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

221–230 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#221

Post by mperdemata »

Supermancho wrote: post #34
woodruffw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

But why isn't NOT pulling the lever "taking action"?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#222

Post by jedberg »

ars wrote: post #203
jedberg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's.... kind of the point?

Mathematically the expected outcomes should be the same, but morally they are not.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#223

Post by shpx »

dx034 wrote: post #149
indigodaddy wrote: post #123

Level 27 Time Machine is by far the most interesting one.. It’s the only one I was truly torn on.

Same here. But then I remembered that I contribute to climate change, so I apparently don't value lives in the future as much and decided accordingly.

There's a small chance that there's only 5 people left in the future, so you should do it while it's guaranteed to not wipe out the human race.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#224

Post by imtringued »

ncallaway wrote: post #141
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.

I don't think it's supposed to apply immediately and directly to real life. But it's supposed to use moral intuition to highlight the balance of various philosophical frameworks (mostly consequentialism vs deontologicalism). One common real-life debate where these moral trade-offs often comes up in real life is voting choices in our first past the post system. A consequentialist might say that you should vote for the…

That question is actually really easy. No party represents the population. There aren't any meaningful choices to be made. Thq as weere is no such thing as a wasted vote if there is no party worth voting for.

They all suffer from the same flaw. Especially the ones near the left are particularly hypocritical. My hunch is that they depend on poor and angry voters so there is no way they would ever try to achieve prosperity for them while risking to lose their voters.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#225

Post by jedberg »

throwawayarnty wrote: post #198
jedberg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue the people’s choices are appropriate. In real life you never get perfect information, so doing nothing as opposed to pulling represents the humans uncertainty of the parameters in the scenario. “First do no harm”.

I would argue that they are too. That's kind of the point. That morally taking no action is better if you have imperfect information.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#226

Post by ConstantVigil »

uudecoded wrote: post #204
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 th…

> 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.

RIGHT?!?

I mean, who know's the potential reprecussions that portal might hold for us if we send that trolley through. Sure, 5 people might be saved today; but millions could be saved instead in 100 years when that portal isn't reopening to whoop our ass for killing 5.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#227

Post by Akronymus »

mrcartmeneses wrote: post #122
paxys wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are discounting the simple possibility that 70% of respondents do not have any significant "life savings" to speak of.

100%. I have no savings so it was an easy pull

I have the ability to re-earn my wealth. I can't undo death.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#228

Post by TaylorAlexander »

harha wrote: post #43
arczyx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Curious if that would end the game (though not enough to try again)

It doesn’t. I wasn’t trying to make serious philosophical choices I was just having fun and picking whatever amused me.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#229

Post by epgui »

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…

I answered with the majority because I followed John Rawls' condition of the "veil of ignorance", which means that the only information I have to start with is:

1) an average person's life savings is less than 1 million

2) an average person's life is worth ~10 million

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#230

Post by JetAlone »

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…

If five people in my immediate presence experienced such peril then watched me sacrifice my life savings to save their lives, I would expect their testimonies of admiration and relationships backed by a life-debt would end up being an asset of equal or greater value than a tremendous lot of liquid cash. I won't lie; I want to be whole-heartedly adored by them, even more than I want the rich man's $500,000 bribe.
Post reply on HN