Does everyone get “Congratulations! You have solved Philosophy.” at the end?
Absurd Trolley Problems
281–290 of 951 posts
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#282I think the trolley problem serves to highlight how important it is to focus on solving real problems rather than hypothetical problems. The real world usually offers addition information that helps resolve dilemmas.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#283Level 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…
Remember that around 12% preferred that someone die, rather than their Amazon package being late.
I suspect around 12% preferred to read the problems but always click the same choice to avoid giving away PII.
A quarter probably did that, considering both options.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#284I think the trolley problem serves to highlight how important it is to focus on solving real problems rather than hypothetical problems. The real world usually offers addition information that helps resolve dilemmas.
But if one real world problem was tied to the tracks, and you could flip a switch to a different track where five hypothetical problems were tied to the tracks, would you switch it?
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#285If you factor in the legal implications, the trolley problem becomes trivial. Do nothing. I'm not qualified nor allowed to operate train infrastructure and the legal consequences will become worse if someone dies because of something I did.
"Nothing" would be my choice regardless, morally and philosophically. In each case you'd likely be sued by the person(s) you'd kill and they'd probably win.
If you don't intervene circumstances play out and you are blameless. In the other case you are choosing to kill someone, taking their life based on an idea in your head which may or may not be valid. In reality nothing is so clear cut and the people at risk may not have died anyway and you may kill someone needlessly.
That is not to say I wouldn't, for instance, defend someone being attacked. In that case I'm not causing someone else's death by my actions. If the attacker dies during my defense that's fine because it's due to his actions, not mine.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently we’re in the minority together. Cynically (and practically) there’s also the legal side to think about. If you cause a person to be killed by a trolley, you will at minimum be sued into oblivion. If you do nothing no legal case can realistically be levied against you. Edit: a fun part of the trolley problem not really explored here is how inconsistent most people’s logic gets when the outcomes are effectiv…
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.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#287>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…
I assumed the people in the trolley would starve
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chickens are sentient. Would you have changed your answer if it were chickens? I chose to save the human as the prompt didn't set a bar for the level of sentience. Also partly because of shameless speciesism. I love animals, have gone mostly vegetarian, but I would still save a human over any other animal.
Would you save a fit, healthy monkey that can communicate with us using sign language, or would you save a human in a permanent coma? (Or whose brain is damaged and will only ever have the mind of a 1 year old)
Wouldn't sacrifice any humans for a billion monkeys
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the switch is a hair-trigger movement sensor, so you must stand very still not to trigger it? Which one is "inaction" now, purposefully standing very still, or acting as you would have otherwise?
That completely changes the question because it gives you obvious deniability, whereas the lever probably does not. Especially if witnessed. That matters legally (accidental death) versus intent (mens rea, murder). It also matters socially, because you can deny that you made any choice even though you may have chosen (assuming you only do it once). You can even deny it to yourself. It does beg the question: who set t…
It may have legal and social differences, but (imo) it should not have moral differences. Either way, there are two outcomes and you're picking one.
I'm just trying to poke at the gp's idea (paraphrasing) that inaction is morally blameless.
Re: Absurd Trolley Problems
#290I'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…
Like most people, you probably drive a car from time to time. Collectively, cars kills 30-40k americans every year. By choosing to drive you are a fractional murderer - statistically responsible for some slice of a death. Not many people will decide not to drive on learning this…