? You've shown that you can make logical conclusions so why are you not applying it to the og question. The only real reason you've shown to kill 1 person to save 5 is because you wish to.

Yeah, I realized that we must have been talking about two different things. Oof. — ToothyMaw

So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE

Lol so what are your thoughts on this now.

They shouldn't put it on the road until they get that fixed!

If my logic is correct as you say, then if the lone person does not pull the lever, then the ability for six people to choose how they die is preserved or honored. I'm saying that the lone person on one of the tracks is the one pulling the lever, not me, to potentially save themselves, at the cost of the other five people on the other track. I should have made that clearer when I proposed the modified thought experiment. — ToothyMaw

Lol I mean't the original trolley problem as in the one they gave us in the beginning.

*It would be six choices preserved if the lone person decided not to redirect the trolley because by definition, they would be honoring their own choice to die when they want, and this choice would allow the five on the other track to still choose when and where they die. — ToothyMaw

This is logically correct.

So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it.

I just want to point out before I answer your question that their isn't 6 choices. When you sacrifice someone it means to kill them when they weren't predestined to die. You seem to look at this in a "I could have killed you if I wanted to but I didn't therefore I saved you" kinda of way. Which is unethical to say the least :lol:

The lone person's choice over when and where they want to die could lead to five other people losing that choice. — ToothyMaw

If somebody wanted to sacrifice 5 people to save themselves...that's none of my business :lol:.
Seeming that the only way to stop them would be to sacrifice them myself I'd be doing the same thing.

I'm not sure at the moment. Death can come at anytime and if someone wants to invoke it they have the agency to, but not in this situation. So I guess by switching that track I honour their ability to choose.

What is life for me to hold in such high regard :lol:

I would wipe out the entire universe and just be.

Sure, there is room for you to get involved but ultimately the decision you are making is whether you would sacrifice 1 life to save 5. That's not to say if there wasn't someone on that second track I wouldn't pull the lever because of "fate" haha, but at least then I can entertain the choice.

Death is inevitable. I’m not going to actively intervene and take responsibility for the death of the one person who might have lived. Besides, what real choice am I given? The train will follow its own course, and the outcome isn't determined by my selection of a track but by the natural progression of events. If you want to frame this in mathematical terms, you must recognize that this is not a simple equation of choosing between 1 and 5 lives. The probabilities and ethical weight aren't balanced, and I’m not the one who sets those outcomes in motion.