There is one person in front of the trolley, and five people on the side track. But nobody knows that you saw the five people, and there's video of you noticing the one person.
Absurd Trolley Problems
91–100 of 951 posts
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#92Is the text gently floating around a bit on the page for anyone else? I just noticed after a few rounds and it's really unsettling.
Yes I suddenly noticed it, looked at the title, noticed it was floating too (panic). Looked at the URL bar, not floating, phew.
For a second I though had been dosed with something hah.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#93The 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.
I chose to read it as "would you kill a teenager, or all of that teenager's caregivers." I felt that sufficiently raised the moral stakes, to make both choices similarly hazardous, while fitting into the parameters written into the scenario.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I too am a little confused. Might be helpful to remember that we will all soon be forgotten whether we reproduce or not.
Unless you chose every death-and-suffering-maximizing option for these absurd trolley problems, in which case you will be remembered for your reign of trolley-derived terror.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#95Ahhhhn nice. It didn't hijack my history stack!
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#96I feel like this is easier if you’re a non-lever-puller. If you think it’s wrong to pull the lever if it causes anyone’s death who wasn’t dying anyway, then most of these are easy. Except the “you can’t see the track” one I suppose :P
Easier but more people die.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#97Enjoyable and thought provoking. Thanks Neal!
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#98I'm surprised to see the popular answer to Question 3.
> Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your life savings will be destroyed. What do you do?
Over 70% chose to pull the lever and destroy their life savings.
People die of preventable causes in developing countries today. By choosing not to donate your life savings today to help them, you are choosing not to pull the Question 3 lever.
According to Givewell, it takes $4500 to save a life in Guinea. So for every $4500 of your savings that you choose not to donate to Guinea, that's one person you are choosing not to pull the lever to save. Have $45,000 in savings? That's 10 people you're choosing not to pull the lever to save.
I doubt that over 70% of respondents are regularly donating anywhere close to their life savings.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#99The 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 took it as simply 1 full life expectancy vs 5x remaining life expectancy of a senior citizen. Put a few more older people on the tracks and I'd pick the other switch.
Plus the child still has the potential to bring more life into this world, whereas the old people are now infertile (my definition of old being they are too old to procreate).
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#100I wonder what the explanations are for 18, most people killed the robots. Assumption of backups? Or caring about your own species more?
I chose to spare the robots. Not for kind reasons, mind you, but rather because I did a "maximize human death and suffering" run (and it's fascinating that the minimum percentage of agreement throughout said run was 10%).