We used to talk about this crap in class and I never understood the point. I still don't.

We used to talk about this crap in class and I never understood the point. I still don't. Of course it's better to take only one life instead of multiple lives if the only choice is between the two. Am I really to simple minded to understand the problem here

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It mostly comes down to:
    >Does changing the track count as taking a life?
    >Does inaction in this situation count as taking multiple lives?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      does it matter? maybe you are meant to bear the weight of one death in exchange for saving more lives.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >does it matter?
        Yes
        >maybe you are meant to bear the weight of one death in exchange for saving more lives.
        Why?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Does inaction in this situation count as taking multiple lives?
      Yeah, as you're choosing not to act. When, of course, you were capable of acting. It's an illusion, sort of.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you pull the lever then your action has DIRECTLY lead to the death of a person, so you are responsible for taking their life. In you don't pull the lever then you don't have any direct responsibility for the five people that die, since its not your fault the trolley is about to run them over in the first place, but it also raises a question of whether or not people have an obligation to take actions to help others or not.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In you don't pull the lever then you don't have any direct responsibility for the five people that die, since its not your fault the trolley is about to run them over in the first place
      Anon, letting the trolley run them over is an active decision. That’s like saying someone is bleeding from a stab wound next to you that they could otherwise totally be saved for if you called 911, and you chose not to because it’s not your fault they got stabbed in the first place. You are holding the power of their life or death in your hands, and choosing not to save them is choosing to let them die, ergo killing them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Letting someone die is not the same as killing them. You are not the one who put them on the tracks and you are not the on who set the trolley in motion, meaning you are not directly culpable to their demise.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes but sitting idly by when you have the complete power and ability to save someone’s life renders that irrelevant.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In this case saving them would mean you would have to directly murder another human being. Like I've said, if it was just five people on a track and no one else on the other track then I think you would have a moral obligation to pull the level but it's not the same if you have to murder someone else to do it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In this case saving them would mean you would have to directly murder another human being
            So not choosing to save anyone is fine because you’re remaining uninvolved, by directly choosing to save 5 people is murder. Right, anon. Much logic. I’m sure you’re going to sleep so much better at night knowing you let 6 people die rather than 1.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >by directly choosing to save 5 people is murder
            Because you are directly and deliberately killing one person yes, that is murder. Inaction is not the same as direct action.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I repeat: you are not going to sleep better at night knowing you let 6 people die rather than 1.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >let 6 people die rather than 1
            That is not and has never been the scenario. The scenario is whether you let 5 people die or MURDER 1 person. Do you not understand the difference between these things?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Letting 5 people die < letting one person die. You are confounded moron if you cannot understand that there is a moral obligation to save the greatest amount of lives.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How are you letting one person die?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By choosing to let 5 people live. Same way you’d be letting 5 people die if you ‘did nothing’.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you divert the track then you're not letting one person die, you're murdering him. Big difference.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But walking away and letting 5 people die is morally unambiguous. Right. You’re a moron.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the alternative is murdering someone instead then yes, the question becomes morally ambiguous. That's an integral part of the dilemma, you're not understanding the trolley problem if you think the question is "what's worse, five people dying or one person dying?"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >”what's worse, five people dying or one person dying?"
            That you actually have to ask this is unbelievable, anon. You make it sound like there’s no difference between these.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Explain what you think the moral dilemma in the trolley problem is

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >train is going to hit either 1 person or 5 people
            >letting 5 people die is worse than letting 1 person die
            Fricking easy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Revisit the problem once you're in your 20s and you'll find that there's more to it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m 28 you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging basement dweller.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's troubling, you should be able to grasp the problem if your brain has finished growing. Do you have any other disabilities that might impair your ability to fully understand it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem here is that you’re too nihilistic to understand that 5 lives are inherently more valuable than 1 life.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >5 lives are inherently more valuable than 1 life
            Why?

            [...]
            [...]
            It's only "inaction" in the shallowest sense, that is, you are taking no physical action. But to not pull the lever, knowing the consequences, is just as much an active decision as pulling the lever. You are not absolved of the responsibility of that decision just because it didn't entail physically doing anything.

            Physical action (or the lack thereof) is not the point, the point is that in the first scenario (five people are about to be run over) you are entirely not at fault because you didn't make that happen to begin with, however if you do decide to take action then you create a new scenario where one person dies as a result of your action.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You "decide to take action" no matter what. There is no way to not decide. The only thing separating the two decisions is the physical action of pulling the lever or not, which is trivial.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you make no distinction between direct and indirect effects?

            >5 lives are worth more than 1
            >Why?
            Jesus Christ, anon.
            [...]
            >The only thing separating the two decisions is the physical action of pulling the lever or not, which is trivial.
            Precisely. Too many R-tards here getting hung up on the lever, as if it matters.

            >Jesus Christ, anon.
            Just answer the question

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is no "indirect" in this scenario. Again, the ONLY thing separating your two decisions is the physical action.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you're directly responsible for the five people dying if you don't pull the lever? Even if there is a third party that kidnapped them, put them on the tracks and sent the trolley towards them, he is not the one who is directly responsible for their deaths if you decide not to pull the lever, you are?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So you're directly responsible for the five people dying if you don't pull the lever?
            Christ alive. Are you actually this stupid? When you have the complete power and ability to save them? Yes, you very much are.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The choice to save them comes at someone else's expense though. So let me get this straight, you think even if a third party orchestrated their deaths you are ultimately the one responsible for it? If a terrorist threw a grenade into a crowd and it would kill 10 people but you could save them by pushing someone else on top of the grenade and you didn't, you would actually say "the terrorist wasn't responsible for all those deaths, I'm the one who's responsible for not forcing someone else to be a human shield"?

            The only person who could be charged with murder here is the person who set this up. However, you have some moral responsibility to at least make the best of this situation, however unfair that may be.

            Do you think it would be morally righteous to execute people in order to harvest their organs as long as the total number of people saved is higher than the number of people killed?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you think it would be morally righteous to execute people in order to harvest their organs as long as the total number of people saved is higher than the number of people killed?
            In other words you can't directly refute what I said so you try to shift to a completely different problem you just made up

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That question usually follows the trolley problem, because if you establish that it is indeed moral to kill someone to save more people then why not proactively kill people for their organs if that means you can save more people with it? It is logically consistent but in this example a lot of the "pull lever" people in the trolley problem suddenly find a problem with it.

            >If a terrorist threw a grenade into a crowd and it would kill 10 people but you could save them by pushing someone else on top of the grenade and you didn't, you would actually say "the terrorist wasn't responsible for all those deaths, I'm the one who's responsible for not forcing someone else to be a human shield"?
            Why/how am I supposed to have advanced knowledge that this would guaranteed save the others? This is a ridiculous hypothetical. With the train car question, we can actually guarantee that lives will be saved. Nobody is going to think “Oh I should push a random person in front of this grenade”, but people will/would immediately see the difference between letting 1 person die instead of 5.

            Hypothetical scenarios are often extreme or ridiculous so you can test if your principles are consistent. It seems bizarre to me how you attribute responsibility to the last person to act even in a scenario where a clearly malicious person has triggered the event to begin with, so I provided an example that's way more egregious to drive home the point. In a terrorist attack do you think the terrorists are responsible for the deaths or someone who neglects giving first aid to someone in order to help two other people? Is that Samaritan responsible for the first person dying? Of course not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The fundamental difference between the two problems is that with the organ harvesting you are actively choosing to kill people. In the trolley problem, people are dying no matter what and that's not your fault. But now you have the option to minimize the death so obviously you should do that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the trolley problem some people are dying no matter what, the guy on the other track is going to be just fine unless you actively choose to murder him in order to save the five others, just like you could actively choose to murder a healthy person who would otherwise be fine in order to transplant his organs to others.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have already addressed all of this in terms a child can understand and don't feel like repeating myself. You are either hopelessly stupid or disingenuous

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why not proactively kill people for their organs
            1 relevant difference would be that you're kind of just dropped right in there with the lever, you didn't choose to set up the system

            When there is more work and deliberation required to save lives (at the cost of other lives?) we tend to excuse ourselves

            I think what people gets tripped up on, is that there is no need to have huge overarching principles
            you can just be particular about these things (all situations are particular in my view)
            it's not like pulling levers for trains commits you to harvest organs from hobos, this is silly, I don't get how philosophers fooled people into thinking the world works like that

            besides, there's relevant practical concerns
            like how most people would prefer to live in a society where they didn't constantly have to worry about being killed for the greater good
            so they are okay with taking a hit to total utility, even if they value total societal utility

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If a terrorist threw a grenade into a crowd and it would kill 10 people but you could save them by pushing someone else on top of the grenade and you didn't, you would actually say "the terrorist wasn't responsible for all those deaths, I'm the one who's responsible for not forcing someone else to be a human shield"?
            Why/how am I supposed to have advanced knowledge that this would guaranteed save the others? This is a ridiculous hypothetical. With the train car question, we can actually guarantee that lives will be saved. Nobody is going to think “Oh I should push a random person in front of this grenade”, but people will/would immediately see the difference between letting 1 person die instead of 5.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only person who could be charged with murder here is the person who set this up. However, you have some moral responsibility to at least make the best of this situation, however unfair that may be.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >However, you have some moral responsibility to at least make the best of this situation, however unfair that may be.
            I also thought this when I first heard of this problem. But think about this, where does this responsibility actually come from? How am I responsible for something I didn't in any way shape or form cause? And on top of that, how does that give me the moral right to put someone whose life wasn't even associated with the incident to begin with (guy in the alt route) in harm's way?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But think about this, where does this responsibility actually come from? How am I responsible for something I didn't in any way shape or form cause?
            Because that's the premise of the problem numbnuts.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, so what makes you think you have a responsibilty then?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just give up, friend. This moron

            Do you make no distinction between direct and indirect effects?
            [...]
            >Jesus Christ, anon.
            Just answer the question

            is either being intentionally pigheaded or he is truly just hopelessly stupid.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >5 lives are worth more than 1
            >Why?
            Jesus Christ, anon.

            You "decide to take action" no matter what. There is no way to not decide. The only thing separating the two decisions is the physical action of pulling the lever or not, which is trivial.

            >The only thing separating the two decisions is the physical action of pulling the lever or not, which is trivial.
            Precisely. Too many R-tards here getting hung up on the lever, as if it matters.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >5 lives are worth more than 1
            according to what metrics in theoretical here are the five lives intrinsically better than one other? Answer the fricking question

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you divert the track then you're not letting one person die, you're murdering him. Big difference.

            An action that results in 1 death or an inaction that results in 5. Sins of commission are worse than sins of omission. If you pull the lever you've intentional committed the murder of one person through an action you initiated. If you don't pull the lever you've only committed mere negligence by failing to stop an action someone or something else initiated (and the only way to stop it would be killing someone unrelated to that set of events). If the only way to mitigate a sin of omission is to cause a sin of commission. Well you've done nothing moral. What's worse? Killing 5 people by neglecting to correct someone else's initiation or killing 1 person as a result of a direct action you initiated?

            Murder by neglect is bad. But it will never be as bad as the death of a person resulting from a direct action. Deaths that result from lack of action are not as bad as deaths that result from action.

            Frick utilitarianism. Utilitarianism nothing more than a baby making contest.

            It's only "inaction" in the shallowest sense, that is, you are taking no physical action. But to not pull the lever, knowing the consequences, is just as much an active decision as pulling the lever. You are not absolved of the responsibility of that decision just because it didn't entail physically doing anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But to not pull the lever, knowing the consequences, is just as much an active decision as pulling the lever. You are not absolved of the responsibility of that decision just because it didn't entail physically doing anything.
            Fricking exactly. Thank you, anon! This is what I’ve been saying the whole time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            [...]
            It's only "inaction" in the shallowest sense, that is, you are taking no physical action. But to not pull the lever, knowing the consequences, is just as much an active decision as pulling the lever. You are not absolved of the responsibility of that decision just because it didn't entail physically doing anything.

            >Not doing something is the same as doing something because it just is.

            No.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >choosing not to act is still a conscious choice as much as choosing to act is
            is that so hard to understand?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a choice though. It's a lack of a choice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a lack of a choice.
            it isn't, you have two options: you act or you don't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not taking physical action =/= not making a choice. I don't know how much simpler to put this

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Schizos only intuitively understand direct consequences, so this is a very counterintuitive problem for them - you kill someone, yet it's somehow supposed to be good.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >yet it's somehow supposed to be good
      That's up for people to decide, there's no right or wrong answer

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The problem isn't ambiguous, it's only absurd. The problem is that the schizo can't put it together. This is similar to how a normal person takes into account how others will react when they plan their actions, while a schizo apparently can't, so he plans to frick everybody over, then he thinks he lives in a hostile violent society where he gets attacked at random.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The problem isn't ambiguous
          Why not?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let's say there is nobody on the second rail. Is it fine to watch as the trolley rolls over them? If you disagree, you agree it's a choice between one death and four, so it's obvious which one to pick.

            The problem is just that it’s controversial what you should do. To most people it initially seems obvious that you should pull the lever, but it’s extremely difficult to explain why, and there is a sizable minority of people who think you shouldn’t pull the lever. Most people who think it’s permissible to pull the lever also think it’s impermissible to push someone in front of the runaway trolley in order to stop it and save the five, and they also typically think that it would be impermissible for a doctor to kill an innocent person and harvest their organs so that they can save five healthy patients. Yet it’s extremely difficult to explain what the difference is between pulling the lever and doing these other things.

            >Most people who think it’s permissible to pull the lever also think it’s impermissible to push someone in front of the runaway trolley in order to stop it
            I think it's because it wouldn't realistically stop it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Let's say there is nobody on the second rail. Is it fine to watch as the trolley rolls over them? If you disagree, you agree it's a choice between one death and four, so it's obvious which one to pick.
            In that scenario I would say you have a moral obligation to pull the lever, since you would be saving them without injuring anyone else.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if the variables in your "dilemma" are arbitrary, then the "dilemma" is arbitrary too

            you're saying that suddenly you can say there is no choice, but really that's been true the whole time

            it doesn't matter how many people you imagine are on these so-called tracks, because the entire exercise is compromised and an imposition

            as soon as you engage with it, you become a collaborator in your own moral subversion
            don't let them try and tell you what choices you have to make, you are free to completely disregard this dilemma because it is an illusion
            the two choices are the same

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Schizo spec

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only way to solve trolly problem is to measure the reproductive value.
    Men are replaceable, with minimal reproductive value, but their age isn't a factor.
    Meanwhile women are value based on their age.

    1 man = 1 woman who is +45
    30 men = 1 woman who is 15

    Because that one 15-year-old girl might in theory give birth to 30 babies, offsetting death toll.

    So if it is a 15-year old girl vs 29 men, I'd save the woman every time

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In a legal trial would you be culpable for the death of the one dude if you did it to save the five?

    I think so. Only jury nullification could save you. I don’t think there’s any leeway for killing someone who is innocent and didn’t threaten you or others just because some other people will likely die if you don’t

    Otherwise. Criminals could kidnap someone’s loved ones, order them to shoot an assassination target or they will kill their loved one, then in a subsequent trial the assassin would be let free because they only did it to save others.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is just that it’s controversial what you should do. To most people it initially seems obvious that you should pull the lever, but it’s extremely difficult to explain why, and there is a sizable minority of people who think you shouldn’t pull the lever. Most people who think it’s permissible to pull the lever also think it’s impermissible to push someone in front of the runaway trolley in order to stop it and save the five, and they also typically think that it would be impermissible for a doctor to kill an innocent person and harvest their organs so that they can save five healthy patients. Yet it’s extremely difficult to explain what the difference is between pulling the lever and doing these other things.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think time plays a large part people do not consider.

      If this was a real scenario it would mean the person at the lever would have a very small around of time to make a decision. Which means whatever they choose would have less scrutiny than we think.

      We are thinking about it in an abstract moral debate sense. There would be very little thinking involved for this person so even if you thought they did the “wrong” thing, there would be less grounds to judge them for it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let's say there is nobody on the second rail. Is it fine to watch as the trolley rolls over them? If you disagree, you agree it's a choice between one death and four, so it's obvious which one to pick.
      [...]
      >Most people who think it’s permissible to pull the lever also think it’s impermissible to push someone in front of the runaway trolley in order to stop it
      I think it's because it wouldn't realistically stop it.

      If a falling person could stop it then you could much more reasonably tru to stop it by catching the trolley.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the original thought experiment, the person you're pushing in front of the trolley can stop it because he's really really fat.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so that they can save five healthy patients
      Why would healthy people need anybody's organs?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        typo, i'm stupid.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they also typically think that it would be impermissible for a doctor to kill an innocent person and harvest their organs so that they can save five healthy patients.
      Only antivaxxers do.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the problem itself is actually the problem, which demands a meta-solution

    they are trying to confuse you with a false choice dichotomy
    using an unreal hypothetical situation to get you to justify real life murder internally, even subconsciously

    anyone telling you it would be okay to kill certain people to "save more" is a piece of shit and they just want you to do their dirty work for them by convincing you the only way to save a lot of people is to kill another group of people

    that's really what this problem is good at detecting, anyone who even considers the possibility of choice here has already failed and is morally inferior
    you do not have the authority to make that call, but the insidious framing device they use is supposed to imply that you really do
    even if you decide after some deliberation that it is better to not pull the switch, you still failed because you weren't supposed to even consider any choice valid to begin with

    they took the bait
    any court of law would convict you of murder for "pulling the switch"

    it's not a valid ethical dilemma, you don't have any real agency in the situation because you are presented with an illusory choice in a make-believe scenario not of your own design
    they pretend like the choices they present are morally distinct and meaningfully different, but they aren't
    the only winning move here is to call them out on their bullshit, if you even consider there to be a valid choice to make you have already lost

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hello, only non-moron itt here. The "trolley problem" isn't picrel, it's a series of similar but different problems and the actual problem is why people answer them differently, whether certain moral theories fail while faced with the problems etc.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Legally you should stay as far away from that lever as possible. Just go home and forget about it if you value your freedom and money

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The fat man version of this problem is better for illustrating the point

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kind of Milgram experiment. If you participate you're either dumb, ass*** or hack. That's why used in classes were you be trained to be one of them.

    Just derailing the train would be the outcast role in participation btw.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me, "lives" intrinsically has zero meaning. I wouldn't pull the lever because in this hypothetical, I have literally zero relations to these people beyond "personhood". I have no stake in saving them.
    As a mental exercise, ignore or hide the drawing, and try to answer the problem again. The drawing is a tool of relation, just like the text but with a lot more nuances.
    It becomes way easier to sign a death warrant the less you relate to someone. Anything else is intellectual masturbation beyond the scope of this theoretical's definitions and completely negated by the situation not offering you infinite time to ponder it.
    tl;dr only superempathetic people would pull the lever in a pinch, while the rest would do nothing atm while justifying their decisions ad-hoc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Something tells me you wouldn't want people like firefighters and doctors to have this kind of cavalier attitude towards 'lives' and 'personhood'

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Something tells me you wouldn't want people like firefighters and doctors to have this kind of cavalier attitude towards 'lives' and 'personhood'
        >implying it's not already this way for doctors
        not going to say shit about firefighters, especially volunteers, tho; still, most of the time they do risk their lives because they have a connection to the people they are on-call to protect. They could be neighbors, friends, family that they don't want to see go.
        The crux of the trolley problem is that the moment you ask the person positing the problem for a clarification of connection or value on the individuals on the tracks, they autistically reply :
        >"ThAT'S tHe pOInT!!!1"
        well my autistical response is that I don't see the point of saving either options of amorphous blobs of living flesh shaped like people

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An action that results in 1 death or an inaction that results in 5. Sins of commission are worse than sins of omission. If you pull the lever you've intentional committed the murder of one person through an action you initiated. If you don't pull the lever you've only committed mere negligence by failing to stop an action someone or something else initiated (and the only way to stop it would be killing someone unrelated to that set of events). If the only way to mitigate a sin of omission is to cause a sin of commission. Well you've done nothing moral. What's worse? Killing 5 people by neglecting to correct someone else's initiation or killing 1 person as a result of a direct action you initiated?

    Murder by neglect is bad. But it will never be as bad as the death of a person resulting from a direct action. Deaths that result from lack of action are not as bad as deaths that result from action.

    Frick utilitarianism. Utilitarianism nothing more than a baby making contest.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      giga based
      why should I get the moral fallout from a trolley circuit frick-up which I didn't even start to begin with? Frick that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If the only way to mitigate a sin of omission is to cause a sin of commission. You've done nothing moral.

      Agreed. good luck convincing the entitled trannies though who think it's your "human rights duty" to rescue their asses.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Trannies.

        I wonder what percentage of trannies answer save the 5. 100%?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no equivalent situation except for in an actual war. Where, yes, small sacrifices can save entire units.
    But communists use it as a justification for utilitarianism.
    The problem is that the trolley problem assumes you can have perfect knowledge of every outcome, which you cannot.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you walk past a small child drowning in a shallow pool, you would get mud on your clothes and get wet to pluck them out of the water. are you morally obligated to save the child?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there's something that always troubled me about this. you can't really guarantee that not making a small donation will save lifes the same way a drowning child does, can you? if you can then maybe i do agree that i am doing something bad, to some degree at least

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1 baby boy born in a manger surrounded by weird Asian astrology dudes off a teen pregnancy
    >100,000 baby boys in a Kingdom

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. Entire point is to make you consciously aware of the fact you have mental heuristics involved in your decision making process. They have been with you, and programmed into you by a combination of cultural immersion and internalization, along with inheritance of certain highly conserved survival boosting heuristics. All unconscious.

    The exercise is meant to surface them; thereby allowing you to rationally grapple with, measure, accept and reinforce, or deny and deconstruct them.

    If you feel you're too simple for it, it's probably because you're focusing on answering the situation, and not at getting to the root of whither from didst the answer you chose cometh? Why? The answer's formulation is only the beginning. It's everything after that that is the point of the exercise.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    guys who don't wanna pull lever
    would you do it if we upped the amount of people on the track? would you pull at 15? 150?
    15 million? vs 1 person

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The number literally doesn't matter.
      It depends on who or what benefits more from which side dying.
      1 white good man vs 5 Black folk is obviously gonna be me saving the white man for example
      But someone like Bill gates vs 5 random Black folk it's gonna be the Black folk that get saved

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look, their identities never was a part of the hypothetical

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then the problem is unsolvable
          >HURR DURR, WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE GENERAL QUINTIC IS UNSOLVABLE WITH RULER AND COMPASS BUT SPECIFIC CASES ARE?
          This is what happens when uncultured morons try to humblebrag to each other.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do I need to word the hypothetical more laboriously?
            There is literally nothing complicated/incoherent about their identity being unknown to you

            Maybe you stand a bit too far away to make it out. Or they got hoods over their heads, neutral clothing and gloves, you can't racially profile.

            The point is not to do a gotcha afterwards and reveal you saved 5 criminals and killed 1 white male bachelor working in IT.
            You are to treat the people on the track, as if they could be anyone, random people.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If no judgment call can be made, I do nothing.
            Simple as. I don't care for strangers if not even a minimal guesswork through clues or identifying traits can be done. It could be the same if they were 10 to 1 or even a trillion to one. To argue otherwise is to make yourself a Godly arbiter of life.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some people are more important than others, and I don't mean women and children, nor rich fricks or politicians, but you have no way of knowing.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dude if I present the arbitrary variables just right there's a point at which literal murder is justifiable

    oh you disagree, well then I'll just change the variables again until you agree that murder is okay sometimes

    then once I got you to consider murder to be moral in one situation, I just gradually keep inching the variables body by body until you agree that murdering a certain person or group of people is the right thing to do

    for the greater good, I am doing this for your everyone's sake
    we are good people, that's why we want you to consider justifying murder
    you can save them anon, all you have to do is kill
    is that so hard, it's just a little lever
    do it already, the train is getting closer

    you must choose
    you don't have a choice

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    thinking about the trolly problem makes you into a worse person morally

    don't let them trick you into thinking about it

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *