Should you switch the trolley track on the problem described in the description section below?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This is the description I am referring to. Kritiks aren't allowed.
Trolley Problem: This is my version of the story we will be using and using any other stories that contradicts my tale will be against the rules and any points based on said other stories will be nullified.
Suppose on your job you are driving a trolley that can't be stopped for some reason, and there are 5 people tied to the track on your usual route that is the cleanest, and there is a single person tied onto an unused branch that leads to a whole different place(that can, however, lead back to your usual route, but you do not know where this branch leads to exactly). The 6 people never ride your trolley and you do not know them. In the trolley there are approx. 20-30 passengers. You have the choice of going straight and crush those 5 people vs switch the track to turn to the right, and going on a branch killing 1 person. Which one do you choose?
I, Intelligence_06, will choose the Pro stance, that is, said driver should keep going straight and in the way crushing 5 people to their death.
You, the challenger, will choose the Con stance, that is, said driver should turn to the right, go on a branch and crushing 1 person.
The Burden of Proof is shared. Good luck!
- Doing your job is more important than doing things that explicit prevent you for carrying our your mission within your job
- Your job is to drive the trolley and deliver the people to the stations, not to save random people on the tracks
- Thus, driving the trolley is more important than saving people on the tracks
- Thus, you should prefer going on the original path.
- Going on the main path is your job and doing it instead of things directly against it is better.
- We should protect people we are meant to protect in favor of people we are not meant to protect.
- Driving over 5 people will more likely to slow your trolley to a more acceptable speed, preventing further injuries for the passengers.
- The 5 people are ready for death, driving over them is more or less OK.
- The 1 person is not ready for death. You know the drill.
- You should go straight on the main path, crushing 5 people, but may more or less save the 20-30 people you are supposed to save.
“Going on the main path is your job and doing it instead of things directly against it is better.”“Driving over 5 people will more likely to slow your trolley to a more acceptable speed, preventing further injuries for the passengers.”
“The 5 people lying on the original track must have had accepted their fate to be crushed by trolley, while the one person, who accepted that he should be able to live longer because the main path is where the trolley should go.”
would you sacrifice 1 person for 5, or would you sacrifice 5 for 21-31?
the latter choice saves many more people, at least 5 times as much.
The reason we don't murder children is that usually, it nets in a negative result. If somehow it results in a positive result, then killing kids is the way.
The reason both are seen as immoral and incorrect is that they usually result in negativity, not because of what fixed reason my opponent presented.
Bumping over a single person is simply not enough to stop the trolley to an acceptably slow speed, at least not compared to 5 people.
The 5 people, they are ready for death. The 1 person, nope. The 20-30 on the trolley? Nope, not at all, and it is certainly not my fault these people died, because I am just tryn' to do my damn job.
This is a classic equivocation fallacy. My opponent is changing the definition of “sacrifice” between each use. In the first case, it means to flatten one person with a train to spare the five, and in the other, it means to flatten five to make sure the passengers meet their job quotas. The difference is so stark that I shouldn’t need to point it out, and so blatant that I’m mildly surprised PRO opted to stake so much on it.
Once again you have overstepped the boundaries you enacted for this debate, making claims about hospitalization, and readiness for death, both of which lie outside the scope of our discussion and only serve to sap the dilemma of its ethical imperative.
Suppose there are 5 people standing on a roof, saying, "You can push me off it."
- Life has intrinsic value and is not to be treated as disposable or a means to an end. To deny this is to negate your own moral worth, which is not something a mentally stable person could do with any measure of sincerity.
- Consequentialism necessitates that you sponsor all deeds, regardless of moral character, insofar as the actor has sufficient reason in his own mind. Civilization cannot be upheld if governed by such a distorted outlook on the world.
- If my opponent concedes to consequentialism, he must accept all the baggage, stigmas, and conclusions attached to it. This includes endorsement of Hitler, Stalin, Caesar’s murderers, and virtually every other despicable person who has ever lived.