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

601–610 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#601

Post by moffkalast »

lelag wrote: post #437
Xcelerate wrote: post #399

There’s only one of them that really gave me a lot of pause. 5 elderly people or one baby? Not necessarily that specific problem itself, but the Sorites paradox that is implied. What about 5 elderly people with one day of natural life left vs one baby with an expected lifespan of 100 years? Are we trying to maximize total time of human life? What if it’s low quality time though? 1,000,000 elderly people that had one…

I think the baby is the logical choice for utility maximisation: he still has a chance to develop in anything, maybe he could become the next Einstein or save the world. But the 5 elderly's contributions to society are probably over, however large those had been during their time.

From a societal standpoint it's a no brainer, 5 drains on resources vs. 1 future contributor.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#602

Post by Symmetry »

One interesting thing about the trolley problem is that while most people won't pull the lever when the people involved are all random strangers, most people will if the people are are all relatives. That makes me think that, subconsciously, part of the issue is that if you pull the lever you're afraid the victim's friends and family might blame you for the death and seek revenge but if you don't the friends and family of the victims will all go looking for vengeance from whoever owned the trolley and you'll be in the clear.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/02/immoral-altruism.html

I certainly wouldn't direct a careening trolley from 5 sleeping humans to 1 awake human who would feel terror before dying, but if it were cows or something like that I certainly would.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#603

Post by moffkalast »

mongol wrote: post #208

These are presented as ethical dilemmas, but are they also legal dilemmas? Example 1, for example. If you can clearly see that one person will die if you pull a lever, and he will not die that if you don't, is that not murder or manslaughter? If not, why?

It's a fun thing to think about in a no-personal-consequences sort of way, if it were a real life situation you bet nobody is going to touch that lever with a 10 foot pole otherwise they're likely going to prison for a long time with how modern prosecution works.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#604

Post by addandsubtract »

YPPH wrote: post #467
littlestymaar wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people?

On the other hand, how many people would you need to save to sacrifice yourself? 5? 2? 1? Does that one person need to be younger than you? Not disabled? Not a criminal?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#605

Post by sneak »

galangalalgol wrote: post #542
sneak wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. I don't think I can be held morally responsible for inaction in any circumstance. We didn't start the fire etc. I answered "no pull" to every one except the one where the express goal was pranking the trolley driver (and no implied harm from pulling). This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but the only one I can reconcile with my own concept of responsibility.

Interesting! Do you disagree with the legal traditions that penalize doctors for failure to render aid, even when not at work? Or perhaps that isvlike saying you are actually the (or at least a) trolley switch operator, you just aren't in duty, in which case maybe your position obligates action when it is warranted?

Precisely. I am generally against compelled action of any kind, as it violates mutual consent, a fundamental principle I hold.

A trolley switch operator has explicitly opted in to the responsibility, and consents to same. A bystander has not.

This is why the famous internet video of the trolley problem acted out in the real world was required to offer post-experiment psychological counseling to the test subjects. They had not consented to being placed in a position of responsibility for life safety.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#606

Post by [deleted] »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #546
sneak wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. I don't think I can be held morally responsible for inaction in any circumstance. We didn't start the fire etc. I answered "no pull" to every one except the one where the express goal was pranking the trolley driver (and no implied harm from pulling). This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but the only one I can reconcile with my own concept of responsibility.

I used to think like you until I learned about how ethical frameworks are different when you are being extorted. This trolley problem is a class of extortion because your choices are very limited and out of your control. For example, it wouldn’t be wrong if someone forced you to steal a package of bubblegum or else they would kill your family and you decided to steal the bubblegum instead of inaction. In this case, i…

[deleted]

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#607

Post by gfiorav »

layer8 wrote: post #586
gfiorav wrote: post #584

I know there are flaws to my reasoning, but I can't shake the thought: How/Why those poor people ended on the track is more important to fix than to focus on the responsibility of the guy pulling the lever.

But what if fixing the problem causes double the number of people to end up on a different track?

... then you didn't fix it?

My reasoning is: say that bad city design leads to a lot of pedestrians about to be struck by cars in intersections. Does it really make sense to focus on the drivers?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#608

Post by atlasunshrugged »

Symmetry wrote: post #602

One interesting thing about the trolley problem is that while most people won't pull the lever when the people involved are all random strangers, most people will if the people are are all relatives. That makes me think that, subconsciously, part of the issue is that if you pull the lever you're afraid the victim's friends and family might blame you for the death and seek revenge but if you don't the friends and fami…

A potential reframe of your initial comment on subconscious thought is that we know the morals and values of our relatives better and know or think that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves whereas we have no idea the values of random strangers.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#609

Post by noasaservice »

I chose the route of harm minimization, given this forces an answer. My kill count was 44.

We really should have 3 answers: 'refuse to answer', 'pull lever', and 'dont pull lever'.

Don't pull lever- is a choice that you make, and acknowledges the intent in doing that action.

Refusing to answer- is not accepting the responsibility forced on you.

As a comparison, it's when some terrorist on a movie says to someone "You can decide who is going to die". The better answer is to not choose. If they force that with multiple threatened to be murdered, then you choose yourself.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#610

Post by _Algernon_ »

smeej wrote: post #568
_Algernon_ wrote: post #556

Got a kill count of 84. Had a pretty heavy bias against making an active choice so you could get a much lower count.

I had a total bias against intervening to change the path of the trolley toward one or more people (regardless of what was on the other track), but also a bias toward action if something other than a person could be run over instead, and I only got 69. I'm surprised that "saved" 15 people compared to a bias toward inaction in general.

The bias wasn't absolute. I sacrificed the 5 people to save best friend for instance.
Post reply on HN