![railway-train.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmf9N2NmpFncJhSReuu1CvKR31sqPacN1hKKkbrYojoNQn/railway-train.jpg)

<hr>

The Trolley Problem is a famous issue which my last post discussed so if you want some background you can read that <a href="https://steemit.com/philosophy/@arckrai/the-trolley-problem-what-would-you-do">here</a>. I never thought of trolley problems as anything other than 'stepping off points' for thinking about 'morality'. I think their real purpose is to lay open issues such as how much of our 'moral sense' is intuitive and how much is strictly rational.

One argument that can be bred from it is what are the morals regarding someone not doing anything versus someone that steps in but consequently, he has killed someone by his own doing. 

I'm going to be looking at if it is the right thing to step in and if so should you be morally be held accountable for leading to someones death or intern not doing anything and letting people die.

<h3> Should You Throw Yourself In And Intervene? </h3>

Moral imperatives should, without fail, be negative. Or else, would we be able to ever truly know whether we are positively moral? If my ethical quality depends on a boundless number of decisions of which I could do to make this arbitrary and silly standard of utility or joy; at that point, I can never know whether there was something unique I could have done to make a significantly better choice. 

Morality is a conscious being's willpower to oppose self-centeredness and indulgence. When you oppose your immoral tendencies, you prevail with regards to being an ethical individual. Straightforward. Simple. No misrepresentations. No infinite cloudy ability based complex explanations which are difficult to measure. No illogical advantages for the powerful over the meek.

<h3>The Difference Of Being Moral And A Moral Action</h3> 

All things considered, there is a difference between an individual being moral and actively being moral. As I would see it, a man can be perfectly moral without completing moral actions, assuming that they mean well, and have made sincere efforts to formulate a moral standard which they try to live up to and which they honestly believe is right (emphasis on sincere).

What more would you be able to ask of an individual? When I call an activity moral all I'm stating is that it's preferable that it was done over not done. It is what we should believe is right, one might say. Somebody can be moral and fail to behave in the way they should, assuming they do not intentionally do wrong.

Accomplishing an ideal state is, more likely than not, beyond our reach, so we are constantly left thinking about whether there was something more we could have done, yet that does not mean we cannot decide between things and it does not imply that we are immoral if we can't figure out exactly how to behave.

Most of the world goes by if someone can't help, then we don't criticise them for not helping. But if someone can help, we do.

![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmYYWFuTyiXpjezxbS2n3887y9yfDLftSB4hHXyMW9P4ge/image.png)