Friday Inspiration 5/23 by Grace Kappen

26kappeng — 2025-05-22 16:31:49 UTC

A trolley is barreling toward five helpless people on the tracks. You can pull the lever, diverting the trolley to a track where there is only one person. If you do, the five people will live, but you would be responsible for the death of one person who would have otherwise survived. Do you pull the lever? Why or why not?

Kyleigh Snyder

27snyderk — 2025-05-23 16:11:56 UTC

I think I would choose to pull the lever and have the trolley run over one person instead of five. I would feel horrible either way, but I would feel even more horrible knowing I could have saved five lives over just one. That one life is incredibly important, don't get me wrong, but there are five just as equally important lives on the line, too. If I did not pull the lever, than I would be faced with a lifetime of knowing I ruined so many family and friends lives, which is even worse than knowing I ruined one person's life. It's just a horrible situation either way, and I feel torn knowing I will be responsible for at least one death. However, I would rather be responsible for one death rather than five.

Emma Whare

26wharee — 2025-05-23 16:12:33 UTC

I would choose to pull the lever and sacrifice the one person. I think saving five lives is better than saving one because it saves the most lives possible in this situation. The issue with this answer is that I am actively intervening and choosing to sacrifice someone's life over staying out the situation and letting the trolly stay on its current path. I believe however that not doing anything is also actively making a choice which is why I intervened.

Maeson Eser

26eserm — 2025-05-23 16:12:37 UTC

I would pull the lever. If I didn't pull the lever I would still be responsible for 5 people being killed since I could have done something but decided not to. So, even though I would directly be responsible for the death of the one person I would still be responsible for saving the other 5. I could see if someone didn't want to pull the lever so they are not responsible for killing the one person, but I think that it would be even worse to not save the 5 people over the 1 person.

Grace Kappen

26kappeng — 2025-05-23 16:12:47 UTC

I would not pull the lever. You would be held legally liable if you pulled the lever, likely getting charged with manslaughter. In Pennsylvania, voluntary manslaughter is a first-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. However, if you let the five people die, you are not liable for that at all, so it's more adventageous to not do anything. Also, you don't necessarily have the weight of choosing for someone else to die on your conscience.

Mrs. Rose

alr2 — 2025-05-23 16:13:23 UTC

Given this description, it doesn't sounds as if the 5 people who are currently on path of the train will definitely die, so I am going to take the chance and not pull the lever with the hope that they can survive. Again, given the description, it sounds like pulling the lever will surely kill the one who would have otherwise survived, so that feels like the more tragic choice. There is obviously no good choice, and I would have to live with witnesses this for the rest of my life. Ugh.

Devon Decker

26deckerd — 2025-05-23 16:13:58 UTC

If I was responsible for whether or not the lever was pulled, I would struggle to choose. On one hand, I have the opportunity to help five people, but that comes at the cost of the one person. The individual is arguably the most vulnerable, as well, because they are suffering alone. Then the question is: does my reluctance to pull the lever make me guilty if the trolly was already headed their way? I believe that I would still be guilty because I have the power over whether or not the lever is pulled. So, I think I would choose to pull the lever to save the five people, however I would not be able to forgive myself for being responsible for the death of the individual. Either way, I would feel extremely guilty and I think I would always wonder if I made the right choice, because I don't believe there is a correct answer.

Joyan Rai

26raij — 2025-05-23 16:14:03 UTC

If the person that is alone is a stranger to me then I would divert it, killing them. I mean it's better to have 1 death on your hands than have 5. But if there were a way I could save all of the people there then I would try my hardest to make sure no one gets hurt.

Katie Straub

26straubk — 2025-05-23 16:15:06 UTC

I really do not like this problem and feel morally wrong either way. I would lean towards pulling the lever and letting one person die because it would minimize the number of people who died. I guess I would prefer that scenario. However, by not pulling the lever I would not be guilty of murder. I am not sure if I could live with murder on my conscience, but letting five people die is like seeing a burning building and not calling 911. Being a bystander is not a good thing. That is a major problem with how we view the world.

Luke Sokolofsky

26sokolofskyl — 2025-05-23 16:15:59 UTC

Considering that the people on the tracks in this case do not have relationships with the person directing the trolley, I think that the only option is to direct the trolley. With the format of the picture provided, it is clear that both sets of individual (both paths) are in equal danger, as there are only these two paths. Therefore, selecting the path with five people, if both paths are in equal danger, is simply unreasonable. I would obviously not want to select either path, but there is no reason at all to select the five people path If I do not know the single person. Therefore, I would divert the path.