The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few, or one.

Yet they fucking stopped all the trains in Sydney because one idiot climbed the power lines.

How about those people who missed their job interviews? Business meetings? Doctor appointments? Scrum meetings? No they had to stop all the trains

@irene
I beg to differ

@irene Well, when someone climbs power lines to disrupt train services, become famous, or whatever reason, they forfeit their privileges as a valuable lifeform

From another angle: Imagine the uproar if they got electrocuted,fell down on the tracks, were run over and the passengers getting of at the next stop got to admire the splatter pattern on the train. “Oh its okay, they were already dead when you heard that crunching sound!” won't help.

You simply shouldn't start to weigh people's lives against each other. If you do, every situation becomes a trolley problem.

@7400 Valid point.

@7400

Someone climbing power lines is not a trolley problem, though.

@FuckJava: I wouldn't want to be the one drawing the line, though.

@7400
I happily would. You shouldn't disrupt 4 million peoples' plans for the very last day before a long weekend to rescue an idiot. Let nature do its job and selectively remove those who are less compatible with current status quo

@FuckJava: So the lives of people with mental disablities are inherently less worthy? Euthanasia is just a stone's throw away, then.

@7400
Natural selection. No extraordinary measures to keep people alive.

I wear DNR dog tag and do believe in natural selection. Only if others would too

Based on your theory of natural selection, we should let have let Stephen Hawking die, which is completely counter productive to the society’s evolution

Arguably, a large number of contribute to art and science would fall into the category of outside norm which based on your logic should not be cared for

All that aside, I would argue a society/species true progress should be based on how they value and care for their least privileged and able member in their most difficult time.

Though I do agree that case you just mentioned is truly inconvenient and there should be better ways of handling it implemented by the city council/Mayer if whoever is in charge of designing that system

@irene actually that rule does not count. It's from a sci-fi show. It has little value in the real world.

@rusty-hacker
I doubt Stephen would climb power lines, or Einstein for that matter. When you climb the power lines, or the golden gate bridge, or do any other stupid stunt, nature should be allowed to run its course. Gravity should be allowed to teach the intrepid climber a lesson in Newtonian Physics.

@Pickman
Does it? It is from a Sci Fi show, three decades old, yes. But it makes perfect sense.

@FuckJava @irene the rule states that "the need of the many outweigh the need of the few."
There are several problems with that.
The first one is that it subscribes to an utilitarian view of ethics which not everyone will accept. But that's subjective, so let's move on.
Secondly the importance of that need is not considered. If a few hundred people need entertainment it's not okay to deprive someone of food for that. His need of food is a primary need and is more important than amusement.
Lastly some human rights are unalienable and thus we cannot take them away even if it would fulfill primary needs of other people. This is to prevent a majority to abuse a minority because the perception of needs is subjective (so some rights were declared off-limits, e.g. you can't force someone to sacrifice his life with absolute certainty even to save many others. Even if it would be the ethical thing to do).

@irene it's "cannot force to sacrifice life with absolute certainty" the second part matters. Of course ussr is rarely presented as an example of respect of human rights too. Primary and secondary needs of course can be treated differently but even among primary needs some are more important. E.g. I can skip a few meals, but I cannot skip breathing fir a few minutes. Also some countries do not recognize some needs as primary. Other consider some secondary needs as primary ones. E.g. freedom of religion in some countries is considered at some degree necessary for a person to have an healthy mind. Simply the maxim considered is a simplification used for a film. I despise seeing it regarded as a real ethical approach. The film was nice though.

@Pickman
So, how would you approach the trolley problem?

@FuckJava probably with a big headache. I think that both the approach to say that it's not your right to decide who lives and die and the approach to save most people are valid. It depends on the sensibility of the single person. Personally I would probably ask the single person if I do have their permission to intervene but I do not know what I would do in such a situation.