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

671–680 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#671

Post by jorvi »

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.

> Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

This is always my problem with the trolley problem. Are we supposed to take second order effects into account?

For example, if I destroy the trolley that is killing 5 people over 30 years with CO2, does another trolley get built to replace it?

Or ‘kill 5 people now or send the trolley into the future 100 years and kill 5 people then’. Is it 100% guaranteed the trolley kills them then? Or can I assume there is a tiny chance they figure out time travel and can make preparations?

Or the ‘stuck on an eternal loop’. Does this mean true eternity and are the people in the trolley immortal? Or just for 70 years?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#672

Post by ptsneves »

darkerside wrote: post #483
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…

Isn't the most likely outcome that engineering salaries will go up even higher causing massive inflation?

No, the economy will just become uncompetitive for engineering companies and produce more coffee-shop workers. Given Portugal's economic dependence on tourism is perhaps by design.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#673

Post by Tepix »

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.

What if the problem is rephrased and inaction would mean death for both?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#675

Post by hyper_reality »

kortex wrote: post #623

I found myself following a heuristic that is basically Asimov's laws: - whenever possible, do no harm - do not let harm occur due to inaction - when given a choice, preserve the most amount of healthy lifespan in aggregate - higher lifeforms are more valuable than lower ones (cat vs lobsters) - deferred consequence is better than immediate (since it opens the door to other later interventions) It kind of really bring…

> - higher lifeforms are more valuable than lower ones (cat vs lobsters)

Choosing between preserving the life of one cat vs one lobster seems straightforward enough. But the trolley problem was asking whether one cat was more valuable than five lobsters. According to the stats, many people agreed, but how about one cat vs a million lobsters? Or one cat vs all the lobsters on earth? Most people would think that making lobsters extinct would be very bad (unless they really hate lobsters).

The difficulty is when we can no longer rely on intuition and have to come up with a precise exchange rate of when one being's life is more valuable than another's, which, like you say, is impossible to do in the complicated world we live in and our limited understanding of consciousness and neuroscience. In absence of that, deferring to the first law "whenever possible, do no harm" seems sensible.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#676

Post by Tepix »

noasaservice wrote: post #609

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…

> I chose the route of harm minimization

As determined by the kill count? But what about time remaining alive? I.e. killing a 95-year old vs killing two children.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#677

Post by Izkata »

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?

...well then, we all live on a giant trolley.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#678

Post by vincnetas »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522
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.

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…

Inaction is overwhelming if you think about it. by inaction you are guilty of every sufering person around you. And you can expand that pool by saying that your inaction to find out more sufering people is also part of your guilt. of course provided you are already not doing your max right now to help tham. but hey, youre on HN, so i assume you still got free time to spare ;)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#679

Post by Cloudef »

Tepix wrote: post #666
Cloudef wrote: post #645

I will not act as a god and divert the fate, thus I always choose not to pull the lever

It blamed you for 91 deaths in the end regardless. If you see someone about to step onto the road and get killed, will you also not do anything?

In that case I would stop them, but trolley problem is more convoluted. If I do something I'll need to take responsibility, if I don't do anything the trolley company has to take the responsibility. Related: https://i.redd.it/9lbq0hx2zkk81.jpg

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#680

Post by ant6n »

smeej wrote: post #559
llimos wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exacerbated by the summary at the end, giving you your "kill count". For cases where you did nothing, you did not kill anyone. The trolley did.

This gets at what is, to me, an extremely important distinction between "killing" and "allowing to die." Death happens to everyone eventually. No way around that, at least not yet. The most I can do with a trolley switch is possibly affect the timing. It seems to me that any time I pull the lever to direct the train toward a person (as opposed to toward other trains or lobsters or money), I'm causing the death of who…

It kind of depends on whether you are some innocent bystander, or some employee of the trolley system who is actually trained and certified to pull that lever to divert that trolley and tasked with minimizing the loss of life.

Given that the way the problems are presented as if the decider is an innocent bystander, perhaps inaction is the most sensible choice.

Post reply on HN