What is the best solution to the famous tram puzzle?

Personally, I think that Baoyi is the best solution. In many cases, it is difficult to measure gains and losses and calculate happiness, hence utilitarianism.

The feasibility is not high. For example, in this case, a person's life may involve the safety of dozens of people, because the person has family, relatives, and friends, or the social contribution that a person can make may be far greater than the other five, and we cannot simply think that 5 is greater than 1, so we should give up 1 and guarantee 5.

But in reality, it is an indisputable fact that people's thinking is so utilitarian, or that the thinking of the public does not keep up with that of the elites, and that most ordinary people choose to sacrifice one to save the other five, that is, the majority still choose utilitarian results. Because the value of human life lies not in quantity, but in quality.

If all five of them are murderers who do bad things.

Or the bad guy, and the other person is a real contributor to society, or for scientists who are very important to humanity as a whole, how should we choose? Even from a utilitarian point of view, the tram problem does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that kill 1 save 5, the life of 5 individuals is certainly important, and it can also represent greater happiness, but upholding the rules of society and protecting the rights of those who follow them can promote overall happiness.

This is what we need in the issue of trams, and the contracts, rights and obligations to be followed as members of society need to be maintained at cost in order to remain stable. The rule was put in place to ensure an increase in the net well-being of the group, but it does not guarantee zero damage. Rules cannot be easily integrated, otherwise the stability and authority of the rules will be compromised, which will harm the interests and well-being of each member of the rule system to a greater extent.

If you have other different ideas and views, you can share your personal views in the comment area below, if you like me, you can pay attention to it, and finally wish you all the best.

I think the best solution is to do nothing and let it happen. Then we will not have any responsibility, nor will we have God's right to decide who lives and who dies.

The famous tram conundrum is to make a choice according to the situation, and the best solution is that when this happens, neither side chooses so that there is no chance of saving one side and giving up the other.

The best solution is probably to give up your family to take care of everyone. Because in the survival of human beings, the interests of the majority must always be the main thing, so the interests of the majority can only be preserved at the expense of the interests of the few.

I have only one word: no! The problem of the train itself is the result of human beings' own shortcomings, and instead of thinking about how to solve it, it is better to think about how to avoid such a choice.

It's just a false proposition, the train is on the track, and it is parked through the signal light, how can you choose the track at will? At most, it is emergency braking or reversing to deal with emergencies, and I have never heard that trains can change tracks on their own.

What should I do if the tram changes tracks and overturns? What should I do if the track is old and will overturn? It seems that abandoning the minority to save the majority, but in fact, it is saving the minority and abandoning the majority, and there are still many passengers on the train.

Tram conundrumThe perfect solution: sacrifice the few to preserve the majority.

in analytic philosophy.

field, much of the recent work has been pinned on gaining new insights from imagined events.

Thought experiments, as short imaginary scenes, have been developed by philosophers who have devised independent, often very different from the everyday life in which we form and practice morality, in order to justify certain ethical norms.

Of these thought experiments, the "trolley problem" is probably the most famous (or notorious) one, which shows the permissibility of sacrificing a small number of people to save more lives on the tram.

Considering that thought experiments have existed almost as old as philosophy itself, the recent philosophical community seems to have taken it with some unusual importance. There are scenarios that are so different from reality that the judgments made in them are considered to be generalizable and serve as a reference for our daily behavior.

From a philosopher's point of view, even if Thomasson's conclusions are slightly contradictory, the point here is clear. But when I retold this thought experiment to the clinician.

Most of them don't think it's a good case and it's a bit confusing.

The problem is that they know too much. For these clinicians, the case is in physiology and regulation.

are unreasonable, and also lack the necessary details.

In addition, the doctors found that the case deliberately ignored many of the better options available in reality, such as dialysis or transplantation. As a result, it is difficult for a good doctor to even find a metaphor for pregnancy in this thought experiment.

Break the wheels and stop moving forward. Or blow down the front of the tram so that the tram wheels get stuck in the tracks. Destroy kinetic energy, destroy the threat body to a certain extent to achieve the effect, when you master the threat. You have far more options than you can master the levers.

I have an idea, if the lever is pulled down, but not completely pulled down, and it gets stuck in the middle, as long as the distance between the tracks is far enough, it should not be able to get those six people.

Just dismantle the tracks.

There is no final answer to the tram puzzle, and everyone has a different answer.

The "Trolley Problem" is one of the most well-known thought experiments in the field of ethics, which roughly follows: a madman ties five innocent people to a tram track. An out-of-control tram was coming towards them and was about to run over them in a few moments.

Luckily, you can pull a lever and let the tram go to another track. The problem, however, is that the madman also tied a man to another tram track. Considering the above situation, should you pull the lever?

The tram puzzle was first developed by the philosopher Philippa. Philippa Foot's 1967 book The Dual Effects of Abortion and Dogma was used to critique the major doctrines in ethical philosophy, especially utilitarianism. Utilitarianism argues that some of the moral decisions made are based on the principle of "providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people."

From a utilitarian point of view, the obvious choice should be to pull the lever and save five people and kill only one. But critics of utilitarianism argue that once the lever is pulled, you become complicit in immoral behavior – you are partly responsible for the death of a single person on the other track. However, Sun argues that if you are in such a situation, you will be required to do something, and your inaction will be equally immoral.

In conclusion, there is no such thing as perfect ethical behavior, and that's the point.

I just saw a statement, I think it makes sense, and I copy it:

Moko Ōtori.

Kill one person to save the world, not kill one person to benefit the world; Killing oneself to save the world is killing oneself to benefit the world. In the middle of things, the weight is sought. Seek it, not either. Take the small among the harms, seek righteousness, and not righteousness.

It is a last resort to celebrate and win big. Take the small of the harms, and have no choice but to do so. Taking what is unprecedented is the greatest of the benefits. Abandoning what is already there is is a small one in the midst of harm.

That is to say, it is just to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others, or to sacrifice a few in a crisis when the world is overturned. His carelessness, whether at the expense of the majority or the minority, is unjust.

So the problem of the tram was converted into whether one person died or five people died, and the harm was great. The lesser of two evils.

There is no final answer to this question, human life is equal, and human life is not comparable.