Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#751

Post by Timpy » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:28 PM UTC

galfarragem wrote: post #446

_nalply wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please be explicit. Do you mean something like insurance: a small amount of people has insurance but someone decided to insure even the people who haven't paid insurance? In that case it's clear that I won't pull the lever. It's not a question of life and death, and because I am not sure whether pulling the lever helps preventing lots of damage, I won't do anything, especially because perhaps it's just a vague and ab…

An extreme example: Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a leve…

More realistic example: The contractors in charge of the dam cut corners to pocket some extra money, but they'll be dead before the dam breaks anyway so they move into the valley. Land developers paid off the government to open the land for construction despite it being unsafe. Bankers gave predatory loans to those who would not otherwise be able to afford a house in the valley. The public has been misled and everybody is under the assumption that their society has reached a new age of prosperity where everyone can now live in the valley. At the last minute, the politicians, bankers, dam contractors, and land developers use their private helicopters to leave the valley before the flood crashes down.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#752

Post by Zondartul » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:28 PM UTC

This needs a variant with inversed level logic (i.e. where pulling the lever saves 1 but dooms 5). You know, to weed out the people who just like murder.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#753

Post by xrisk » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

ptsneves wrote: post #667

xrisk wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s certainly a myth that an engineer’s profession is “inherently harder” than a coffee brewers. In my opinion, people who would like to study engineering would do so not so because of what they are paid (the situation today), but because of their genuine interest. On further reflection, it seems ludicrous to believe that that hardest professions are the most paid. The average CS job pays obscenely well, but…

I specifically mentioned training because I knew this answer would come, and like clockwork it did. Training takes time, and often unpaid. A coffee shop worker will immediately get rewarded while the engineer will not. If they will be equally compensated then the engineer is at a disadvantage. > In my opinion, people who would like to study engineering would do so not so because of what they are paid (the situation t…

Fair argument but I don’t see why training should inherently be unpaid.

In fact, I don’t see why the ability to have a good standard of living should be predicated on your profession in the first place.

The fact that engineering training is… unpaid as you say seems to put people who cannot afford to not make money for rent, food, etc. at a clear disadvantage. Those already rich (and able to afford unpaid training) would just get richer if they are paid more than an “untrained” worker.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#754

Post by joexner » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

Ambolia wrote: post #732

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…

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

Who, Gary? Yeah, go for it. No one will miss him.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#755

Post by qsdf38100 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:32 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #744

The combo tradeoff between saving tens of thousands of lives of people who had, on average, 6-12 months of life expectancy, versus potentially shortening the lives of millions or billions of people by only months or weeks, and not seeing those effects for 70-80 years, seems to have been part of the covid shutdown tradeoff calculation. Granted, it has all the additional complication of the uncertainty of the real worl…

Being 70 yo makes you high risk wrt Covid, but it doesn’t mean you have a life expectancy of 6-12 months.

You must confuse with terminally ill cancer patients.

Where are your numbers coming from?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#756

Post by Sebb767 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:33 PM UTC

Dudeman112 wrote: post #689

Sebb767 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go from passively letting someone die to actively killing someone. Which is a major difference. Now, you might think that it isn't given enough time, but it's easy to argue that you're currently letting kids die in Africa by your inaction (or Ukrainians or homeless people etc.). Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few…

>Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few people would be willing to do. It definitely makes a difference It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Trying hard to not kno…

> It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying

Unfortunately, that's the one (not) making the decision in this case.

> Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition.

Is, though? I mean, in general we should strive to improve the world, but does getting overwhelmed by all the bad things that you should be doing something about really doesn't help.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#757

Post by Dudeman112 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

Sebb767 wrote: post #756

Dudeman112 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few people would be willing to do. It definitely makes a difference It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Trying hard to not kno…

> It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying Unfortunately, that's the one (not) making the decision in this case. > Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Is, though? I mean, in general we should strive to improve the world, but does getting overwhelmed by all the bad things that you should be doing som…

Maybe if we were overwhelmed by all the bad things that we should be doing something about it would eventually lead us to a point where we would be doing something instead of just living our lives doing nothing (for the most part)?

If we are already talking about changing the human cognition, might as well add an ability to function while being aware of the issues

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#758

Post by dwd » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

onionisafruit wrote: post #668

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.

It just says "kill count: 54" (my result). It doesn't say who is responsible for the killing.

Ultimately the mechanic who was responsible for maintaining the brakes, but you as the controller of the switch have an illusion of free will that causes you to act accordingly to your predetermined nature and upbringing.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#759

Post by idontknowmyacc » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:40 PM UTC

Kill count 93 reporting in.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#760

Post by II2II » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 2:42 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…

What does having enough time actually mean? I am almost certain that I would freeze if I encountered such a situation in real life, or panic and be unable to figure out how to flip the switch ...

... which brings up the real problem with these scenarios. In real life, the person at the switch would be trained. While that training is unlikely to include hypothetical scenarios created by philosophers, they would be expected to assess the safety of the act. This would put them into a position where the physical act of pulling or not pulling the switch would not, as you say, make much of a difference. They would have to answer for their actions down the line, even if their only answer was that it put them into an ethical conundum where they had insufficient information to assess the value of that one life verses five. A court may, or may not, accept that argument. It could be based upon the numbers (e.g. five lives are more valuable than one). It could be based upon the psychological impact of the decision upon the switch operator (e.g. a calculated sacrifice of one life may be frowned upon relative to an emotionally crippling indecision that led to the loss of five lives).

In turn, that brings up another issue with these artificial scenarios: they virtually always include follow-ups that are intended to raise doubt in decisions made. What if that one person was a child with their entire life ahead of them, and the five lives elderly people who have less to look forward to? What if that five included a "Hitler" plus four regular people, and the one was a "Gandhi" (i.e. the one slaughtered many orders of magnitude more people, and the one was revered for their regard of life)? Those are the sorts of things that are usually raised to justify indecision, even though they are highly unlikely.