I always found the trolley problem interesting. It usually boils down to who believes in karma or a creator or not.
Most religions have the idea that it’s different to take a life than to stand by and do nothing. For instance, you should always try to help others (save a life), pretty much above all else. However, to take a life, requires taking action. Ie standing by as someone drowns is not the same as sticking someone under water. For murder you’re damned to hell. For standing by you’ll need to repent, but it’s a lesser sin.
The trolly problem IMO is a framing problem. (1) it assumes you know the future and (2) it assumes your will is above others.
The example I typically gave people when discussing this problem is actually in this fun exercise. Imagine if the 5 people strapped themselves to the tracks. Imagine they knew they would murder and wanted to die rather than murder. When you redirect the train, you actually cause more deaths, because you didn’t know the intent of those people.
The exercise helps you decide what you value. For me I never apply my outside influence to the system, except when I can save a life without costing a life. I believe life is more valuable than pretty much anything I saw in the game.
I’m a realist and objectivist. So for me the question is “what could I live with?” And “what information do I have to make a decision?”
In reality, everyone in this situation made their bed (so to speak). So I am unwilling to ever impose my will into the system baring saving a life (without costing one).
One of the problems did have people who tied themselves to the track, while the other person stumbled. Most people chose to let the group that chose to be on the track die.
Another interesting problem would be 5 people tied themselves to the track in front of the trolley, and 1 person tied themselves to the other track. Everybody tied themselves to the track, so should you let the one die instead of the 5? Or did the one tie themselves to the track believing that track was safe, while the other 5 tied themselves to the track expecting to die?
You're assuming free will though. It could be that nobody made their bed, and you're just doing what was preordained, but chalking it up to free will to feel better. Maybe you could live with anything. Maybe the information is a facade, and never really makes a difference, because you'll always just do what you were going to do anyway.
If there is no free will, though, then there isn't an interesting moral quandary about you pulling the lever. You either do, because you were preordained to do so or you don't, because you were preordained not to, and in neither case does any morality or decision-making enter into the picture, since, absent free will, you are not a morality-possessing or decision-making entity.
There's no free will in a clock but it's still interesting to watch the gears. And just because you don't have free will doesn't mean you don't have morals; even if you don't choose to do right or wrong, you can still distinguish them as separate concepts. And even if you can't distinguish morality, that doesn't necessarily make you amoral either. It's like being born to be an extra in a play and die once the play is over.
In a world with strong determinism, there is no consequence. Actions don't cause reactions. The initial state of the system causes all outcomes -- both immediate and apparently-consequent.
The person doesn't really pull the trolley lever insomuch as the universe began in a state which determined that at that moment, the person's arm and the lever would move.
In such a world, even time is barely meaningful, since events, not being dependent upon each other, don't really have a causal ordering.
If you put your hand over a flame and it hurts you pull it back. It doesn't matter if it was "determined" that you would put your hand over it, there is still an obvious and immediate reaction to the action. The time it takes for these things to happen is also meaningful as it effects how much pain you feel.
So even in a completely determined universe, there are consequences, and time is meaningful. The only difference is whether you realize that there's a universal puppeteer or not.
I disagree with how you’re assessing the magnitude of the sins here. I don’t think the problem really changes at all when you introduce religion to it. There’s theistic arguments in each direction of this problem, and much like with the non-theistic arguments, you won’t find any of them to be conclusively correct.
Interesting then that a religious society like the U.S. (>80% consider themselves religious) does not actually support helping others. This is particularly striking for law enforcement, who have no obligation to help, and then are free to choose not to. Last month, cops watched a man drown, and that's apparently perfectly fine https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/06/arizona-man-...
Humanist secular societies (e.g. France, Germany, ~30% religious people) instead have a culture and legislature that makes helping others an important duty; law enforcement and also civil citizens have a moral and legal duty to help, and it would be morally and legally unacceptable to watch someone drown.
Most religions have the idea that it’s different to take a life than to stand by and do nothing. For instance, you should always try to help others (save a life), pretty much above all else. However, to take a life, requires taking action. Ie standing by as someone drowns is not the same as sticking someone under water. For murder you’re damned to hell. For standing by you’ll need to repent, but it’s a lesser sin.
The trolly problem IMO is a framing problem. (1) it assumes you know the future and (2) it assumes your will is above others.
The example I typically gave people when discussing this problem is actually in this fun exercise. Imagine if the 5 people strapped themselves to the tracks. Imagine they knew they would murder and wanted to die rather than murder. When you redirect the train, you actually cause more deaths, because you didn’t know the intent of those people.
The exercise helps you decide what you value. For me I never apply my outside influence to the system, except when I can save a life without costing a life. I believe life is more valuable than pretty much anything I saw in the game.
I’m a realist and objectivist. So for me the question is “what could I live with?” And “what information do I have to make a decision?”
In reality, everyone in this situation made their bed (so to speak). So I am unwilling to ever impose my will into the system baring saving a life (without costing one).