Anonymous #6 14w

One option offers less suffering

13

Anonymous #7 14w

Indeed 👀

2

Anonymous #7 14w

Indeed. If someone dies, they no longer suffer. The moment of death may be 100 suffering points, but the suffering accrued over a lifetime by one individual is far greater than 100. So, if they’re dead, that’s less total suffering.

-1

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

life isn't all about suffering? You're saying you would rather be dead rn

3

Anonymous #5 14w

Classic twist villain trope (It was me, I’m the villain)

7

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

That’s really dumb

8

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

THIS!!! like im expected to just live with the guilt that i think i killed someone my entire life? they could have just died fast.

3

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Wouldn’t it be immoral to deprive someone of all the good things they could’ve contributed to and experienced in life? Compared to the suffering you’d be experiencing, it’s no where like the depravation of a life you’d be taking away from them when you have the option not to

8

Anonymous OP 14w

#7 said “one option offers less suffering.” They meant if one way. I am simply arguing that if prioritizing the reduction of suffering is the goal, then not pulling the lever is superior. Also, it’s pretty clear #7 and #12 are not equipped for this conversation and should

-2

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

If one wishes to balance the suffering (negative) with the happiness of individuals, & the good they contribute to in life (positive), I must then take into account my own (negatives) and (positives). The most sober take is the average person doesn’t actually produce a whole lot of good in the world, most produce considerable bad things (lying, cheating, selfishness) in the process of living. Finding happiness at the expense of others is not uncommon.

-2

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Thus, why should i accept suffering for myself (pull the lever) for someone who will inevitably bring suffering into the world? This of course holds true that we will both probably have equal opportunities and attainment of happiness…which isn’t really “true,” but it does simplify the equation. If all positives are equal, and all negatives are equal, why should i choose some stranger’s welfare over my own? What an odd morality.

-2

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

How is the suffering of your mental state worse than the depravation of another’s life who may have very well been helping others suffering their whole life in many ways as we all do~ whether it’s by doing something like helping an elder or adopting a pet from a shelter. Sure now they’re contributing less bad but they’re also contributing less good and I don’t see how that has to do with their own suffering versus yours. I don’t think your suffering is worth more than depriving someone of life

4

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Most people consider their own needs above others. So many here are pretending as if they don’t, as if they’re some superior moral beings who gladly take significant suffering upon themselves for random strangers. Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

1

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Because it’s the difference between life and a mental state. I don’t think we should kill people unnecessarily even if it will save our mental state. The only time we kill others is when we’re in immediate physical danger due to them threatening our own life. This is a power imbalance situation, and you’d hope just as well they’d save you if you were on the tracks to deal with some mental baggage in return

4

Anonymous OP 14w

They may have been contributing more positives to the world than average, but, optimistically, it’s equally as likely they were contributing more negatives. Realistically, as most people prioritize themselves over others, some random person on the tracks being unusually good is unlikely. I don’t owe them my suffering. And when it comes down to it, this is exactly the decision the vast majority of people make every day. Eg when encountering a homeless person and ignoring them.

3

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Having a good mental state isn’t a need, a lot of people deal with that and work to get past it to live a fulfilling life. You can’t “work past” death. Someone literally running you over with a train. A need is something you can’t live without, you can live without a good mental state even if it may be hard and you get to off yourself at your own fruition so that’s your choice, but this person NEEDS you to not pull the lever in order to live, and you choosing to pull it actively kills them

5

Anonymous OP 14w

Whereas either way, you would’ve survived

2

Anonymous OP 14w

You still have not shown why it is moral to prioritize someone else’s wellbeing over my own to the degree that i must save some random stranger from a fate i have not caused by inflicting upon myself suffering i do not deserve. And again, im telling you, the *vast* majority of people live and act in accordance with my reasoning.

0

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

It’s like saying you’d kill someone who’s emotionally traumatized you. That person doesn’t deserve to die (I guess unless you believe in the death penalty for non-physical trauma), but you deserve resources to better your mental well-being even after the source of distress is removed. That doesn’t mean you should kill the source of distress which isn’t causing any physical harm to your body. If we can get into hypotheticals, perhaps someone like Gypsy Rose Blanchard was justified in the helping

5

Anonymous OP 14w

Of killing her mother because her mother was actively killing her with unnecessary surgeries and drugs. That was causing physical harm to her, so she needed to also use physical force in order to get out. Whereas her mom, on the other hand, was actually using her mental illness as an excuse to herself to inflict violence to her daughter. I also don’t know anyone who doesn’t suffer from mental trauma. It’s not an excuse to harm others

4

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

I would still pull the lever but I see sapiens point

5

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Option 1: Someone dies Option 2: Nobody dies 1 death > 0 deaths, therefore the lever must be pulled in order to be ethical.

5

Anonymous OP 14w

I wouldnt kill someone for emotional damage… but i wouldnt lift a finger to save them, most likely, if saving them would cause me harm.

-1

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

The only reason this action wouldn’t cause you any harm is because you and everyone else wouldn’t remember what you did. You would take the cop out. But what if you didn’t know who was on those tracks in this situation and it ended up being someone close to you? You’re taking away so many connections from others people have with the person on the tracks, all for your own selfish desires which doesn’t impact whether you’re deprived of life or the connections you have unlike the person you killed

3

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Under your ethical logic, stopping to pull someone from a burning car on the highway wouldn’t make sense because it would come with the risk of minor burns from yourself and the trauma from having to look at a burn victim. The most reasonable thing to do, under your logic, would be to avert your gaze and not even stop as you pass by because saving them would cause you harm.

9

Anonymous #15 14w

Which is what the vast majority of the people actually do. That’s why we call the people who stop and do something “heroes.” Because theyre so abnormal. They do the things nobody else does.

-1

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

This is a situation in which no one else is around, you’re the only one who can stop it. It’s the same logic as the trolley

4

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

I think you’re assuming that your own callousness is shared by the majority of people. In any traffic accident such as that, there are always many people who stop to assist immediately. I witnessed an elderly man fallen down in his driveway but was not able to stop in time. In the 15 seconds it took me to turn around and assist, five cars and a motorcycle had stopped. You are not normal, you just lack a baseline level of compassion that most humans carry.

5

Holy fucking yap fest

-2

Anonymous #12 14w

Not just you 8 but everyone

-2

Anonymous #12 14w

If you don’t want to engage in civil discourse about moral dilemmas then why would you even comment? You can turn off notifications for this post on the top right side of you screen, the green toggle button with a bell

6

yall are so special lmao “people are literally sacrificing themselves for the wellbeing of others all the time” BULL FUCKING SHIT 🤣 and yes, stopping to help an old man is definitely an accurate comparison here. They’re letting anyone into college these days

-5

Anonymous sapienthominin 14w

Yes, people do take on sacrifices to render aid to others all the time. If people didn’t, there would be no such thing as EMS or firefighters. And if your way of thinking were commonplace, then those services would not exist in the first place. Nor would things like food banks, or soup kitchens, or low-income housing, or Medicare, or any kind of social welfare, or anything that involves sharing a burden. You’re just wrong, and there’s so much evidence to support compassion being the norm.

8

Anonymous #3 14w

Same :/

6

Anonymous #2 14w

Yes I am.

3

Anonymous #17 13w

You should not be so ready to own that

3

Anonymous #5 13w

No need to pray, his existence has been disproven for centuries

1

Anonymous sapienthominin 13w

You really thought you ate

2