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.
That passivity - while noble and to an extent keeping the individual blameless - in the face of oppression allows the oppression to continue, and only through action and potentially blame-worthy actions can you end the oppression?
There is an ethical dilemma in teaching children to turn the other cheek and always be the better person, as in the real world this regularly does not come out well for the individual.
I vehemently disagree, but I also realize this is an argument that has been had a million times before and will go nowhere.
+1
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
#SaveNelly is todays favorite trending hashtag
we need to stream Hot in Herre on repeat nonstop they say
Bless your heart.
+3
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Chevy announced the official EPA range of the Bolt: 238 miles
dang, that's a lot of miles
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
+2
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered 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".
I'm starting to hate thought experiments even more than arguing about food.
An out of control trolley is headed towards a switch. On one side, a delicious Greek gyro. The other side, five Chicago-style pizzas. You must decide, will you argue over the pronunciation of "gyro" or which is better, Chicago or New York style.
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.
The absolute best TOS Kirk bit is with he phychologist in that episode in season one where they go to some institution for the criminaly insane and they have the tantalus machine. It's mentioned that Kirk has some history with her after some staff party or something but he doesn't want to talk about it. She obviously likes him because when they're testing out she tries to implant an idea in him that they hooked up but if that had happened there'd be no reason for her to implant that idea. I like to think he got so wasted that he rambled on about a bunch of embarrassing shit.
At the start of the Menagerie 2 parter when they beam down to the star base some girl mentions she knows him because that psychologist girl mentioned him to her and he's all NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.
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 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.
+1
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".
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.
eh
those 5 people are just as dead whether you call it murder or tragedy though
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Fuckin a winky
As a far out...
No but for real. The things that people take seriously.
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!
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I'm starting to hate thought experiments even more than arguing about food.
An out of control trolley is headed towards a switch. On one side, a delicious Greek gyro. The other side, five Chicago-style pizzas. You must decide, will you argue over the pronunciation of "gyro" or which is better, Chicago or New York style.
I've solved this by literally never speaking the word gyro aloud and banning myself from traveling to New York now that I've been to Chicago and sampled its pizza.
It's the only way I can live in peace.
+3
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered 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.
eh
those 5 people are just as dead whether you call it murder or tragedy though
this was my argument about that guy who tanked in overwatch lel
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
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
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
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.
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
Posts
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.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
I vehemently disagree, but I also realize this is an argument that has been had a million times before and will go nowhere.
we need to stream Hot in Herre on repeat nonstop they say
I like New Kirk a lot in the new movie and he gets to help at solving the mystery
he gets to act other things than "brash"
dang, that's a lot of miles
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
ive seen milelier
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
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".
I enjoyed this show as a sprog
does he need the encouragement
is it like the man in bogota where how do we know what happens to us isn't good
I enjoy it when it's a discussion that reveals people's thoughts about things rather than an argument where people are trying to prove they're right.
An out of control trolley is headed towards a switch. On one side, a delicious Greek gyro. The other side, five Chicago-style pizzas. You must decide, will you argue over the pronunciation of "gyro" or which is better, Chicago or New York style.
Zoning out.
Wanting to sleep.
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.
At the start of the Menagerie 2 parter when they beam down to the star base some girl mentions she knows him because that psychologist girl mentioned him to her and he's all NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.
It's great.
Because they're coooooool.
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
The justification is that the guy is really fat, which is believable enough.
eh
those 5 people are just as dead whether you call it murder or tragedy though
As a far out...
No but for real. The things that people take seriously.
this dog has lousy taste in literature
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
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!
I've solved this by literally never speaking the word gyro aloud and banning myself from traveling to New York now that I've been to Chicago and sampled its pizza.
It's the only way I can live in peace.
this was my argument about that guy who tanked in overwatch lel
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
he's wearing roller skates
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I haven't seen latest movie yet. Previous two were so shit I'm not watching until it's either free or on a service I'm already paying for.
i dunno if i want the death of a trolley on my hands man
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.
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