> It's a bullshit problem created to justify stupid decisions.
No. It's a toy problem designed to check for particular moral reactions in controlled conditions, for exploring the way human conscience works. It's not meant to be used as something you reduce real-world problems to.
> I don't think in moral absolutes, hell I don't even consider myself an especially moral person. I justify my actions based on their merits and everything I've read, seen and heard about offensive warfare just seems like a really stupid idea.
This is good, and that is very much in agreement with the trolley problem. Evaluating actions based on their merits, looking at principles and consequences alike.
With rest of your comment, I agree. Iraq and Afganistan wars are stupid, and are an example of a collective failure to do the right thing.
The point of the Trolley 'problem' (dilemma) as I think of it is to distinguish the moral difference between actively killing someone and letting someone get killed.
From a utilitarian standpoint, all you look at are the possible actions and the possible results.
From a moral standpoint, actively killing someone is much worse than letting someone get killed.
--------
> I would shoot only if shot upon, not because its moral, but because I'd feel like a coward idiot to do otherwise.
You're saying social expectations would cause you to shoot someone else?
Ignoring social expectations, your total opposition to kill is the reason I asked your response to the dilemma. It's not you who're being shot at, but your friends, family, and people and things you love. Would you be willing to let everything and everyone you love perish?
> From a utilitarian standpoint, all you look at are the possible actions and the possible results. From a moral standpoint, actively killing someone is much worse than letting someone get killed.
I disagree. What the trolley problem shows is that it's better to save many lives than just one, thus most people decide to pull the lever. As for why in real world you don't go and kill people for the greater good, is that our brains run on a corrupted hardware. "The end justifies the means" is a valid line of reasoning, but not for humans - because we predictably end up doing more bad than good when we follow it.
> Would you be willing to let everything and everyone you love perish?
If you put it that way, then killing one person to avoid this outcome is just like pulling the lever in the trolley problem.
>> I would shoot only if shot upon, not because its moral, but because I'd feel like a coward idiot to do otherwise.
This is a complex topic. I bet GP would shoot back when shot upon just because survival instinct kicks in. But barring that, social pressure is indeed a strong factor. I recall stories of Jehovah's Witnesses (die-hard pacifists) who got conscripted during First World War, back before the movement developed the idea that going to prison for your beliefs is a Right Thing; those soldiers would keep intentionally missing when shooting, in order to follow the "do not kill" commandement while avoiding getting imprisoned/executed for refusing to fight.
