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

651–660 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#651

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

lupire wrote: post #597
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

You would enjoy Peter Singer's writing. You are killing children by not donating your wealth to help them.

I'm not convinced that's wrong, it's just that we need to accept we can't always act 100% in the best way for humanity. Rather than try to convince ourselves that our actions are somehow moral I think we need to accept we act out of selfishness sometimes and deal with that internally, otherwise we end up crafting philosophies saying that the hoarding of massive wealth is somehow moral just to try and stop the cognitive dissonance.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#652

Post by Rayhem »

SheetPost wrote: post #459
Aeolun wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it doesn’t matter how old the people are, really. They have all already gotten to experience the joy of life. The baby hasn’t, so they have the most to lose.

the baby (young enough) doesn't understand the situation also, you can easily flip it: elderly cannot be saved from the torture of existence, having lived so long, but the baby has barely suffered anything yet - we can save it!

The elderly also have wisdom to offer. The baby only has potential wisdom. Of course, if you're trading on potential, the baby could potentially grow up to be a serial killer. Or the elderly could potentially be mute.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#653

Post by ptsneves »

lazide wrote: post #595
ptsneves wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In philosophy Kant would disagree with you with his Categorical Imperative[1]. Rawls also went that way, with the veil of ignorance[2]. The lack of state or context is not only desirable but is the whole foundation on why their theories are rational. Of course many philosophers disagree and arguably terrible things were done with such mindset[3]. The point I am trying to make is that if you need context then you cann…

How can the minimum be increased to match the average without making it mathematically impossible for there to be no salaries above the average?

Of course not exactly but if most of the people earn the same minimum, then the average will be close to minimum. There is no cap on max, but with few they do not make a difference.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#654

Post by Tepix »

_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…

I did nothing and it says i killed 91 people. My lawyer disagrees.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#655

Post by kortex »

darkerside wrote: post #498
joshschreuder wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpreted it as the passengers would go round in circles for eternity, but not necessarily living passengers. I assumed they would die of hunger and dehydration which seemed less humane than instantaneous death by explosion.

What if they have renewable food and drink, a thriving economy, and the ability to reproduce?

The year is 2199. The trolly residents have figured out how to tap the trolly's motion for near-limitless power. Despite its small size, the trolly has developed a stable population of 24 (give or take over the years) and has dubbed itself Trolland. Their primary exports are electricity via pantograph back to the mainland, information services, and entertainment syndication, as the trolley offers a 24/7/365 reality tv experience akin to the Truman show.

The Trolland Show draws millions of views. The residents initially had relatively normal interaction with friends and family via Zoom calls, but as the first generations died off, a new social order evolved. The community is very tight-kit and intimate (in every sense of the word), while having parasocial relations with outsiders, whom they call Stationaries. A Cult of the Trolley which worships the eternal engine has sprung up, periodically giving offerings to the trolley and its denizens. Ratings skyrocketed one day in 2077 as five cultists, in an odd sense of irony, tied themselves to the track as a sacrifice to the great Prime Mover.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#656

Post by HeavyStorm »

Well, that was fun. My internal geek, however, is annoyed that it seems to miss the point of the trolley problem - that of you do nothing, you're not responsible. Answers seem to indicate that people don't get that.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#657

Post by globular-toast »

JonathanFly wrote: post #21

>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…

Have you never really thought about the horrifying possibility of eternity?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#658

Post by gaws »

Silica6149 wrote: post #566
belter wrote: post #477

Lots of additional fun at Neal's page... My favorite is the Life Checklist and the Size of Space. https://neal.fun/size-of-space/ https://neal.fun/ten-years-ago/ https://neal.fun/lets-settle-this/ https://neal.fun/ambient-chaos/ https://neal.fun/spend/ https://neal.fun/who-was-alive/ https://neal.fun/life-checklist/ https://neal.fun/dark-patterns/

Anyone know what tools he uses for the animations, like the size of space one?

HTML and CSS

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#659

Post by HeavyStorm »

rax0m wrote: post #396
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…

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 the gist of this philosophical problem.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#660

Post by Helmut10001 »

hackerlight wrote: post #612
Helmut10001 wrote: post #547

From an ethical point of view, the biggest problem for me was when there were two bad choices to be weighted against each other, e.g. 1 person on a track dies against 5 persons on the other track. In most of these cases, I "did nothing" - because I don't want to play god and I knew where this leads: There are ethical edge cases that I definitly do not want to think about. I am not super convinced about this in hindsi…

> I "did nothing" - because I don't want to play god I can't understand this perspective. Deciding not to pull the lever is a decision that you've made. You are "playing god" all the same if you decide to sit there and not pull the lever. There is no ethically important distinction that comes about by the mere fact that physical movement is necessitated by one of the decisions versus the other decision. If the framin…

I agree, but how do you decide e.g. if there's one disabled person on a track, and one not disabled on the other? It's that I don't want to make these decision (and luckily, I am not forced - I didn't design this game, I did not put the people on the track in the first case - I can decide not to play the game, and in reality, I can always ask "Is there perhaps option C that saves both?").
Post reply on HN