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

641–650 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#641

Post by cainxinth »

hackerlight wrote: post #612
Helmut10001 wrote: post #547

From an ethical point of view, the biggest problem for me was when there were two bad choices to be weighted against each other, e.g. 1 person on a track dies against 5 persons on the other track. In most of these cases, I "did nothing" - because I don't want to play god and I knew where this leads: There are ethical edge cases that I definitly do not want to think about. I am not super convinced about this in hindsi…

> I "did nothing" - because I don't want to play god I can't understand this perspective. Deciding not to pull the lever is a decision that you've made. You are "playing god" all the same if you decide to sit there and not pull the lever. There is no ethically important distinction that comes about by the mere fact that physical movement is necessitated by one of the decisions versus the other decision. If the framin…

> Deciding not to pull the lever is a decision that you've made.

Agreed. This isn’t a choice between making a decision or not making one. It’s a choice between two difficult decisions.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#642

Post by hyper_reality »

sneak wrote: post #529
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To pick an extreme but well-known thought experiment. You are walking past a pond, and see a child drowning in it. You glance around and there is nobody else nearby. You could easily jump in and save the child. It will certainly die if you do not.

If you choose to do nothing and ignore the drowning child, are you really not morally responsible in any way for the child's death?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#643

Post by phkahler »

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…

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Rush

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#644

Post by pwpw »

I thought it could have expanded more on animal sentience. Maybe someone can come up with better examples, but my examples would be:

- A trolley is heading towards 20 puppies. Do you pull the lever to divert it towards one person?

- A trolley is heading towards 20 pigs. Do you pull the lever to divert it towards one person?

- A trolley is heading towards one person. Do you pull the lever to divert it towards your healthy pet dog that you consider as a family member?

I think the responses would be insightful.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#646

Post by whoomp12342 »

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…

but where do you poop~?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#647

Post by stavros »

hyper_reality wrote: post #642
sneak wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To pick an extreme but well-known thought experiment. You are walking past a pond, and see a child drowning in it. You glance around and there is nobody else nearby. You could easily jump in and save the child. It will certainly die if you do not. If you choose to do nothing and ignore the drowning child, are you really not morally responsible in any way for the child's death?

If you are morally responsible for the child's death, you are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world right now, since you didn't do everything in your power to prevent all of them.

You may say that that is the case, but if you're responsible for everything, you may as well be responsible for nothing.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#648

Post by BoxOfRain »

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.

Yeah, I was unlikely to act unless doing so would obviously save life in a way that I think a jury of my peers would agree with.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#649

Post by grog454 »

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've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference.

One reason could be because your presence at this railroad switch is exceptional or at least unusual in some way. Maybe its worth considering what would happen if you weren't there at all.

When working in a new codebase, it's generally better to assume that something odd is the way it is for a reason, rather than changing it to something that seems right (easier to understand) to you. This is because in the real world, there is so much you don't / can't yet know about a situation that you're thrown in to.

I guess this is kind of reflected in the switch example where its 5 people that tied themselves to the railroad vs. one who didn't, and something like 85% "choose" the 5. How do you know how they got there? That implies so much prior knowledge and background that isn't really considered in the oversimplified "choices" in the website. Maybe they were forced to tie themselves to the railroad at gunpoint, or maybe it's a weird death-by-train suicide cult.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#650

Post by kitkat_new »

smeej wrote: post #559
llimos wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exacerbated by the summary at the end, giving you your "kill count". For cases where you did nothing, you did not kill anyone. The trolley did.

This gets at what is, to me, an extremely important distinction between "killing" and "allowing to die." Death happens to everyone eventually. No way around that, at least not yet. The most I can do with a trolley switch is possibly affect the timing. It seems to me that any time I pull the lever to direct the train toward a person (as opposed to toward other trains or lobsters or money), I'm causing the death of who…

> There's no moral obligation to try to extend life as long as technologically possible.

For me there is, if there is something to save (i.e. not brain dead).

Post reply on HN