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

811–820 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#811

Post by benlivengood »

throwawayarnty wrote: post #105

I never understood how the trolley problem applies to real life. When is there ever a situation where you have perfect and complete information about a scenario? Only in thought experiments. The situation where the boxes are probabilistic was more realistic. You’re never sure in real life that you will certainly do less harm if you pull vs not pull.

The covid pandemic is a trolly problem. Lock down and cause some hardship (including maybe some deaths) or let the pandemic spread and kill lots of people?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#812

Post by synu »

dorgo wrote: post #801
synu wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could adjust the question to be “the brakes have failed and..” to avoid that out.

I know, you try to save the trolley scenario. But if brakes fail then it doesn't matter what the AI (or driver) decides. To blame is the one who is responsible for the brakes not to fail.

Is the trolley scenario intended as a blame-finding simulation? I thought it was more like “what (ethical) choice do you make in a difficult situation” deal.

You surely still have some agency after your brakes failed. Or at least if it happened to me I wouldn’t let go of the wheel to find out if I hit group A or B, confident in the knowledge that who or whatever I plow into it is not my fault and all choices from that point are equal.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#813

Post by amalcon »

bashmelek wrote: post #693
amalcon wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's correct, in deontological or virtue-based systems it varies a lot from system to system.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#814

Post by synu »

salford wrote: post #779
synu wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could adjust the question to be “the brakes have failed and..” to avoid that out.

True, I imagine the next course of action would be something like "do nothing" — continue straight, try to be predictable, hope that other people in the situation can react accordingly.

If we are still doing the trolley problem it would be “the brakes have failed, and … do you continue straight and definitely hit A, or turn the wheel and definitely hit B”.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#815

Post by irrational »

vecter wrote: post #55
irrational wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that so hard to believe? There are innumerable stories of people sacrificing themselves for other people. Everything from throwing oneself onto a grenade to having kids.

That is often to save people you know and care about, not complete strangers.

Lots of stories from 9/11 of people sacrificing themselves for strangers.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#816

Post by dlp211 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #546
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.

I used to think like you until I learned about how ethical frameworks are different when you are being extorted. This trolley problem is a class of extortion because your choices are very limited and out of your control. For example, it wouldn’t be wrong if someone forced you to steal a package of bubblegum or else they would kill your family and you decided to steal the bubblegum instead of inaction. In this case, i…

Your point is taken, but I want to point out that an ectopic pregnancy will never become a child (fetal death is guaranteed) and almost always fatal to the mother if not removed.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#818

Post by EGreg »

For me, a very interesting part is the gamification mechanics:

You progress through some polls, then show how many people chose as you did.

It's a bit like Wordle. You can see whether others did like you did, and there's a certain signal of how "popular" or "normal" you are.

But what can we do about sybil attacks? It seems that people need to have a limited number of votes, and random "hotornot" type selections.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#819

Post by vincnetas »

vincnetas wrote: post #678
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…

Inaction is overwhelming if you think about it. by inaction you are guilty of every sufering person around you. And you can expand that pool by saying that your inaction to find out more sufering people is also part of your guilt. of course provided you are already not doing your max right now to help tham. but hey, youre on HN, so i assume you still got free time to spare ;)

just wanted to add that inability to help EVERYONE, should not deter you from helping anyone. you should not feel guilty that you are helping one person but leaving everyone else in trouble. One is better than zero.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#820

Post by 323 »

agentultra wrote: post #750
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…

Enough context is lacking. That's kind of what makes it all absurd. Take the cat vs. lobsters. Did you know felis catus is responsible for the extinction of some 37 species of birds world wide mostly due to colonization. They're not indigenous predators to the North Americas and enjoy the protections and long life afforded by their proximity to humans while killing for entertainment. Lobsters on the other hand? Usefu…

If we are to judge ethically, one particular cat should not be punished for the sins of the cat species. As far as we know this particular cat didn't do nothing.

Then we need to talk about criminal liability. In the sense that a cat can't stop itself from killing birds. We don't punish toddlers if they kill a bird, because they don't understand that they shouldn't.

Also, the whole idea of "native species" is highly subjective. What is "native species" today maybe it was an "invasive species" yesterday.

Post reply on HN