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

691–700 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#691

Post by Hasu »

grog454 wrote: post #649
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…

> 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…

> 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.

This kind of reasoning really defeats the point of the thought experiment, which is to construct a scenario where those considerations aren't a factor so we can reason about ethics and moral intuitions without the greater complexity of real-world situations.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#693

Post by bashmelek »

amalcon wrote: post #663
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…

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…

Then again there are also deontological aka categorical morality frameworks that see pulling the lever as acceptable, that it is not “killing” but the life of the man in the other line is lost as a secondary effect, which must be gravely considered. There are yet other versions of the trolley problem that have you push a man in the way of the trolley to stop it and save the five. Sometimes people pose that variant as though it must be accepted as morally equivalent, but I find the importance lies in why we find the situation different.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#694

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

kortex wrote: post #623

I found myself following a heuristic that is basically Asimov's laws: - whenever possible, do no harm - do not let harm occur due to inaction - when given a choice, preserve the most amount of healthy lifespan in aggregate - higher lifeforms are more valuable than lower ones (cat vs lobsters) - deferred consequence is better than immediate (since it opens the door to other later interventions) It kind of really bring…

> deferred consequence is better than immediate (since it opens the door to other later interventions)

Yep, I sent that trolley into the future just in case some time in the future they invent a cure for getting run over by trolleys

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#696

Post by FFRefresh »

pteraspidomorph wrote: post #639
NineStarPoint wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always presumed you don’t have time to ask those sorts of questions in these problems. You have to decide that you’d let 5 people die so your action doesn’t kill one, or kill the one not knowing how they feel about dying to save five. What I find…not surprising I guess, but sad is that while a large percent of people would pull the lever only a small percent of people would pull the lever if they were the one on…

I did notice that. I'd pull the lever if I was the one on the tracks, since in that case I am not robbing someone else of their life through my decision - my life is my own to sacrifice. At that point it's best to save five. Then again, a sizeable minority wouldn't sacrifice their life savings for lives either, which means this portion of the respondents does not think the lives of strangers have value at all, or at…

Right now, non-hypothetically, would you be willing to donate your internal organs to those who will die without them, even if it meant you will not survive yourself?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#697

Post by ParetoOptimal »

stavros wrote: post #647
hyper_reality wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you are morally responsible for the child's death, you are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world right now

No, you are morally responsible for every evil happening right in front of you that you could immediately change with little risk to yourself.

For instance if you can't swim and the child is in the middle of the pond, I'd argue you aren't responsible because the risk is too great to yourself.

In fact due to the danger of drowning people pulling you under, I'd argue unless the child is in water shallow enough for you to stand in it's not your moral responsibility to save them.

Though in the situation, I'd probably feel compelled to save them anyway.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#698

Post by grog454 »

Hasu wrote: post #691
grog454 wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. This kind of reasoning really defeats the point of the thought experiment, which is to construct a scenario where those consideratio…

What is the value of ethical and moral intuitions that can't be applied to real-world situations?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#699

Post by bregma »

sneak wrote: post #615
capableweb wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can either pull the lever or I can not pull the lever. Choosing to not pulling the lever when I know I can save others, would be me making the choice to not saving others.

You could also leave the room, put on a movie, get accidentally distracted, et c. Do these all carry the same weight to you?

There is a reason why negligence is not considered a defence in law.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#700

Post by mikkergp »

stavros wrote: post #647
hyper_reality wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this true? I think most of us would say proximity to a situation (and ability to handle it) changes our moral Imperetive. That’s what makes the Trolley problem so… imperfect? It’s hard to say what it extrapolates to every day life, since it’s a situation that would probably never happen.

If you say that proximity does not imply morality, where are you drawing the line? Would family friends and job duties encompass it? Certainly you can’t say that helping your child implies you are responsible for the whole world.

Post reply on HN