# data[].attributes.body
While revisiting “The Trolley Problem,” I believe the ethical thing to do would be to pull the lever and instead of the five, the one worker dies. Though this is actively changing who dies and causes someone who was originally safe to be killed, in the Utilitarianmindset the good of five living as compared to one dying would be justification. The main factor that comes to mind when considering what is ethically required is the quantity of lives involved (both immediately and in repercussions.) According to Utilitarian theory, the harm and repercussions of losing one worker are heavily outweighed by that of the five workers. “The Trolley Problem” analysis applies to my groups dialogue day topic, Social Media and Society, by giving us a way to examine the ethical status of social media movements like #BLM and #MeToo like Julia and Hunter previously stated or just any other dilemma shown on or through social media.

# data[].attributes.body
Bella, I found what you said in your post to be extremely intriguing, in regards to what an individual may consider as the "obvious" thing to do, when put into this ethical dilemma. You are right, there are multiple perspectives one could have, and as you mentioned, we, the audience, could delve deeper into questioning "who is the worker on the spur"? "Is there a reason he is alone?" etc.  That thought had never crossed my mind before, but these uncertainties truly do play an integral role on how an individual may act in various ethical scenarios like such.

# data[].attributes.body
Savion, I agree with how you so there is no truly ethical way to solve the problem at hand because either way a live or lives will be lost. The way this problem works is based on the fact of the more people who are happy the situation should be executed. So is this regard that is why we are choosing the death of one worker not five.

# data[].attributes.body
Savion, I agree with how you so there is no truly ethical way to solve the problem at hand because either way a live or lives will be lost. The way this problem works is based on the fact of the more people who are happy the situation should be executed. So is this regard that is why we are choosing the death of one worker not five.

# data[].attributes.body
Yeah i dont know why i am anonymous but its Savion Joyles ^^^

# data[].attributes.body
Isabella i agree with you saying that the "right" thing to do is to kill the one person instead of the five and putting the word right in quotations. This is because there is not a right answer to this situation, either way someone has to die and for you to choose if another person life gets taken away is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Savion, I do agree with you the incident would be all over the media. I think we can both agree we all realize and recognize that either way this would be a tragedy although, having one person die over five is a little less tragic which is why we all agree with picking that option first.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisiting "The Trolley Problem" I believe that there really is no truly ethical way to solve this problem. This is because of the fact that in no matter which way you go there will be lives taken in each scenario. I feel that it is wrong for a person to choose between who lives and who does not because that is not their own life to choose for. In the situation if a choice had to be made id have to choose switching the lever so that only one person died instead of 5 people. This would save the most lives although the situation is still wrong. The factor that comes into mind is which decision will save the most lives. The thinking on this is related to utilitarianism because you would choose the option that satisfied you and made you the most happy, in this case for most people it would be allowing 5 people to live rather than only 1. This can relate to our topic of media and society because if you were to choose the one person to live rather than 5 you would be criticized and harassed for your decision. The incident would be all over the media any people would be upset with the choice you made in that moment and would shame you for that.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisiting "The Trolley Problem" I agree with Julia and Hunter, the best ethical thing to do is to just in general redirect the train. As it would only being killing one person opposed to five. Although a loss in general with either sides of the outcome would be a tragic, having only one person die compared to five people to just save one person is the 'right' thing to do ethically. A lot of factors that come to my mind when considering what is ethically required is what everyone else would think. What is the 'obvious' thing to do. I believe more people would believe killing one person over five people would be morally right compared to the alternative. Although, there are people who try to see all perspectives. For instance, who is on the other side of the tracks? The Utilitarian theory informs my thinking on this scenario as I would try to think more of the consequences but also who is involved in this situation to be able to better determine the ethical perspective. The Trolley Problem analysis applies to my group's dialogue day, as Julia mentioned,  the consequences of media movements. Which have been particularly very prominent lately whether its the about racial, gender/ gender stereotypes, and sexuality injustices.

# data[].attributes.body
Hunter, I completely agree with you, that in day-to-day life, there is absolutely no ethical justification for killing another individual, however, despite the circumstances of "The Trolley Problem", I agree with you, that it would be best to kill the one railroad worker on the spur, rather than to kill the five railroad workers on the other point. As both you and I stated, despite the public outrage of killing one worker, it is ultimately the "lesser of two evils" so to speak, and thus, I firmly believe the public would much prefer the death of one, over five.

# data[].attributes.body
Julia I agree i said relatively the same exact thing! Killing one person would favor utilitarianism because you're saving more happiness with not killing the 5 workers. Now I don't think this is right to kill anyone but we in this case I would choose the one person because it benefits society more.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisiting "The Trolly Problem" believes that the ethical thing to do would be to switch the tracks and redirect it towards the one worker instead of the 5. The factors that come to mind when determining this is how harmful killing 5 people can be rather than 1 even though killing 1 is indeed harmful its less harmful than killing 5 people. Now publicly there will be an outrage for the killing of one but there would definitely be more if we had stayed on the first track and killed the 5 workers. Utilitarian would back this up because they would want what benefits the most which would be killing of one, not 5. This relates to my group's topic in the way that we see on social media with the BLM movement which can be used to determine the ethical status of this movement.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisiting “The Trolley Problem” I believe that the ethical thing to do is so to pull the leaver, switch points, and to redirect the train (via the switch in points) to the spur, where only one worker will be killed versus the five workers that could have been potentially killed had you not switched the train’s original trajectory point. One particular factor that comes to mind when considering what is ethically required, is to think about the potential harm in losing five railroad workers, versus one railroad worker. Besides the public outrage and mourning for the death of the worker(s), what consequence would the public rather see, the tragic death of five, or the tragic death of one? Thus, the Utilitarian theory of  “consequentialist theory,”  informs my thinking on this scenario, as I personally would focus on the outcome/consequences of this particular situation in order to determine the ultimate ethical status of the action. Despite this scenario being seemingly “extreme,” “The Trolley Problem” analysis applies to my group’s dialogue day topic as the

outcomes/consequences of  particular social media movements, such as #MeToo movement, #BlackLivesMatter movement, etc., can be used to determine the ultimate ethical status of these various movement. For example,  the outcomes and the consequences of the **violent** (NOT the peaceful) protests from the #BlackLivesMatter movement can (arguably) determine the ethical status of the violent actions taken.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisiting "The Trolley Problem," what do 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?