Edit: a fun part of the trolley problem not really explored here is how inconsistent most people’s logic gets when the outcomes are effectively the same but the actions are slightly different. For example, what if instead of pushing a button you had to shoot the person on the tracks? What if you could kill someone today who is going to shoot up a mall tomorrow? More fun, what if you could push a button to kill a millionaire and redistribute their wealth to save 100 families in subsaharan Africa?
Logically, as soon as you go down the path of actively choosing to kill a person to achieve some “greater good”, you’ve really thrown an awful lot of morals out the window.
Or that’s one weak-ass trolley.
I disagree. I think there's some point at which minimal effort from you for appreciable reward for others puts an obligation on you. And that's precisely the reason the trolley problem is so popular.
Apart from stupid cat problem...
This kinda misses the mirror problems, where out comes are switched.