# data[].attributes.body
@acl05862 Responsibility of death of either five or one is on the train. If I was given the button to change the trail to kill one or five, then responsibility of making decision will be on me, however, in this situation, the lever was close to me. Let's say you are right about responsibility. While I am holding the lever, I asked someone near what to do and I did what someone suggested me to do. Who is responsible here?

# data[].attributes.body
@desmondj488 I understand that you disagree with me doing nothing and blame the machinery because I was given an opportunity to pull the lever to save one or five. I said I would not do anything because the train is the factor, the direct killer of five or one, meaning responsible for killing either one or five. I was given the choice but not the responsibility, therefore, at the moment I put my hands on the lever, responsibility falls on me. This is thinking of only the factor of responsibility. Isn't me not to do anything a decision as well? No matter the decision, the ending is bad since one or five will die. Also, the lever in the trolley problem would not quite be the same as the officer with the gun in the hands because the officer had a choice of not killing anybody, there were no sacrifice in choosing one.

# data[].attributes.body
@Takuto Masuda I think that the responsibility would fall on you regardless because all of you choice not to act your responsible for your death in that situation.

# data[].attributes.body
@desmondj488 I completely agree with your analysis of Black lives matter and how you relate it to this. The officer has a decision hey am I going to kill this person or not, it is a little different because there is a clear answer he shouldn't because its not exactly like the trolley problem where either way someone has to die. Overall I think your message and paragraph is strong and i think its good you say at the end at the end of the day we don't know what we would do or they would do in that situation until its been done.

# data[].attributes.body
The trolley problem is a very messed up situation to be in and anything we say is all hypothetical because we actually have no idea how we would respond to a situation like this. I think honestly I would kill the one person, is it ethical not really but if there's no alternative 5 people dying is worse than 1. I don't need any information or theory to tell me what is wrong or right in that situation one person dying is better than 5. This scenario I don't really think applies to our discussion day topic too much.

# data[].attributes.body
..... Knowledgeable enough to know how to react in life or death situations, they are rare moments in life that nobody is trained or ready for unless you have military background and even still that can be a difficult choice to make.

# data[].attributes.body
Black lives matter movement today. One person died and it affected almost everyone around the world to get up and do something passionately. Just like that we came to the conclusion that no matter what your job is you are not judge jury or executioner especially when it comes to innocent lives. We are outraged when people are wrongfully murdered and it's very hard and disturbing to see actions like that being made, with that being said the lever in the trolley problem is just like the gun in the hands of an officer of the law. They have ample time to make a decision to NOT take a life and yet they pull the trigger anyway instead of de-escalation tactics. So it's very hard to say what someone would do in a quick decision thinking situation, we are not

# data[].attributes.body
@Elisabeth just like how we are in this

# data[].attributes.body
@Takuto I disagree with doing nothing and letting the company and machinery take the blame because you have a chance whether it be a split second or a couple seconds to save someone. In the end we can't think about the aftermath o who or what is at fault, this theory allows us to take action without blame. The unknown element is at fault, we are just at odds with our moral code when faced with the problem. As people we have a responsibility to take action and if we don't i believe that is what causes the most harm. So I believe whether it's good or bad we would have to make a decision to save one or many.

# data[].attributes.body
@Takuto brings up a good point about "The Trolley Problem." If circumstances were different it would have to be handled is sort of like the "Yellow Traffic Light Problem." The main idea of this dilemma is each light is different and could cause some sort of destruction. The driver approaches a yellow traffic light and is faced with a decision to either accelerate or stop. It seems simple however, it can be difficult to judge. Those who decide to floor it risk their lives and the lives surrounding them if the light turns red and oncoming traffic is present. Those who stop or choose to slam on their breaks can risk causing an accident. The yellow traffic light defines how we choose to navigate our lives. There is NO right answer and everyone is going to react differently and any cause of death will result in despair.

# data[].attributes.body
@Elisabeth Copeland I agree with you and @desmondj488 ideas of who gives us the rights to judge and decide who dies in the end and to let one die and save five. I like your opinion that people would freeze if they were put in this situation because I mention something similar which people would not be able to make a decision. Since the situation is extreme, meaning only one has to die to save five. I am just curious but what if the situation was to choose between 100 people and 101 people? Will you still feel the same as killing one choosing to kill 100?

# data[].attributes.body
@Takuto Masuda, I like the way you analyzed "The Trolley Problem." This Ethical dilemma is absolutely a sacrifice. In order to save any lives, you must first take at least one life. That is like you said, "if you take responsibility." I would argue that if a person had the ability to do anything and they didn't that is morally wrong and unjust. A person doesn't have to accept the hero role because, in a split second, it is hard to make rational discussions. Especially concerning making decisions about the lives of others.

# data[].attributes.body
The "Trolly Problem" has long been a topic for ethical debate. The problem takes place on train tracks and debates the value of different people’s lives. The utilitarian way of thinking would suggest taking one person’s life versus multiple lives. However, I agree with @desmondj488 who gives us the right to judge and decide who dies in the end? If anyone were in that situation I believe they would freeze because that’s a terrifying situation to find yourself in. Since the class I have had a lot of time to think about this problem and I believe that the utilitarian way of thinking in this context is correct according to my beliefs. I believe this to be true because there would be more people impacted and affected if more people had been killed in order to save one person. People would still be affected by the one person’s life however the impact wouldn’t be as large. Also, I couldn’t live with myself if I killed one person let alone more than that (even if it was because of faulty machinery.)

# data[].attributes.body
@desmondj488 I agree with your statement that so many different factors can play in this situations. I like how you thought of the factors of the people's live such as what if one has many kids. What if the one is the single father who has six kids living in the farm unregistered in the system? Now the consequence is bigger than letting five people die. In my opinion, in reality, if a person was to put in the situation with a quick decision making, most will let one die and save five or a person would not be even able to make a decision because it is a heavy decision under the pressure.

# data[].attributes.body
In "The Trolley Problem", many would choose to pull the lever to sacrifice one and save the other five because it is the best outcome. However, many would choose not to sacrifice one when only way to stop the train is to push one off the bridge. In my opinion, other factors will play a big role in this situation. If responsibility is the factor, I will not do anything and let five die because the train or the train company will be taking the responsibility. Either way, if I put my hand on the lever or push a person off the bridge, then the responsibility will be on myself for killing one or five. If only considered about the outcome, I will definitely pull the lever to kill one or maybe I will throw myself to save five. Utilitarian theory informed my thinking in a way that the outcome or the consequence to kill one to save five. "The Trolley Problem" analysis can apply to our group's dialogue day topic of the sweat shop issues which a factory hires people with low wages for long hours and in a poor conditions while the luxurious company uses the sweat shop to satisfy the majority of people. This is very similar to the reading of "One Who Walks Away Omelas".

# data[].attributes.body
'The Trolley Problem' is about a choice to kill five people or one person, a utilitarian would suggest killing the one to save the majority but their many different factors that come into play when a making a decision like choosing who lives and who dies. It's hard for me to decide because if I am to believe this a real time scenario then it's a quick decision whether i go one way or the other. If i can stop, think and evaluate I could proceed to judge what is in front of me and then decide, i could factor in who has the most to lose? yes the one person dies but how many kids do they have? if they die is their family going to survive without them? what about the five people? what if they all just robbed a bank and they were making a getaway via the train tracks to evade the police? so many different things can happen but if this is a real time scenario I would save the five and let the one person die to save the majority group because in the end we are all people and everyone is born and shaped differently, no utilitarian should be allowed to speak for all people in one society and only in some life or death situations does majority rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisit “The Trolley Problem” and  consider what you think is the ethical thing to do related to this problem.  What factors come to mind for you when considering what is ethically required?  How does Utilitarian theory inform your thinking on this?  How might this Trolley Problem analysis apply to your group’s dialogue day topic?