Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#661

Post by Tao3300 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

makoto12 wrote: post #372

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 think this is a really good point. Definitely makes inaction feel like a choice, which is fundamental to the problem

Yes. E.g.: I didn't choose to kill the lobsters instead of the cat. I chose not to act. If they'd been switched, the cat would have been greased instead. The statistics are presented after the fact like you had a preference for one over the other, when in most versions of this problem, I was deliberately choosing not to participate. I refuse to be complicit in this evil.

I maintain that the real answer to the trolley problem involves an overwhelming personal struggle that is so traumatizing that it transforms the hypothetical subject into a vigilante -- a hero who devotes themselves to carrying out personal justice against the nefarious evil-doers who keep setting up these trolley problems. The problem is the Joker, ergo the solution is Batman. Dismissed!

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#662

Post by HeavyStorm » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:20 PM 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…

Morally is different but it's also the gist of the problem. Inaction makes you exempt because you didn't took part.

People choose inaction all the time. When we see a bully abusing a colleague... A homeless person on the street... A car aciddent. This is the metaphor.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#663

Post by amalcon » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:21 PM 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…

You probably use a consequentialist meta-ethical framework. This is great -- I do too -- but in a deontological or virtue-based system it may or may not work out this way. We've already got an example of such a deontological system here: if one takes the (somewhat unusual but not unheard of) view that legality implies morality, then there's a moral difference because there's a legal difference.

The trolley problem is meant precisely to highlight these differences, and I think it's one of the best arguments for consequentialism. In my less charitable moments, I like to refer to the concept of privileging inaction as an informal fallacy. It's not really, though; it's just that folks have different philosophical starting points.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#664

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:22 PM 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.

I take exception to the idea that the legal choice implies it being the moral one. Legality seems to me to be more of the bare minimum expectations and actively avoiding doing the wrong thing (don't kill people) rather than doing the right thing.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#665

Post by sethammons » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

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…

Curious which countries. Fwiw, in the US, you can pull up a lawn chair and watch someone drown instead of offering them any assistance (not saying that is moral). Legal liabilities have been explored including the case where a person is pulled from a burning auto accident and the act of saving them caused back injuries and paralysis. Cue Good Samaritan laws to protect would-be do-gooders but also the acknowledgment that there is no legal liability to act (aside from designated first responder types).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#666

Post by Tepix » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

Cloudef wrote: post #645

I will not act as a god and divert the fate, thus I always choose not to pull the lever

It blamed you for 91 deaths in the end regardless.

If you see someone about to step onto the road and get killed, will you also not do anything?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#667

Post by ptsneves » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

xrisk wrote: post #460

ptsneves wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In philosophy Kant would disagree with you with his Categorical Imperative[1]. Rawls also went that way, with the veil of ignorance[2]. The lack of state or context is not only desirable but is the whole foundation on why their theories are rational. Of course many philosophers disagree and arguably terrible things were done with such mindset[3]. The point I am trying to make is that if you need context then you cann…

I think it’s certainly a myth that an engineer’s profession is “inherently harder” than a coffee brewers. In my opinion, people who would like to study engineering would do so not so because of what they are paid (the situation today), but because of their genuine interest. On further reflection, it seems ludicrous to believe that that hardest professions are the most paid. The average CS job pays obscenely well, but…

I specifically mentioned training because I knew this answer would come, and like clockwork it did.

Training takes time, and often unpaid. A coffee shop worker will immediately get rewarded while the engineer will not. If they will be equally compensated then the engineer is at a disadvantage.

> In my opinion, people who would like to study engineering would do so not so because of what they are paid (the situation today), but because of their genuine interest.

Marx said the same. If the people would be free they would produce out of their heart's desire. As it did not turn out that way the party needed to force the worker's desire into them. Literally to free them by force (freedom by force is another concept in itself :)).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#668

Post by onionisafruit » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:24 PM UTC

llimos wrote: post #510

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…

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.

It just says "kill count: 54" (my result). It doesn't say who is responsible for the killing.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#669

Post by csours » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:24 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #173

DuskStar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if pulling the lever has a 50 percent chance of reducing deaths, but always eliminates societal cohesion and trust?

What if the elimination of the societal cohesion and trust was the product of a cynical, self-serving multi-decade political movement and propaganda campaign, and had only a little to do with pulling the lever, but the people who pulled the lever got most of the blame for it?

What if pulling the lever lets you win this election but 5% of the voters despise the political process?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#670

Post by Izkata » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 1:25 PM UTC

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…

I was one of them: Somewhere around 10-15 I got bored and just wanted to see all the scenarios so I was mostly just going "Do nothing.. Do nothing.. Do nothing.." for the rest.