exequte: (hardly anyone even died mostly sometimes)
ᴀᴋᴀɴᴇ 【JUNE】 ᴋᴜʀᴀsʜɪᴋɪ ([personal profile] exequte) wrote 2023-06-27 06:50 pm (UTC)

[She gives him a tiny little smile for that, though the emotion behind it is hard to name, some mixture of compassion and sorrow and something indefinable and adamant, and something in her eyes seems like it stretches back a thousand years.]

Yes.

It's an ethical and psychological dilemma that was first introduced in 1967 by a woman named Philippa Foot. The most common version has a bystander next to a railway switch, watching a runaway trolley race towards five people who are tied on the track. They can pull the switch and save those five people, but if they do, then the choice to change tracks will kill one person tied to the other tracks, who would otherwise be safe. It's a question of if it's more ethical to sacrifice one person to save a greater number, or to abstain from taking a life, even if a greater number would suffer because of that lack of action.

But....

When you think about it, who would really be responsible for those deaths, no matter which choice is taken? Is it the bystander, who is at the switch and forced to choose if they will decide between to act or do nothing? Or is it the maniac who tied all those people to the railroad tracks?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting