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

531–540 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#531

Post by cortic »

capableweb wrote: post #407
rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the problems under the assumption that "pulling the lever" was an act, while doing nothing was not acting. Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

That's interesting. I didn't consider any legal liabilities at all, and would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. I also didn't consider doing "nothing", not pulling the lever was also an act, and I didn't "see" any options doing nothing. Fun to see how differently people approach these ones :)

> [I] would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people.

This is a quite disturbing statement. So many psychopathic examples; If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people with compatible organs to multiple patients? Or a researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later...

In fact we could simplify your statement further; The ends always justify the means., and so endorsing all terrorism and war, even genocide; whenever the ends is enough peace to make a net positive.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#532

Post by Gigachad »

unglaublich wrote: post #206
paxys wrote: post #12

Level 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…

No one likes public transport, but people like motorized traffic even less. It's a relative choice. The option should have been between decommissioning the train, saving 3 people and a few tons CO2, and decommissioning all motorized vehicles, saving millions of people every year and having a real impact on CO2 reduction.

I like public transport. And not in a "its a necessary evil" way. In a "I love riding on the train" way.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#533

Post by paganel »

paxys wrote: post #12

Level 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…

I hope not all the people took this seriously, hence (probably) some of the answers.

I knew I responded with "do nothing" to 100% of the questions, it's not my job to solve the problems of the Universe (and if that good person had been that good in real life then he/she wouldn't have ended up in front of an incoming trolley while the bad person was tied down on the other, "take action", line).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#535

Post by Gigachad »

everfree wrote: post #98

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 picked that option. Based on the knowledge that it would take me around 6 years to regain my life savings at the moment and it would take me over 6 years to get over the decision of picking the savings.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#536

Post by 22c »

McBeige wrote: post #523
22c wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really boil down trolley problems into "Would you kill x or y?". Generally someone is already in the way of the trolley, so the question is more like "Would you kill x in order to save y?". So you could ask people this: Would you kill a baby to save 5 elderly people? Would you kill 5 elderly people to save a baby? How people answer these questions does not really have anything to do with abortion.

> You can't really boil down trolley problems into "Would you kill x or y?". Thoughts on why you can't? I think you can and must .

It's a big difference that someone is already in the way. If you take no action they die anyway. If you suddenly collapse on the ground or get struck by lightning before you can pull the lever, they still die. It's not your fault that they died.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#537

Post by paganel »

miffe wrote: post #245
ConstantVigil wrote: post #117

Kill count: 84 Apparently I solved philosophy? Im gonna assume that title stays the same for everyone lol. So, explanation for why so high. Simply put; I don't believe 5 people really got tied to those rails each time. They are in on it somehow. If so, that is sick and twisted they would tie someone else to the rails purposely. So they deserve the trolley instead. Now on the chance that they really are all innocent;…

I got 91 by pressing Do Nothing on every level.

Glad I wasn't the only one doing that.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#538

Post by SpEd3Y »

vlaaad wrote: post #497
SpEd3Y wrote: post #429

Andrzej Sapkowski in the Witcher books, through Geralt, said something that might apply to this situation: "Evil is evil [...] Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I’m not a pious hermit. I haven't done only good in my life. But if I’m to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all" Thoughts? :)

This quote is very popular, but the moral of the story you are referencing is the opposite. Geralt rejects this point of view at the end, because inaction is also action.

I think is so popular because of the Killing Monsters trailer.

He does end up actually making a choice. But the choice is not between killing Renfri and Stregobor (which was the initial lesser evil choice) but he chooses to stop Renfris' gang from killing innocent people to draw Stregobor out. Renfri could have then left and look for another opportunity to kill Stregobor. Geralt told her at least two times to leave and she refused saying she made her choice, attacked Geralt and died. So Geralt ended up killing Renfri but as a result of her choice, not his. And he did stop Stregobor from taking her body and study it (which was his initial intent). So he did definitely not take his side. I would argue Geralt chose between good and evil, not between two lesser evils.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#539

Post by bobthechef »

jgerrish wrote: post #363

This kind of highlights a subtle interactive design or user experience component of the Trolley problem. Part of the Trolley Problem is that the choice is between an action or inaction. But these problems, or the first one at least, have two buttons. So you're making a choice. Yeah, some might argue it's a technicality. But what if you put the Do Nothing choice on a timer? What if you made it an asynchronous "Problem…

No post body was provided.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#540

Post by capableweb »

cortic wrote: post #531
capableweb wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting. I didn't consider any legal liabilities at all, and would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. I also didn't consider doing "nothing", not pulling the lever was also an act, and I didn't "see" any options doing nothing. Fun to see how differently people approach these ones :)

> [I] would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. This is a quite disturbing statement. So many psychopathic examples; If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people with compatible organs to multiple patients? Or a researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later... In fact we could simplify your statement furt…

> This is a quite disturbing statement

So it is to be human :)

> If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people

No.

> researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later

If it was guaranteed to save millions later, I'd think about it, if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts. But "inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people" for the mere possibility of saving millions later? No.

It all depends on the context obvious, as life is never between two binary choices or black VS white.

I don't think it's so disturbing to wanting to help a bigger part. I (and many others) already do this constantly by protesting and striking. Strikes generally impacts people who don't actually have anything to do with what you're striking against (example: when doctors strike, it hurts sick people), but in order for you and your colleagues to make a wage you can actually survive on, it does sometimes justify the means.

Post reply on HN