Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#911

Post by Spivak » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

Etherlord87 wrote: post #809

akvadrako wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an extreme consequentialist view. Something I can relate to, but not how most people consider moral issues. If you are in a burning, sinking ship and all going to die for sure, it's still immoral to rape someone.

However if you're in a plane nose-diving vertically, shooting someone a second before the plane hits the ground (in a way that obviously is going to kill everyone), hardly has any moral relevancy. It's taking 1s of life from someone, probably comparable to smoking a cig near someone. More so, this is a low-quality second of life, with all the stress coming from the awareness of imminent death. So the argument still s…

Right but if you ask someone whether that situation is murder I bet most people would say yes. And I bet they would apply the same logic to someone on death row or with a terminal illness.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#912

Post by Hayarotle » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #153

Others wrote: post #82

I feel like this is easier if you’re a non-lever-puller. If you think it’s wrong to pull the lever if it causes anyone’s death who wasn’t dying anyway, then most of these are easy. Except the “you can’t see the track” one I suppose :P

I think it's never right to pull the lever, unless there aren't any humans on the other track. I'd sacrifice an animal or objects, but people should never be sacrificed for other people, unless they actively choose to.

Extreme situation that could be a counterexample to your claim:

Dr. Evil is 90 years old, his consciousness is slowly fading away, and he is going to die in a week. He is almost ready to release a bomb that will torture kill half of the world population. If you pull the lever Dr. Evil will die today and you will save all those people. You are the only one who can pull the lever. Do you pull the lever, or do you stick to your principle of not sacrificing other people who don't want to be sacrificed?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#913

Post by rogers18445 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

Preference falsification on a large scale can be observed in the statistics supplied by that site.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#914

Post by gridspy » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:18 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #113

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…

* Hook up the trolley to a massive generator set and get free energy. Use the free energy to solve global warming and the energy crisis. * Study the science behind the infinitely reliable trolley. If the science is tractorable then humanity wins. * How are the people prevented from leaving the trolley? New science? * Is the trolley just a thought experiment? Then we can think about other solutions. * Is the trolley s…

Exactly. What would superman do?

https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#915

Post by epgui » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 11:18 PM UTC

e_y_ wrote: post #901

darkerside wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. A lot of this thinking does line up for me, but it seems like there's something missing. Why do we all feel a little bit sick when we hear about car executives doing calculations to determine whether to perform a recall or not? Isn't it because we're putting a financial price on life? Or is it just that the price we're hearing is too low?

The most infamous recall was the Ford Pinto, and it was particularly bad because they knew about the problem before the car ever shipped, and once the problem was known didn't fix it for years even though the cost would have been $11/car. Less directly, there's the fact that new safety features often come to luxury vehicles first, and might eventually trickle down to cheaper cars due to competition and regulation (ba…

Indeed!

> And it's not just about some corporate executive's pockets; these costs get passed on to regular people through increased premiums and may cause people to drop their health insurance entirely.

Not only that, but even in first world countries (ie.: countries that have a good universal/public healthcare system), the dollar value of a statistical human life matters as well. There are waiting lists where you have to decide a priority rank of who gets the organ first, or who gets scheduled in on Monday for their surgery vs who has to wait, etc. Nobody likes that it has to be this way, and nobody wants to be the person that decides (in reality, it's often an ethics committee and there are rules and guidelines to follow), but that's how it has to be.

The money used to save and extend lives has to be taken from somewhere, and it's taken from the money that represents a fraction of the population's labour one way or another (it's a bit more complicated than that, especially when you consider monetary policy, and non-labour sources of income, but the general idea stands).

If you don't put a dollar value on it, then you're going to be making a lot of subjective decisions based on how you feel resources should be allocated: you're going to be taking from some people and giving to others, based on a gut feeling rather than a system. Your gut feeling might be the right one from time to time, but chances are it won't be self-consistent, and will be very biased.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#916

Post by tomtung » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 12:24 AM UTC

asib wrote: post #736

FFRefresh wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If that's unpalatable, what about have you donated one of your kidneys yet? You can live a healthy life with just one. If you truly believe you would sacrifice yourself in this trolley scenario, I don't think it is possible to justify not having done something where (excepting the slight risk of more serious consequences) the only sacrifice is time.

FWIW, some religious/cult people do donate their kidneys: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/kidney-cult-en...

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#917

Post by cobbzilla » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

spoonjim wrote: post #286

yibg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a standard alternative, you can push a very fat man on the track and derail the trolley. All of a sudden a lot less people are willing to sacrifice the fat man.

Despite the fact that a man fat enough to derail a trolley, if even possible, likely has an extremely low quality of life and an extremely short life expectancy.

Not to mention, unless you’re into bodybuilding, trying to push anyone who weighs enough to derail a trolley will probably not work.

Or that’s one weak-ass trolley.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#918

Post by TaylorAlexander » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

ayewo wrote: post #509

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t. I wasn’t trying to make serious philosophical choices I was just having fun and picking whatever amused me.

I bounced after hitting level 21. Did you get to the end?

Yeah level 28 is the last level. Just a few more situations and then you get an end screen that says “congratulations you have solved philosophy!”

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#919

Post by throwaway787544 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

codefreeordie wrote: post #878

throwaway787544 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no free will in a clock but it's still interesting to watch the gears. And just because you don't have free will doesn't mean you don't have morals; even if you don't choose to do right or wrong, you can still distinguish them as separate concepts. And even if you can't distinguish morality, that doesn't necessarily make you amoral either. It's like being born to be an extra in a play and die once the play is…

In a world with strong determinism, there is no consequence. Actions don't cause reactions. The initial state of the system causes all outcomes -- both immediate and apparently-consequent. The person doesn't really pull the trolley lever insomuch as the universe began in a state which determined that at that moment, the person's arm and the lever would move. In such a world, even time is barely meaningful, since even…

If you put your hand over a flame and it hurts you pull it back. It doesn't matter if it was "determined" that you would put your hand over it, there is still an obvious and immediate reaction to the action. The time it takes for these things to happen is also meaningful as it effects how much pain you feel.

So even in a completely determined universe, there are consequences, and time is meaningful. The only difference is whether you realize that there's a universal puppeteer or not.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#920

Post by nautilius » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:33 AM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #107

I always found the trolley problem interesting. It usually boils down to who believes in karma or a creator or not. Most religions have the idea that it’s different to take a life than to stand by and do nothing. For instance, you should always try to help others (save a life), pretty much above all else. However, to take a life, requires taking action. Ie standing by as someone drowns is not the same as sticking som…

Interesting then that a religious society like the U.S. (>80% consider themselves religious) does not actually support helping others. This is particularly striking for law enforcement, who have no obligation to help, and then are free to choose not to. Last month, cops watched a man drown, and that's apparently perfectly fine https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/06/arizona-man-...

Humanist secular societies (e.g. France, Germany, ~30% religious people) instead have a culture and legislature that makes helping others an important duty; law enforcement and also civil citizens have a moral and legal duty to help, and it would be morally and legally unacceptable to watch someone drown.