# The trolley problem is sooo stupid! **See Also:** - Nice description of the problem and some of its "solutions": https://www.britannica.com/topic/trolley-problem - Another good essay: https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111 - See also Plato: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#BioAutEth - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) has some interesting points too. - It's important to realize the *purpose* of every form of the trolley problem. - Its purpose is *not* to lead one to an algorithmic method for making moral decisions in specific cases. - Its purpose *is* to motivate the solver to reflect upon their own [[Decision-Making]], and (hopefully) to revise their belief system positively - thus making the solver a better reasoner. - It's also evident that the multitude of variations of the trolley problem - often leading to different outcomes - demonstrates that the trolley problem is too specific to be useful. - My preferred alternative is the doctor who must decide whether to kill one patient to save five others. - There is also [[Neuroscience]] indicating that, depending on the details of the problem, [either the emotional or the rational centres of the brain are activated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Empirical_research). - This tells me that philosophers are being [[Rationality|irrational]] in expecting to find a *purely philosophical* solution. - The *facts* appear to suggest that any proper solution *must* account for how the brain functions, which means incorporating emotional cognition. - I guess, in the end, the best use of the trolley problem is to demonstrate the shortcomings of philosophy unguided by science.