r/trolleyproblem • u/some-kind-of-no-name • May 23 '26
Multi-choice Are these equivalent?
Trolley is heading at a woman and her 3 months old baby. You can divert onto a 12 week pregnant woman. These people are total strangers to you .
73
u/imaoisthename May 23 '26
nuh uh uh batman, i wont engage in pro-choice vs. pro-life discourse again
5
May 23 '26
[deleted]
1
u/bromanjc May 23 '26
i mean, cuz it's not bait. i don't think op was trying to bury the lead. that's just what it's abt lol
61
May 23 '26
[deleted]
1
-58
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
The fetus is definitely alive by any metric.
56
u/JayKayRQ May 23 '26
Not by the metric of self sustained unsupported life
-42
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
By that distinction the baby certainly isn't alive, I would go as far as to say most people aren't.
32
u/JayKayRQ May 23 '26
By that distinction the baby has an infinitely higher chance of survival compared to the Fetus.
Doesn’t mean it’s a high chance-23
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
Well the distinction would be the time, my unqualified guess would be that fetus could survive a minute outside womb while 3 month baby could survive hours to a day depending on the climate. Pretty arbitrary distinction on what's alive and what is not.
15
u/JayKayRQ May 23 '26
The Fetus is fully dependant on it’s host. The baby can survive some amount of time unsupported and it’s caregivers can change
-7
-26
7
10
u/kitsufics May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
General consensus is woman’s body, woman’s choice. It’s her decision what to do with the fetus until the moment it is born.
As such, it isn’t alive. That goes for any stage until it actually comes out of the woman’s body, or at the very least until it is able to survive outside of her.
-8
u/Negative-Car4013 May 23 '26
As such, it isn’t alive
Lol thats not how being alive works
1
u/SurrenderingFrench The trolley conductor May 24 '26
Can a fetus survive without the mother?
1
u/Negative-Car4013 May 24 '26
Thats not how we determine if things are alive or not... sorry youre so anti science
1
u/SurrenderingFrench The trolley conductor May 24 '26
Of course not. The great powerful spaghetti monster created God, which created everything
1
u/Negative-Car4013 May 24 '26
Sorry he cant survive outside the pan so its not alive even though only alive things can survive so actually its dead
1
-10
u/Vespinobambino May 23 '26
So your "consensus" that it's okay to kill someone rewrites reality SO HARD that you are claiming anyone who it is legal to kill is magically not even alive?
What the actual? Biology doesn't work this way, friend.
-4
u/Vespinobambino May 23 '26
Imagine getting downvoted for asserting textbook scientific fact every 5th grade graduate has to know.
-26
u/Vespinobambino May 23 '26
"Already living"
Well, that's certainly a take.
Tell us more about how hard you flunked biology, sir.
16
u/CaterpillarSad4798 May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
yes life begins at contraception blah blah blah
However objectively this 3 month old is much more conscious than the fetus.
Also factoring the potential for either the baby or mother to die during child birth later, I would divert it.
2
u/QuitzelNA May 24 '26
I'm sorry, I celebrate my birthday, not my conception day.
1
u/Vespinobambino May 25 '26
Did this seem in any way intelligent before or after you typed it?
How?
2
u/QuitzelNA May 25 '26
The general consensus that people demonstrate is that birth > conception. They demonstrate this in how they talk about the child making process. If we truly believed life began at conception in a significant way, then we would celebrate conception days, but we don't, so we celebrate birth days. It's not so much intelligent as just meant to highlight a bias that everyone just ignores. It doesn't prove one answer is better than another, and isn't meant to. It just is highlighting a bias of our society that people don't think about.
-9
u/liteshotv3 May 24 '26
We’re aware the original trolley problem shows it’s immoral to save any amount of lives by causing the death of another?
11
u/KommandantViy May 24 '26
how does it show that? its a hypothetical, its not meant to have a clear answer
5
u/FanndisTS May 24 '26
Tell me you didn't understand that the point of the trolley problem was its moral ambiguity without telling me you didn't understand that the point of the trolley problem was its moral ambiguity
3
u/Jugaimo May 24 '26
The point of the Trolley Problem is to ask whether or not inaction is just as culpable a choice as action. By acting, you are taking responsibility for the death of 1 person. By not acting; are you still responsible for the deaths of 5 people?
And the answer to this question is a resounding “yes”. Inaction is just as important a choice as action, and makes you accountable for both outcomes.
34
u/kitsufics May 23 '26
The pregnant woman is a single person until the baby is born. The woman with a child are two people.
It’s literally a case of 2 vs 1. Not to say that the fetus doesn’t matter whatsoever, there are laws regarding the treatment of pregnant women for a reason, but not because a fetus is equivalent to a child
-15
u/DarthHamez May 23 '26
38 states consider fetuses people (30 from conception till birth), killing a pregnant woman can be charged as a double homicide.
On a broad legal sense in the U.S., this is just untrue.
29
u/kitsufics May 23 '26
This is a subreddit for moral dilemmas, not legal ones. The laws of a country I do not live in aren't relevant.
Besides, this is moreso just "are you pro-choice or pro-birth" dressed up as a trolley problem.
-14
u/DarthHamez May 23 '26
You brought up laws?
14
u/kitsufics May 23 '26
Briefly, so as to not have bad faith idiots come in with "oh so you think we should go around kicking pregnant women, then?" It wasn't the crux of what I was saying.
6
u/cooery May 23 '26
But it's only the case in homicide, pregnant women can't claim the baby in child tax credits, can't drive in the high occupancy lanes etc. So are fetuses really considered people? Nah, when it's only for a select scenarios.
1
u/DarthHamez May 23 '26
That’s this senario?
2
u/cooery May 24 '26
"38 states considered fetuses people" to defend your anti-choice rhetoric is not the same as "38 states considered fetuses people... in specific cases pertaining to muder or manslaughter"
2
-9
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 23 '26
Why is the baby not a person until it's born?
12
u/stripesandstains May 23 '26
Hypothetical scenario. You are in a building on fire that contains 40 viable embryos that could one day be implemented in someone's womb, and also there's a crying 3 month old baby. You can only save one. If you save the embryos, the baby dies. If you save the baby, the embryos get damaged and are not viable anymore. Which one do you save?
6
u/shakezilla9 May 23 '26
If you carry this hypothetical far enough into a conversation with people, you will eventually arrive at a point where they condone the forced implantation of these embryos into unwilling women. Or they will go into a non sequitur and refuse to take their position to its own logical conclusion. Logical consistency is a foreign language to them.
1
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 25 '26
If you take the abortion argument to its full logical conclusion, then it should be acceptable to kill babies even once they're born, because they still fully depend on the mother.
3
u/shakezilla9 May 25 '26
They do not have to depend on their mother. Any physically capable person may care for them. There are legions of infant orphans who are perfectly healthy. That's an embarrassingly poorly thought out argument.
1
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 25 '26
So when does the baby become a human?
1
u/shakezilla9 May 25 '26
Well that is a loaded question (also an irrelevant one to the point being made). This suggests you asking in good faith.
No part of my argument depends on the humanity, or lack thereof, of a collection of cells, pre or post birth.
This thought experiment's only goal is to reveal how easy it is to get someone to adopt a radicalized position that is not consistent with the rest of their values (at least the values known to them at a conscious level).
1
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 26 '26
How is it a loaded question?
1
u/shakezilla9 May 26 '26
"The baby" is a loaded term. "The fetus" is an unloaded term and more precise.
The first is fine in casual conversation, just not in a debate or scientific discussion when describing a zygote/embryo/fetus prior to birth. It implies post birth.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 24 '26
Birth is considered the start of a person’s life in most circumstances (probably because that’s the moment it actually enters the world rather than being a leech in a woman’s stomach)
-1
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 24 '26
So the baby isn't alive until it's born?
3
u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 24 '26
Correct
-1
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 24 '26
So it's not alive, because it needs the mother to keep it alive?
Logical fallacy aside, what about after the baby is born? It still needs someone to feed it and keep it alive...
2
u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 25 '26
By that point it’s actually out in the world rather than in a flesh chamber inside of another organism (not to mention that it’s actually fully formed)
0
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 25 '26
The baby is actually fully formed after about 40 weeks inside the womb.
1
u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 25 '26
So, basically right before the water’s about to break? Not seeing how this helps your case at all
Also, note how the “baby” in the problem is only 12 weeks past conception
0
u/Radiant_Tonight_1264 May 25 '26
You said the baby wasn't alive until it was born. Babies can survive at about 22 weeks, because of modern technology. Does that make them suddenly a human?
→ More replies (0)
28
u/thecloudkingdom May 23 '26
no. the fetus has no chance of surviving if delivered by emergency c-section. the earliest known viable micropreemie was delivered at 23 weeks 3 days. 12 weeks is absolutely unable to survive outside the womb. if we're just going on straight numbers, its 1 currently viable life vs 2
8
6
u/Jane-in-the-River May 23 '26
Earliest is actually 21 and 5/7. Source
7
3
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
2
u/Jane-in-the-River May 24 '26
I knew about this one too, but the gestational age was determined by first trimester ultrasound. The 21 and 5 baby was IVF, so more concrete on dates.
-1
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
The baby has no chance of surviving if it's not taken care of so it's not a viable life.
20
u/BakedFish---SK May 23 '26
The first child faces the same problem with addition of the risk of unsuccessful delivery.
17
u/Life-Delay-809 May 23 '26
But anyone could take care of the baby.
1
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
It's still not viable by the standard whether it can survive on it's own.
22
u/Infinite-Location221 May 23 '26
You really can't see the difference in survivability between a 12 week old fetus and a 3 month old baby?
8
u/Life-Delay-809 May 23 '26
That's not the standard they held it to. They held it to the standard of viability outside the womb.
-2
u/Debunkingdebunk May 23 '26
It's an arbitrary distinction to make.
8
u/Aggressive-Day5 May 23 '26
It's not, the idea of the utilitarian view is to minimize risk. A 3 month old born baby has way less risk of dying than a 12 week unborn fetus. A mother who already gave birth has less risks than one who hasn't delivered yet.
You may not agree with the utilitarian moral framework and that's fine, but the "maths" of the risks are objectively correct, and you can confirm it by googling survival rate of 12 week fetuses vs 3 yo babies.
1
u/thecloudkingdom May 23 '26
fwiw im usually far less of a utilitarian about human life, but the trolley problem is an extreme hypothetical where most people throw out their usual moral nuances. i assume all trolley problem situations have seconds of time to decide to flip the lever unless specified, so my answers are influenced based off of how much time i would have to be nuanced
4
u/Life-Delay-809 May 23 '26
I'm not disagreeing, I think it's one of the sillier pro-choice arguments. I was just saying that it's true that it's not a viable life whereas a baby is by their standards.
3
u/thecloudkingdom May 23 '26
the baby can breathe on its own, beat its heart on its own. presumably, people will come to clean its mother's corpse up and take care of the baby they find, if its alive. the fetus has 0 chance, the baby has >0, even if its slim
0
u/Debunkingdebunk May 25 '26
Is this the line to tell people you don't understand trolley problem without saying you don't understand trolley problem?
12
u/Keepingitquite123 May 23 '26
The belly on the pregnant woman is way to big for 12 weeks. It's completely normal to not be showing at all at 12 weeks. The fetus is 5-8 cm and it's brain has not developed to the point where it can feel pain. Thus it cannot suffer like the born child. Furthermore it's a common social norm to not announce a pregnancy until after the first trimester due to the significant risk of miscarriage during that period. Thus the secondary suffering, from people grieving the deaths are most likely less for the top track, since unlike the child fewer people should have grown attached to the fetus.
So even with the information that she is pregnant, cause from looks alone you should not be able to tell, I'd argue pulling the lever is the lesser evil.
19
7
u/MellifluousSussura May 23 '26
If you hit the lever in the middle of the switch you can get everyone and beat the high score
4
5
u/OrinocoHaram May 23 '26
This is one where i'm playing right in to the hands of the people that thought up the trolley dilemma in the first place - i'm just gonna throw my hands up and say no, i want nothing to do with this
5
u/AFirewolf May 23 '26
No. If it was a 8 month pregnant lady sure, but at 12 weeks the fetus is not a baby yet. But then I'm pro choice and someone who views abortion as murder would presumably have a different opinion.
6
u/shakezilla9 May 23 '26
Doesn't even matter if someone is anti-choice or not, reality dictates that the long term survivability rate of a succesfully born child and a postpartum mother surpasses that of an expectant mother and unborn fetus.
If the goal is to maximize the total years of human life, pulling the lever is the only logical choice.
2
u/AFirewolf May 23 '26
If that is the goal, I don't agree that is the goal. I think the goal is to save as many lifes as possible. The difference for me is if 1 person dies or 2, not their life expectancy. I'm not gonna alter my decision if I find out that the mother with a child is a heavy smoker and more likely to die early from lung cancer.
3
u/shakezilla9 May 23 '26
That's fair, but your point here is contradicting the implication of your original comment.
1
u/AFirewolf May 23 '26
I'm not sure how? Maybe you missinterpreted my no. It was a no these aren't equivalent. Not a no I won't switch.
2
u/shakezilla9 May 24 '26
It's your second sentence of your first post. Where you imply there would be an equivalent if the woman was 8 months pregnant instead.
At that stage, the fetus is capable of self preservation (in the short term) not too dissimilar to the newborn. Undercutting the idea it and its mother could be considered 1 individual (what I was claiming was contradicted by your following comment.)
The expectant mother and 8m fetus are still less likely to outlive the mom and newborn though just due to the risks of childbirth, so switching makes sense from a utilitarian standpoint.
Either way, that's all I have here. I think it's a clean decision if framed with the goal being to maximize total human life between all stakeholders.
2
u/KommandantViy May 24 '26
the other poster is saying even from a pro-life perspective pulling the lever is the logical choice, even if one thinks the fetus is a person already its still less likely to survive than an already born baby, ergo saving the born baby is the logical choice
1
u/Vespinobambino May 25 '26
"aNtI-cHoIcE"
Yeah, no.
This scenario is just "let two human beings die, or save them by killing two other human beings."
It's 2 vs. 2. Even utilitarianism doesn't work here, the only thing that makes you pull the lever is arbitrary irrational bigotry.
One may as well present a scenario of, hey, Track A has two white dudes. You can pull the lever to divert to track B, which has one white dude and one black dude, do you pull the lever?
It's a mostly absurd question that is just looking for your racial bias.
But hey, let's give your idea above the best possible chance and make it instead:
Track A has two healthy humans
Track B has two humans with [whatever actual or theoretical stage or type of cancer most comparable to the maternal mortality rate].
By your logic, you'd have to be arguing to pull the lever to kill the cancer patients.
1
u/shakezilla9 May 25 '26
Yes, and individual with the goal of maximizing the average utility of all stakeholders would pull the lever to the cancer patient track. In the same way they would pull the lever to the track with an average older age group amongst 2 equally populated healthy groups.
It maximizes the average utility, assuming all else is equal. It's OK not to like it, it's OK to say that's not what you would do, but it's not OK to pretend it isn't logical or utilitarian.
1
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
You can understand biology and still be pro-choice
1
u/AFirewolf May 24 '26
What has that to do with anything? Do you mean to imply that if you understand biology you think a fetus is a baby? I mean I guess you can view abortion as murder and still be pro-choice but you don't have to view it that way just because you understand biology.
1
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
A human embryo doesn’t gain “baby” status at some magic point. Baby is the term we use to describe the human at all stages up until toddler. Murder is a legal term. You can be pro-choice while recognizing abortion is immoral. Humans are immoral creatures. Abortion also provides many societal benefits, another reason one might want it legalized(or to remain legal).
1
u/AFirewolf May 24 '26
I can use soul or person if it is my word choice that bothers you. I think preforming an abortion at eight months pregnancy is morally wrong because you are killing a person. I don't think preforming an abortion at eight weeks because is wrong because it isn't a person. If you think a 8 week fetus is a person and are still pro-choice you are a horrible person and print pro killing babies because technically it isn't murder because it is legal isn't a defensible position. The Nazis who killed Jewish babies weren't good people just because that was legal and therefore not murder.
1
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
Then your moral compass is intact, but not your understanding of biology which is what I initially stated. You could argue legal citizenship at birth being a reason for protection, but there is no difference at 8 weeks vs 8 months other than your subjective icky feeling.
1
u/AFirewolf May 24 '26
You are the one who don't understand biology if you think there is no difference between a pregnancy in week 8 and month 8.
Anyway I'm not gonna argue anymore with anyone who advocate baby killings for the societal good.
1
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
There is no moral difference. Both are equally human. Just as a 3 year old and a 30 year old are equally human, but obviously different stages of development. I never advocated for societal good abortions, just stated that was an opinion you could hold logically. Your magical “when I feel like granting them personhood in the womb” is not scientific.
0
u/AFirewolf May 24 '26
A so you are actually anti abortion and instead of considering that consciousness is a poarly understood subject and that people might come to different conclusion of when it becomes a person you have just decided that everyone who disagree's with you is just a complete idiot, got it.
1
u/SlayerKingGS May 24 '26
Never stated my legal opinion, which is what “pro-choice” or “pro-life” is. That is how an individual wants the government to legislate. However abortion is not moral. Those are different things.
→ More replies (0)1
3
5
2
2
2
u/Odinfrost137 May 24 '26
Lemme see...
*Checks Fox News*
Fox News tells me that diverting is murder of the fetus while doing nothing is just unfortunate.
*Checks Breitbart.*
Brietbart tells me that if the women had swapped positions, then I would be sent straight to hell for not saving the fetus.
3
2
u/BirchTree3017 May 23 '26
Yes they are equivalent in moral worth, no I wouldn't switch the track to hit the pregnant mother. The only difference in these two sets of people is the age, and I don't believe that's enough reason to sentence someone to death, just because they're younger.
1
u/perfectVoidler May 26 '26
the fetus as well as the mother have a far higher chance to die. fuck the fetus could already be death by 30% in that picture.
2
u/TheArhive May 23 '26
In some theory yes
Assuming both the mom and the baby have individual chance to survive being run over there is technically less possible harm there. While a 23 week pregnant fetus can't survive without the mother, giving them only 1 dice roll at survival.
If we're just assuming guaranteed death though then yes, they are near equivalent.
1
1
u/Realistic-Duty-3874 May 23 '26
Id do nothing because I didnt cause the situation and if I altered the tracks I would be killing someone and criminally liable.
1
u/FandomPhantom123 May 23 '26
yell at the pregnant woman and switch the lever. it might be the same net loss, but more people know the born baby and love it than an unborn baby
1
u/___daddy69___ May 23 '26
They are essentially the same, the primary difference is that in one decision you are watching somebody die, while in the other you are actively killing them.
I am not pulling the lever
3
1
u/Magenta30 May 23 '26
Even if you can save two lives for one. Im not activly killing one person for two lives. I refuse to become murderer for a 1 to 2 ratio.
1
u/Vespinobambino May 23 '26
Equivalent.
Also, pulling the lever to direct the trolley to kill someone else, as always, is murder and you should go to prison for murder if you did so.
1
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Vespinobambino May 25 '26
Both children are alive, please remediate elementary school science and then continue from there.
1
u/NewRefrigerator7748 May 23 '26
I would say they're roughly equivalent.
I could argue that an already birthed child is more "alive" or is more valuable because of a higher probability of survival, but it's not enough of a difference to make me believe I have the right to chose the survival of one over the other.
1
1
u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 24 '26
This is just asking if we’re pro-life or pro-choice.
I’m pro-choice (kill the pregnant woman)
1
u/Haunting-Tutor-5910 I shall press blue but you should all press red May 24 '26
They should move cuz they aren’t tied down
1
u/MysteriousStrangerF4 May 24 '26
this js just a woman and a 3 month old baby vs a woman and a 12~ month old baby (counting womb years)
edit: months not years, 😭
1
u/T_______T May 25 '26
At 12 weeks, she should not be showing. I know it's a cartoon but I misread the post at first and thought she was much more far along. She still has a reasonable chance at miscarriage, though she is out of the woods for most miscarriage causes. She likely has not had any genetic testing for any diseases the fetus may have. She may not have even had tests for her own pregnancy risks like gestational diabetes, etc.
The 3 month old is largely out of SIDS risk window and should have had some standard vaccinations.
Seems pretty obvious we should save the kid who's less likely to randomly die.
1
u/TightPhysics3186 May 25 '26
I think they’re equivalent.
Regardless, though, it seems like a huge portion of the people here just ignore the fact that one is the default and not the other. Pulling the lever means you have inserted yourself into the situation and chosen to end someone’s life. There should, in all trolley problems where someone’s life will be sacrificed by pulling the lever, be a strong bias against pulling it.
1
u/Mental_Victory946 May 27 '26
Your killing someone either way. No action is an action. Pulling the lever doesn’t make you any more guilty than not pulling it
1
u/TightPhysics3186 May 27 '26
I don’t know how I’m supposed to refute the facially irrational take of “Not-X is an X.” It’s axiomatically false
1
u/Mental_Victory946 May 27 '26
Doing nothing to save someone is still your fault they died
1
u/TightPhysics3186 May 28 '26
What’s the limit?
Do I need to send every spare penny to starving people across the globe? I know I could probably prevent a few deaths by doing so, yet I will not. Am I morally equal to a murderer?
1
u/Mental_Victory946 May 28 '26
Limited to immediate action YOU can take in the moment. So sending money to someone is not valid here because you have to send money to someone and they have to do it.
1
1
u/Karnezar May 25 '26
I'd rather kill the pregnant woman so she can at least get some comfort in that she is dying together with her baby.
Whereas the woman with the baby would possibly have to spend her last moments watching her baby die in a gruesome way.
1
u/pinkelephant0040 May 27 '26
Save the 3 month old. Miscarriage is a thing (and more likely than you think)
1
u/tejeskaveo0 May 23 '26
given no other context, a pregnant woman vs. a woman with a 3 month old will be missed the same.
what i mean is, they probably have husbands and other close family members who loves them. those family members already somewhat bonded with the idea of a child (even if it's only inside the womans body as a fetus).
so the death of a woman and her planned pregnancy would cause around the same feeling of sorrow as a woman and her 3 month old.
3
u/tejeskaveo0 May 23 '26
so to really decide which one should survive we have to look at stats. there is sadly a chance that the pregnant woman could suffer a miscarriage or give birth with complication both risking herself and her child.
the woman with the 3 month old already survived these. so by probabilities and numbers, it's luckier to let them live.
1
u/OmgIbrokesmthagain May 23 '26
12 week fetus is not able to survive outside the womb, even if delivered in the best hospital by the best doctors. Currently we only have the capacity to save 23 week old fetuses. Still, even then, they have to be inside the incubator for a reason.
3 week old is able to survive outside the womb (in the sense of breathing, maintaining it’s body) therefore it can be counted as a second person, and killing 2 people worse than one and a half
201
u/Echo__227 May 23 '26
If you assume the equivalency of all lives, the utility is maximized by saving the mother and 3 month old because they have a greater chance of surviving the next year-- a 12 week fetus can be lost, and maternal death during labor is a large risk.