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

401–410 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#401

Post by SpEd3Y »

s0teri0s wrote: post #351

I think if you choose the option to kill 5 people 100 years from now, that 5 should not be part of your total kill count, because those people won't be dead for 100 years. In fact, it is possible you could commission a brick wall to be built somehow in front of the portal opening at the other end to divert the trolley in time, sparing those people, since the future (in my opinion) is not certain.

But what if in 100 years most of humanity dies, all that's left is a group of 5 survivors that took shelter in a trolley station. Then all of the sudden a trolley appears out of thin air and kills all 5 of them? You would be the man/woman that ended human race :)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#402

Post by mcv »

_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…

I noticed I kept switching between several principles. Possibly triggered by the details of the problem. Some of the principles:

1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not.

2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.)

3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me.

All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent.

Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#403

Post by SpEd3Y »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #397

I do not understand why so many people would let the trolly destroy their fortune to save 5 random people. Why would I ever care about 5 random people?

Cause most likely they will be thankful and reward you financially and in the long term you might get your fortune back and then some. You have to play the long game! xD

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#404

Post by wizofaus »

unglaublich wrote: post #206
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.

"No one likes public transport" - if by that you mean almost anyone would prefer to have forms of transport that don't have all the disadvantages of PT (being crowded, limited routes, scheduling/timetabling issues) then sure, but it's also true almost anyone would prefer to have forms of transport that don't have all the disadvantages of private travel (cost, traffic, parking etc.). I'd still suggest there are plenty who'd choose much better public transport over much better private travel options. (Disclaimer: I'm in the latter camp - I get myself almost everywhere by bicycle where possible).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#406

Post by mcv »

cranekam wrote: post #365
renewiltord wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.

Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.

> Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction?

It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is.

In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#407

Post by capableweb »

rax0m wrote: post #396
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 did the problems under the assumption that "pulling the lever" was an act, while doing nothing was not acting. Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

That's interesting. I didn't consider any legal liabilities at all, and would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. I also didn't consider doing "nothing", not pulling the lever was also an act, and I didn't "see" any options doing nothing.

Fun to see how differently people approach these ones :)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#408

Post by nocturnial »

alistaira wrote: post #339
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.

The point of the hypothetical situation is to look at a 'pure' case without external consideration in order to get to the crux of the problem. Consideration of legal implications is missing the point of the exercise.

The crux of the dilemma is that there are two solutions. If there aren't two then it's a lemma and the trolley problem is solved.

I didn't introduce the convoluted idea of there being train tracks and a switch. If it was purely hypothetical, you could've asked: "Would you prefer to let 5 people die or let 1 die"

Here's another hypothetical:

"A train is on a track and you are standing on bridge above it. You spot a couple of kilometers further down the track 5 people who are going to be run over by the train. Do you push someone standing beside you over the edge and onto the tracks so the train will register a collision and stops in order to save those 5 people?"

This is the exact same scenario. Only instead of pulling a lever, you have a human interaction. The percentages of who would kill that 1 person change when the trolley dilemma is asked in that way.

If we're getting to the crux of the problem, then why does the response change when you provide the exact same scenario but replace the mechanical with a human-to-human interaction?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#409

Post by _nalply »

cranekam wrote: post #365
renewiltord wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.

Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.

Think responsibility. Even if you watched the thing roll you don't have a lot of responsibility. Only a little. Because as you said that I am involved.

Let's say there will be an investigation because of criminal liability by inaction (civil law jurisdiction). First you aren't in guarantor status (one example is the surgeon during a surgery), and second if you explain that you tought it through and showed that the what-if case is dangerous, you won't be punished for inaction.

So, no, it does not really matter that you are involved by being there.

And now I am sure that many people could develop post traumatic stress disorder because they feel they have failed to save people. I am sure that these people can be helped if they are shown the possible outcomes of action and inaction, especially that action is often more problematic than inaction.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#410

Post by _nalply »

mcv wrote: post #406
cranekam wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.

> Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is. In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're…

No.

It is only the case if you don't kill someone to save someone else.

Post reply on HN