Absurd Trolley Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#871

Post by tshaddox » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

grog454 wrote: post #649

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…

> I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. One reason could be because your presence at this railroad switch is exceptional or at least unusual in some way. Maybe its worth considering what would happen if you weren't there at all. When working in a new codebase, it's generally better to assume that something odd is the way it is for a reason…

> When working in a new codebase, it's generally better to assume that something odd is the way it is for a reason, rather than changing it to something that seems right (easier to understand) to you.

But isn't that's just because when you find yourself in a new codebase it's generally because you will be in a long-term relationship with the other contributors to that codebase, and thus it makes sense to be cooperative? If you were dropped into a new codebase in a hypothetical scenario like the trolley problem where you only need to make a single choice without any expectation of ongoing interaction with the relevant parties, then you might very well just do the quickest and dirtiest change to the codebase to accomplish your immediate goal.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#872

Post by vintermann » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #866

vintermann wrote: post #856

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. As Henry David Thoreau said: It is not man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought lon…

> It is not man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. Classic appeal to authority. The above quotation contains grand declarations with no supporting logic or evidence. Just because Hen…

I explained at length why I agree with the Thoreau quote.

> The outcomes of inaction are equally as "profoundly unknowable" as the outcomes of taking action.

Absolutely.

> From an "unintended consequences" perspective, it's a wash.

Indeed. That's exactly what I said.

> So we might as well focus on the first order known consequences

Sure. Or we might not. Either is permissible because...

> which are pretty clear.

That's where you've been lied to. And the site author absolutely should have added an example where the description didn't match up with what happened at all.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#873

Post by I-M-S » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #857

com2kid wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lobsters are tied to a trolley track, they aren't long for this world anyway. Trolley tracks aren't exactly a lobster's native habitat. Untie the cat and it'll, likely, be a-ok.

Take out the cat though and you have dinner for 5 families!

Having dinner is precisely why I took out the lobsters (well, depending they're not too mangled after being run over by a trolley).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#874

Post by mikkergp » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

MrPatan wrote: post #367

Trolley problems suck. Anybody's response is meaningless unless we take into account the context they have in their heads. A very common piece of context is: "If you touch something and people die, it's your fault. If you don't touch anything and people die, you can very convincingly claim in front of a judge 'It wasn't me, I didn't touch anything!'" That's a very different setting than "I'm a philosopher who wants t…

I think the emotional context / trauma is interesting as well when considering many of the scenarios. Regardless of some sort of external validation, how will you feel after incident? The "If you touch something and people die, it's your fault" description is very clean and logical. or something like "I don't want to play god, when there's so much uncertainty", and lots of people leave it at that. But what would your conscious hoist upon you in the days and years after you made your decision. What could you _actually_ live with, not what do you think you could live with.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#875

Post by fanzhang » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:11 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 Copenhagen interpretation of ethics: you're automatically morally neutral if you don't take action. https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#876

Post by robbomacrae » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

yardstick wrote: post #108

robbomacrae wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chickens are sentient. Would you have changed your answer if it were chickens? I chose to save the human as the prompt didn't set a bar for the level of sentience. Also partly because of shameless speciesism. I love animals, have gone mostly vegetarian, but I would still save a human over any other animal.

Would you save a fit, healthy monkey that can communicate with us using sign language, or would you save a human in a permanent coma? (Or whose brain is damaged and will only ever have the mind of a 1 year old)

I would choose the human in both situations.

Lots of animals die due to our existence and not just for our food. We accidentally kill things all the time with our vehicles and the pollution we cause. I wish it wasn't the case but you can't step outside without ruining some ants day.

To then be faced with a choice between killing one more animal or a human... my heart would bleed for the monkey but to do anything else would be murder and pretty hypocritical unless one lives an extremely vegan and eco friendly lifestyle.

No medical issue will strip away the fact that it is a human life. I'll make it more absurd for you... they could have a terminal disease and likely be dead tomorrow and I'd still choose to sacrifice the monkey to give them 24 more hours.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#877

Post by tshaddox » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #529

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…

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.

Is it conceivable for you to be placed in a situation where there is no "privileged default"? In other words, a situation where you must choose between two options and there is no option that you can somehow point to as the "no, I refuse to choose" option?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#878

Post by codefreeordie » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

throwaway787544 wrote: post #264

codefreeordie wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no free will, though, then there isn't an interesting moral quandary about you pulling the lever. You either do, because you were preordained to do so or you don't, because you were preordained not to, and in neither case does any morality or decision-making enter into the picture, since, absent free will, you are not a morality-possessing or decision-making entity.

There's no free will in a clock but it's still interesting to watch the gears. And just because you don't have free will doesn't mean you don't have morals; even if you don't choose to do right or wrong, you can still distinguish them as separate concepts. And even if you can't distinguish morality, that doesn't necessarily make you amoral either. It's like being born to be an extra in a play and die once the play is…

In a world with strong determinism, there is no consequence. Actions don't cause reactions. The initial state of the system causes all outcomes -- both immediate and apparently-consequent.

The person doesn't really pull the trolley lever insomuch as the universe began in a state which determined that at that moment, the person's arm and the lever would move.

In such a world, even time is barely meaningful, since events, not being dependent upon each other, don't really have a causal ordering.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#879

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #845

jodrellblank wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems overly simple to me to reduce it to "more is better". What if the five people are 100 year old dementia patients moaning in agony and the one person is an infant? Do you still pull the lever because "more people alive is better"? What if the five people are infants and the one person is an elderly convicted murderer, does that change how easy it is to pull the lever? In "more is better" neither shouldn't cha…

It’s a thought experiment for studying ethics. You can modify all of the variables as you choose, but in general you want to pick the simplest form that suffices to demonstrate the point. In this case making the people different would make the experiment needlessly complex. The problem as-stated (assuming identical individuals) already illustrates the consequentialist/deontologist conflict. I think you are perhaps en…

You said "If you are a deontologist, “the ends don’t justify the means” and it’s rarely ok to just kill someone to save someone else. If you are a consequentialist then the choice to live in the better world is obvious." and I took that to mean that killing someone to save five people was what you consider the consequentialist 'obvious choice'. From there you now clarify that the people are all the same so all we have to go on is quantity of living people, it seems. If "more people alive" is not what you mean by "the better world", then what do you mean by it?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#880

Post by epgui » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #515

epgui wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing unethical about attaching a price to a human life: it's a very uncomfortable question, and I think there ought to be some disagreement on what the number should be... But money is fundamentally just a unit of value. We use it to compare the value of different things. We can use it to convert between labour (someone's time, which is a fraction of one's life) and goods and se…

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. A lot of this thinking does line up for me, but it seems like there's something missing. Why do we all feel a little bit sick when we hear about car executives doing calculations to determine whether to perform a recall or not? Isn't it because we're putting a financial price on life? Or is it just that the price we're hearing is too low?

I think even if we all agree that there is a price, it’s hard not to feel discomfort about that.

Depending where in the world you are, you may have grown up to believe that humans are more worthy than animals because we have “souls” or whatever that means. A lot of our culture and religion deeply reinforces the “humans are special holy magic” feelings. I won’t develop this thought to great detail unless someone wants me to.

But in addition to that, you’re absolutely correct in saying that oftentimes the price we put on life is too low.

In addition to that, even if the price is correct, it may be difficult for us to have a good perspective on that, simply because we are talking about large numbers (we’re really bad at large numbers), and because pricing stuff is hard. Even stocks are hard to price, and people argue with each other about wildly different price targets.