I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
The justification is that the guy is really fat, which is believable enough.
but if he's of sufficient mass to stop a trolley of sufficient mass and velocity to kill people in its tracks, then he's of sufficient mass that you can't push him off the bridge!
You have an infinitely long lever with which to tip him.
The fat man's name? Archimedes
If Chevy plays their cards right they can eat Tesla's lunch on the on non-luxury market.
They're coming out later this year, as opposed to sometime 2017, maybe. Tesla is also about to use up their $7500 tax credit which Chevy still has plenty of room on.
Also APPARENTLY the same guy who owns Tesla can't even fuel a rocket properly
I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
Well then I'd be directly murdering one person to save others and that doesn't make the murder okay. Ends don't justify the means.
In the trolley switch scenario, I'm lessening the tragedy by intervening and causing less casualties, not specifically murdering one guy.
Hmm, I dunno, I guess I still don't know why hitting the switch to divert the trolley isn't "specifically murdering one guy". Although I think we would benefit from using "killing" rather than "murdering", unless you want to strictly define murder I guess.
For what it's worth, it feels different to me too. I'm just not sure that there's really a logical difference between killing a guy by pushing him off a bridge and killing a guy by hitting a track switch.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
The justification is that the guy is really fat, which is believable enough.
but if he's of sufficient mass to stop a trolley of sufficient mass and velocity to kill people in its tracks, then he's of sufficient mass that you can't push him off the bridge!
he's wearing roller skates
*furiously scribbling physics equations*
if we assume a reduced coefficient of friction for the roller skates...say 0.10, and the necessary kinetic energy of the trolley for lethal impact is conservatively assumed to be 5000 lbs travelling at 30 mph, then the required mass of the body to reduce the impact to a nonlethal speed of 15 mph is...
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
Well then I'd be directly murdering one person to save others and that doesn't make the murder okay. Ends don't justify the means.
In the trolley switch scenario, I'm lessening the tragedy by intervening and causing less casualties, not specifically murdering one guy.
Hmm, I dunno, I guess I still don't know why hitting the switch to divert the trolley isn't "specifically murdering one guy". Although I think we would benefit from using "killing" rather than "murdering", unless you want to strictly define murder I guess.
For what it's worth, it feels different to me too. I'm just not sure that there's really a logical difference between killing a guy by pushing him off a bridge and killing a guy by hitting a track switch.
In one scenario I am directly ending the life of someone uninvolved otherwise. I am choosing to take this person and their life out of their hands and putting them into my own in order to save these others instead. I don't get to make that decision. How do I pick which person to throw off the bridge? Why not throw myself off the bridge instead, if I really want to save those people?
I definitely think it is different but it is very difficult for me to articulate why.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
The justification is that the guy is really fat, which is believable enough.
Oh right, I remember that now.
Hmm, I understand why they do it that way, to make it believable that he could stop the trolley, but I also think it might bring it some externalities related to people's feelings about fat people and their worth. Like, it opens it up for the inevitable "eh, he's really fat, he's probably going to die soon anyway" argument, when that's not really the point.
A trolly is out of control, and is about to hit Threshold and A Night in Sickbay. If you switch the points you can make it hit Duet and Best of Both Worlds
I'm not going to ask what you do, I'm just describing what happens
The five people on the track are also really fat and the train conductor is a Paralympic gold medalist who is unaware of what is happening. Also, there is a convention of nuns at a coffee house nearby the train switch.
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
I also think there is a difference between "what would you do" and "what do you think is the right thing to do".
Like, I remember reading something where people were asked the trolley problem, and most people chose to kill one person. Then it was framed as you have to push one person off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five people, and most people who had said they'd kill one person in the trolley problem now said they wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.
In order to maintain logical consistency, if I believe I should divert the trolley to kill one person in the first scenario, I must also believe the right course of action is to push the guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
Whether I could actually bring myself to do it, though, is another story.
This is vastly different though, it is not logically consistent.
Pushing someone off a bridge is murder. Changing the course of a speeding trolley to lessen it's impact is an attempt to lessen tragedy.
Choosing to hit a pedestrian with your bus instead of plowing into an elementary school when the bus brakes are out isn't murder. Shoving a pedestrian into the bus to change its path is.
This is interesting to me. Why is pushing someone off a bridge to kill them murder, but changing a trolley track to kill someone isn't murder?
Sorry for several pages late on this. I guess my question is how can pushing someone off a bridge prevent the deaths of the others? Depending on the situation, things change and I can't imagine a scenario that is similar enough to the trolley one. Also this is way too many pages past and I think everyone stopped talking about it. Having a hard time articulating why I believe those are fundamentally different but I think I don't have enough context for the bridge.
Oh, the justification is that pushing the guy off the bridge stops the trolley by blocking the tracks or whatever. It is admittedly more of a stretch wrt physics and whatnot, but given that we're discussing dry hypotheticals I think it's fine to just be like "it stops the trolley, don't worry about the details".
Well then I'd be directly murdering one person to save others and that doesn't make the murder okay. Ends don't justify the means.
In the trolley switch scenario, I'm lessening the tragedy by intervening and causing less casualties, not specifically murdering one guy.
Hmm, I dunno, I guess I still don't know why hitting the switch to divert the trolley isn't "specifically murdering one guy". Although I think we would benefit from using "killing" rather than "murdering", unless you want to strictly define murder I guess.
For what it's worth, it feels different to me too. I'm just not sure that there's really a logical difference between killing a guy by pushing him off a bridge and killing a guy by hitting a track switch.
In one scenario I am directly ending the life of someone uninvolved otherwise. I am choosing to take this person and their life out of their hands and putting them into my own in order to save these others instead. I don't get to make that decision. How do I pick which person to throw off the bridge? Why not throw myself off the bridge instead, if I really want to save those people?
I definitely think it is different but it is very difficult for me to articulate why.
Oh yeah, this makes sense to me, actually. I will have to think on this more.
the solution to the trolley problem is clearly to push the one guy onto the track with the other people so that way everyone dies and no one is worth any more than any other person
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
I would smother six babies
Bless your heart.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
But seriously, [chat]
I've remained silent on it because there's been no conclusion so far!
Why does a rocket just explode on the pad?
And why the second stage again?
They weren't even near time for ignition!
But don't even get me started on their chosen ignition method anyway.
I mean, yeah, you gotta do what you gotta do when you don't want to use hydrogen
And let's all just be thankful they don't!
Jesus Christ can you not even make a pressure vessel?
I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, so maybe there's a fundamental bit I'm just not understanding
If Chevy plays their cards right they can eat Tesla's lunch on the on non-luxury market.
They're coming out later this year, as opposed to sometime 2017, maybe. Tesla is also about to use up their $7500 tax credit which Chevy still has plenty of room on.
Show me an affordable electric or hybrid with a non-restrictive range, and I'll maybe buy one. As it stands, it feels far more flexible and economical to chase better gas efficiency if for no other reason than you can refuel anywhere.
First contact really isn't that good. It's best of the TNG movies but omg that's such a low bar. Out of every Trek film every made, including Galaxy Quest, there's maybe four good ones.
Posts
First story in the Wishbone Revival should be the Dunwich Horror
You have an infinitely long lever with which to tip him.
The fat man's name? Archimedes
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
why am i so great
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Blow up both trolleys, and the rails, and the people, and nuke the city from orbit.
It's ok, the automobile killed the trolley decades ago. I saw it in a documentary about a rabbit accused of homicide.
Magical Golden Menorah at Bar Mitzvah we have seen the photo
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
wreckingball.gif
Also APPARENTLY the same guy who owns Tesla can't even fuel a rocket properly
*grumbles*
Hmm, I dunno, I guess I still don't know why hitting the switch to divert the trolley isn't "specifically murdering one guy". Although I think we would benefit from using "killing" rather than "murdering", unless you want to strictly define murder I guess.
For what it's worth, it feels different to me too. I'm just not sure that there's really a logical difference between killing a guy by pushing him off a bridge and killing a guy by hitting a track switch.
*furiously scribbling physics equations*
if we assume a reduced coefficient of friction for the roller skates...say 0.10, and the necessary kinetic energy of the trolley for lethal impact is conservatively assumed to be 5000 lbs travelling at 30 mph, then the required mass of the body to reduce the impact to a nonlethal speed of 15 mph is...
i feel like maybe it is a reflection of everyone else's own inner greatness
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Oh my god, I remember this
I remember everything
Cool dog!
Graaaaaaaaaahhhh
NNID: Hakkekage
First Contact will always be my favorite for that, if only because it shows Picard when pushed would commit serious war crimes against the borg.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
In one scenario I am directly ending the life of someone uninvolved otherwise. I am choosing to take this person and their life out of their hands and putting them into my own in order to save these others instead. I don't get to make that decision. How do I pick which person to throw off the bridge? Why not throw myself off the bridge instead, if I really want to save those people?
I definitely think it is different but it is very difficult for me to articulate why.
For real, when it comes to the Borg Picard is a scary mother fucker.
Oh right, I remember that now.
Hmm, I understand why they do it that way, to make it believable that he could stop the trolley, but I also think it might bring it some externalities related to people's feelings about fat people and their worth. Like, it opens it up for the inevitable "eh, he's really fat, he's probably going to die soon anyway" argument, when that's not really the point.
I'm not going to ask what you do, I'm just describing what happens
Oh yeah, this makes sense to me, actually. I will have to think on this more.
I've remained silent on it because there's been no conclusion so far!
Why does a rocket just explode on the pad?
And why the second stage again?
They weren't even near time for ignition!
But don't even get me started on their chosen ignition method anyway.
I mean, yeah, you gotta do what you gotta do when you don't want to use hydrogen
And let's all just be thankful they don't!
Jesus Christ can you not even make a pressure vessel?
I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, so maybe there's a fundamental bit I'm just not understanding
But I am goddamn BeNarwhal, so I highly doubt it!
boo hoo
Show me an affordable electric or hybrid with a non-restrictive range, and I'll maybe buy one. As it stands, it feels far more flexible and economical to chase better gas efficiency if for no other reason than you can refuel anywhere.
Infrastructure, yo.