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

461–470 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#461

Post by cookieswumchorr »

thriftwy wrote: post #249
mrcartmeneses wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also reasoned that the trolly would be replaced. But with a newer, less polluting model. However I did not take into account the CO2 emissions and possible industrial accidents at the trolly factory or trolly materials mines.

Almost universally, the most eco friendly trolley (clothes, home) is the one you already have.

with a home, thats not universally true, if its pooorly insulated for example. trolleys, sure, they are all electric, so you can go down to zero emissions if you use green energy sources. Producing them though, metal production still runs with coal today just like in the 19th century

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#462

Post by littlestymaar »

renewiltord wrote: post #325
_nalply wrote: post #319

This was quite easy for me. The principles: 1. Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. 2. Don't believe everything what you see or are told. If you doubt do nothing. Imagine you killed many people because you have been lied to and pulled the lever. In this case it is better you did nothing. 3. An action of yours might kill someone. This is a very heavy responsibi…

Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.

Since you've observed the system, you've already interacted with it. Sorry, nice try.

(if you don't click on the link though, you're fine)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#463

Post by McBeige »

duskwuff wrote: post #218
ravi-delia wrote: post #8

Ending with a contextless kill count was the perfect touch. This feels almost as profound as it is silly, but I'm not sure how meta-level the profundity is. Lovely site for sure

I just wish they'd included the complete kill count, not just the people. "You killed 85 people, one painting, and five lobsters." Or whatever.

Don't forget robots. Sentient robots are AT LEAST between cat and lobster, perhaps above human. Robot rights now!

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#464

Post by tgv »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #207

> Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. The lever just speeds up the trolley, which might make it less painful. What do you do? I voted no, cause really? who the hell would SPEED UP a train to hit someeone because it 'might' make it less painful. Disregarding the million other mights that could be assumed. The logic here is astounding & yet. 33% of people agree with you, 67% disagree (20,485 votes) I guess th…

It's going to happen anyway, so there's a net positive effect of speeding it up. I can't imagine people not choosing to do so.

> I guess the lesson here is people act on assumptions as tho they are fact.

As I wrote above: these problems are too artificial to draw real conclusions. They're thought experiments. The only information you can use is given. For the rest, you have to fall back to "defaults" (each life is worth the same, etc.).

If you look at it like that, it's interesting to see how many people would opt to run over the rich man.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#465

Post by McBeige »

Markoff wrote: post #345
ShortStretto wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think I got that far but the thoguht process is not hard to follow. One person is gonna die either way so it might as well be the "better" option.

Except it's not up to you to decide which of these two will die, both lives are equal and you must perform action to kill the littering guy, if you do nothing someone will die anyway, it just won't be the littering guy.

Heck yeah it's my decision! I don't want to live in a world where decisions are made like this, but in this case we must accept our role as the lever puller. Or walk away I guess, but that's no different from actively condemning the litterless person.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#467

Post by YPPH »

littlestymaar wrote: post #454
_nalply wrote: post #319

This was quite easy for me. The principles: 1. Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome. 2. Don't believe everything what you see or are told. If you doubt do nothing. Imagine you killed many people because you have been lied to and pulled the lever. In this case it is better you did nothing. 3. An action of yours might kill someone. This is a very heavy responsibi…

> 4. If my life is at stake, I pull the lever to save myself. I find this answer really interesting, because in the entire corpus, this was the most morally unambiguous question of all, and the answer is diametrically opposed to yours. Would have I the courage to do so in real life, I don't know, and it's probable that I would not. But from a moral perspective it's damn clear: the only people I am unambiguously allow…

I also find it interesting. I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people?

A solipsistic view might say that those people are part of our own consciousness. If we let them die, we continue to exist. If we sacrifice ourselves, all of us cease to exist since they are just manifestations of our consciousness. As Christopher Hitchens once said, beware of solipsism...

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#468

Post by McBeige »

smilespray wrote: post #151
er4hn wrote: post #63

I killed 67 people, but 5 deaths were due to pressing the wrong button on the painting level. Do I start over and pull more levers to lower my score or do nothing?

Lower your score? You've just murdered 67 people!

But if you play the trolley game twice, surely you double your kill count across games?

Edit: misread your ? as !

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#469

Post by McBeige »

rekoil wrote: post #294

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…

That only makes sense if you think in terms of law to the detriment of morality.

Does responsibility play any role in morality?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#470

Post by littlestymaar »

rcoveson wrote: post #280
nocturnial wrote: post #191

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.

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?

> 2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail.

You'll be prosecuted for sure, but if the death of the 5 was certain unless you acted, I'd be pretty surprised if you were found guilty, let alone being jailed.

Post reply on HN