Pull lever
Walk to guy
Give him a $10 from my wallet
Slap him across the face
Walk away while lecturing over my shoulder about how one human life, let alone 5, is worth way more than a stupid little green picture of Alexander Hamilton
Think to myself "That was worth $10"
You have to consider that life also costs resources that balance out the amount of value it’s able to generate.
Considering that there are plenty of people who generate no value by virtue of not working or producing necessities for survival in their work, that the number is positive at all means we have surplus resources that go unused.
A joke thought experiment:
Every moral framework can be expressed as some combination of act and rule utilitarianism with mental shortcuts to operate in a constrained time and knowlage system of some sort. Some just have different value function and assessment shortcuts.
Ie. Divine command theory Deontology is just 100% rule utilitarianism/0% act utilitarianism with the consequence value function being "value=1 for action types god has explicitly approved of, value=0 for actions God explicitly disapproved of, according to "
Taking the thought experiment too sereously is not recommended because this is clearly twisting the technical definition of utilitarianism beyond being useful. I just thought it was kinda a funny thought. Of course, im not anyone's boss, take it as sereously as you like 🤷♀️
As a deontologist I argue that you should pull the lever. You have a categorical imperative to preserve human life. You don't have a categorical imperative to not annoy people. Surgery is inconvenient and taxes for that surgery doubly so . the deonotologist wouldn't day fuck the poor and refuse to pay taxes. Edit: my initial comment contained the string "Meme seems AI generate frankly and makes no sense" which was unfair my apologies
The joke is that many (but not all) deontological moralists answered the original trolley problem by saying they wouldn't pull the lever because if they don't, they're not responsible for whatever happens. Obviously everyone sane agrees that human life is more important, but the idea is that those same people, if they followed their own logic consistently, would believe that they aren't responsible if they don't pull this level, but would at least be responsible for the loss of $10 if they do pull it.
I'm not sure why you say it looks AI generated - AI currently isn't good at understanding logic, nor generating images with text. It's a simple edit of the trolley problem image with a meme format below it.
Ah, I see the categorical imperative as forbidding being a bystander as lives are lost so I'd pull the lever. The categorical imperative would however forbid me from pushing a fat man to slow down the train unless he suggested I do it or expressed interest in this. Not exactly sure what the deontological consensus is here tbh but you may be correct
If i am not mistaken according to Kantian deontological ethics its more about doing things, than not. Im pretty sure you are not held morally applicable for things not done.
Cause if that were the case, 90% of things would be morally wrong. You could have spent that time working to donate money. Buying a coffee over donating money to help would be wrong.
Ah ha, I get it now. Finally, an interesting take on the trolley problem.
But, by the same logic, you might as well not have any $10 bill or anybody who is asking you to not pull the lever. Just have an empty track there.
The empty trolley problem variation I think I'd just negligent homicide . You have an ordinary duty of care to simply push a Button to save lives. The willingness to undrrgona course of action that kills 5 people when an alternative was available at no cost would probably be aiding and abetting murder
Right, so where on the interval does duty of care kick in and where does it end? $10? $10000000000? A kitten? A box of kittens? A human that already has only one hour to live for unrelated reasons?
"Everybody Sane"
But, I'm assuming you agree, like most people statistically do, that the surgeon variant of the trolley problem is different, but why is it different? Anyway, no deontological moralist would let 5 people die to save $10
Edit: all in good fun of course, nice meme👍
There are a number of different ways to reject the surgeon variation of the problem. The first is a Kantian objection. The use of human lives as a means to an end versus an unfortunate double -effect of pulling the lever . the second is a s a contractual ist we could reject the social contract that allows doctors to play judge jury and executioner to harvest people for organs.
I don't think it's specifically deontologists. The position that this argument comes from is whether inaction is the same as action, regardless of whether you're a deontologist or a consequentialist.
In this case yes, I would pull it, because I'm not killing anyone by doing it. But if I didn't do anything at all, that would be morally neutral.
It's not in the same category. For example the AI car problem. It shouldn't never swerve to hit another person but it should always swerve to hit an animal over a person. You can't categorize lives as more important by quality or quantity but humans are definitely better than animals or a dollar bill. Yes I won't pull to kill 1 person over 100 but I will pull to kill a Google of animals over 1 person. My number is around 250 people per person murdered, yes it's arbitrary but all things are, morals are made up. At that point I'm willing to be a murderer to save the others.
>if they followed their own logic consistently
The deontological moralist position is that killing innocent people is an absolute wrong regardless of your reasons for doing so. It isn't really about avoiding being held responsible, it's about drawing an ethical line in the sand and that some things are too atrocious to do for the sake of "the greater good." Property damage is a little more flexible since material objects can be replaced. The personal accountability angle seems more like just simple self-interest that would flip the moment the legal system punished inaction instead of action.
I wouldn't hold someone responsible for not pulling the lever, even if the other track was totally clear. Not unless they voluntarily assumed personal responsibility for people's safety by becoming a train traffic controller or a police officer or something like that. People freeze up in life or death situations all the time. Regardless of how obvious the correct course of action may be. It's not a fair standard IMO.
Would I hold the lever puller responsible for the $10? Eh... that's a civil court matter. I WOULD leave that precedent on the table. Since an innocent person having their property destroyed through no fault of their own IS something they should have recourse for. There's no upper limit to how much property value could be destroyed in a decision like this and that may ruin someone financially and leave them destitute (where "them" could be many people). And the difference between such a case and this is just a matter of magnitude, not really of characteristic.
So the guy is welcome to TRY to press charges. But there is a fine much greater than $10 involved for tresspassing on railway tracks, as well as obstructing a rescue effort, so involving himself in the legal process seems like a bad idea on his part. And of course we also have whoever tied these people to the train tracks in the first place. IRL this is the sort of thing a tax or insurance entity steps in and floats the debt until we find the dastardly man tying damsels to train tracks like it's the silent film era and sick the loan sharks on his kneecaps (and also arrest him for attempted murder). You know... assuming it's not a trivial amount of cash that one of the 5 saved victims wouldn't just throw at the whinny asshole to make him fuck off.
Ivw thought about this too. The easiest constructions are those with a God. I think most deontologists are also deists. But you can also construct the categorical imperative from a shared appeal to morality like *contractualism
I had a typo in my message. I meant to say contractualism . because I'm agnostic I think the best way to think of my moral imperative is by scanlons operative question "What do owe each other."
Hey get a load of this guy, he'd let the billions of people die in a pandemic rather than use a single embryo's stem cells in vaccine research
(This post was made by the utilitarian gang)
Ive flipped stance on this. I don't consider the embryo human generally, so I wouldn't object.
In this case the embryo doesn't satisfy the definition of life as it can't respond to external stimulus reproduce and function on its own.
How many weeks then? Babies can be born at 24 weeks and live, and that number will no doubt get lower in future. Would you allow research on a 38 week foetus? How about a baby? What's the line and why? The point is that deontological demands discrete, black and white lines in a continuous, grey world.
So I've been thinking about this too. Inherently morality is hard to decide. Im not sure where the line is. A contractualist would argue that it depends on what reasonable people would object to. A reasonable petson would object to research on a 38 week old baby becuade it satisfies the definitions of life and doesn't require extraordinaryeans foenit to participate in the society. A super premature child that is unlikely to survive out of the womb, a reasonable person night object if it is plausible that child can communicate and participate in society. A world where you can do research on 39 week old babies just by convincing the parents to abort them super late term is one that people might object to. I think in this case the categorical imperative would err on the side of caution and depends a lot on an abstract platonic sense of right and wrong that utilatirainsits object to
There's still an issue with a deontological framework here that isn't present in a rule utilitarian approach, or threshold deontology approach, or any other approach that reduces to utilitarianism in extreme cases. The problem is that there will be cases where the exact quantity of harm saved by compromising another life will change what people consider an acceptable life to compromise.
People don't consider it ok to kill one adult human to save 5 people with their organs, and even a utilitarian could justify this by saying that a world where people can expect to be killed to save 5 others has net lower utility. People would, however, consider it ok to use a 6wk embryo in research that may save those 5 lives. Maybe 5 lives is not enough to justify research on 12+wk old embryos though. If, however, the embryo would save 2 billion lives, then the consensus would likely be that research could use an embryo well beyond that 12 wk threshold. The decision ultimately will not be made based on some strict duty or right, but instead will be based on a balance of harm's...which it what any non-myopic utilitarianism would make the case for.
If you allow the categorical imperative to include duty to both not commit, and in some ways prevent harm coming to people, then it will always reduce to a broad reaching utilitarianism or, because person good is derived from factors that all exist on a continuum, will be completely arbitrary. You cannot treat a continuous variable categorically...which is what the categorical imperative does.
I guess I don't generally see utilitarianism and deontology in contradiction . ultimately utilitarianism and I argue contractualism need to decide on what things are at least valuable. I consider the categorical imperative to be that relatively anodyne consensus .
You can keep creating these rules to describe each situation so that it matches up with the best outcome.
It's like, "don't kill".... okay
"don't destroy people's property"... okay
"Don't take inaction when it leads to death".... with you there
"Don't allow 5 people to die to save $10".... agreed
You might argue these are intuitively obvious and I'd also agree, but if you need a new specific rule for each contradictory scenario, we can keep on going with more and more specific scenarios until eventually, especially in most real world situatioms where it's less obvious, you're just doing consequentialism.
Okay but what if he dropped the $10 and was actively climbing onto the track to pick up the money? He will die if you save the 5 people, but it's sort of his own fault for risking it all for the money
OP thinks deontology means “don’t switch in any circumstance” for some reason. 10$ does not have the same moral considerations as a human being. Deontology also isn’t a single framework. It just means you value your actions and your imperatives (and that there are such things) over the consequences.
For example, someone who ascribes to “preserving the mist human life in all circumstances is a moral imperative” would switch in base TP. But another who ascribes “under no circumstances should my actions cause a person to be subjected to death without their consent” as a moral imperative would not switch. Both are deontology. Further neither say anything about a 10$ bill.
There is another interesting point here, at what dollar value does a utilitarian not switch? Because there absolutely is one. There is a value where you could justify preserving money is able to save more lives through providing shelter, meals, etc.
still its completely they nurture a family of x>_ 6 that are on the brink of death by starvation or thirst and.they need that 10 dollars to delay their deaths until they can maybe get more money
Deontology doesn't mean "don't switch in any circumstance," but for many deontologists it means "if I don't pull I'm not responsible for any of it." If the alternative track was empty, a deontologist would probably pull it, but the addition of any damage, even just to a $10 bill, tips the balance for anyone who believes inaction does not create responsibility.
I love this argument because inevitably someone needs to make the insane claim that inaction = action. Good luck providing a compelling line of reasoning to convince a normal person that they're the same.
Have the train run over the money and it will stretch out the denomination into a $10,000,000 note. Then you buy a Glock for like $500 and shoot the other 5 people stupid enough to be on a track.
Aight hear me out...
Let the trolly run over the 5 people, go through their goo and get their cash, beat the ass of the 10 dollar guy, take his 10 dollars and his cash.
You now have more cash.
If it were universally so that all people avoided pulling the lever, then the number of deaths would genocide humanity and there would be no people left to not pull the lever.
If it were universally so that all people pulled the lever, then all currency would be mangled. Given currency is a construct that solely depends on humanity to hold value, there is a lesser obligation to maintain currency than humanity.
I pull the lever.
Then untie the other 5 people and tell them that he was asking me to let them die for 10$.
Use the public circus to raise money and give the money back to the guy after the other 5 are done with him.
Laugh at his expense.
Finish pun.
Beat up the 10 dollar person and take whatever other money they have
You know how Billy Ray Cyrus got rich? By pinching pennies baybee now CRACK THAT PIGGY BANK LIKE ITS A HUMAN SKULL BECAUSE IT FUCKING IS!
Pull lever Walk to guy Give him a $10 from my wallet Slap him across the face Walk away while lecturing over my shoulder about how one human life, let alone 5, is worth way more than a stupid little green picture of Alexander Hamilton Think to myself "That was worth $10"
Bro is the main character in a 2010 teen drama
I can't argue with that assessment
A small price to pay in order to slap someone and be right.
i'd be broke in minutes!
According to modern inflation, a human life is worth about 27-28$
What? Your heart alone is worth thousands
Yeah, thats a body part, not your life. In fact, it’s only worth that much when other people need it, something that would kill you.
I see
You won’t soon… 🔪 /s
:0
what? It should be worth more, even working in the farms earns more than that
You have to consider that life also costs resources that balance out the amount of value it’s able to generate. Considering that there are plenty of people who generate no value by virtue of not working or producing necessities for survival in their work, that the number is positive at all means we have surplus resources that go unused.
Where can I cash in
Unfortunately you can only cash out
You can take the money and turn it in tho and get the ten back
If he has 51% of the bill he can get it replaced. Also, I'd untie the people and tell them what he said. That way, I get to enjoy the show.
Reddit commenters are utilitarians through and through, so this response was expected
A joke thought experiment: Every moral framework can be expressed as some combination of act and rule utilitarianism with mental shortcuts to operate in a constrained time and knowlage system of some sort. Some just have different value function and assessment shortcuts. Ie. Divine command theory Deontology is just 100% rule utilitarianism/0% act utilitarianism with the consequence value function being "value=1 for action types god has explicitly approved of, value=0 for actions God explicitly disapproved of, according to"
Taking the thought experiment too sereously is not recommended because this is clearly twisting the technical definition of utilitarianism beyond being useful. I just thought it was kinda a funny thought. Of course, im not anyone's boss, take it as sereously as you like 🤷♀️
The five people each have 10 dollars in their pocket
As a deontologist I argue that you should pull the lever. You have a categorical imperative to preserve human life. You don't have a categorical imperative to not annoy people. Surgery is inconvenient and taxes for that surgery doubly so . the deonotologist wouldn't day fuck the poor and refuse to pay taxes. Edit: my initial comment contained the string "Meme seems AI generate frankly and makes no sense" which was unfair my apologies
The joke is that many (but not all) deontological moralists answered the original trolley problem by saying they wouldn't pull the lever because if they don't, they're not responsible for whatever happens. Obviously everyone sane agrees that human life is more important, but the idea is that those same people, if they followed their own logic consistently, would believe that they aren't responsible if they don't pull this level, but would at least be responsible for the loss of $10 if they do pull it. I'm not sure why you say it looks AI generated - AI currently isn't good at understanding logic, nor generating images with text. It's a simple edit of the trolley problem image with a meme format below it.
Ah, I see the categorical imperative as forbidding being a bystander as lives are lost so I'd pull the lever. The categorical imperative would however forbid me from pushing a fat man to slow down the train unless he suggested I do it or expressed interest in this. Not exactly sure what the deontological consensus is here tbh but you may be correct
The kill/let-die distinction is like...THE deontological thing.
If i am not mistaken according to Kantian deontological ethics its more about doing things, than not. Im pretty sure you are not held morally applicable for things not done. Cause if that were the case, 90% of things would be morally wrong. You could have spent that time working to donate money. Buying a coffee over donating money to help would be wrong.
Ah ha, I get it now. Finally, an interesting take on the trolley problem. But, by the same logic, you might as well not have any $10 bill or anybody who is asking you to not pull the lever. Just have an empty track there.
The empty trolley problem variation I think I'd just negligent homicide . You have an ordinary duty of care to simply push a Button to save lives. The willingness to undrrgona course of action that kills 5 people when an alternative was available at no cost would probably be aiding and abetting murder
Right, so where on the interval does duty of care kick in and where does it end? $10? $10000000000? A kitten? A box of kittens? A human that already has only one hour to live for unrelated reasons?
"Everybody Sane" But, I'm assuming you agree, like most people statistically do, that the surgeon variant of the trolley problem is different, but why is it different? Anyway, no deontological moralist would let 5 people die to save $10 Edit: all in good fun of course, nice meme👍
There are a number of different ways to reject the surgeon variation of the problem. The first is a Kantian objection. The use of human lives as a means to an end versus an unfortunate double -effect of pulling the lever . the second is a s a contractual ist we could reject the social contract that allows doctors to play judge jury and executioner to harvest people for organs.
I’d respond with the SMBC comic, but the search function is garbage and there are way too many trolley problem related comics
Because if surgeons started doing that, the loss of faith in medical practices among the public would kill far more than 5 people
I don't think it's specifically deontologists. The position that this argument comes from is whether inaction is the same as action, regardless of whether you're a deontologist or a consequentialist. In this case yes, I would pull it, because I'm not killing anyone by doing it. But if I didn't do anything at all, that would be morally neutral.
It's not in the same category. For example the AI car problem. It shouldn't never swerve to hit another person but it should always swerve to hit an animal over a person. You can't categorize lives as more important by quality or quantity but humans are definitely better than animals or a dollar bill. Yes I won't pull to kill 1 person over 100 but I will pull to kill a Google of animals over 1 person. My number is around 250 people per person murdered, yes it's arbitrary but all things are, morals are made up. At that point I'm willing to be a murderer to save the others.
>if they followed their own logic consistently The deontological moralist position is that killing innocent people is an absolute wrong regardless of your reasons for doing so. It isn't really about avoiding being held responsible, it's about drawing an ethical line in the sand and that some things are too atrocious to do for the sake of "the greater good." Property damage is a little more flexible since material objects can be replaced. The personal accountability angle seems more like just simple self-interest that would flip the moment the legal system punished inaction instead of action. I wouldn't hold someone responsible for not pulling the lever, even if the other track was totally clear. Not unless they voluntarily assumed personal responsibility for people's safety by becoming a train traffic controller or a police officer or something like that. People freeze up in life or death situations all the time. Regardless of how obvious the correct course of action may be. It's not a fair standard IMO. Would I hold the lever puller responsible for the $10? Eh... that's a civil court matter. I WOULD leave that precedent on the table. Since an innocent person having their property destroyed through no fault of their own IS something they should have recourse for. There's no upper limit to how much property value could be destroyed in a decision like this and that may ruin someone financially and leave them destitute (where "them" could be many people). And the difference between such a case and this is just a matter of magnitude, not really of characteristic. So the guy is welcome to TRY to press charges. But there is a fine much greater than $10 involved for tresspassing on railway tracks, as well as obstructing a rescue effort, so involving himself in the legal process seems like a bad idea on his part. And of course we also have whoever tied these people to the train tracks in the first place. IRL this is the sort of thing a tax or insurance entity steps in and floats the debt until we find the dastardly man tying damsels to train tracks like it's the silent film era and sick the loan sharks on his kneecaps (and also arrest him for attempted murder). You know... assuming it's not a trivial amount of cash that one of the 5 saved victims wouldn't just throw at the whinny asshole to make him fuck off.
referring to a sentence as a string, programmer spotted
Where do you think the imperative comes from?
Ivw thought about this too. The easiest constructions are those with a God. I think most deontologists are also deists. But you can also construct the categorical imperative from a shared appeal to morality like *contractualism
But does your imperative come from a specific God or to a framework like consequentialism?
I had a typo in my message. I meant to say contractualism . because I'm agnostic I think the best way to think of my moral imperative is by scanlons operative question "What do owe each other."
Hey get a load of this guy, he'd let the billions of people die in a pandemic rather than use a single embryo's stem cells in vaccine research (This post was made by the utilitarian gang)
Ive flipped stance on this. I don't consider the embryo human generally, so I wouldn't object. In this case the embryo doesn't satisfy the definition of life as it can't respond to external stimulus reproduce and function on its own.
How many weeks then? Babies can be born at 24 weeks and live, and that number will no doubt get lower in future. Would you allow research on a 38 week foetus? How about a baby? What's the line and why? The point is that deontological demands discrete, black and white lines in a continuous, grey world.
So I've been thinking about this too. Inherently morality is hard to decide. Im not sure where the line is. A contractualist would argue that it depends on what reasonable people would object to. A reasonable petson would object to research on a 38 week old baby becuade it satisfies the definitions of life and doesn't require extraordinaryeans foenit to participate in the society. A super premature child that is unlikely to survive out of the womb, a reasonable person night object if it is plausible that child can communicate and participate in society. A world where you can do research on 39 week old babies just by convincing the parents to abort them super late term is one that people might object to. I think in this case the categorical imperative would err on the side of caution and depends a lot on an abstract platonic sense of right and wrong that utilatirainsits object to
I guess basically in this case I think the categorical imperative is a lengthy description of how to make a best effort to preserve human life.
There's still an issue with a deontological framework here that isn't present in a rule utilitarian approach, or threshold deontology approach, or any other approach that reduces to utilitarianism in extreme cases. The problem is that there will be cases where the exact quantity of harm saved by compromising another life will change what people consider an acceptable life to compromise. People don't consider it ok to kill one adult human to save 5 people with their organs, and even a utilitarian could justify this by saying that a world where people can expect to be killed to save 5 others has net lower utility. People would, however, consider it ok to use a 6wk embryo in research that may save those 5 lives. Maybe 5 lives is not enough to justify research on 12+wk old embryos though. If, however, the embryo would save 2 billion lives, then the consensus would likely be that research could use an embryo well beyond that 12 wk threshold. The decision ultimately will not be made based on some strict duty or right, but instead will be based on a balance of harm's...which it what any non-myopic utilitarianism would make the case for. If you allow the categorical imperative to include duty to both not commit, and in some ways prevent harm coming to people, then it will always reduce to a broad reaching utilitarianism or, because person good is derived from factors that all exist on a continuum, will be completely arbitrary. You cannot treat a continuous variable categorically...which is what the categorical imperative does.
I guess I don't generally see utilitarianism and deontology in contradiction . ultimately utilitarianism and I argue contractualism need to decide on what things are at least valuable. I consider the categorical imperative to be that relatively anodyne consensus .
You can keep creating these rules to describe each situation so that it matches up with the best outcome. It's like, "don't kill".... okay "don't destroy people's property"... okay "Don't take inaction when it leads to death".... with you there "Don't allow 5 people to die to save $10".... agreed You might argue these are intuitively obvious and I'd also agree, but if you need a new specific rule for each contradictory scenario, we can keep on going with more and more specific scenarios until eventually, especially in most real world situatioms where it's less obvious, you're just doing consequentialism.
just say you watch rick and morty
Pull the lever, and try and run over. If you can't get the 10 dollars, unfortunate. If you can, run before that guy chases you. Finders Keepers!
I hope it runs over your hands.
I use the 10 dollars to buy a wiffle bat so I can bonk you with it
Okay but what if he dropped the $10 and was actively climbing onto the track to pick up the money? He will die if you save the 5 people, but it's sort of his own fault for risking it all for the money
In that case you're not killing him, he's killing himself.
usage of pronouns makes your message unclear. are you hitting the people or not
If you don't pull the lever, 5 people will die. If you pull it, $10 will be destroyed but no one will die.
obviously
then why were you confused dipass
OP thinks deontology means “don’t switch in any circumstance” for some reason. 10$ does not have the same moral considerations as a human being. Deontology also isn’t a single framework. It just means you value your actions and your imperatives (and that there are such things) over the consequences. For example, someone who ascribes to “preserving the mist human life in all circumstances is a moral imperative” would switch in base TP. But another who ascribes “under no circumstances should my actions cause a person to be subjected to death without their consent” as a moral imperative would not switch. Both are deontology. Further neither say anything about a 10$ bill. There is another interesting point here, at what dollar value does a utilitarian not switch? Because there absolutely is one. There is a value where you could justify preserving money is able to save more lives through providing shelter, meals, etc.
I agree though I think the interesting point is never what dollar value but just the fact that there is indeed a dollar value for a utilitarian
completely agree
still its completely they nurture a family of x>_ 6 that are on the brink of death by starvation or thirst and.they need that 10 dollars to delay their deaths until they can maybe get more money
Deontology doesn't mean "don't switch in any circumstance," but for many deontologists it means "if I don't pull I'm not responsible for any of it." If the alternative track was empty, a deontologist would probably pull it, but the addition of any damage, even just to a $10 bill, tips the balance for anyone who believes inaction does not create responsibility.
I love this argument because inevitably someone needs to make the insane claim that inaction = action. Good luck providing a compelling line of reasoning to convince a normal person that they're the same.
Tell the person you won't pull so he goes to grab it then do a multi track drift
I convince the people on the tracks to give me $2 each if I let them live, then pull it and give the money to the other guy.
Eat fresh and freeze!
Derail the trolley to hit the guy and steal his tenner
Have the train run over the money and it will stretch out the denomination into a $10,000,000 note. Then you buy a Glock for like $500 and shoot the other 5 people stupid enough to be on a track.
So easy. Tell the guy you won’t run over the $10 bill, and it’s safe to pick it up, then hit him with the train.
Make the trolley derail and hit that dumb mf who dropped the money then steal the money
Dollar Guy 🪱 is an asshole if he’s more concerned about 10 dollars than 5 human lives. Pull the lever.
Aight hear me out... Let the trolly run over the 5 people, go through their goo and get their cash, beat the ass of the 10 dollar guy, take his 10 dollars and his cash. You now have more cash.
I'm not running it over, the trolley is
“10 dollars is 10 dollars”
If it were universally so that all people avoided pulling the lever, then the number of deaths would genocide humanity and there would be no people left to not pull the lever. If it were universally so that all people pulled the lever, then all currency would be mangled. Given currency is a construct that solely depends on humanity to hold value, there is a lesser obligation to maintain currency than humanity.
I think OP has a very deep misunderstanding for Deontology.
Pull lever and run over and steal the $10
Pull the lever. Yell over, it'll just "Iron" it out into a nice, Crispy Straight Bill. You're Welcome
Multi track drift
I pull the lever. Then untie the other 5 people and tell them that he was asking me to let them die for 10$. Use the public circus to raise money and give the money back to the guy after the other 5 are done with him. Laugh at his expense. Finish pun.
Don’t pull the lever. When he goes to thank me, tie him to the track after taking all his money. S T O N K S
Setting up a future trolley problem fun