But if you have a choice between lots of violence and less violence isn’t it immoral not to try and at least minimize the violence that you have to no power to stop?
It depends if you have to participate in the violence to minimize it.
For example, take a public shooter who disabled a police responder. Does a nearby citizen have an obligation to seize the cops gun and attempt to stop the shooter? Should they be shamed if they do nothing and hide? Is that choosing to allow violence or choosing not to be a part in it?
Natural disasters happen, accidents happen, and people regularly stop and help. I would be surprised if someone didnt in those situations.
There’s the additional risk of being shot in your example, so I’d reckon that less people would try to take the gun in this case compared to the trolley problem.
But if you have a choice between lots of violence and less violence isn’t it immoral not to try and at least minimize the violence that you have to no power to stop?
It depends if you have to participate in the violence to minimize it.
For example, take a public shooter who disabled a police responder. Does a nearby citizen have an obligation to seize the cops gun and attempt to stop the shooter? Should they be shamed if they do nothing and hide? Is that choosing to allow violence or choosing not to be a part in it?
Natural disasters happen, accidents happen, and people regularly stop and help. I would be surprised if someone didnt in those situations.
There’s the additional risk of being shot in your example, so I’d reckon that less people would try to take the gun in this case compared to the trolley problem.
Theres also risk that you would get hurt helping in the other examples I gave.
Also a random by stander would have no idea what flipping a switch would do, it could derail the train and kill more than are on either track.
The situation in the trolley problem isnt realistic, and it definitely isnt simple or settled. Its an interesting thought experiment though.