Over 3 million children under the age of 5 starve to death every year. I think one of them could easily be saved by an investment of under $100,000. They continue to starve and billionaires continue to exist.

You and your pals travel back in time to kill Baby Hitler, but a mix up takes place, and now you don't know which baby is which! It's either Baby Hitler and four innocent babies in the path of the trolley, and your great-grandpa on the diverted path, or it's Hitler on the diverted path, and Stan Lee's father and four innocent babies on the other!!!

Do you divert the trolley to save the father of Stan Lee, creator of Spiderman, Iron Man, the X Men, and the Fantastic Four, and kill Baby Hitler? If so, you risk saving Hitler and killing your own great-grandfather, thus ending your very own existence! Or, do you let the trolley be, to save your own ancestor, and kill baby Hitler, and four innocent babies? If so you risk saving Baby Hitler and killing Stan Lee's father, thus depriving the world of all our beloved super heroes that enriched the childhoods of millions of children worldwide?? WHAT DO YOU DO?

I think 2 that would be fucked up to do number one like that but in theory it’s probably better to let 1 die

I've seen various posts ask the "hospital" question that goes "would you take one person's life and use the organs to save multiple peoples' lives" and a common response is that it would be inhumane, although outcome-wise it might seem identical to the classic trolley problem. In the extreme case that the problem takes place in an extremely remote, poorly equipped hospital (yes I just reused the word "extreme"), where immediate help is practically unavailable and the two options of doing nothing or taking action as described before are the only ones available, I would tend to act like in the usual trolley problem. But things change as we move to a not-so remote place: There are way more ways things could play out, the situation is no longer binary and the consequences could be way more complex. If we choose to act that way there would be less pressure to create a long-term solution for the shortage of organs and undermine trust in medical institutions, harming more people in the long run. I think that in general the "kill one to save many" approach only applies to either-or problems with a limited palette of outcomes, and as the problem grows in complexity so do the ethical implications of each choice.

You are tied to a chair and hear words from title. Before you are two hidraulic presses. Under one is 5 people glued to floor, under second one is one people, also glued. You can reach both buttons activating each of them separately. Which do you choose?

(if don't make a choice you will be hit in balls by a ballkicker machine untill you choose. If you don't possess them you you will grow a pair for the duration of the experiment)

You soon realize the first one has no health issue at all and will soon wake up. However, the five others all have different organ failures that will kill them in a matter of minutes. The healthy one possesses all the healthy and matching organs that could be transfered to the dying patients. Do you go against fate and kill the healthy patient to save the 5 dying ones? You would have enough time to transfer all the organs before the 5 patients die from organ failure. The healthy patient could be killed whilst unconscious as to not deal any pain

Edit: Maybe this isnt a 1:1 to the original trolley problem but I wonder why everyone seems to agree that it isnt right to kill someone to save 5 others in this case but the majority would do so when its with a trolley?

Edit 2: Just to clarify, when I first encountered the trolley problem I was shocked to realize most people would sacrifice one person to save the 5 that are destined to die. I thought it was way too utilitarian for my taste to decide to kill someone who would have otherwise survived based on the fact that their life is less important than that of 5 people who are going to die. So I rephrased the problem in a way I think most would understand my point of view. Im aware its not the best representation of it but I think it still shows that people may not be as ready to kill someone for the fate of others as they say they would be when confronted with the trolley problem

Interactive Trolley Problem you don´t want
Stalin vs. Hitler

Originally posted on Philosopedia

In r/philosophymemes, no one got the point of the meme, 😂