The original trolley problem serves as a thought experiment to illustrate two points:
When holding a personal code (e.g. Batman's code against killing) can lead to a worse outcome, morality may not be so clear, and...
Sometimes incidental circumstances can influence how we interpret the situation, which can alter what we feel is the better choice. It's easier to pull a lever than to strongarm a big guy in front of the trolley, to personally gun down an innocent refugee or to carve up an innocent stranger to harvest their organs, even though the outcome is the same.
We can see real-world examples of how corruption sways officials from representing their constituency to representing plutocratic campaign contributors. They're often not making a moral decision, so much as making a decision informed by their own need to survive and continue their career. They might justify their decision with contrivance to soften the blow, but those who imagine themselves moral still know they're forced to abide by corrupting influences to keep their jobs. (We've had to watch while Representative Occasio-Cortez concede her values to preserve political influence over the last decade. It's ugly.)
Hence we have situations like the opening scene to Inglourious Basterds ( on Youtube ) in which a dairy farmer in occupied France has to decide between lying to Nazi Jew-hunters and preserving the well-being of his own family. Very often, we cannot afford to do the moral thing, for fear of personal consequences, even as we know we're only prolonging the time to our own eventual downfall.
The rich dude should be on the bottom track and the people on the upper track. The rich continually decide to fuck us over. They don't just do it passively. They choose to protect each other instead of us.
