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

The Trolley Problem Problem

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#21

Post by efitz »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #10

The trolley problem is a non-problem. I don't know about you guys, but nobody I know is ever going to buy a car that might decide to kill them to save some stranger(s).

Don’t know why you were modded down; you’re absolutely right. WRT self driving cars, I would never buy or knowingly ride in one which had programming which did not in all cases act to maximize the safety of the occupants. ML is stupid; the last thing I want is for a computer to try to make split second ethical and value judgments about people outside my car when deciding how best to save my life. I don’t want a car driving me off a cliff to avoid hitting a school bus, for instance. Are those kids or dwarves? How many kid lives add up to more value than my own? What if my kid is in the car with me? It quickly becomes obvious that the problem isn’t relevant to self driving cars.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#22

Post by dereferenceddev »

keithnz wrote: post #20
dereferenceddev wrote: post #14

There just seems to be a misunderstanding on the intention of a though experiment here. There is a subtle implication that because the thought experiment is "contrived" that its less valuable. When thinking about philosophy, a core part of philosophy is to reduce concepts, ideas, or beliefs into abstractions (or a "spirit" or "essence" of what their intention is), the thought experiment presents itself as a perfectly…

As I see it, it's just a tool to try an unravel principles. They aren't trying to solve specific situations. Thought experiments often have counter thought experiments, like with the trolley problem, if pulling the lever seems more ethical, when you have 4 patients who will die without an organ transplant, and you have 1 patient who is healthy and organs could be harvested to save 4. It starts becoming harder to work…

You're totally striking on exactly how I would frame thought experiments. They're a tool that helps further a conversation and discussion, to challenge what might be a preconceived notion.

Once you shake out enough thoughts from the thought tree, you can hopefully discover what they're all pointing to in order to find what might _actually_ be driving an ethical decision.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#23

Post by dereferenceddev »

mc32 wrote: post #17
dereferenceddev wrote: post #14

There just seems to be a misunderstanding on the intention of a though experiment here. There is a subtle implication that because the thought experiment is "contrived" that its less valuable. When thinking about philosophy, a core part of philosophy is to reduce concepts, ideas, or beliefs into abstractions (or a "spirit" or "essence" of what their intention is), the thought experiment presents itself as a perfectly…

Instead of conceptual people you could experiment with real fish or chickens.

If you train a chicken to pull a trolley lever, does it weigh on the conscious of the chicken whether they killed 1 chicken vs 5 chickens?

I'm not a chicken so I don't really know.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#24

Post by dannykwells »

Could this be due to the rise of pure mathematics in influencing philosophers? In pure math, counter examples play a very important role: show once counter example, disprove an entire claim.

The violinist in the article is clearly trying to be a pure math- like counter example, but to me, misses the emotional aspect of pregnancy (at the least) - a fetus is not a random person, it is you (partly), and furthermore, many would say society (and the species) depend on having babies, whereas the society and the species do not depend on violin players.

Not saying I agree with these arguments only that the real world is substantially messier than pure math, and thus, pure math thinking may stumble when applied to real world problems.

Tl;dr: humans are not rational in our beliefs and the continued attempts on all disciplines to assume we are, are well, irrational.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#25

Post by ls612 »

dereferenceddev wrote: post #23
mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of conceptual people you could experiment with real fish or chickens.

If you train a chicken to pull a trolley lever, does it weigh on the conscious of the chicken whether they killed 1 chicken vs 5 chickens? I'm not a chicken so I don't really know.

I think he meant with humans pulling the lever and chickens dying.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#26

Post by dereferenceddev »

dannykwells wrote: post #24

Could this be due to the rise of pure mathematics in influencing philosophers? In pure math, counter examples play a very important role: show once counter example, disprove an entire claim. The violinist in the article is clearly trying to be a pure math- like counter example, but to me, misses the emotional aspect of pregnancy (at the least) - a fetus is not a random person, it is you (partly), and furthermore, man…

I've rarely heard someone make the counter-point that a fetus is technically half "you", which really does fundamentally change the violinist example.

The violinist experiment does have a lot of holes it it, but I think that one in particular almost turns it on its head, particularly because it circumvents the crux of the problem around consent (which I think is at the core of the problem).

It would seem you would have to change the thought experiment to have the violinist actually be related to you (say a sibling). Now, would a person feel _as_ upset that they had to allow their sibling to use their kidneys for nine months in order to stay alive? That really changes it.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#27

Post by dereferenceddev »

ls612 wrote: post #25
dereferenceddev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you train a chicken to pull a trolley lever, does it weigh on the conscious of the chicken whether they killed 1 chicken vs 5 chickens? I'm not a chicken so I don't really know.

I think he meant with humans pulling the lever and chickens dying.

I was trying to be silly in pointing out the real reason why the trolley car experiment is supposed to have some challenge to it.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#28

Post by mc32 »

dereferenceddev wrote: post #27
ls612 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he meant with humans pulling the lever and chickens dying.

I was trying to be silly in pointing out the real reason why the trolley car experiment is supposed to have some challenge to it.

There are animals people have deep affection for and you’ll find great resistance to these experiments, never the less, I think you can get valid data from experimenting on “lower” animals.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#29

Post by dredmorbius »

arkades wrote: post #11
msla wrote: post #5

The problem here is reminiscent of the classic short story "The Cold Equations": A young woman is fooling around near a space ship and ends up accidentally stowing away on a craft needed to move serum to a colony in the grips of disease. The mass on the ship is accounted for to the gram (the gramme, even!) so her excess mass means the ship no longer has the fuel to make it to the colony. The dashing space hero has to…

> They'd kill a whole town in a fit of fascist pique. That's a new one to me. Any sources I can read up on that?

The story of Lidice doesn't precisely fit the scenario, but is close enough in spirit that I'd call it a match:

The Lidice massacre was the complete destruction of the village of Lidice, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, now the Czech Republic, in June 1942 on orders from Adolf Hitler and Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.

In reprisal for the assassination of Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich in the late spring of 1942, all 173 males from the village who were over 15 years of age were executed on 10 June 1942. A further 11 men from the village but who were not present at the time, were later arrested and executed soon afterwards, along with several others who were already under arrest.[2] The 184 women and 88 children were deported to concentration camps; a few children who were considered racially suitable and thus eligible for Germanisation were handed over to SS families and the rest were sent to the Chełmno extermination camp where they were gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre

Memorialised in Bohuslav Martinu's "Memorial to Lidice".

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DHWU27TD6UU

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#30

Post by downerending »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #3

I'm stunned that this article was published just a few days ago, because recent events have illustrated just why it can be important to think about strange, unrealistic hypotheticals. How much easier would lockdown debates have been, if we had the conceptual frameworks in place to talk frankly about how many lives must be saved to justify suspending certain freedoms?

I've been thinking about the Trolley Problem these days as well. It's not just "How many lives must be saved to justify suspending certain freedoms?". More importantly, it's "How many lives must be forfeit to save someone from dying of COVID-19?". Based on the collateral damage estimates I'm seeing, we might be forfeiting five or ten for each save. And if one switches to quality-life-years as a measure, the picture might be even worse.

Anyway, long live the Trolley Problem.

Post reply on HN