Why is that so hard to believe? There are innumerable stories of people sacrificing themselves for other people. Everything from throwing oneself onto a grenade to having kids.

That is often to save people you know and care about, not complete strangers.

Lots of stories from 9/11 of people sacrificing themselves for strangers.

I too am a little confused. Might be helpful to remember that we will all soon be forgotten whether we reproduce or not.

Unless you chose every death-and-suffering-maximizing option for these absurd trolley problems, in which case you will be remembered for your reign of trolley-derived terror.

I'm a little confused by your rant when they clearly stated having kids as the sacrifice here - which makes a lot more intuitive sense than whatever antinatalist position you're projecting here onto them.

Also, while I'm firmly pro reproduction, this all sounds more than a little judgemental and presumptuous about the motivations of those that chose to not procreate.

I selected that one. Not because I'm particularly selfless, but because I think it's morally wrong to throw the switch whenever doing so amounts to killing someone, even when inaction results in more death.

I have a slightly different philosophy.

I don't make a conscious choice to take action that will cause a stranger's death (even if more people die because I didn't take action) with exceptions for my monkeysphere. In the case of the worst enemy one, I didn't hesitate to run them over. In the case of self preservation, I chose to save myself. In the case of my best friend, other people are gonna die. Etc.

It makes a lot of these pretty easy and a few (like first cousin vs 3rd cousins) a matter of happenstance, just like the happenstance that I was looking at these absurd trolley problems.

But why isn't NOT pulling the lever "taking action"?

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" - Morpheus, The Matrix

I'm curious how far you're willing to take that, e.g. if instead of a couple people on a track it was "press the button to confirm destroying the bomber and pilot or let the nuke drop on NYC due to lack of confirmation" counts?

That’s the eternal question :-)

Allow me a dodge: I think that I’d probably press the button, but that it’s strictly wrong for me to do so. Chalk it up to weakness.

What if the switch is a hair-trigger movement sensor, so you must stand very still not to trigger it?

Which one is "inaction" now, purposefully standing very still, or acting as you would have otherwise?

That completely changes the question because it gives you obvious deniability, whereas the lever probably does not. Especially if witnessed.

That matters legally (accidental death) versus intent (mens rea, murder).

It also matters socially, because you can deny that you made any choice even though you may have chosen (assuming you only do it once). You can even deny it to yourself.

It does beg the question: who set the trolley up to kill people, and why did you happen to be standing on the trigger?

It may have legal and social differences, but (imo) it should not have moral differences. Either way, there are two outcomes and you're picking one.

I'm just trying to poke at the gp's idea (paraphrasing) that inaction is morally blameless.

I think inaction refers to intent, not the way the wind blows. In the case of the hair trigger, I’d be morally obligated to stand very still, but it wouldn’t be particularly blameworthy if I happened to falter. This is in contrast to the normal switch, where I’d be to blame if I pulled it.

I tend to feel that is the general answer, but that at some (arbitrary) level of absurd disparity of outcome, it becomes morally imperative to act.

Like that 5-to-1 standard trolley problem is a hard question for me to answer, and on different days, I pick different answers. Probably "do nothing" most days. But if you made it 50,000,000-to-1, it is not a hard problem any more. Somewhere in between those two is "the line" where the fact that you are becoming a murderer is outweighed by the value of the life you saved.

Yes, if I could be certain that I could save 50,000,000 lives by murdering someone, I think it would be a moral imperative to do so. That wouldn't change the moral evil of murder, it just outweighs it.

I think. Don't ask what I'd do "in real life", I won't know until it happens (which I pray it will not)

I too was surprised. My gut reaction is this is "my guy" syndrome where people are still reasoning in the third person even though the problem says "you" - if you were to mad-scientist this experiment I bet you'd have a near 100% self-preservation response.

On the other hand, some of the responses have a small contingent disagreeing, and to explain those I would remind you of the Lizardman Constant [1]. That is, some pollsters just want to watch the statistics burn.

[1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

I don't think 59% of people would succeed in doing it and I say that as part of the 59%. At the same time I thought it was the "which is ethically preferable" answer which is what I interpreted the questions being about.

I'd sacrifice myself for five clones, not five random people. Or for the robots. Robots and clones have got it tough. Random people are probably dicks, and I've not been a great person either.

The fact that its so low is kind of disturbing, and the fact that you're so cynical about it being so high means maybe you should reassess your values.

Values don't mean anything if you're dead. Five complete strangers? Knowing how terrible people are, they would probably save themselves too if they could. Every man for himself.

That's such a sad perspective. I hope you have the chance to have the life experience in the future to make you think otherwise.

Life experience that would make me want to want to die if I was in this scenario? I sincerely hope I don't experience anything like that.

But I'm glad that innocent-minded people like you exist. Here's a question, if you had the choice between killing me or yourself, who would you choose?

"you" are not the thoughts and emotions that happens to reside in some sack of meat. Or at least that's not a complete picture. In some sense "ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" should be taken literally. 100% individualism is not the only mode of being a person, and not the default or "best" mode.

These are mostly gut feelings and unfinished thoughts. I'm not sure about any parts of it except "it's not a complete picture". I'd love to hear any thoughts on this and reading recommendations are welcomed.

I would not let myself die to save one person, but I certainly might to save two people. (There are lots of assumptions that go into this, of course.)

> Knowing how terrible people are,...

I am probably just as terrible in their eyes.

Some people might not value their own life very much.

I'm probably not the only one that agreed to do this not to save others but to, your know...

Or some people stopped reading the prompts after they started getting repetitive.