Live data from Hacker News

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

861–870 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In real life scenarios there is a built in uncertainty with doing an action. Imagine a scenario where you redirect the trolley to kill someone but the people you wanted to save would have survived anyway.

You could imply that this uncertainty also exists in the trolly problem or you could imply that it does not exist there.

You could, but uncertainty always exists in the real world, so if it doesn't exist in the trolley problem then your choice in the trolley problem doesn't map to the real world and is not useful.

For one thing, in the real world if the trolley is close and moving fast then you have little time to think and observe and high uncertainty, but if the trolley is distant and slow then you have lots of time to try calling other bystanders, untie or rescue people from the track instead. So the more your choice is constrained down to just moving the lever or not, the higher uncertainty and less clear the situation is.

And in the real world it's more likely that a group of young people would tie some shop mannekins to a track for a laugh, or a film studio would tie props to a track, than that a moustache-twirling villain would tie some real people to a track. There is uncertainty in simply believing what you see; seeing five people tied to train tracks and about to die and being convinced they are real people, would have me thinking I must be dreaming.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines decrease the severity of disease.

Numbers of vaxxed vs unvaxxed hospitalized (per capita in same group) don't confirm this disinformation spread by pharma companies and their paid politicians.

Can you share a source? Here's a quick one I found that shows the opposite: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s...

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#863

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 go from passively letting someone die to actively killing someone. Which is a major difference. Now, you might think that it isn't given enough time, but it's easy to argue that you're currently letting kids die in Africa by your inaction (or Ukrainians or homeless people etc.). Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few…

The trolley problem is set up in a specific way for a specific reason: the person standing next to the lever has no barriers to action, and comprehends the immediate consequences of their choice. This is not so for the kids in Africa example you give.

The trolley problem does not extend readily to systems involving incomplete information or some kind of inaccess to enacting a solution. That is why moral philosophers despise it as an illustrative example -- armchair ponderers apply it with gross negligence to the context and nuance present, so it ends up illustrating nothing much except ignorance for the details of the thought experiment.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#864
post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

You're probably doing the local fauna a favour by eliminating the cat. The cat will kill other animals purely for amusement (by killing it and not eating it). It enjoys a longer lifespan than most local predators due to their proximity to humans that care about their well-fare, enabling them to kill more and for longer than any local predator. Stray cats are estimated to be the largest contributor to declining bird a…

> You're probably doing the local fauna a favour by eliminating the cat.

One could have said the same thing when mammals appeared. Not to mention humans: "These human species will ruin the ecosystem. We better eliminate it now before it spreads".

Said otherwise, you are thinking about the narrow interest of the day, without considering if the ideology makes sense in itself.

> Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous inhabitants over those of immigrants, including the support of immigration-restriction measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#866

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…

> 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. As Henry David Thoreau said: It is not man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought lon…

> It is not man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.

Classic appeal to authority. The above quotation contains grand declarations with no supporting logic or evidence. Just because Henry David Thoreau said it doesn't make it true.

> in the real world you don't remotely get clean problem statements at all, let alone clean outcomes. Not only are the outcomes profoundly unknowable, but the world is full of other people pulling their own levers!

The outcomes of inaction are equally as "profoundly unknowable" as the outcomes of taking action. From an "unintended consequences" perspective, it's a wash. So we might as well focus on the first order known consequences, which are pretty clear.

If we're going down the road of appealing to authority, I'm partial to "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#867
post #790

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…

There's a version of the problem that tries to highlight this: A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Next to you is a stranger who happens to be very large. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to push this stranger onto the tracks where his large body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die if you d…

To me, that version just highlights how far-fetched it is to actually find yourself in this situation with all the provided knowledge about the situation and confidence that you're not mistaken about or missing any important details.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#868

I'm surprised to see the popular answer to Question 3. > Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your life savings will be destroyed. What do you do? Over 70% chose to pull the lever and destroy their life savings. People die of preventable causes in developing countries today. By choosing not to donate your life savings today to help them, you ar…

By that logic, somebody defrauding a charity out of $4500 should be punished roughly the same as a homicide. (Not saying that's necessarily wrong, just to give some perspective on the "fun" corners you get into when putting a monetary value on human life, and it's so much different from the value you get where you live).

Only if they defrauded one of the most effective charities (as opposed to $4500 raised to buy some new musical instruments for a school) and only if punishments should be determined by total harm caused.

Harm caused is usually one of several factors we use to determine punishments, which is why attempted murder is punishable even if the perpetrator failed to cause any harm.

(Not saying our current system for punishment is necessarily right.)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extreme example: Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a leve…

It's easy if you're politician that's up to reelection. If it's your base voters, then pull it, it's 100K of potential voter. If it's not your base voters then let them perish. If you're enterpreneur, see whether 100K people is more beneficial than the other 1K. For example if you have a factory that needs many workforce and can utilize the 100K, save them. If somehow you pull the lever, make a press conference showi…

Reminds me of the Scenario in Fight Club:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#870

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…

In the deontological view, both pulling the lever and inaction may be perfectly permissible.

Consider: Who knows what happens? It's perfectly possible the problem description lied, and the opposite thing happens. Either way real life doesn't come with problem descriptions. Since "what happens" is profoundly inaccessible, the more important question is what you wanted and why.

So, it's permissible to redirect the train away from one and towards many, if directing it away from the one was what you wanted. It's equally permissible to redirect the train away from the many and towards the one, if directing it away from the many was what you wanted. It's easy to imagine a world where you got what you wanted, but the bad thing that looked like would happen as a side effect didn't happen. Maybe that's the one we live in.

However, if you really wanted a specific person on the track to die, then you should pull it away from them. Not for their sake, but for yours. What happens is still uncertain, but the important thing is that you did not act on this bad desire.

(By the way, virtue ethics is just a stupid "third way" branding exercise. To say goodness isn't derived from outcomes is fine. To say it is, is at least a coherent position. But thinking you can dodge that problem by talking about "virtues" instead is just nonsense.)

Post reply on HN