the trolley problem does reveal some of our underlying calculus regarding life and choice though
it is interesting and dumb
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Also, no, I'm not being purposefully obtuse OR dumb (and I'd ask you kindly not to call me dumb again.)
I -get- that I'm supposed to take the problem at face value and accept the scenario as is. Sorry. It's poorly written. It also makes you the ONLY thing in the scenario capable of autonomy.
I -get- the scenario. If you want the answer, it's obviously pull the lever.
You know if you want to accept the half baked attempt at scenario writing
Is the classic construction of the trolley problem such that you have to hit the switch to change to the track with one person but if you do nothing the trolley hits the five people?
I have read so many versions of it at this point I don't know what the point of the original was.
Exactly.
Maybe someone can explain why this makes a difference, then.
Assume for a moment that we're all...utilitarians, right? Those are the ones who think it's better to kill 1 person than 5? Whatever, pretend we're all those people. What is the argument in favor of doing nothing vs doing something?
I am explaining this badly, perhaps. My personal view is that you are making a choice regardless. The instant the choice is presented to you, you are no longer "doing nothing" by not hitting the switch. Doing nothing is equally a choice as hitting the switch. So at that point it reduces to a "is it better to kill 1 person or 5 people" problem. What is the argument against this stance?
The counterargument is pretty much only about whether or not inaction is fundamentally different from action, yes.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Is the classic construction of the trolley problem such that you have to hit the switch to change to the track with one person but if you do nothing the trolley hits the five people?
I have read so many versions of it at this point I don't know what the point of the original was.
Exactly.
Maybe someone can explain why this makes a difference, then.
Assume for a moment that we're all...utilitarians, right? Those are the ones who think it's better to kill 1 person than 5? Whatever, pretend we're all those people. What is the argument in favor of doing nothing vs doing something?
I am explaining this badly, perhaps. My personal view is that you are making a choice regardless. The instant the choice is presented to you, you are no longer "doing nothing" by not hitting the switch. Doing nothing is equally a choice as hitting the switch. So at that point it reduces to a "is it better to kill 1 person or 5 people" problem. What is the argument against this stance?
You're correct. The counter-argument is that you can 'opt out' by not doing anything, evading moral responsibility or involvement. "I didn't tie anyone to the tracks, so I'm not guilty. If I throw the lever, then I'll be guilty of killing one person."
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
Is there a moral framework that provides moral justification for me preferring people I know and care about over strangers?
Like, does there exist a morality where it's cool that if the one person on the track is my sister and the other five people are strangers, I'd probably kill the five people?
I wouldn't kill five humans to save my dog though. ):
I love my dog very much but human life has more value than animal life when you get down to it.
Would you kill five dogs to save your dog
What if they were looking at you the whole time, all the dogs, just happy to be around you and existing, not even knowing the trolley was heading for them
Is the Trolley thing supposed to be about if one life is equal to five? The part I'm not getting is, assuming you know nothing about the people on the tracks, you should definitely save the higher amount of people. If a plane can crash into a hundred people or two hundred people, isn't the answer obviously to shoot for less casualties?
Is the one person like doogie howser or someone?
naw the real question I think is whether you should intervene with fate or not
fate kills five people vs you kill one person
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I wouldn't kill five humans to save my dog though. ):
I love my dog very much but human life has more value than animal life when you get down to it.
Would you kill five dogs to save your dog
What if they were looking at you the whole time, all the dogs, just happy to be around you and existing, not even knowing the trolley was heading for them
Is the classic construction of the trolley problem such that you have to hit the switch to change to the track with one person but if you do nothing the trolley hits the five people?
I have read so many versions of it at this point I don't know what the point of the original was.
Exactly.
Maybe someone can explain why this makes a difference, then.
Assume for a moment that we're all...utilitarians, right? Those are the ones who think it's better to kill 1 person than 5? Whatever, pretend we're all those people. What is the argument in favor of doing nothing vs doing something?
I am explaining this badly, perhaps. My personal view is that you are making a choice regardless. The instant the choice is presented to you, you are no longer "doing nothing" by not hitting the switch. Doing nothing is equally a choice as hitting the switch. So at that point it reduces to a "is it better to kill 1 person or 5 people" problem. What is the argument against this stance?
You're correct. The counter-argument is that you can 'opt out' by not doing anything, evading moral responsibility or involvement. "I didn't tie anyone to the tracks, so I'm not guilty. If I throw the lever, then I'll be guilty of killing one person."
Right, my question is, is there any good justification for that counter-argument?
Edit: Or rather, is there an accepted justification.
Hi I'm Vee! on
+1
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
desc let's talk about Belly of the Beast
+1
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't kill five humans to save my dog though. ):
I love my dog very much but human life has more value than animal life when you get down to it.
Would you kill five dogs to save your dog
What if they were looking at you the whole time, all the dogs, just happy to be around you and existing, not even knowing the trolley was heading for them
But would my dog be aware
Aware of my betrayal
Would he know, EM
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Also, no, I'm not being purposefully obtuse OR dumb (and I'd ask you kindly not to call me dumb again.)
I -get- that I'm supposed to take the problem at face value and accept the scenario as is. Sorry. It's poorly written. It also makes you the ONLY thing in the scenario capable of autonomy.
I -get- the scenario. If you want the answer, it's obviously pull the lever.
You know if you want to accept the half baked attempt at scenario writing
You're asking a practical starting point for a philosophical debate to be a D&D campaign. That's not what it's for.
Also, no, I'm not being purposefully obtuse OR dumb (and I'd ask you kindly not to call me dumb again.)
I -get- that I'm supposed to take the problem at face value and accept the scenario as is. Sorry. It's poorly written. It also makes you the ONLY thing in the scenario capable of autonomy.
I -get- the scenario. If you want the answer, it's obviously pull the lever.
You know if you want to accept the half baked attempt at scenario writing
Is the Trolley thing supposed to be about if one life is equal to five? The part I'm not getting is, assuming you know nothing about the people on the tracks, you should definitely save the higher amount of people. If a plane can crash into a hundred people or two hundred people, isn't the answer obviously to shoot for less casualties?
Is the classic construction of the trolley problem such that you have to hit the switch to change to the track with one person but if you do nothing the trolley hits the five people?
I have read so many versions of it at this point I don't know what the point of the original was.
Exactly.
Maybe someone can explain why this makes a difference, then.
Assume for a moment that we're all...utilitarians, right? Those are the ones who think it's better to kill 1 person than 5? Whatever, pretend we're all those people. What is the argument in favor of doing nothing vs doing something?
I am explaining this badly, perhaps. My personal view is that you are making a choice regardless. The instant the choice is presented to you, you are no longer "doing nothing" by not hitting the switch. Doing nothing is equally a choice as hitting the switch. So at that point it reduces to a "is it better to kill 1 person or 5 people" problem. What is the argument against this stance?
You're correct. The counter-argument is that you can 'opt out' by not doing anything, evading moral responsibility or involvement. "I didn't tie anyone to the tracks, so I'm not guilty. If I throw the lever, then I'll be guilty of killing one person."
Although if you get assigned a debate position and have to do the counter-argument, hard mode is not basing your argument on this and instead somehow trying to argue that it is better to kill the five people in the way than the one. If you can pull that of, you get a huge score multiplier.
Oh my god chat actually got sucked into the trolley problem through memes
Hue hue hue hue another rat tried to nibble the cheese perched just so atop this trap
IT'S SO TASTY
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Is the Trolley thing supposed to be about if one life is equal to five? The part I'm not getting is, assuming you know nothing about the people on the tracks, you should definitely save the higher amount of people. If a plane can crash into a hundred people or two hundred people, isn't the answer obviously to shoot for less casualties?
Is the one person like doogie howser or someone?
naw the real question I think is whether you should intervene with fate or not
fate kills five people vs you kill one person
I 100% agree
I'm always a little balked by how quickly people are like but I saved five people and killed one only
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Is the classic construction of the trolley problem such that you have to hit the switch to change to the track with one person but if you do nothing the trolley hits the five people?
I have read so many versions of it at this point I don't know what the point of the original was.
Exactly.
Maybe someone can explain why this makes a difference, then.
Assume for a moment that we're all...utilitarians, right? Those are the ones who think it's better to kill 1 person than 5? Whatever, pretend we're all those people. What is the argument in favor of doing nothing vs doing something?
I am explaining this badly, perhaps. My personal view is that you are making a choice regardless. The instant the choice is presented to you, you are no longer "doing nothing" by not hitting the switch. Doing nothing is equally a choice as hitting the switch. So at that point it reduces to a "is it better to kill 1 person or 5 people" problem. What is the argument against this stance?
You're correct. The counter-argument is that you can 'opt out' by not doing anything, evading moral responsibility or involvement. "I didn't tie anyone to the tracks, so I'm not guilty. If I throw the lever, then I'll be guilty of killing one person."
Although if you get assigned a debate position and have to do the counter-argument, hard mode is not basing your argument on this and instead somehow trying to argue that it is better to kill the five people in the way than the one. If you can pull that of, you get a huge score multiplier.
human life is ultimately deleterious to the universe and all other lifeforms
the only ethical path is to kill as many humans as possible before your suicide
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
He was sentenced to death for his crimes before the worm ate earth
Considering himself half a ghost already, he takes foolhardy risks for useless but ostentatious trinkets buried in the rubble and stomach acid of the Digestive Tract but his newfound fraternity of adventurers begins to remind him that even in adversity, some things are more valuable than Jade
Is the Trolley thing supposed to be about if one life is equal to five? The part I'm not getting is, assuming you know nothing about the people on the tracks, you should definitely save the higher amount of people. If a plane can crash into a hundred people or two hundred people, isn't the answer obviously to shoot for less casualties?
Is the one person like doogie howser or someone?
naw the real question I think is whether you should intervene with fate or not
fate kills five people vs you kill one person
But refusing to do something counts as doing something. Fate put you by the lever. If you ignore it, it's not fate's fault, it is yours.
If someone is on fire next to you and you don't help them the bucket of water you have, you helped harm that person with your inaction.
edit: I still want to know if saving someone via time travel is morally problematic because you don't know how that will affect the timeline.
That thing with trying to get a group of different animals across a river with one boat without them eating each other like why the hell am I even doing that.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Also ethics is a fucking joke. The Stanford Prison experiment proved that.
In fact, the aliens should have vaporized us right then
Is the Trolley thing supposed to be about if one life is equal to five? The part I'm not getting is, assuming you know nothing about the people on the tracks, you should definitely save the higher amount of people. If a plane can crash into a hundred people or two hundred people, isn't the answer obviously to shoot for less casualties?
Is the one person like doogie howser or someone?
naw the real question I think is whether you should intervene with fate or not
fate kills five people vs you kill one person
I 100% agree
I'm always a little balked by how quickly people are like but I saved five people and killed one only
killing a man and letting a man die both get you locked up in jail. "Intervene with fate" is some bullshit. It's you equally much whatever the outcome. Letting something happen isn't opting out. It is letting it happen.
Posts
You have to admire the brutal efficiency of Batman's personal philosophy
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
360 degree coverage.
No one person left un-bbqed.
it is interesting and dumb
I -get- that I'm supposed to take the problem at face value and accept the scenario as is. Sorry. It's poorly written. It also makes you the ONLY thing in the scenario capable of autonomy.
I -get- the scenario. If you want the answer, it's obviously pull the lever.
You know if you want to accept the half baked attempt at scenario writing
The counterargument is pretty much only about whether or not inaction is fundamentally different from action, yes.
You're correct. The counter-argument is that you can 'opt out' by not doing anything, evading moral responsibility or involvement. "I didn't tie anyone to the tracks, so I'm not guilty. If I throw the lever, then I'll be guilty of killing one person."
Like, does there exist a morality where it's cool that if the one person on the track is my sister and the other five people are strangers, I'd probably kill the five people?
Would you kill five dogs to save your dog
What if they were looking at you the whole time, all the dogs, just happy to be around you and existing, not even knowing the trolley was heading for them
naw the real question I think is whether you should intervene with fate or not
fate kills five people vs you kill one person
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Hue hue hue hue another rat tried to nibble the cheese perched just so atop this trap
Are they all good utilitarians?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Right, my question is, is there any good justification for that counter-argument?
Edit: Or rather, is there an accepted justification.
I wouldn't kill 5 strangers to save my dogs.
That number is too low
But would my dog be aware
Aware of my betrayal
Would he know, EM
You're asking a practical starting point for a philosophical debate to be a D&D campaign. That's not what it's for.
I saw that movie!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Although if you get assigned a debate position and have to do the counter-argument, hard mode is not basing your argument on this and instead somehow trying to argue that it is better to kill the five people in the way than the one. If you can pull that of, you get a huge score multiplier.
IT'S SO TASTY
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm always a little balked by how quickly people are like but I saved five people and killed one only
Would you do it without explanation in front of a crowd of people
human life is ultimately deleterious to the universe and all other lifeforms
the only ethical path is to kill as many humans as possible before your suicide
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
My character is an Aztec Thief
He was sentenced to death for his crimes before the worm ate earth
Considering himself half a ghost already, he takes foolhardy risks for useless but ostentatious trinkets buried in the rubble and stomach acid of the Digestive Tract but his newfound fraternity of adventurers begins to remind him that even in adversity, some things are more valuable than Jade
Next Batman movie is just him shooting every villain he encounters in the face and Gotham PD is like "Well... we're ok with this."
But refusing to do something counts as doing something. Fate put you by the lever. If you ignore it, it's not fate's fault, it is yours.
If someone is on fire next to you and you don't help them the bucket of water you have, you helped harm that person with your inaction.
edit: I still want to know if saving someone via time travel is morally problematic because you don't know how that will affect the timeline.
In fact, the aliens should have vaporized us right then
killing a man and letting a man die both get you locked up in jail. "Intervene with fate" is some bullshit. It's you equally much whatever the outcome. Letting something happen isn't opting out. It is letting it happen.
Okay less fraught:
Would you fart loudly on Chris Hemsworth while on a date with him, for $1000?
i would strangle you first for putting forth this hypothetical you son of a bitch
Well a fiction at least