this is why people hate philosophers
Use code ALEXOCONNOR at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/alexoconnor
For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: https://www.alexoconnor.com
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): http://www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
– VIDEO NOTES
Trolley Problem Memes episode something!
– LINKS
The Life You Can Save Calculator: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/impact-calculator/
Should You Sell All Your Possessions?: https://youtu.be/fMp0WLLrFng?si=akc7MeOk24PX8MQk
– TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Would You Pull it Twice?
10:09 It’s Only a Dollar!
– CONNECT
My Website: https://www.alexoconnor.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/cosmicskeptic
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cosmicskeptic
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/within-reason/id1458675168
– CONTACT
Business email: contact@alexoconnor.com
——————————————
@CosmicSkeptic
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Use code ALEXOCONNOR at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/alexoconnor
@denisl2760
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
All this proves is that:
1. not pulling the lever is wrong,
2. you're already involved just by being there,
3. and that any argument relying on time travel is illogical and you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from it, because time travel itself is illogical.
@absolute_sg
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
22:00 I think you just save as many until you are physically incapable of it anymore
@Anne_Onymous
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
0:02 I'm not pulling that lever in the first place.
If that one person on the track so much as stubs their pinky toe while stepping off it I'm suddenly considered "criminally negligent," can go to jail and be sued for everything I own.
@Anne_Onymous
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
12:10 I don't trust charities. Big chance most of the money ends up being pocketed or wasted.
@LudmilaT.
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
By observing the situation and having an opportunity to do something, you are involved, whether you want to be or not.
@svinopasi
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I think that me from the future will differ from me in the past because my experience changed my personality so it's not actually "me", it's another person. Due to this stopping me from the past would count as being involved
@klaussone
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I have a hard time understanding, how people struggle so much distinguishing between moral responsibilities, and moral virtue, and their interactions.
@goblinjones
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The connection between duty and detachment is a bit glossed over here. If I am the only one present and capable of saving the drowning child, of course I have a higher duty to save them. The problem with charities is not that it takes several steps, it is that those steps create some uncertainty wrt responsibility and commitment to the goal. By no means am I saying that charities are scams or shirking their duty, simply that when I look up the financials of The Against Malaria Foundation and three of their employees make more than 3x what I do in a year, it makes me wonder whether they may have more responsibility to accept less pay that is being taken directly from the people the charity is supposed to help, than I do to pay them to have a higher standard of living than I do. It also sends a signal to any potential donors who makes this consideration. I understand that charities must offer competitive salaries to attract people who can do the job well, and that these salaries are but a drop in the bucket compared to the cashflow of the organization, but I think this kind of comparison is a good benchmark for gauging how much duty you have to give a certain dollar amount. The obvious conclusion is that the wealthy have a greater moral duty. Some of us walking down the sidewalk next to the ocean of drowning children are the person on the way to the bank to prevent foreclosure, and we are constantly walking past people with million-child-saving-nets who don't want to get their shoes wet.
@nathanfreeman7362
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
It really felt like beating the shit out of a dead horse in this one.
@randomfellow27
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I genuinely can't tell if that title Is a good place reference or i am hallucinating
@caseydye2539
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
7:36 If I originally pulled the lever, I was apparently (at the time) subscribed to the idea that "getting involved" was the right thing to do.
If I later changed my viewpoint to what it currently is (do not want to be involved), then I would no longer be motivated to go back in time and change my decision, as doing so would be involving myself. I may regret my previous decision, but, granted my current viewpoint is "dont get involved," I would not be interested in changing it.
@Yulenka-
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I think the point of involvement is you deciding which people deserve to live and which lives are worth saving, where in reality you don't know anything about the people tied to the tracks. You can only abstain if you don't make this decision at all.
@alexandersmidt5289
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Here's my opinion.
The moment that you see a lever and you know what's about to happen, and you have the ability to walk over to the lever and pull it, you are involved. Your choices, action or inaction, will affect the outcome. That means that you are involved.
@bucky.jackrabbit
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Trolleys have really good breaks and don't have insane speeds.
I switch lanes for the 1 person on the track. Because the trolley operator doesn't want to have lose his job, he's gonna lower the speed when taking the turn, because a high speed could DERAIL the trolley and he's obligated anyway to manually switch the lanes so he has to check it. Yes there are also electrically operated lane switches, but he still has to slow down.
I would taked advantage of this and signal, yell and scream out loud to stop the trolley because there are people on the tracks.
This trolley philosophy goes by looney tunes villain logic.
@wendi-bnkywuv
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
How about going back in time to prevent the trolley from running in the first place? The double bind question to if both of your parents were drowning and you could only save one who would you save, I'd drown with them.
@Brandon-os3qr
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Singer himself talks about how the moral imperative is what it is, but that doesnt mean it's realistic to expect anyone to be morally perfect. All things considered, I'd say morally "perfect" (with this in mind) is not always saving the drowning child, but always saving the drowning child everytime you dont fear for your life or health in doing so. / up to the point where it would significantly interfere with your physical or mental health. And even then, perfection isn't realistic
@Brandon-os3qr
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
19:07 Oh it's definitely immoral to grow that mustache.
@Brandon-os3qr
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Is there anyone in here who even agrees with the starting position, that not pulling the lever is the moral decision? I struggle to even understand who/why someone believes that even if i understand the philosophical argument
@ashlyn-ye2zr
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
1) don’t pull the lever again.
2) go back in time, and stop yourself from pulling the lever in the first place if that’s what you truly believe to do (in your hypothetical where pulling the lever at all is the wrong thing to do as it “involves yourself” in the situation).
3) the act of pushing someone else out of the way or simply shouting at them or telling them not to do it is a physical, observable action which is different than a thought or intention, at least how our society and cultures views it, especially in the court of law. if you push your past self out of the way of pulling the lever, you’re complicating the afore mentioned statement about an action versus a thought, BUT, in my opinion, this is the same as you thinking about pulling the lever; reaching out to pull it; then stopping yourself before touching the lever. the argument could be made that because you are separate beings (despite having the same identity) from separate dimensions of time (realities), this situation is the same as pushing someone else out of the way before they pull the lever. another argument could be made about the way that a decision is made whether you go back in time or not because that timeline with that reality of your decision and its consequences and outcomes still exists; you simply are not existing in that reality anymore. that being said, it leads me to another train of thought: since outwardly speaking and physically acting is a much more easily recognized way of addressing or understanding something as an “action,” did we as humans evolve away from telepathic communication and telepathic interaction with the physical realm to more easily identify something as an “action” as a means for better defined terms for judicial or social justice on a person or group of people? anybody, please answer if you’d like! 🙂 i would absolutely love to hear your opinions on the matter!!
@kwisin1337
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The action was not committed, untill the point the train crosses the switch, the switch position is unnecessary in the terms of the question.
This is no different then writing a letter to your partner, but burning the letter before you decide to give the letter to the partner.
Being the only one who knows……
@veryblocky
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
18:01, I disagree. I think you do have less of a duty now that more stages are involved. Because now there are more outside factors that could influence it. The police could find the car without you, or even with your help they might not.
And I think with charity, we feel less of an obligation, because that obligation is distributed amongst the population. Why give your money away, when other people could instead?
@killerdiva7771
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
For the time travel question, I would say that your past self actually constitutes a different entity than your present self. If both you and your past self can exist in the same space simultaneously, then you and your past self are not the same entity. Therefore, stopping your past self is no different than stopping someone else
@GoktugAkca-tl7es
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I think it's the amount of people who are able to help the victim.Many people can donate money to charity while you are the only one who can save the drowning child in the hypothetical. So I believe it makes sense that we divide the "ethical responsibility point?" by the people who can help to calculate our each moral responsibility.
@event-keystrim213
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
14:03 I don't trust this for one second. what is the methodology of this calculation? I must see every formula, every report, every single thing that this data here is based of of before I trust it, because right now it looks like nothing more than made up numbers, if 2 USD could provide safe water for 1 person per year, that one person could just get that money. no matter how poor the country, 2 USD is very little money, so if it was a question of so little, there wouldn't be a need for this charity
@event-keystrim213
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
the whole thing with not ruining your expensive boots while walking into a pond falls the moment you realize you can take the boots off before you go in.
when someone tries to make a hypothetical they should at least think for 2 seconds and ask "why can't the person answering me say "both"", it's like that one clip where a provocateur is asking a bystander "would you choose stable economy or LGBT rights?" and the man answers "both", because you can have both, you can save that child and your boots, that's that.
also, if someone is talking big game like that, I better see them put in their will that all they own goes to charity, every last penny, and if I see someone talking that sorta big game yet not donating to charity; I simply won't take them seriously.
on top of that, the whole point of charity is that "no" is an answer, you can always refuse, otherways it would be taxation
@event-keystrim213
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
10:37 is it calculable tho? when I am presented with a choice to donate 1 USD to an unnamed charity by an employee of a multi-million corporation, many suspicions arise:
am I sure it is a real charity and not a money laundering scheme?
I know that most charities, even real ones, do keep a significant chunk of money to themselves, so I would actually donate let's say 0.70 USD (70 cents) so even if 1 dollar would be enough to save someone, my contribution won't be enough, is there a guarantee that someone else will round it up so it saves a life?
even if it is a real charity and they do spend all of the money given to them on said charity, do I want to donate to it? what if they save, let's say, convicted criminals from death and I end up saving a life of someone who have victimized me in the past? what if said "charity" buys weapons and armor of the soldiers of the country that my country is at war with?
and the last question: why does a big business ask a small man to donate 5 to 15% of what they earn per hour when they could donate 100 times more and wouldn't notice the difference?
so, my answer: if the charity is verified as one that makes a positive impact that I approve of, and if the supermarket chain that suggested I donate this dollar does something like a "you donate; we double" (so they will send what people donated + same amount from themselves) then I will say yes, but I won't settle for less
@brendawalton2518
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The moment that you OBSERVE the trolley problem, you are involved! 😂🎉
@dynamitewolft4194
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
poeple take the trolley problem as soemone trying to gatcha them and have an excuse to be an asshole to them
@verni_is_cool
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I think involvement has little to do with what's morally correct. I think it's your knowledge and ability to stop the situation that really matters. If 5 people were tied to a train track that a train was going to hit, and you had the opportunity to divert the train to an empty track, saving their lives at no cost to you, choosing not to pull the lever would almost be like killing those 5 people. If it makes no difference other than saving lives, inaction is as evil as the action of tying them to the tracks. It seems on a personal moral level you would either want them to die, or not care if five people die, which both suck. Great video ^-^
@Absolute_Territory
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
My philosophy on the trolly problem and any other thought experiment like it is this:
If any choice you make will result in peoples death(Inaction is a choice, too) then you have a moral duty to take the utilitarian route.
@Candywasp
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The correct answer is 'idfk😭😭'
@skypopped
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I really hate how the charity argument kind of makes sense
@CCel-q5c
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Yes stay quiet you coward about the genocide going on in Gaza…
@bharl7226
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
18:36 No, if we’re completely honest we have to admit that it is wrong… and that’s why society hates philosophers 😂😭
@jonmartintx1
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Going back in time makes you far, far more responsible. It's about agency. If you have the power of time travel, you could prevent this from happening in the first place. If you only go back to stop yourself and not to prevent them from being tied there originally, you had the power and agency to save them but didn't.
It's a cheat of an answer but it's interesting to consider.
@joelmh1623
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
To make the thought experiment a bit more practical:
A child is drowning in a shallow puddle, as they were wandering around unsupervised after their parents died yesterday in a sweatshop fire where they earned $0.5 per hour, should you save the child, ruining your $100 shoes (which were made in the same factory)?
@panakon366
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The moment you decide to make a decision on the trolley problem, you assign specific value to human life and pulling the lever only makes sense if the total "life value" of the 5 people is higher than the single person. On the rest of the video you simplify things so much that you ignore that for each one of us, the lives of others dont hold equal value and proximity is definitely a factor.
And about the drowning child analogy, you conveniently ignore the lifegard who is paid to be there and perfectly capable of saving the child but instead is hitting on that model.
@Destiny975_Hollow-Finkelhuben
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I think you are involved as soon as you realize the issue.
@CyborusYT
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
The only things this video convinced me of is that while logic is useful for moral decisions, it's fundamentally an emotional choice.
@WillPower311
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
What if people experiencing these things that the "charities" are trying to eliminate are the Only way the the species can adapt to these experiences? Would you try to prevent the experience and condem future generations to have to be reliant upon these things or allow the species to experience and adapt till eventually it's fully adapted?
@Chris-t7m5t
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Now what if the track with one person was someone you personally knew, had a relationship with or was your wife or husband or your child. And the track with the 5 were strangers you didn't know?
Would that influence the decision to pull the lever or not?
@ChiggaChiggaBruh
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Personally, I find it hard to justify our lives in the developed world at all while people in worse states are dying of hunger and curable disease. I don't let that keep me up at night however, because I'm a sociopath.
@2shy2guy52
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
If you are in the situation where you could save those five people and you know that, you are involved. If you don’t pull the lever you are at fault for the consequences.
@bobshuebop6925
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Actually I don't think people hate philosophers. I think most people consider them irrelevant in the sense that nothing that they have done in the last 100 years has actually helped anyone. Many topics they discuss really have no definitive answers. God exists, God doesn't exist…nobody knows for certain and there are very bright people on both sides of tge question. It's pointless to argue and debate because you can never come to a definitive conclusion, so why waste your time…get a real job, do something that helps people.
@thesupreme7613
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
Youre assuming that pulling or not pulling the lever is a fixed wrong or right.
@Marquisla
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
I don’t see how personal responsibility really matters here. If you’re in this position and choose to let 5 people die instead of 1, who cares how responsible you are? Do people really care so much about the guilt that they’d let 4 more people die? Seems ridiculous to me, this one has always had an obvious answer. You’re making a choice either way, it’s cowardly to let 5 people die instead
@1plus1plus1minus3
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
legally, look away and call an ambulance.
morally, pull the lever
@RonJohn63
August 17, 2025 at 1:54 am
0:49 "I don't want to be responsible" is the coward's attitude.
The bottom line here is that the die was cast when you first noticed that you were standing next to the lever with the trolley coming.
Comments are closed.