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

471–480 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#471

Post by evandijk70 »

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.

You still need tracks and power lines. If the only benefit of streetcars over buses is right-of-way, why not just give buses right of way.

After some deliberation, my muncipality recently decided against a streetcar-system and for a bus-based system with electric buses, right-of-way everywhere and dedicated bus-lanes where possible (nearly everywhere).

It worked out really well.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#472

Post by darkerside »

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.

Same. I also allowed for the possibility of action by others. For example, in 100 years, someone else may be able to stop the trolley.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#473

Post by edanm »

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.

> 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.

You're in luck! That's exactly the problem that the Effective Altruism movement aspires to solve (namely, how to do altruism effectively.) And Givewell, in particular, is a great site for that - you can either donate to them and have them spread your donation over their "top charities", or donate to the charities yourself.

They do a lot of research, very transparently, to figure out which charities are actually achieving good outcomes. You can read their research, their thought processes around it, etc.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean those charities have "zero overhead", as you alluded to in another comment - that's not a good way to judge a charity, in general, the same way it isn't a good way to judge a company; we don't really care how much money it takes to run a company or how that money is used, we care about their profit. Similarly, if a charity uses a lot of money on things like staff, but this makes them more effective at actually (say) saving lives, then it's a net better charity to donate to than other charities.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#474

Post by wonderbore »

I keep not understanding why this "problem" exists. If pulling the lever kills someone, then you killed someone. You can only do that if it's yourself or if the amount of people you save grants you some immunity, like "kill a guard to save a city"

In the vast majority of times you should do absolutely nothing: It only becomes your fault if you touch it.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#475

Post by darkerside »

ISL wrote: post #67
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…

My logic on that particular question was that someone would probably get a new trolley to replace it (trolleys are insured, right?), no matter what I thought, so I let the trolley go.

Mine was also, what right do I have to destroy someone else's property? I'm surprised people seemed not to consider that or care.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#476

Post by SpEd3Y »

McBeige wrote: post #451
SpEd3Y wrote: post #429

Andrzej Sapkowski in the Witcher books, through Geralt, said something that might apply to this situation: "Evil is evil [...] Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I’m not a pious hermit. I haven't done only good in my life. But if I’m to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all" Thoughts? :)

You don't get to not choose.

Why? :)

Edit: Switzerland chose to stay neutral in a world war. I think that's fine. Not getting involved is a viable option in my opinion.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#477

Post by belter »

Lots of additional fun at Neal's page... My favorite is the Life Checklist and the Size of Space.

https://neal.fun/size-of-space/

https://neal.fun/ten-years-ago/

https://neal.fun/lets-settle-this/

https://neal.fun/ambient-chaos/

https://neal.fun/spend/

https://neal.fun/who-was-alive/

https://neal.fun/life-checklist/

https://neal.fun/dark-patterns/

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#478

Post by toyg »

strken wrote: post #270
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…

If you included "the trolley actually exists in a realistic world and is part of a public transport network" then sure, I won't decommission it, but trolley problems are weird zero-context questions about trade-offs and I assume they fully describe the consequences of choosing each leg when answering. It doesn't help that actual trolleys are called trams where I live, so I think of trolleys as philosophical construct…

> It doesn't help that actual trolleys are called trams where I live

Yeah, when I clicked on the link I was hoping that finally someone had solved the problem of never having a pound coin to unlock trolleys at the supermarket.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#479

Post by darkerside »

mcv wrote: post #364
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…

Yeah, that one made it clear how much context matters. These problems pretend there's no context, but we always look at them with some subconscious context in mind. In this case, I did pull the lever, because it could be replaced by an electric trolley. But if killing the trolley means more cars and more car accidents and CO2, then of course we should keep the trolley. But if we ignore context and just look at kill 5…

If I were your friend, I'd be concerned, too.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#480

Post by akvadrako »

maest wrote: post #445
strken wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you included "the trolley actually exists in a realistic world and is part of a public transport network" then sure, I won't decommission it, but trolley problems are weird zero-context questions about trade-offs and I assume they fully describe the consequences of choosing each leg when answering. It doesn't help that actual trolleys are called trams where I live, so I think of trolleys as philosophical construct…

But it's problematic to assume these problems are in a 0-context vacuum because that would mean your actions don't actually have consequences. If the world ends immediately at the end of the experiment, then your choices in the experiment don't have any meaning, imo.

That is an extreme consequentialist view. Something I can relate to, but not how most people consider moral issues.

If you are in a burning, sinking ship and all going to die for sure, it's still immoral to rape someone.

Post reply on HN