and another was Hitler? Wouldn't it the be "moral" to justify killing MLK (And the three others) in order to kill Hitler? How fast is the trolley going? If it's going slow enough, couldn't you divert it towards the one, untie him, and save everyone? Are there any people on the trolley? Why don't they attempt to stop it? Why don't you through an obstacle on the tracks in an attempt to derail the trolley? Why are the people tied down anyway in the first place? Why are you near the tracks anyway? Is there anyone else around not tied up?

It's such a silly hypothetical that no one honestly takes it seriously.

[img]http://www.dragonflycave.com/wpay/mew.gif[/img]

Go left, killing 1, but only provided the majority (say 3 or more out of 5) of the people on the right aren't heinous criminals like murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.

Of course, the catch is probably that you don't know anything about the people who you're choosing to kill/save. In which case I'd still go left, since what are the odds of 3-4 out of 5 people being serious criminals?

The only other instance where I'd choose to go right is if the single person on the left is someone I love (so basically only 3 people in the world: my parents and sister, lol). Yep, I'm selfish as shit 😛

So I chose the stay right on track and kill 5 people. I would rather not make a choice because I will be killing people either way. Automatically thinking that sacrificing 1 person for saving 5 people is okay isn't right. Because humans can't know the worth of a soul. That 1 person killed could have more worth than the other 5 people combined. The reverse could also be true. And I don't have that knowledge so I would rather not change the track and end up making the decision not to do anything at all. It's difficult to say who is right or wrong but this just my opinion 🙄

In my libertarian days I would have chosen to do nothing and let 5 people die rather than actively kill 1 person. Non-aggression principle and all that. In fact, I still believe that a person in this situation would not be "responsible" for the deaths of the 5 people if they did nothing and would only be a murderer if they changed the trolley's course.

And yet, today I would kill that person to save the other 5 from certain death.

I think that selfish instinct to prioritize those important to you is a healthy one to have, and it's good to be honest about it.

So where's the multi track drift mmm...~?

I will change this world mmm...
So the world can change me mmm...

If the old trolley problem is too easy for you, try a new one on for size.

Post Deleted

If all things are equal, I would choose to kill 1 person. By "doing nothing" you are still actively making a choice.

Quote from Wefa

I would rather not make a choice because I will be killing people either way.

Not acting IS a choice!
It is to actively/intentionally choose to let the five people die.
Thus having those five deaths, on ones conscience. Being responsible for those five deaths.

Automatically thinking that sacrificing 1 person for saving 5 people is okay isn't right.

No it isn't, but letting five people die, so you don't let that one person die, is even worse.
Either way, your choice ends in death, which is very very bad, but it doesn't stop the events from happening.
You don't know any of the people, so you can only judge them as equal.
Switching the track may not be right, (there are no right options, in that situation) but it's the least wrong.

Also, if you know the people, that might actually make the choice even harder, and certainly more gut-wrenching.
(and no one should fail to feel deeply troubled by, and guilty about, the death(s) that their choice lead to, either way)

Quote from calstine

The only other instance where I'd choose to go right is if the single person on the left is someone I love (so basically only 3 people in the world: my parents and sister, lol). Yep, I'm selfish as shit

I think most people would do the same. (I sure would)
It's human nature.