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

371–380 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#371

Post by red75prime »

tmlb wrote: post #30
JonathanFly wrote: post #21

>Oh no! Due to a construction error, a trolley is stuck in an eternal loop. If you pull the lever the trolley will explode, and if you don't the trolley and it's passengers will go in circles for eternity. What do you do? 50% of people pull the lever?!? I hereby declare that if I'm ever going to be stuck in a trolley for my entire life, I do NOT want the lever pulled. Toss me a smartphone charger and my life wouldn't…

Would your answer change if you were stuck on the trolley quite literally for eternity, rather than just the remainder of your biological life?

> stuck on the trolley quite literally for eternity

What "literally" means in this case? Am I completely certain that I'll be stuck on the trolley for eternity? I would think that I'm having a psychotic break and delay my decision.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#372

Post by makoto12 »

jgerrish wrote: post #363

This kind of highlights a subtle interactive design or user experience component of the Trolley problem. Part of the Trolley Problem is that the choice is between an action or inaction. But these problems, or the first one at least, have two buttons. So you're making a choice. Yeah, some might argue it's a technicality. But what if you put the Do Nothing choice on a timer? What if you made it an asynchronous "Problem…

I think this is a really good point. Definitely makes inaction feel like a choice, which is fundamental to the problem

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#373

Post by qayxc »

epgui wrote: post #229
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

I have to take issue with 2) - for ethical and rational reasons I refuse to but a monetary value on people.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#374

Post by galfarragem »

_nalply wrote: post #319

This was quite easy for me. The principles: 1. Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. 2. Don't believe everything what you see or are told. If you doubt do nothing. Imagine you killed many people because you have been lied to and pulled the lever. In this case it is better you did nothing. 3. An action of yours might kill someone. This is a very heavy responsibi…

The ultimate trolley problem is one where you pull the lever to save a larger amount of people that have chosen a unsafe area while punishing a smaller amount of people that have chosen a safe area (unless someone pulls the lever)... Ultimately this is politics.

Morality is not math, but, as always, things might be more foggy: lack of free choice and a really skewed ratio (e.g. punish one to save 100 million) may test the limits of morality.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#376

Post by mcv »

yellowapple wrote: post #88
bee_rider wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to take place in a hypothetical universe with an overabundance of trolleys.

And they cost $300k apiece, which seems like a bargain in the context of the average public works project.

I don't know, man. These things are death traps.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#377

Post by ccity88 »

macrael wrote: post #336

If pulling the lever is going to kill someone, I never pull it. The only hard one is if pulling it will save my own life, I probably would in that case but it would be wrong. Pulling the lever makes you a murderer instead of a bystander.

> Pulling the lever makes you a murderer instead of a bystander.

Ah that, I'm not too sure about. If you have the means to avert a disaster and divert the trolley but consciously choose not to do so, you'd be a murderer either way right? The baby question really hammered it home for me, most respondents chose to have the trolley kill the elderly people instead of diverting it to the baby. Sure, you stood by and did nothing but you're STILL a murderer no matter the outcome. The minute you stand by the lever you consciously choose who's going to live or die, regardless of whether you do nothing or pull the lever. Inaction is action.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#378

Post by FartyMcFarter »

thrown_22 wrote: post #148
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…

People want to feel like good people. A rather hilarious example is asking if they are against bestiality. Pretty much everyone is. Asking why in more liberal circles gets you an answer along the lines of "it hurts the animals" a lot of the time. Then asking if it hurts animals more than eating them usually results in a ban.

It hurts the animals more than eating them.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#379

Post by FartyMcFarter »

smorrebrod wrote: post #296
rcoveson wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that trivializes the problem. With that additional consideration, the options are: 1. Let 5 people die and 1 live, and you probably don't have any legal consequences. 2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail. So the thing that made the answer trivial was the introduction of legal consequences that affect you personally? Doesn't the difference of 4 deaths dwarf that?

Personnaly, some answers were swayed by thinking about these legal consequences for situations like: - Annoying the driver of the trolley for my enjoyment - A 50% chance of killing 2 people or a 10% chance of killing 10 people - Killing 5 people now or 5 people in the future - Killing 1 cat or 5 lobsters

I chose to annoy the driver because the prompt already told me that I wanted to do it.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#380

Post by soco »

tmlb wrote: post #30
JonathanFly wrote: post #21

>Oh no! Due to a construction error, a trolley is stuck in an eternal loop. If you pull the lever the trolley will explode, and if you don't the trolley and it's passengers will go in circles for eternity. What do you do? 50% of people pull the lever?!? I hereby declare that if I'm ever going to be stuck in a trolley for my entire life, I do NOT want the lever pulled. Toss me a smartphone charger and my life wouldn't…

Would your answer change if you were stuck on the trolley quite literally for eternity, rather than just the remainder of your biological life?

Does the trolley have toilets?
Post reply on HN