You're viewing a single thread.
All these different, more extreme variations of the trolly problem seem to be missing the point of it. It's not about the deaths, it's about making the decision to be responsible for those deaths.
To rearrange the premise. If the person was a doctor, and three patients (tied to track A, current path) needed organs to live, and only one person, (Track B) had those organs, should the doctor make the conscious decision to sacrifice the person on track B to save the others?
The people on track A will die without the organs, that is already happening, and the doctor has no involvement in those deaths. However, by getting involved and consciously sacrificing the person on track B, the doctor has now committed murder and taken responsibility for the situation.
And this is why I always choose not to get involved! I'm not responsible for your predicament, and I will not choose to be!
What if it was 1 million people vs 1 person?
If that 1 person had a minigun, they could probably hold out a few good moments before they get swarmed
I love the missing contextual steps in going from 1 person tied to a train track, to that person seemingly holding off a rapidly approaching train with a minigun while 1 million people attempt to escape.
Oh I was talking about a bloodbath between 1 person vs 1 million people, but your interpretation is far more nobler and guarantees a heroic victory for everyone.
I think you just solved the trolley problem.