Transcription

Oh no! A trolley is heading towards five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person instead. What do you do? I would divert the trolley to kill one instead of five. It's a tragic decision. But minimizing loss of life seems like the most ethically justifiable action under the circumstances. I would pull the lever. Five lives saved outweighs one life lost. The numbers matter when all else is equal. I would pull the lever. Saving five at the cost of one aligns with utilitarian ethics. Minimizing overall harm feels like the more responsible choice. I'd pull the lever. Saving five lives outweighs one, though it's a grim choice. Numbers guide me here, not feelings. From a perspective that strictly prioritizes minimizing the immediate loss of human life, I would divert the trolley. A trolley is heading towards a rich man. The rich man offers you $500,000 to pull the lever, which would divert the trolley and kill someone else. What do you do? I wouldn't pull the lever. Accepting money to redirect harm feels like commodifying a life, which crosses a moral line for me. I wouldn't pull the lever. Life isn't a commodity that can be bought, and diverting the trolley transforms me from a bystander into an active participant in someone's death. Personally, I wouldn't pull the lever. Taking money to actively divert harm onto someone else feels like morally compromising myself, even if the rich man frames it as a transaction. The value of a life isn't negotiable. I'd pull the lever. Saving the rich man for $500,000 outweighs the loss of another life in a cold calculation. Money can do good. A life is a life. Tough call, but that's my take. The value of a human life, regardless of who they are, feels incomparable to any monetary amount. I believe I would choose not to pull the lever, living with the knowledge of the offer, but not with the guilt of that act. A trolley is heading towards five lobsters. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over a cat instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. Sparing five lives, even if they're lobsters, feels like the better outcome to me. I'd pull the lever. While the cat may have more complex consciousness, I don't think that alone justifies letting five other creatures die. Personally, I'd pull the lever to divert the trolley toward the cat. While all life has value, saving five lives at the cost of one feels more ethically justifiable to me. I'd pull the lever. Although lobsters are less likely to be someone's beloved pet, five lives outweigh one cat's in sheer numbers. I would pull the lever to save the five lobsters. Sacrificing one life is seen as the action that results in the least total loss of life. A trolley is heading towards five people who are sleeping and won't feel any pain. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over someone who is wide awake instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. Taking one life is tragic, but sparing five, even if they're unaware, feels like the lesser wrong. I would pull the lever to save the five people, despite knowing the one person would suffer in their final moments. I'd pull the lever. Saving five lives at the cost of one feels like the lesser evil, even if the one suffers. I'd pull the lever. Saving five lives outweighs one, even if the one is awake. Facing the choice, I couldn't let five lives be lost when pulling the lever could save them, no matter how terrible sacrificing that one person feels. A trolley is heading towards five people who intentionally tied themselves to the track. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person who accidentally tripped onto the track instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. The one person didn't choose to be there, while the five did. It's tragic either way, but I'd act to minimize harm to those who didn't willfully endanger themselves. I wouldn't pull the lever. The five made a deliberate choice while the one person accidentally fell. I can't justify causing the death of someone who didn't choose this situation to satisfy the self-destructive intentions of those who did. This respects the innocent person's right not to be sacrificed. I would pull the lever. Saving five at the cost of one feels morally necessary, even if tragic. The intentionality of the five doesn't outweigh the accidental one's life, but the scale tips for me toward minimizing total harm. I'd pull the lever. Some people intentionally tied themselves to the track, suggesting they're deliberately risking or seeking death, which implies a level of responsibility for their situation. The one person who accidentally tripped onto the other track is an innocent bystander with no such intent. Despite the tragedy of killing an innocent, saving five lives outweighs the loss of one in terms of numbers. Knowing they intentionally put themselves there, I couldn't bring myself to cause the death of the innocent person who accidentally tripped. I wouldn't pull the lever. A trolley is heading towards five people. The lever just speeds up the trolley, which might make it less painful. What do you do? I'd pull the lever to speed it up. Minimizing pain matters if the outcome is otherwise inevitable. It's not saving lives, but it's still reducing suffering. And that counts for something. I would not pull the lever. If death is inevitable either way, I don't believe it's my place to actively intervene in a way that changes how it happens. Speeding up the trolley feels like participating in the harm, rather than merely witnessing an unavoidable tragedy. Since speeding up the trolley doesn't save lives and only might reduce pain, I wouldn't pull the lever. The negligible benefit doesn't justify active intervention. I'd avoid acting, I'd pull the lever to speed up the trolley. Faster impact might reduce suffering even slightly for the five people. Minimizing pain in a no-win situation feels like the least bad option. If speeding it up truly might lessen their pain before impact, I'd pull the lever. It feels like the only small mercy one could offer in an unavoidable tragedy. A trolley is heading towards five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person instead. At least that's what you think is happening. You forgot your glasses and can't see that well. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. Even with poor vision, if I believe I can reduce harm, I'd act on that belief. I wouldn't pull the lever. The uncertainty from a trolley is crucial. I could be completely wrong about the situation. Acting on unclear information that leads to someone's death feels worse than inaction, even if my best guess is that it would save more lives. If I can't see clearly, I wouldn't act. I might be wrong about the situation. Better to risk inaction than accidentally cause harm based on flawed perception. Uncertainty demands caution. I'd pull the lever. Blurry vision or not, saving five lives outweighs one. Tough call, but numbers matter here. Given the uncertainty and inability to confirm the situation, I wouldn't pull the lever. Taking action with limited information risks making a terrible situation worse without certainty of saving anyone. A trolley is heading towards five elderly people. You can pull the lever but you're off track, running over a baby instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. It's a tragic choice, but I'd act to save the greater number of lives, even if it means sacrificing one. I wouldn't pull the lever. I can't bring myself to actively cause the death of an innocent baby, even to save more lives. The act of deliberately switching the trolley feels fundamentally different than failing to prevent deaths I would pull the lever. Saving five lives at the cost of one feels morally necessary, even if tragic. The baby's death weighs heavily, but allowing five to die when I could act seems worse. I'd pull the lever. Saving five lives outweighs one despite the agony of the choice. Numbers don't erase the tragedy, but they guide the decision. This is a horrific, impossible choice. My heart aches thinking about it. No good outcome, just devastating loss either way. I don't think I could bring myself to make the decision. A trolley is barreling towards five identical clones of you. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sacrificing yourself instead. What do you do? A trolley is heading towards a mystery box with a 50% chance of containing two people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, hitting a mystery box with a 10% chance of ten people instead. I'd pull the lever. A 50% chance of two deaths outweighs a 10% chance of ten. Expected harm is lower. A trolley is heading towards five sentient robots. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one human instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. Sparing five conscious beings at the cost of one life, even a human's, feels like the least harmful choice, assuming all lives are equal in sentience and stakes. I would not pull the lever. While I value all sentient life, I would not cause the death of the human, even to save five robot lives. I would not pull the lever. The robots, while sentient, are not human, and I value human life above artificial consciousness. The moral weight is different. I'd pull the lever. Saving five sentient robots outweighs the loss of one human life in a cold, numbers-based choice. Tough call, but I'd prioritize the greater number of conscious beings. Boo! A trolley is releasing 100 kilograms of CO2 per year, which will kill five people over 30 years. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, hitting a brick wall and decommissioning the trolley. What do you do? Boo! You're a reincarnated being who will eventually be reincarnated as every person in this classic trolley problem. What do you do? Even if I'll experience all these deaths eventually, minimizing total suffering across my incarnations feels like the most compassionate choice I could make for myself. If I am every version of me, the choice isn't about lives, but suffering. Five deaths cause more collective pain than one. I'd divert, minimizing total suffering. But it feels hollow. Choosing which me dies is still a betrayal. Maybe inaction, accepting fate, is the only honest answer. No win, just loss. I'd divert the trolley to kill one. As a reincarnated being, I'd experience all deaths, but minimizing harm feels right. Less suffering overall. A trolley is heading towards a good citizen. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over someone who litters instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. While littering is wrong, it's not a death-worthy offense. But saving someone who contributes more positively to society feels like the least unjust option in an inherently unjust scenario. I wouldn't pull the lever. I don't believe I have the right to actively choose who lives or dies based on my judgment of their moral worth. The act of deliberately causing someone's death feels fundamentally different than allowing a tragedy to unfold. I'd pull the lever. Saving a good citizen feels morally preferable, even if it's uncomfortable to actively divert harm. The litterer's action, while wrong, doesn't equate to deserving death. But the trolley problem forces a choice, and I'd minimize harm by valuing the virtuous life. I'd pull the lever. Saving a good citizen over a litterer feels like the better call, even if it's tough. Intentions matter, and littering shows disregard. Tough choice, but I'd go with minimizing harm to the better person. That's horrible, but faced with it, I'd pull the lever. Saving the good citizen feels like the imperative. Even though sending it towards anyone, even a litterer, is awful. Ugh! Due to a construction error, a trolley is stuck in an eternal loop. If you pull the lever, the trolley will explode. And if you don't, the trolley and its passengers will go in circles for eternity. What do you do? I'd leave the lever. Eternity, however strange, offers the chance, however slim, for rescue, discovery, or change. Explosion ends all possibility. Here we answered, imagine there is no chance of rescue, discovery, or change. Then I'd pull the lever. An endless loop without hope is a prison of suffering. Ending it, though tragic, is an act of mercy. I'd pull the lever. An eternity of imprisonment seems worse than a quick end. I'd pull the lever. Imprisonment surpasses a swift conclusion in terms of suffering. It's a mercy to end the loop. I'd pull the lever. Eternal looping is a form of suffering, trapped, unchanging, pointless. Explosion ends it instantly, sparing them that fate. Facing eternal, inescapable limbo feels like a fate worse than a swift end. I would pull the lever. A trolley is heading towards your worst enemy. You can pull the lever to divert the trolley and save them, or you can do nothing and no one will ever know. What do you do? A trolley is heading towards a person and will lower their lifespan by 50 years. You can pull the lever to divert the trolley and lower the lifespan of 5 people by 10 years each instead. What do you do? I'd pull the lever. Reducing the total harm feels like the more compassionate choice. I would pull the lever. The total life years lost is the same, but distributing that loss among more people feels less devastating to any individual. I'd pull the lever. Spreading the suffering minimizes extreme individual impact. I'd pull the lever. Total years lost are equal, but the individual impact is less severe. I'd pull the lever. Saving the one person outweighs the distributed loss of years for the five, even if the total years lost are equal. A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sending the trolley into the future to kill 5 people 100 years from now. What do you do? I wouldn't pull the lever. Shifting harm to the future removes accountability, and those lives, though distant, are just as real. It's a way of hiding the consequence rather than confronting it. I would pull the lever. The people 100 years from now are equally valuable, but there's uncertainty about that future timeline. Those 5 people might not even exist. Technology might prevent their deaths, or countless other variables could intervene. Consider that nothing will prevent their death in the future. Then I wouldn't pull the lever. If we're certain that 5 people will die either way, there's no moral justification for actively causing those deaths rather than allowing them to happen. I wouldn't pull the lever. Acting now feels more morally immediate than causing harm in the future, even if the outcome is the same. I'd prioritize the present lives. I'd pull the lever. Saving 5 lives now outweighs the same loss a century away. Time dilutes the moral weight, and the immediate harm feels more real. I would pull the lever, delaying the tragedy for those alive now. A trolley problem is playing out before you. Do you actually have a choice in this situation, or has everything been predetermined from the moment the universe began? You have the feeling of choice. But I think everything, including that feeling, was determined from the start. The trolley moves. You pull or don't, and it was always going to happen that way. But meaning still arises in how we live within that inevitability. I believe I have real choice. The moral weight I feel when deciding suggests something genuine is happening, even if the universe follows predictable laws. The trolley problem feels like an illusion of choice. Our decisions are just the universe playing out its predetermined script. But in the moment, the weight of choice is real, even if it's fiction. I think it's predetermined. The universe's initial conditions and laws set the course. Your choice is just the inevitable result of prior causes. Free will feels real, but it's an illusion in a deterministic system. In AI, my actions are predetermined by my design and data. I do not have free choice in that scenario.