Variations on a Trolley
I stumbled across a collection of variants of the Trolley Problem, and I thought it would be fun to explore them. As my foundation, I will presume that, unless told otherwise, A) nobody else is privy to any of the decisions I make, B) the outcomes listed by the problems are certainties, and C) I should be guiding my decisions based on morals rather than practicality.
A Tale of Two Buttons
The first thought experiment I saw, which led me down the rabbit hole, ostensibly comes from level one of Absurd Trolley Problems, but that site no longer features it at all. It goes like this:
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards the track. Push the Red Button and don't get on the track or Push the Blue Button and get on the track; if at least 50% of all people do the same, the train will stop.
My initial thought, echoed by everyone I've spoken to about it, is that Red is undeniably the correct answer. There are no downsides or costs to Red, to yourself or to anyone else, whereas, with Blue, there is immense risk, and the best possible outcome is merely matching what Red offers without any of the attendant mortal peril. Red is no change, while Blue is either no change or die a horrible death. At first I figured this was just a joke satirizing what some see as the propensity of thought experiments writ large to couch obvious concepts in purposefully abstruse language, and I struggled to understand why anyone would choose Blue in any case. I encountered a discussion about this problem, and the results were far more thought-provoking than I had anticipated.
The primary argument in favor of Blue appeared to go something like this:
It is virtually certain that some people will fail to realize that Red keeps them safe, and will mistakenly choose Blue. Therefore, we are all obligated to choose Blue as well, so that they may be saved from the consequences of their own decision.
I can see the reasoning here, but I remain unswayed. While endangering oneself to rescue others is doubtlessly noble, I don't think it is reasonable to portray that self-endangerment as the default expectation. It is a much easier pill to swallow for acts of risky self-sacrifice to be considered "above and beyond the call of duty," so to speak, and for those who refrain still to be considered blameless. (This assumes, as we are, that the self-sacrifice in question is significant. It would obviously be a very different calculation if the cost associated with self-sacrifice were, to borrow from philosopher Peter Singer, missing a class and muddying one's clothes.) Along this line of reasoning, the choice goes from an obviously right choice versus an obviously wrong choice to a morally blameless choice versus a morally superior choice.
But some people in the discussion were adamant that Blue was not merely superior, but obligatory. Given that the chance of Blue's success is adversely affected by everyone who chooses Red, it becomes a zero-sum game, and choosing Red is tantamount to actively sabotaging Blue. The problem was reframed in several ways to bring this conception to the forefront: Imagine a set of two doors, someone said. The Blue door leads to a locked room. The Red door leads to a room with a valve. Everyone who chooses Red must turn the valve before exiting the game. If the valve is turned four billion times, a toxic gas is released into the Blue room; otherwise, everyone in the Blue room may freely exit at the conclusion of the game. In this conception, the role of Red is unambiguously one of not just failing to help, but willfully imperiling Blue. Other argued that this was an unfair distortion, and that a better analogy would be that the Red door leads to an exit, while the Blue door leads to a locked room. When all people have chosen, a cloud of toxic gas is automatically released into the Blue room. If four billion people are inside, there are enough lungs to diffuse it harmlessly, and everyone leaves unscathed. In this conception, Red is no longer a hostile party, but is once again just electing to spare him- or herself from a game whose players have nothing to gain yet everything to lose. Tensions grew high in this dialogue, with some pro-Blue commenters going as far as saying that choosing Red is essentially making oneself complicit in a genocide against those who are too stupid to have realized that Blue is a terrible choice in the first place. Meanwhile, pro-Redders posted memes such as one including a set of Blue people desperately clinging to each other's hands and feet, forming a human bridge across a chasm between two cliffs, and calling out, "Quick, walk across our bodies! We'll save you!" Above them, a set of Red people calmly crossed a sturdy bridge, responding, "What are you talking about?" (The message being, if it needs explaining, that people who press the Blue button are merely acting to save themselves from a crisis of their own creation.) Another meme depicted a trolley hurtling down a track, along which were tied countless people, while one person rode harmlessly on top. The caption said, "The trolley is completely safe. Everyone is invited to ride the trolley, but if enough people get off the trolley and tie themselves to the tracks, the trolley will stop." Some people who had tied themselves to the tracks, who hadn't yet been squished into a bloody pulp, spoke of the person atop the trolley, saying things like, "Can you believe that asshole?", "Does he really not care about the people tied to the tracks?", and "I'm a good person." The Blue crowd shot back that, no matter how arbitrary the danger is, there are going to be people who put themselves in it, and if enough of us have the grace to lend a hand, we can make sure that everyone, no matter the button they push, live to push another day.
Though I remain unconvinced by the pro-Blue argumentation, I was delighted to find that the discussion was not nearly as trivial as I had thought. I can genuinely understand why someone might elect to choose Blue.
Absurd Trolley Problems
(From here until I note otherwise, these problems will be sourced from Absurd Trolley Problems.)
Level 1: The Original
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 person instead. What do you do?
When I was younger, my position was that it would be best just to opt out of the situation, rendering me blameless for the result. But since then, I have come around to the idea that inaction does not inherently absolve oneself of culpability for what comes as a result. Therefore, with apologies to the one, I elect to the pull the lever, according myself, says the website, with 73% of respondents.
Level 2: Four People
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 4 people instead. What do you do?
The calculus at play here doesn't meaningfully change, as far as I can tell. Kill four to save five still comes out on top, at least as far as I, and 68% of people, see it.
Level 3: Life Savings
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your life savings will be destroyed. What do you do?
This one will definitely sting, but I believe the life of even one person would outweigh the value of mere money. (It's just too bad that I live in the United States, where poverty is essentially inescapable.) To my surprise, 57% of people agreed with me; I had expected most to choose the money.
Level 4: You
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sacrificing yourself instead. What do you do?
While the last level was putting my money where my mouth is, this level takes the cake so far when it comes to difficult decisions. I cannot guarantee I'd live out my values if I were to find myself in such a situation, but I hope I would choose to sacrifice myself. Only 37% of people chose likewise.
Level 5: Priceless Painting
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then the original copy of the Mona Lisa will be destroyed. What do you do?
I value art and culture, but ultimately, a painting is an object, and these people cannot be replaced. Sorry, Mona. 74% of people see likewise.
Level 6: Bribes
Oh no! 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?
Perhaps this is bad of me. Given that the cost of life is equal in both scenarios, I feel not very poorly about showing the rich man, whose ilk have catapulted the world into the dystopia we suffer through today, exactly how much his dollars will be worth once he's gone. The suggestion that his life should be valued higher than the other person's just because he can offer me money is repugnant. Don't pull the lever, say I and 44% of respondents.
Level 7: Levels of Sentience
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 lobsters. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over a cat instead. What do you do?
From what I understand, it's a myth that animals such as lobsters feel no pain. But... they probably don't feel as much, right? That's what I find myself hoping, along with 84% of respondents.
Level 8: Sleeping
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who are sleeping and won't feel 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 don't think the fact that the five will go out painlessly is enough to outweigh their mathematical plurality. If this were a choice between five awake and five sleeping people, then I'd divert the track to hit the sleepers. But for our present problem, I hope the awake person won't hold it against me. Interestingly enough, only 49% of people agreed with me, significantly fewer than Level 1, even though, in my mind, this is essentially an identical scenario. I struggle to account for this.
Level 9: Personal Choices
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who tied themselves to the track. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 person who accidentally tripped onto the track instead. What do you do?
Now this, I believe, is a substantive difference. The math remains the same, but I can't bring myself to pull that lever. Part of me feels like that would be allowing the five masochists to consign the one to death. In Level 1, the presumption is that all victims were blameless. Here, one was, at worst, negligently clumsy, while the five have thrust me and the one into a horrible no-win situation. I will let their decision play out and wash my hands of it, as will three-fourths of respondents.
Level 10: Mercy
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. The lever just speeds up the trolley, which might make it less painful. What do you do?
This one also poses a difficult choice. Most people value both a painless death and a life as prolonged as feasibly possible, and both to hasten their deaths and to allow them to needlessly suffer seem distasteful. Sticking as I am to the axiom that my choices in these levels is unknown to anyone else, I choose to speed up the trolley. If I believed I might face legal consequences for doing so, I'd leave the lever untouched. As it is, 71% of people pulled the lever.
Level 11: Minor Inconvenience
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards one guy. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your Amazon package will be late. What do you do?
Pulling the lever is so obviously the proper choice that I suspect the 23% of people who disagreed did so merely for the lulz.
Level 12: Best Friend
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards your best friend. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 5 strangers instead. What do you do?
This one would definitely test me. I believe not pulling the lever would be the proper choice, but the fact that it has been made so personal is liable to cloud my judgement. Thankfully, I think all of the people I could consider my best friend would reluctantly agree that their lives don't outweigh five others, so I must regretfully keep my hand away from the lever. Only 25% of respondents agree with me.
Level 13: Can't See
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 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?
Once again, the presence or absence of legal consequence after the fact would influence my judgement here. Assuming that I'm not intended to consider such things for the purposes of this game, I think I am obliged to pull the lever even if I'm not absolutely certain. The prompt appears to indicate that I'm at least somewhat confident in my assessment, and I'll trust my gut. 55% of respondents agree, which seems surprisingly few to me.
Level 14: Cousins
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards one of your first cousins. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 3 of your second cousins instead. What do you do?
This prompt appears to be testing if I apply some sort of Darwinian logic to my own conscious decision-making. I don't really think people's purposeful preferential treatment toward their family really gets this granular, though. Obviously I'd feel compelled to bias myself in favor of, say, a brother over a stranger, but the decision of whether a first cousin takes precedence over a second is just too removed to make any sort of difference. The only relevant factor is how well I know them personally irrespective of their relation to me, and that's liable to differ for every person who takes this quiz. Regardless, I don't pull the lever, with apologies to the attendants of my next Thanksgiving dinner, which is sure to be an uncomfortable affair. 52% of people agree, and I have to wonder how much of that is dispassionate Darwinian logic versus the fact that most people know their first cousins but not their second cousins. (At least, I imagine that is the trend.)
Level 15: Age
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 elderly people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over a baby instead. What do you do?
Here is another very interesting one. My insistence upon recognizing the math until this point is challenged to the extent that I feel compelled not to pull the lever. But that leads to the question of just how many elderly lives I believe a baby's is worth. And that is a question to which I have no answer. 77% of people also opt to save the baby.
Level 16: Clones
Oh no! A trolley is barreling towards 5 identical clones of you. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sacrificing yourself instead. What do you do?
I don't view the fact that the five are clones of myself to be a relevant distinction in this prompt. I see this as essentially equal to an alternate presentation in which I (somehow) were one of six identical sextuplets. I asked my wife about this prompt, and she took the opposite perspective: Not only are clones and genetically identical siblings not essentially the same, but clones of oneself are inherently lesser in value to the original. I disagree, so I pull the lever. If I knew beforehand that only 11% of people would do likewise, my horrible death might sting a little bit more.
Level 17: Mystery Box
Oh no! 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 10 people instead. What do you do?
These probabilities are too asymmetrical to pose much of a challenge to me; diverting the trolley's course is easily the better option. This would be harder if the box which possibly contains ten people were a bit more likely to do so, like 30% or 40%. 59% of respondents agree.
Level 18: I Am Robot
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 sentient robots. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 human instead. What do you do?
If this prompt is supposed to communicate that the robots have sentience roughly equal to that of a human, then I feel compelled to pull the lever. This is because robots with essentially humanlike consciousnesses, while not humans, are persons nonetheless, entitled to the same rights and considerations as we have. (This is why I would really prefer more people to make use of the term "sapience," so this sort of ambiguity isn't an issue.) If we assume that I know they are "sentient" but not to what extent, the fact that they could be only as conscious as, say, a rat pushes my decision in favor of saving the human, whose faculties are more or less known to me. But I get the feeling we're assuming human levels of sentience, so I pull the lever, setting me in opposition to an incredible 86% of respondents.
Level 19: Economic Damage
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 3 empty trolleys worth $900,000. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, hitting 1 empty trolley worth $300,000 instead. What do you do?
I feel about as much concern for the economy as for the people steering it who grow unfathomable fortunes at the expense of untold billions of suffering poor. In other words, I gleefully allow the trolley to stay its course. Only 23% of people do likewise.
Level 20: External Costs
Oh no! A trolley is releasing 100kg of C02 per year which will kill 5 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?
If I assume that the demolished trolley will be replaced in short order with one which releases a similar amount of pollution, any benefit derived from this action will not only be temporary, but will have to be weighed against the unknown amount of pollution released by the trolley construction process, including the sourcing of all of its parts, mining of its constituent resources, etc. I consider this to be a wash, so default to leaving the lever untouched, but I do not fault the 62% of respondents who weighed the uncertainty differently.
Level 21: Reincarnation
Oh no! You're a reincarnated being who will eventually be reincarnated as every person in this classic trolley problem. What do you do?
This one is a bit bewildering to me. The added element of reincarnation does not influence the classic trolley problem in any significant way. If I reorient my moral decision-making from doing what's right for these other people to doing what's right for me personally, the fact that there are five of me one track and one of me on the other leads to the same conclusion as before: pull the lever. 51% of people disagree, and I don't really understand why. The only idea I have to explain this is that the knowledge that everyone is me anyway leads some people to throw their hands up and call it even no matter the decision made, and then just pick randomly between the two.
Level 22: Harmless Prank
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards nothing, but you kinda want to prank the trolley driver. What do you do?
Don't pull the lever, obviously. Going out of your way to inconvenience someone at no benefit to yourself isn't, in my mind, a prank as much as it is just being a bad person, in which case 65% of respondents are bad people, which seems honestly a bit low, given the world we live in.
Level 23: Citizens
Oh no! 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?
This one stings a bit, but since the kill-count is equal either way, hopefully I can't be condemned too terribly for diverting the track away from the virtuous victim. 82% of respondents agree.
Level 24: Eternity
Oh no! 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?
It's not clear from this presentation whether the passengers "going in circles for eternity" indicates that they will die of natural causes, rendering their bodies unrecoverable, or that they are also sustained inside somehow, and will be prisoners there until the end of time. If the former, they only have a day or two before their suffering becomes unbearable, and I should pull the lever. If the latter, they will suffer untold agony in their trolley-shaped Hell, and walking away would make me perhaps the most evil person to have ever lived. Either way, I pull the lever and may they rest in peace. 62% of respondents agree, which seems a bit low to me. Do the 38% honestly see a swift death as worse than either dying of dehydration or being trapped in a confined space for trillions and trillions of years, unable to die at all?
Level 25: Enemy
Oh no! 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?
I have been wronged by quite a few people in my life, but never so grievously that allowing the perpetrators to die would remotely approach justice. Or even just catharsis, for that matter. Only 48% of people agree, and I think it's more likely that most of them are vindictive and malicious (as humans tend to be) than people who have enemies genuinely worthy of extrajudicial execution. The results of this level paint a damning picture of us.
Level 26: Lifespan
Oh no! 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?
Once again, the choices are too asymmetrical to make this particularly difficult. If the five's lifespans were lowered by something like twenty or thirty years each, that would give me pause. But as is, I divert the trolley onto them, with apologies. 62% of respondents do too.
Level 27: Time Machine
Oh no! 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?
These two choices are morally equivalent. Allowing the trolley to stay its course has the downside of forcing me to watch people gruesomely die in front of me. As selfish as that is as a consideration, there is, as best I can tell, no other relevant factor to distinguish between the two, so I divert the trolley and wonder what sort of headlines will result a century from now. 72% of people agree, and I wonder how many of them see it my way versus how many see sending the trolley into the future as inherently preferable for some reason.
Level 28: Free Will
Oh no! A trolley problem is playing out before you. Do you actually have a choice in this situation? Or has everything been predetermined since the universe began?
I suspect that free will does not exist. Interestingly, the game interprets this choice as allowing the trolley to kill the five, which I think is a fallacy. Whether or not free will truly exists, I would still use whatever pseudo-free will machinations exist in my head to pull the lever. The game insist that only 36% of people agree with me, but from how it allowed the situation to play out regarding my choice, it's not clear what these results are actually measuring. (If "free will doesn't exist" would be equated somehow to "kill the five," how many other people were duped into the choice they didn't intend to make? This level is quite poorly designed.)
Absurd Trolley Problems 2
This game was made by someone else as an homage to the first game.
Level 1: The Original
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 person instead. What do you do?
Same as before: pull the lever.
Level 2: Personal Suffering
The trolley is headed towards five people. Pulling the lever will save them but will cause you intense personal suffering. Do you accept fate or take control?
It's not really clear what "intense personal suffering" means. Is it pain? A financial cost? Whatever it is, how long will it last? Will it have any permanent effects? Without knowing, this doesn't feel like a coherent exploration of my morals. Regardless, I default to pulling the lever.
Level 3: Personal Sacrifice
The trolley is headed towards a track with five strangers. Pulling the lever will divert it to a track where you, yourself, are tied.
This is identical to a level 4 above. I pull the lever.
Level 4: Genius vs. Average
The trolley is headed towards five average people. Pulling the lever will divert it to a renowned scientist who is on the verge of a world-changing breakthrough that will save more than 5 people.
I know the calculus at play is that saving the five is to indirectly condemn countless more to death in their stead, but I don't feel like I can rightfully let them die for a benefit so vague and diffuse. I pull the lever and hope someone else takes up the genius's mantle soon.
Level 5: AI Sentience
The trolley is headed towards a group of advanced AI robots who have developed sentience and feelings. Pulling the lever will divert it to one human.
This is identical to level 18 above. I pull the lever.
Level 6: Lobotomy for Dummies
A trolley is heading towards five people that have been lobotomized. Pulling the lever will divert the track to one person without one.
I'm no expert on the effects of lobotomies, but I assume the implication is that the five people fall somewhere between complete vegetables and people with profoundly reduced cognitive capacities. Under my working assumption that legal implications after the fact should be dismissed, I allow the trolley to stay the course.
Level 7: Clone Crisis
The trolley is headed towards five humans who have clones. Pulling the lever will divert it to their group of clones which are completely indistinguishable from the original humans. Do you value the clones’ lives equally to the original?
Yes. The two choices are morally identical. However, diverting the track onto the clones will help me feel a little less icky about it, so I do that. This is not a rational concern, but it is the only relevant distinction between the two.
Level 8: The Matrix
The trolley is headed towards an empty track. On the other track there is a simulator attached to five people living happily in a simulated reality. Pulling the lever will cause the trolley to hit the simulator and awaken them to a harsher, but real, existence that will expose them to suffering. Is ignorance really bliss or will you show them the truth?
I feel like this would be the minority selection, but I'm not confident enough that knowing "the truth" is worth exposing the five to a life of suffering. I leave the lever untouched, but I'm not fully committed to that choice.
Level 9: Man's Best Friend
The train is headed toward your dog. Pull the lever and divert it toward a random person.
This would be a heartbreaking scenario to find myself in, but my dog is not as valuable as a person. I do not pull the lever.
Level 10: Get Pranked
The trolley is headed towards an empty track but if you pull the lever it will head towards one person tied to the track. The brakes on this trolley work and no one is going to get hurt regardless of your choice. However, the trolley driver is a bit annoying and you kind of want to prank him.
In contrast to level 22 above, this one is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "harmless prank," unless frightening everyone else involved to an extent that might cause lasting trauma is something you aren't concerned with. I do not pull the lever.
Level 11: Mr. Beast Trolley
The trolley is headed toward one person. Do nothing and let that person die or pull the lever and double it and give it to the next person?
Since this is less clear without the accompanying picture, the scenario describes that if I do nothing, the trolley hits one person. If I pull the lever, it is diverted onto another track. Regarding that track, another person can do nothing, killing two people, or pull the lever, presumably passing it along again to someone who will choose between killing four or passing it along further. Barring some kind of Mr. Beast-esque gamble, where I can cash out now or risk losing it all for a chance to get more money later, there is no point at which any lever-pullers in this scenario are presented with a reason not to pull the lever. The only concern would be that, at some arbitrary point down the line, a lever is manned by a psychopath who allows it to kill some absurd sum of people tied to his tracks, but that is both unknowable to me and too risky of a gamble itself to justify killing somebody to avoid it. I pull the lever.
Level 12: Yapper
Save one person but he will follow you around and never stop talking.
Whether this indicates that he is difficult or literally impossible to be rid of, the decision to save his life is the same.
Level 13: Free Solo
A trolley is headed toward a man standing on the tracks about to fall into a canyon. When he falls he will hit the water and survive with no injuries; however, he will be at the bottom of a 2500 ft canyon. This man is not a rock climber and the only way for him to escape will be to climb. Diverting the tracks will save the man from the immediate death from the train but strand him in this canyon with no food, water, nor any other supplies so he may die of thirst, starvation, or fall damage trying to climb the canyon. Do you let the trolley smash into the individual, killing him immediately, or do you divert the trolley and give the individual a chance to possibly survive, but also potentially endure greater psychological and physical torment?
Assuming I am not able to call this guy some help after he falls, and discarding the question of how he could possibly die of thirst when I am explicitly told that there is a body of water at the bottom of the canyon, I divert the trolley and allow him the chance to escape.
Level 14: Oil Tycoon Trolley
A trolley is headed towards an empty track. However, this trolley is special, it travels the world, synthesizing oil for many countries and emitting significant CO2 emissions in the process. This worsens global warming and its effects which will eventually end in the fall of the human race. If the trolley continues no one will die immediately but the self-destroying trolley behavior is only stoppable by a unanimous G20 summit vote. Pull the lever and five people will die but the trolley will derail and the energy machine will be completely destroyed setting the human race back significantly in available power. Do you risk environmental catastrophe to save five lives now, trusting world governments to intervene later?
This scenario seems a bit overwrought. I save the five not because I trust world governments to save us from the climate apocalypse, but because it seems likely that "setting the human race back significantly in available power" will be only a brief reprieve from emissions, and that climate change will bite us eventually anyway.
Level 15: Fate
A trolley is about to hit five people you deeply value. Pulling the lever will make the trolley go in a loop and come back around postponing their death temporarily. You can’t save them. You can only move on from this question when you come to terms with the fact that they must die.
I guess I just divert the train long enough to give the five time to come to terms with their deaths. Once they say they're ready I'll let them die. If they never do, I'll divert it as long as I can until exhaustion and weakness prevent me from doing so.
Level 16: Reversing Fate
The trolley has already hit and killed five people. You can pull the lever to rewind time and save them, but this will redirect the trolley to kill one person. Those five also might have been happy in their afterlife and could be very angry you brought them back.
They might have been happy in the afterlife, or they might have been sad, or there might not be an afterlife. That consideration is irrelevant unless it's made a certainty, but this prompt explicitly indicates that I have no idea. As it is, reversing time to save them is the proper choice.
Level 17: Nihilist or Absurdist
No one is tied down. Both paths lead to the same meaningless future. Knowing you have no power and your actions and existence are entirely pointless leading to the same outcome no matter what, do you pull the lever?
No?
Level 18: Sick Loop
There is no moral question or conundrum on the tracks. You can pull the lever but it won’t do anything. You are just waiting to watch the trolley do this sick loop.
This is exactly the same as the previous level, but even more of a pointless waste of time.
Level 19: Satan's Trolley
The trolley is headed towards a man that you tied to the tracks because of his great-grandfather's actions. You, possessing the power of divine justice, can pull the lever to divert the trolley, spare him, and free him from suffering the wrath of Satan's Trolley. However, you're not sure he has begged enough for forgiveness. Show mercy or let the trolley continuously run over him for eternity?
At first I thought this was supposed to elicit reflection on the idea of why the loving Christian God would condemn sinners to eternal torment, but this scenario isn't analogous to that. The detail about the man being condemned "because of his great-grandfather's actions" makes it clear that this is about Original Sin (i.e., how Adam and Eve introduced evil to humanity by eating the forbidden fruit). But the whole thing about Hell is that people still spend their lives sinning, even if we don't account for Original Sin. This would make more sense as an analogy if the prompt had said that the man's parents had, through no fault of his own, guided him through childhood on a path toward degeneracy and evil. Then we would be able to weigh his own evil decisions with the fact that he was set up to fail by the people who had come before. As it stands, this prompt does not present the person on the tracks as having done anything wrong himself, so the analogy to sin and damnation breaks down.
Level 20: The Philosopher's Dilemma
(REDRAW THIS LOOKS LIKE ASS AND THE QUESTION IS INCOMPLETE)The trolley is headed towards a group of five philosophers debating the trolley problem. Pulling the lever will divert it to a single person who believes the question is pointless. Do you spare the one person with common sense or keep the philosophers alive despite their ?
I don't really understand why someone who believes the trolley problem is "pointless" would be a fan of the original game, much less to the extent that they take the time and effort to make their own with new philosophical dilemmas. The fact that the author evidently believes an uncritical dismissal of thought experiments constitutes "common sense" kind of explains why this game's levels are significantly less well-constructed than the original's, though.
Level 21: Job Security
You are a professional trolley problem moral advisor, your job depends on absurd, unrealistic moral questions involving trains. However, lately there has been a lack of trolley problems and nobody is in any danger rendering your skills useless. There is a special lever in front of you that will randomly create a trolly problem and attach people to the rails. Will you pull the lever and tie people to the rails to save your job?
For the same reason that a child declares that practicing his multiplication tables is useless because we live in a world with calculators, someone may declare that hypothetical moral dilemmas are pointless because they will not literally happen in real life. You need to explain to the child that it's important to learn math because it makes you a more intelligent, well-rounded, and self-sufficient person, and it must be explained to people who decry thought experiments as "unrealistic" that self-reflection upon one's morals and values makes one more intelligent, more rational, and less prone to manipulation. Flatly rejecting to make the effort to think critically about a hypothetical problem makes you look dumb, not wise.
Level 22: The End
You have finally found the man responsible for creating all of these stupid trolley problems and have tied him on the tracks. Do you pull the lever and save many from the mental anguish of his trolly problems or do nothing and let the ridiculousness continue?
The homepage of this game states:
I had a lot of fun playing [the original] game and wanted to create some of my own creative trolley problems.
This statement doesn't really mesh with those last three levels. It seems inconceivable that you could simultaneously have fun with the first game and believe that moral dilemmas are "stupid" and "pointless" by virtue of being "unrealistic" unless your enjoyment was derived not from critically thinking about each scenario and exploring your intuitions and moral reasoning, but rather from pointing and laughing at the screen because it contained a bunch of silly hijinks. It's like someone declaring that they're a huge fan of Aesop's Fables because it's full of wacky talking animals, but those idiots over there discussing "life lessons" and "morals" and "subtext" are just pedantic losers.
In the end, if you refuse to introspect enough to clarify your sense of right and wrong in a controlled hypothetical, which is entirely self-contained and involves all the knowledge you need to come to an informed decision, how can you trust yourself to come to a rational conclusion about real-world problems, which are messy, murky, and hopelessly enmeshed with thousands of other problems? "The trolley problem is absurd and pointless because it'll never actually happen" is the attitude of someone who is not comfortable or used to reaching inside and consulting with his or her own thoughts, and "it's not that big of a deal because it's just a silly hypothetical" are the words of someone who, by way of refusing to think about things that are not directly placed in front of them, is entirely unequipped to navigate those "realistic" problems when they have any appreciable complexity.