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

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#111

Post by ponker »

luckylion wrote: post #110
ponker wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially: the situation only exists in the contrived world of ethicists, so the problem may be important for ethicists to solve but isn't important for AV engineers to solve. It's like asking a parent the question, "If both your kids were falling off a cliff at the exact same time and you could only save one of them, which one would you save." The parents says "well whichever one is closer to me." The ethicist say…

You absolutely cannot imagine a situation where a car will most likely cause damage but the driver (be that a computer or a human) can influence where it hits? And if it can be influenced, why wouldn't you want the least amount of damage vs some random amount of damage? I'm not talking about Descartes and his all-powerful god that may fool him. "Which of your kids do you send to college if you don't have enough money…

Of course I can imagine the situation, the same way I can imagine the situation with the two kids falling off the cliff. The question isn't any different from: "If the car is headed down a road and has to hit the Governor of Texas or the Governor of Louisiana which one should it hit?" Of course I absolutely can imagine this situation. But answering this question is just a Priority Last for autonomous vehicles.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#113

Post by catssie »

oarsinsync wrote: post #81
catssie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to maximize ethical utility, pick the course which reduces the greatest amount of suffering. Prognosticators not required.

> pick the course which reduces the greatest amount of suffering Reduces for who? Over what time frame? What's the scope, and why that scope and not a different scope?

Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#114

Post by Retric »

catssie wrote: post #112
Retric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

Justifying murder, no.

I am saying, it’s such a large change we can’t tell if it currently benefiting us. It’s one of those events that had such a large impact it’s impossible to say what the world would be like without it.

It seems like it was responsible for WWI, WWII, the Spanish flu, etc but would worse things happened instead? I doubt it, but maybe it indirectly prevented total nuclear war.

Which when you get down to it is true of everything, we need to act with imperfect information.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#115

Post by brodouevencode »

NoPicklez wrote: post #48
brodouevencode wrote: post #41

This must be in the gestalt. https://brodoyouevencode.com/the-problem-with-the-trolley-pr...

I think its a silly response to the problem, yes if you were near the lever and you so happened to know one of the groups then you might argue pulling the lever one way or the other. But is that simply you justifying your actions? The problem isn't absurd when posed to humans because, how about the scenario where you don't know either person and you need to make a decision in a matter of seconds. That's the point. If…

> necessarily a morally correct decision

This is where the problem is: life is way more complex and nuanced to distill down to such a simplistic scenario. Measuring morality is not an instantaneous action.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#116

Post by catssie »

Retric wrote: post #114
catssie wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justifying murder, no.

I am saying, it’s such a large change we can’t tell if it currently benefiting us. It’s one of those events that had such a large impact it’s impossible to say what the world would be like without it. It seems like it was responsible for WWI, WWII, the Spanish flu, etc but would worse things happened instead? I doubt it, but maybe it indirectly prevented total nuclear war. Which when you get down to it is true of eve…

It’s literally a non-argument designed to not even consider my position and talk over it with flights of fancy. Every decision is based on incomplete information, ever. Your argument is an argument against the very state of knowing. It’s Descarte but with even less understanding of a causal system.

Your argument: we can’t possibly know everything, therefore assume nothing is correct. Except reality is a persistent illusion, so we work in that reality. Your fantasy world where there is a god that can see all futures is fantasy. Don’t confuse the imagination with reality.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#117

Post by Retric »

catssie wrote: post #116
Retric wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying, it’s such a large change we can’t tell if it currently benefiting us. It’s one of those events that had such a large impact it’s impossible to say what the world would be like without it. It seems like it was responsible for WWI, WWII, the Spanish flu, etc but would worse things happened instead? I doubt it, but maybe it indirectly prevented total nuclear war. Which when you get down to it is true of eve…

It’s literally a non-argument designed to not even consider my position and talk over it with flights of fancy. Every decision is based on incomplete information, ever. Your argument is an argument against the very state of knowing. It’s Descarte but with even less understanding of a causal system. Your argument: we can’t possibly know everything, therefore assume nothing is correct. Except reality is a persistent il…

> Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple.

Your philosophy is literally dependent on information that’s impossible to know which is a real limitation. In the real world we can estimate harms and benefits, but it’s the unknown factor which makes sacrificing someone ‘for the greater good’ so abhorrent.

If the rule is to minimize total probable harm, then you need to consider second order effects of choices. You further need to carefully consider/model repercussions rather than assuming each choice has obvious costs. Simply shooting infected people may reduce the risks of spreading a plague in the short term, but it’s got huge long term issues as people then try and hide their infection etc.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#118

Post by post_below »

adjkant wrote: post #84
post_below wrote: post #4

Maybe a little off topic... Ethics thought experiments are interesting and sometimes fun and you can't deny the value of getting people thinking about choices and behavior. But it's always seemed to me that they, along with ethics in general, miss the point. I don't think absolute right and wrong, or even absolute "lesser of two evils" is a particularly useful goal. It's the contextual framework that matters... Value…

The irony here is you just pigeonholed "ethics" and then made several ethical arguments yourself while saying you don't care about ethics! To add some formal language: > I don't think absolute right and wrong, or even absolute "lesser of two evils" is a particularly useful goal. This sounds like a metaethical argument - what underpins ethics is a very important question that a lot of people miss, but that argument is…

I see that it was sloppy of me to use the term ethics so loosely.

Re: The Trolley Problem Problem

#119

Post by catssie »

Retric wrote: post #117
catssie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s literally a non-argument designed to not even consider my position and talk over it with flights of fancy. Every decision is based on incomplete information, ever. Your argument is an argument against the very state of knowing. It’s Descarte but with even less understanding of a causal system. Your argument: we can’t possibly know everything, therefore assume nothing is correct. Except reality is a persistent il…

> Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple. Your philosophy is literally dependent on information that’s impossible to know which is a real limitation. In the real world we can estimate harms and benefits, but it’s the unknown factor which makes sacrificing someone ‘for the greater good’ so abhorrent. If the rule is to minimi…

You literally think you are making a coherent argument that doesn’t collapse in on itself?
Post reply on HN