301–310 of 951 posts
The question regarding baby vs old people was really telling. It’s practically the argument for / against abortion. What’s strange to me is that someone would choose to kill five people who are capable of thought instead of an undeveloped human being. But I suppose that’s why we’re seeing the reversal of Roe v Wade being supported. Sigh, fuckin religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I experienced it as if the universe (the creator) was asking itself (me) whether it should carry on doing itself (literally, and figuratively) or stop and bring the trolley ride of life to a complete end.
Enough philosophy for today.
returns to pretending that being a jelly-covered skeleton that has a hole in its face to put food which eventually comes out of another hole 3-inches from their magical life-creating sex organs (that they rub together to make new ones) and waking up every day to a world where they sit in front of a box that requires they press buttons in the right sequence to make their own life continue, is completely bloody normal
Happy Existential Wednesday.
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…
I thought it was interesting that so many people chose to pull the lever and become personally responsible for the outcome in many of these scenarios. Like the ones not involving people dying for instance, I don't want to be personally responsible for destroying 1 trolley just because some idiot had set one on a path to destroy 3, I can just see the shitstorm some stupid company will kick up in order to make me pay t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that trivializes the problem. With that additional consideration, the options are: 1. Let 5 people die and 1 live, and you probably don't have any legal consequences. 2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail. So the thing that made the answer trivial was the introduction of legal consequences that affect you personally? Doesn't the difference of 4 deaths dwarf that?
No, it doesn't. How I look at it is those (legal) rules weren't made randomly. I don't think it's an option for me to overrule what millions of people have decided on over the course of a couple of centuries. Especially if I only have a couple of seconds to think about all the implications of my action. The calculation for me would change if there was a choice between killing 5 people and potentially killing nobody.…
I find it bizarre that you're taking the side of the, say, thousands of transit policymakers--who are certainly not taking this hypothetical into account--over the majority vote of the public on this exact ethical issue. Not wanting to reason from scratch in the moment is fine, but you don't have to. This is a well-known dilemma, and the consensus is that you should kill one to save five.
> If those rules needs to be changed, then change them through debate and well reasoned arguments and not a split second decision.
Yep, that's why we're here. Now that most of us have agreed that "pull the lever" is the right call on the trolley problem, do you think the transit authorities are going to codify it as a law? Don't be ridiculous. Just take the legal hit, if it even comes. Laws are wrong sometimes, especially in hypotheticals.
If 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 n…
"Blame" doesn't really factor into that decision.
Most chilling for me was the majority who would divert the trolly away from a good citizen to kill a citizen who litters.