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

381–390 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#381

Post by isolli »

Markoff wrote: post #335
nocturnial wrote: post #191

If you factor in the legal implications, the trolley problem becomes trivial. Do nothing. I'm not qualified nor allowed to operate train infrastructure and the legal consequences will become worse if someone dies because of something I did.

It's not trivial, dunno about US, but in many (developed) countries around world not providing help to someone (passing around car crash without stopping, if you don't see anyone providing help) has legal implications.

But, unlike the typical trolley problem, stopping on the side of the road comes at no cost to you or anyone else.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#382

Post by mcv »

labster wrote: post #312
yellowapple wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the real lesson is that we need more trolleys! Actually streetcars are kind of a bargain because they use mostly existing infrastructure. But that’s the downside too, because they can easily get stuck in traffic. The LA Red Car system died in the end because without its own right-of-way, it was worse than cars, less convenient than buses.

Then give them their own right-of-way. Amsterdam trams go through the streets, but you're not supposed to block them. They often have their own lane (though frequently still shared with buses and taxis), and when they don't, it's because the street is too narrow, but that's usually only for a limited section of the street.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#383

Post by FartyMcFarter »

Markoff wrote: post #340
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying that you'd go to jail for the lives of 4 people (or that people should), but recent experience has shown people won't even wear a mask to save other people's lives.

Is there any proof wearing a mask save ANY lives? People talk about this as if it were some fact, it's usually same people believing safe and effective vaccines, who quickly forgot vaccines were supposed to stop transmission, stop symptoms, they just keep pushing goal posts, while reality if you look at stats in highly vaxxed countries is that vaccines do really nothing anymore.

Vaccines decrease the severity of disease.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#384

Post by FartyMcFarter »

ahtihn wrote: post #309
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nothing" would be my choice regardless, morally and philosophically. In each case you'd likely be sued by the person(s) you'd kill and they'd probably win. If you don't intervene circumstances play out and you are blameless. In the other case you are choosing to kill someone, taking their life based on an idea in your head which may or may not be valid. In reality nothing is so clear cut and the people at risk may n…

One of the problems allows you to save yourself but kill 5 other people. "Blame" doesn't really factor into that decision.

How so? If you choose to survive, some people can certainly blame you.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#385

Post by padolsey »

Ok, very curious of others' metrics and hueristics for actions that are defensible. Mine are probably composed of:

  - Net degree of suffering imposed (+ nth-order suffering imposed on eg. family)
  - Thus, nervous system pain receptor net effect (cat>lobster)
  - Age of individuals and thus life-years saved (baby>elderly)
  - Weight of burden of (in)action on own life (++suicide risk)
  - Confidence that the train will act as proposed
  - Value of human life being absolute over non-life (human>bigMoney)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#386

Post by laputan_machine »

wruza wrote: post #361
laputan_machine wrote: post #331

33% of people will kill themselves over another individual (sure...) 17% of people will kill themselves over killing 5 clones Come on guys, consistency, please!

You’re actually multiplying yourself in the second case. To see it this way you have to have a specific idea of consciousness and “self”.

A clone of you, isn't you, it is by definition a copy.

You do not possess their memories when they do something else, you do not control them, you do not have their consciousness. It isn't you. When you cease to exist you do not "live on" (in the physical sense) through them, you are dead.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#387

Post by mcv »

ptsneves wrote: post #362
UberFly wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only to decide to recommission them in many places, increasing the heat-attack rate for those trying to get to work on time through the 6 year long construction zones.

From my point of view trams have no advantages over buses. On the other hand they need lots of special purpose infrastructure and often condition road traffic rules terribly, like forcing traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Actually I am open to hear the advantages of trams.

Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#389

Post by adrianmsmith »

MrPatan wrote: post #367

Trolley problems suck. Anybody's response is meaningless unless we take into account the context they have in their heads. A very common piece of context is: "If you touch something and people die, it's your fault. If you don't touch anything and people die, you can very convincingly claim in front of a judge 'It wasn't me, I didn't touch anything!'" That's a very different setting than "I'm a philosopher who wants t…

This is exactly how I've come to think about them as well. If you get involved with something, someone might blame you.

I think that's why (bad) managers often just don't seem to make any decisions. You need to know if the feature should be like X or Y, why won't they just make a decision and tell you? It's because they instinctively understand if they can get away with not making a decision (e.g. you stop waiting and just go for one of the option, or you contact someone else to make a decision) then there's less chance they'll be blamed for stuff.

Post reply on HN