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

201–210 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#201

Post by codefreeordie »

throwaway787544 wrote: post #171
lettergram wrote: post #107

I always found the trolley problem interesting. It usually boils down to who believes in karma or a creator or not. Most religions have the idea that it’s different to take a life than to stand by and do nothing. For instance, you should always try to help others (save a life), pretty much above all else. However, to take a life, requires taking action. Ie standing by as someone drowns is not the same as sticking som…

You're assuming free will though. It could be that nobody made their bed, and you're just doing what was preordained, but chalking it up to free will to feel better. Maybe you could live with anything. Maybe the information is a facade, and never really makes a difference, because you'll always just do what you were going to do anyway.

If there is no free will, though, then there isn't an interesting moral quandary about you pulling the lever. You either do, because you were preordained to do so or you don't, because you were preordained not to, and in neither case does any morality or decision-making enter into the picture, since, absent free will, you are not a morality-possessing or decision-making entity.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#202

Post by [deleted] »

ConstantVigil wrote: post #134
oefnak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just named one: GiveWell.

Sorry, but wasn't taking it at face value just cause it was used as a data point only at the time. And not to be that person; but proof please. I really do want a comprehensive list if possible of which charities are actually worthy of even being allowed to keep existing on this planet.

[deleted]

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#203

Post by ars »

jedberg wrote: post #176
throwawayarnty wrote: post #105

I never understood how the trolley problem applies to real life. When is there ever a situation where you have perfect and complete information about a scenario? Only in thought experiments. The situation where the boxes are probabilistic was more realistic. You’re never sure in real life that you will certainly do less harm if you pull vs not pull.

The original trolly problem showed that people find it less repressible to kill people when no action is taken. It's presented both ways. "Pull the lever and kill five to save one" and "pull the lever to kill one and save five". You'd think that people would answer to kill one person in both cases, but it turns out people are biased against taking action (pulling the lever) regardless of how you word it, and so when…

That's not a bias, that's completely logical. The only thing in this world you can control is your own actions, so it's completely logical not to take an action that will kill someone.

Think about it: The number of inaction's you have is infinite - there are an infinite number of different things you could have done that would have saved someone's life. So an inaction is the default state in this world, but taking an action: That's something that has meaning, and people chose not to kill by taking an action.

Aside from the above, you are assuming that 5 people is worth more than 1, but that's not something you can know, you can't know the worth of another person. So who are you to choose to kill someone?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#204

Post by uudecoded »

ConstantVigil wrote: post #117

Kill count: 84 Apparently I solved philosophy? Im gonna assume that title stays the same for everyone lol. So, explanation for why so high. Simply put; I don't believe 5 people really got tied to those rails each time. They are in on it somehow. If so, that is sick and twisted they would tie someone else to the rails purposely. So they deserve the trolley instead. Now on the chance that they really are all innocent;…

I got an 82, so assume we are thinking similarly.

I am personally interrogating my response to this:

"Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who tied themselves to the track. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 person who accidentally tripped onto the track instead. What do you do?"

I save the 5 over the 1. Only 15% agree with me. Why?

This is the first Absurd Trolley Problem (I think) that explained WHY a person was tied to the track.

I think the value of this hypothetical is in establishing the value of cultural relativism versus Kantian ethics.

In that framing, I'm really surprised that, on Level 27, 70% would rather send a trolley into the future to kill 5 people 100 years from now, instead of 5 people now. In almost 11K votes, this seems significant.

My view is that this provides evidence for the Bentham "hedonic calculus". (And I'm sure there are better scholars of Kant and Bentham than I that can argue for or against this.)

Here's a "political" example: Do you want to deal with problems now, or defer? 70% will defer. (I think this checks out, and is truly hedonic.)

So, I think the data, and the utilitarian approach shows: don't expect any of our societal problems (politically agnostic) to be solved any time soon.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#205

Post by randyrand »

everfree wrote: post #98

I'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 ar…

A little different when you are out to splat them under your feet. That’s pretty traumatic.

out of sight out of mind.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#206

Post by unglaublich »

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…

No one likes public transport, but people like motorized traffic even less. It's a relative choice.

The option should have been between decommissioning the train, saving 3 people and a few tons CO2, and decommissioning all motorized vehicles, saving millions of people every year and having a real impact on CO2 reduction.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#207

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

> Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. The lever just speeds up the trolley, which might make it less painful. What do you do?

I voted no, cause really? who the hell would SPEED UP a train to hit someeone because it 'might' make it less painful. Disregarding the million other mights that could be assumed. The logic here is astounding & yet.

33% of people agree with you, 67% disagree (20,485 votes)

I guess the lesson here is people act on assumptions as tho they are fact.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#208

Post by mongol »

These are presented as ethical dilemmas, but are they also legal dilemmas? Example 1, for example. If you can clearly see that one person will die if you pull a lever, and he will not die that if you don't, is that not murder or manslaughter? If not, why?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#209

Post by mrwh »

dx034 wrote: post #145
throwawayarnty wrote: post #105

I never understood how the trolley problem applies to real life. When is there ever a situation where you have perfect and complete information about a scenario? Only in thought experiments. The situation where the boxes are probabilistic was more realistic. You’re never sure in real life that you will certainly do less harm if you pull vs not pull.

It's not that unrealistic. Imagine driving a car and a kid runs onto the street. You can swerve onto the sidewalk but there are people walking there you'd hit. The question if you'd take action to save someone to (potentially) kill someone else is interesting. And it has been discussed in the context of self driving vehicles. But from all I remember, the outcome always was that an AI should never actively make a deci…

Agreed re actively making a decision: my answer was mostly not to pull the lever, and if I analyse my feelings it's because then the results aren't my fault. Pulling the lever makes me party to the situation.

Disagree re realism though. You never get a chance to think in real life; and any situation in which you could deliberate what the moral course of action is, is a situation you could avoid entirely. Really the closest to trolly problems in real life are public policy decisions - which are real and affect all of us. So yes I guess I've argued myself around to agreeing again :).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#210

Post by mperdemata »

dx034 wrote: post #153
Others wrote: post #82

I 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

I think it's never right to pull the lever, unless there aren't any humans on the other track. I'd sacrifice an animal or objects, but people should never be sacrificed for other people, unless they actively choose to.

For me, pulling and not pulling the lever are the same. Both are actions. So I have to choose one of them.
Post reply on HN