Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#11

Post by bcook »

Theodores wrote: post #5

If you were to ask 102 sober people if they would drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you would get 102 definite 'no' answers. Okay, some HN person might have some convoluted 'no' and some bored person might throw in some other silly answer, but, generally, you would get 102 'no' answers to this simple question. Obviously none of this group of 102 would ever drink and then drive whilst under the influen…

Do you define driving after having a glass of wine during a meal as being "under the influence of alcohol"? If so, your position that everyone would answer "no" is severely flawed.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#12

Post by Const-me »

“Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas” — seriously? Blood alcohol concentration correlates to unlawful behavior.

For both dilemmas, a person who won’t touch that switch or won’t push anyone is legally innocent. There’s no way he’ll have to go to the court, while the organizer[s] of those experiments will be charged with a 1st degree murder and found guilty.

OTOH, a person who will switch those rails or push an innocent will be charged with a murder of that 1 person she killed, and I’m seriously doubt any jury will find the suspect not guilty.

Drunk people don’t realize legal consequences of their [in]action. That’s why they conclude saving 5 people justifies killing the 1.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#13

Post by cosarara97 »

afsina wrote: post #8

This part is kind of a deal breaker: "Duke also recognized that the implications of the study are limited, especially because the sample size is so small. Plus, the questions themselves have flaws."

Another thought: Are utilitarian people more likely to get drunk?

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#14

Post by jmnicolas »

Const-me wrote: post #12

“Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas” — seriously? Blood alcohol concentration correlates to unlawful behavior. For both dilemmas, a person who won’t touch that switch or won’t push anyone is legally innocent. There’s no way he’ll have to go to the court, while the organizer[s] of those experiments will be charged with a 1st degree murder and found guilty. OTOH, a person who w…

Fwiw, French don't obsess as much as the Americans about the legality of their actions, so I don't think the participants were influenced by the (virtual) likelihood of going to court for their decision.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#17

Post by pnt12 »

The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone". What about negligence?

Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an option and acted according to it.

Maybe even better, we should look for the sociopath who's trapping people in these train racks for the fun of creating moral dilemmas.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#19

Post by nickodell »

mgraczyk wrote: post #2

I doubt that people became more utilitarian as they became more drunk. A simpler explanation is the participants answered the questions using the same altered thinking drunk people use to choose their own behavior; They think far less than normal about the social consequences of their actions. You don't want to flip the trolley switch in part because you feel more likely to be blamed for the outcome, or to be held ac…

You can slightly change the context of the problem, and it entirely changes the character of responses:

Imagine you're an accountant working for the government. You choose how medical research funds are spent. One day, you notice that there are two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year.

Program A is being funded, but Program B isn't. Program B could be funded if you took all of the funding from program A and diverted it.

Do you divert the funds?

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#20

Post by jacalata »

bcook wrote: post #11
Theodores wrote: post #5

If you were to ask 102 sober people if they would drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you would get 102 definite 'no' answers. Okay, some HN person might have some convoluted 'no' and some bored person might throw in some other silly answer, but, generally, you would get 102 'no' answers to this simple question. Obviously none of this group of 102 would ever drink and then drive whilst under the influen…

Do you define driving after having a glass of wine during a meal as being "under the influence of alcohol"? If so, your position that everyone would answer "no" is severely flawed.

That's the HN convoluted 'no' he was referring to.
Post reply on HN