Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#731

Post by Hasu » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #724

Hasu wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you know how they got there? That implies so much prior knowledge and background that isn't really considered in the oversimplified "choices" in the website. Maybe they were forced to tie themselves to the railroad at gunpoint, or maybe it's a weird death-by-train suicide cult. This kind of reasoning really defeats the point of the thought experiment, which is to construct a scenario where those consideratio…

I disagree - I think that "reasoning about moral intuitions" is completely useless if you're attempting to reason about them in utter isolation and with the assumption that the subject is omniscient. It's like economists assuming perfectly reasonable actors in markets, or physicists assuming a perfectly spherical object that ignores wind resistance. They're toy problems that don't match reality at all, and the value…

So what's your alternative, throw your hands up and proclaim ethical reasoning to be impossible, nothing is true, everything is permitted, and it doesn't matter what you do?

All models are wrong but that doesn't make them useless.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#732

Post by Ambolia » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

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…

It gets tricky. Should you kill an innocent guy from the street if you can save 5 people with his organs?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#733

Post by mcv » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

bigDinosaur wrote: post #412

mcv wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.

One of the major problems with anything that isn't on rails is that it is easy to make go away. Unironically one of the reasons for trams is that it's harder to rip up the tracks and delete the service entirely as opposed to bus routes which can vanish in a single day or be altered in incredibly dumb ways. Of course, if you're sufficiently destructive you can rip up any infrastructure.

Sadly this hasn't stopped people from destroying massive amounts of rail infrastructure.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#734

Post by concordDance » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

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…

The main difference between action and inaction is that with inaction it's much less likely the other monkeys will conclude you are dangerous and should be killed (because they're not any worse off by your inaction, almost by definition).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#735

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

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…

My mental framing of situations like this is "One shouldn't play god. If expecting to be faced with choices about life and death, one should prepare. Get very, very good at the god job."

We humans have outsized impact on the world around us. Often, we don't get the luxury of no-choice. Not if we want to survive ourselves.

(One variant I've never seen is "You realized that creating a system of moving multi-ton vehicles at street level over long distances at moderate speeds could result in fatal collisions. Do you refrain from inventing trolleys?").

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#736

Post by asib » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #696

pteraspidomorph wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did notice that. I'd pull the lever if I was the one on the tracks, since in that case I am not robbing someone else of their life through my decision - my life is my own to sacrifice. At that point it's best to save five. Then again, a sizeable minority wouldn't sacrifice their life savings for lives either, which means this portion of the respondents does not think the lives of strangers have value at all, or at…

Right now, non-hypothetically, would you be willing to donate your internal organs to those who will die without them, even if it meant you will not survive yourself?

If that's unpalatable, what about have you donated one of your kidneys yet? You can live a healthy life with just one. If you truly believe you would sacrifice yourself in this trolley scenario, I don't think it is possible to justify not having done something where (excepting the slight risk of more serious consequences) the only sacrifice is time.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#737

Post by luispa » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

i'm a lobster guy.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#738

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #494

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…

Interestingly, I had almost the opposite reaction. In the absence of information, I don't know how these people got here or why. Maybe they're being executed as criminals, maybe they are suicide attempts, maybe they are truly heinous people in the hands of a Just God. But, I do know, if it's me on the track, I don't want to die. It's almost the only truly inarguable choice. With everything else, you think you know be…

[deleted]

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#739

Post by ranger207 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

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…

If I very publicly save 5 people from a violent death I can easily play that off into much more than my life saving are worth with a couple of book deals and maybe a movie

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#740

Post by mcv » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

evandijk70 wrote: post #484

mcv wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.

There is indeed about a 30% reduction in power usage when comparing trams to electric buses. https://bathtrams.uk/the-most-energy-efficient-mode-of-publi... Still, I feel that trams will be dying soon. The improved efficiency is simply not enough to justify the extra infrastructure and inflexibility. Modern battery electric buses have a range of 500+km and can thus be used for an entire day, and charged at times when…

Battery electric buses require batteries, which may be flexible, but are also expensive.

I don't see existing trams and light rail disappearing soon. Not in cities that have well-functioning networks, like Amsterdam. But I can imagine that for new projects, electric buses are preferable.