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

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#31

Post by __blockcipher__ »

_virtu wrote: post #15

The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.

I think a common utilitarian way of thinking is years of life left. A baby has a far greater expected value of remaining years and thus is often assigned higher moral value by people. For me it was a no-brainer to kill the old people, although I was imagining them as very old such that they each only had ~5 years left on average.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#32

Post by templaedhel »

This feels like a great introduction to the “Lizardman’s constant” (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...)

> Lizardman’s Constant is an idea proposed by Scott Alexander that each poll always has about 4% weird answers. In one poll, 4% of Americans said that reptilian people do control our world and, in another 4% answered ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Have you ever been decapitated?’

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#33

Post by 1ark »

paxys wrote: post #12

Level 20 was weird. It was a choice between letting a trolley run as normal ("emits CO2, kills 3 people in accidents over 30 years") or running it into a brick wall and decommissioning it. For some reason more people picked the latter. So, they just dislike public transit? What about the emissions and death rate when everyone switches to cars instead? Goes to show how easily the context and exact wording of a questio…

I thought the point was that you have to think a little bit more about the real consequences from the loss of public transit etc.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#34

Post by Supermancho »

woodruffw wrote: post #18
thirdplace_ wrote: post #16

59% would sacrifice their own life for five people? Someone been messing with the votes.

I selected that one. Not because I'm particularly selfless, but because I think it's morally wrong to throw the switch whenever doing so amounts to killing someone, even when inaction results in more death.

I have a slightly different philosophy.

I don't make a conscious choice to take action that will cause a stranger's death (even if more people die because I didn't take action) with exceptions for my monkeysphere. In the case of the worst enemy one, I didn't hesitate to run them over. In the case of self preservation, I chose to save myself. In the case of my best friend, other people are gonna die. Etc.

It makes a lot of these pretty easy and a few (like first cousin vs 3rd cousins) a matter of happenstance, just like the happenstance that I was looking at these absurd trolley problems.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#35

Post by arczyx »

paxys wrote: post #12

Level 20 was weird. It was a choice between letting a trolley run as normal ("emits CO2, kills 3 people in accidents over 30 years") or running it into a brick wall and decommissioning it. For some reason more people picked the latter. So, they just dislike public transit? What about the emissions and death rate when everyone switches to cars instead? Goes to show how easily the context and exact wording of a questio…

> For some reason more people picked the latter. So, they just dislike public transit?

I mean, it seems like it's the same trolley that have run over a lot of people for the previous 19 levels, why wouldn't I want to decommission such bloodthirsty trolley?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#36

Post by __blockcipher__ »

fartcannon wrote: post #25
_virtu wrote: post #15

The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.

I think you might have read a little too much of your own politics into that question. Supporting abortion rights doesn't mean killing babies.

> Supporting abortion rights doesn't mean killing babies.

There is something very revealing about the GP's attitude though. They literally interpret someone wanting to avoid killing a baby as being the exact same thing as opposing abortion. So in their worldview abortion really is all about killing babies.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#37

Post by stepanhruda »

_virtu wrote: post #15

The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.

Do one that says “a child that will have a terrible life” vs “two adults who will have a good life” and let’s see the percents.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#38

Post by 22c »

Semaphor wrote: post #19

I wonder what the explanations are for 18, most people killed the robots. Assumption of backups? Or caring about your own species more?

To really be sure, I think you need to test for the switched case as well. ie. would you do nothing and kill a human or switch and kill sentient robot.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#39

Post by throwaway744678 »

_virtu wrote: post #15

The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.

In that case, it is not really linked to abortion: the baby is already born. A convincing (to me) argument that I heard during COVID debates is that by saving a baby you save, on average, 80 years of potential future life; for elderly people, 5 x 10/15 years.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#40

Post by baskethead »

The thing is that when you pull the level, you're interfering so you're the cause of the consequence after pulling the lever. If you don't pull the lever, you're not responsible for what happens, at least in my opinion. That's why in the basic case of a trolley heading towards 5 people or 1 person, I wouldn't pull the level no matter what because at least the deaths of the 5 people aren't my fault, but the death of the 1 person would be my fault.
Post reply on HN