Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#521

Post by darkerside » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:02 AM UTC

nocturnial wrote: post #298

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?

No, it doesn't. How I look at it is those (legal) rules weren't made randomly. I don't think it's an option for me to overrule what millions of people have decided on over the course of a couple of centuries. Especially if I only have a couple of seconds to think about all the implications of my action. The calculation for me would change if there was a choice between killing 5 people and potentially killing nobody.…

There are only a few times when people consider it acceptable to break through bureaucracy, and life or death situations is one of them.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#522

Post by Al-Khwarizmi » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:03 AM UTC

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.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference.

It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split second, it's understandable to be biased towards inaction because you may need more time to make the right decision, but that's not the point of these problems in the way they are posed).

If you have enough time to think what to do, inaction is a conscious choice and if it does more harm than good, you are guilty of not choosing action.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#523

Post by McBeige » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:03 AM UTC

22c wrote: post #47

_virtu wrote: post #15

The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.

You can't really boil down trolley problems into "Would you kill x or y?". Generally someone is already in the way of the trolley, so the question is more like "Would you kill x in order to save y?". So you could ask people this: Would you kill a baby to save 5 elderly people? Would you kill 5 elderly people to save a baby? How people answer these questions does not really have anything to do with abortion.

> You can't really boil down trolley problems into "Would you kill x or y?".

Thoughts on why you can't? I think you can and must.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#524

Post by tut-urut-utut » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:04 AM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #506

praptak wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual law strongly discerns between action and inaction. For example the Polish penal code says you can only be criminally liable for a result of inaction only if you had a specific legal obligation to prevent it.

That's ok, it wouldn't change my mind anyway. If I can prevent more people from getting hurt, I'd be willing to break the law and take the punishment.

Would you kill your child to save two politicians you hate the most, one annoying youtuber, a neighbour who goes on your nerves for ages and two complete strangers?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#525

Post by stewbrew » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:05 AM UTC

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #405

stewbrew wrote: post #317

WRT #4: How am I supposed to pull the lever when I'm tied to the rails?

Your arms aren't tied.

Yes, but if I could stand up to pull the lever that's meters away, I wouldn't be in the position to ask myself what to do.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#526

Post by McBeige » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:06 AM UTC

yardstick wrote: post #99

IIAOPSW wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took it as simply 1 full life expectancy vs 5x remaining life expectancy of a senior citizen. Put a few more older people on the tracks and I'd pick the other switch.

Plus the child still has the potential to bring more life into this world, whereas the old people are now infertile (my definition of old being they are too old to procreate).

Those additional lives are hypothetical and in the future, and maximizing the number of humans alive might not be the right thing to do. IMO this is one of the really juicy questions.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#527

Post by oniony » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:06 AM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522

rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

I guess because there's more wiggle-room with a non-action. If you don't pull a lever, you could argue there wasn't time to pull the lever, or that you were frozen with fear or whatever.

I think non-actions are judged less harshly than actions, so people are more inhibited in making them..

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#528

Post by loufe » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:09 AM UTC

IIAOPSW wrote: post #49

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?

You know, that's a very good question... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

I'm kind of shocked that 2020 vs 2019 is a 7.1% INCREASE. Most people spent a lot of the year indoors traveling much less than usual. Curious.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#529

Post by sneak » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:13 AM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522

rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

Not my circus, not my monkeys. I don't think I can be held morally responsible for inaction in any circumstance. We didn't start the fire etc.

I answered "no pull" to every one except the one where the express goal was pranking the trolley driver (and no implied harm from pulling). This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but the only one I can reconcile with my own concept of responsibility.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#530

Post by sneak » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:14 AM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #407

rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

On what basis do you assert that not pulling is also an act? It seems to me that you are asserting inaction == action which, to me, is false.