|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Ok but it's still a thought experiement, you're reading far too much into it if you're concluding that there's some like evil mad scientiest or bloodthirsty murder-cabal running the system behind the scenes with intentionality that you have a moral duty to oppose. I think the problem is that the Trolly Problem has become a metaphor often for late-stage capitalism and other systems, or that it's presented as Moral Duty vs Personal Liability, especially when it's presented by someone who has a strong opinion on which one you choose. The question is, ultimately, neutral.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
You could always just remove the metaphor and just ask the question "Would you rather act in order to kill one person while saving many, or refuse to act even though that results in killing many"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
If I save the guy on the rock he’ll know I left the others to die. Can’t have that
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Well yeah, it's a thought experiment. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate to real life. It's supposed to be an extreme artificial situation to isolate one specific moral principle, and then ask "what do your morals say in these extreme situations? which is the least worst option?" You're just refusing to engage in the premise. Then I grab him and hope that I'm wrong about the 100% as I go for the others. Data Graham posted:You could always just remove the metaphor and just ask the question I'd refuse to kill anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Pretty sure first responder protocol does prioritise what's in front of you. Best case scenario, the guy on the rock might have strength left to help you save the rest. Reminds me that the SNES Star Trek: Starfleet Academy game has a scenario like this, where a star's about to suddenly go nova and you have to choose from saving a small ship's worth of survivors from various places in the system, including a spaceship carrying the cure to a plague.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Neito posted:I think the problem is that the Trolly Problem has become a metaphor often for late-stage capitalism and other systems, or that it's presented as Moral Duty vs Personal Liability, especially when it's presented by someone who has a strong opinion on which one you choose. The question is, ultimately, neutral. There are some other questions that are a little more fun and grounded. A good one that comes to mind is this: you're offered $10,000 on the condition that you split it at a certain ratio with a random person. Either you split it and you both get money, or you reject the offer and neither one gets anything. Would you take the money if it was 50/50? How about 30/70? (with you getting the 30) How about 10/90? How about 1/99? Most people would accept the first choice. It's fair. But as their cut decreases, more people would reject the deal. However, a perfectly logical machine would always take the deal, no matter how small the cut, because it's still free money You have to ask yourself, though, is that really the most logical choice? In practice, isn't there something to be said for insisting on fairness? This too becomes kind of a more direct metaphor for capitalism because we've largely been forced to make those lower choices. People don't really get fairly compensated for their labor, and the consequences of that have created today's world. So what's really the logical choice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:Then I grab him and hope that I'm wrong about the 100% as I go for the others. You're trying to cut the knot in a scenario where there is no knot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Weirdly reminded of the I, Robot movie. (which I feel while having its flaws, does stand up on its own in ways) The protagonist distrusts robots specifically because they go by that logic- one saved his life rather than that of a little girl, and he felt he'd rather it risk the lesser chances of the little girl surviving than the greater chance of his own. Of course there absolutely is the logic there both from cold robotics and human practicality- save the life you KNOW you can. (It may be different for a robot who would survive either way, of course) You can't save everyone, but in an emergency if you act as quickly as you can and don't hesitate to act. Then you can save as many people as you can, and then you did the right thing. Even if you screw up and hurt someone. Hesitation and inaction kills so many more people in an emergency. Neito posted:You're trying to cut the knot in a scenario where there is no knot. No. You said that the people died, and so they did, I guess. But I tried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:No. You said that the people died, and so they did, I guess. But I tried. Fair enough. I suppose the question doesn't say anything about what you do after pulling the leaver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Thinking... the most dangerous game of all
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The protagonist distrusts robots specifically because they go by that logic- one saved his life rather than that of a little girl, and he felt he'd rather it risk the lesser chances of the little girl surviving than the greater chance of his own. This is completely unrealistic. We all know in this kind of scenario in our future hellscape the robot would save whomever had the best insurance policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Neito posted:I think the problem is that the Trolly Problem has become a metaphor often for late-stage capitalism and other systems, or that it's presented as Moral Duty vs Personal Liability, especially when it's presented by someone who has a strong opinion on which one you choose. The question is, ultimately, neutral. "Should you kill one to save many" has uncomfortable implications as the billionaire class steadily renders Earth uninhabitable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:"Should you kill one to save many" has uncomfortable implications as the billionaire class steadily renders Earth uninhabitable. It also ties in with grim themes like overpopulation and resource distribution. I feel that it's an enormous mistake to teach people to play around with these choices so easily. Kill one to save many, kill many to save even more, etc. Eventually, people are just non-stop killing in sheer moral superiority. And it doesn't have to be direct killing. Just killing neglect, killing by de-prioritizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
There are many billionaires. The logic is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:Then I grab him and hope that I'm wrong about the 100% as I go for the others. And this is where I disagree: refusing to act is still making a choice that leads to unnecessary death. From my perspective it seems to me that your choice is something along the lines of "more people are going to suffer, but at least I didn't sully myself by getting involved." The fuckers who walked away from Omelas are still letting a child be tortured.  To tie this to an IOSM conversation I had the other day, my cousin posted this meme on Facebook the other day:  One of her friends took offense to this, because it's not like Elizabeth stole those artifacts. I told them that I am absolutely certain that she knew that the countries Britain stole from wanted their stuff back, and the fact that Elizabeth never spoke out in favor of giving the stuff back was a tacit endorsement of the status quo. It's the same argument: when you have the capacity to act and you don't, that's not neutrality and it doesn't leave you morally pure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:This is completely unrealistic. We all know in this kind of scenario in our future hellscape the robot would save whomever had the best insurance policy. Oh yes, but Three Laws. Feliday Melody posted:It also ties in with grim themes like overpopulation and resource distribution. Overpopulation and resource distribution are fake problems, is the thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
In the trolley problem, the question is ultimately is the refusal to act is itself a choice on par with choosing to pull the lever. So our noble first responder is making a choice even if they think they are remaining morally pure by walking away, thats literally one of the 2 options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
What is interesting is that while first responder protocol might say "save the person in front of you first and go from there" a lot of triage protocols do not. For instance, the mass casualty triage protocol I was trained on (START) gives anyone not spontaneously breathing at the time of assessment a single intervention (adjust their airway) and if they don't start after that you black tag them and move on, even though that is someone that is possibly saveable under better circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:What is interesting is that while first responder protocol might say "save the person in front of you first and go from there" a lot of triage protocols do not. For instance, the mass casualty triage protocol I was trained on (START) gives anyone not spontaneously breathing at the time of assessment a single intervention (adjust their airway) and if they don't start after that you black tag them and move on, even though that is someone that is possibly saveable under better circumstances. Yeah, I was trained for working in a doctor's office/hospital, and triage wasn't "whos next" but I was leaving that part alone
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:And this is where I disagree: refusing to act is still making a choice that leads to unnecessary death. From my perspective it seems to me that your choice is something along the lines of "more people are going to suffer, but at least I didn't sully myself by getting involved." The way I see it is that when good people let themselves be convinced to stop preserving lives and start taking lives, out of sheer pragmatism. Then overwhelmingly more people will end up suffering as a result. Good people spending all day doing lesser evils. And as the bigger evils grow bigger. The lesser evils follow them. Ghost Leviathan posted:Oh yes, but Three Laws. Exactly. But they are used as an excuse to refuse aid to supposedly overpopulated areas, with the excuse of limiting even greater future suffering. RFC2324 posted:In the trolley problem, the question is ultimately is the refusal to act is itself a choice on par with choosing to pull the lever. Usually it's more along the lines of "kill 1 person directly to save 5 people" etc, and the correct option would be to try and avoid killing anyone. I said try. But the question itself then is a trap to validate the view of killing out of pragmatism. Which I am certain is something that will escalate. Ravenfood posted:What is interesting is that while first responder protocol might say "save the person in front of you first and go from there" a lot of triage protocols do not. For instance, the mass casualty triage protocol I was trained on (START) gives anyone not spontaneously breathing at the time of assessment a single intervention (adjust their airway) and if they don't start after that you black tag them and move on, even though that is someone that is possibly saveable under better circumstances. The way we're trained is that the group leader calls out for people to get moving for help. Then the medics spread out between the people not moving and deal with "C" and "a" problems. Then they sweep back and begin placing tags and deal with "b" and "c" problems until they can be evacuated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:I've done actual rescue work. That's not how any of this works. I grab him and then go for the others and hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
What if the one person wants to die?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
What if we networked everyone's brains together, isolated the thought patterns that led to a consensus definition of wrongdoing, and put them all in one guy's head? Y'know, as a joke/Zoroastrianism with extra steps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:What if the one person wants to die? Honest answer? Because I've mentally prepared for it. Then he can make that choice for himself at a later date. I'm not helping him commit suicide right there in the middle of an emergency. Arsenic Lupin posted:That was genuinely heart-warming. Thank you. I don't know what to say. I'm the most conflicted person there is. But there's a lot of clever people out there trying to make good people accept killing as a good moral choice. Not just killing by neglect. But killing directly. And I think it's just sinister. Even when phrased as a quirky thought experiment. Don't kill. Try to save everyone you can. Never give up on trying. Feliday Melody has a new favorite as of 18:03 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
It's not supposed to be a trap question with a "wrong answer." All responses are valid, the interesting bit is just seeing what different responses people give and how they explain their reasoning. "I will never pull the lever because killing is wrong no matter what" is a perfectly valid response and is in line with rules-based ethical systems like deontology or christian theology. And by the way, thank you for your perspective, Feliday. RPATDO_LAMD has a new favorite as of 18:25 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
You can call me a beep boop robot if you want but it drives me crazy that people try to add additional options to situation where there are exactly 2 options, especially in throwaway unrealistic thought ecperiments There are only 2 options. You are powerless to add more options. Pick one and say why. Be honest This isn't directed at anyone specifically it's just so weird to see people turn an unrealistic thought experiment into something real so that they can try to exert some kind of control over it. I get that the Trolley Problem is uncomfortable but too bad. You have no control. There are exactly 2 options. Pick one
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:The way I see it is that when good people let themselves be convinced to stop preserving lives and start taking lives, out of sheer pragmatism. Then overwhelmingly more people will end up suffering as a result. I promise you that no real people are killed when someone considers the trolley problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:You can call me a beep boop robot if you want but it drives me crazy that people try to add additional options to situation where there are exactly 2 options, especially in throwaway unrealistic thought ecperiments The refusal to pick one is in fact one of the 2 options
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. drat, someone should put that into a song.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
I say kill the guy who asked you the trolley question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Hispanic! At The Disco posted:I say kill the guy who asked you the trolley question. Tie them up and put them on the track.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:You can call me a beep boop robot if you want but it drives me crazy that people try to add additional options to situation where there are exactly 2 options, especially in throwaway unrealistic thought ecperiments Then I'm not answering it at all. Captain Monkey posted:I promise you that no real people are killed when someone considers the trolley problem. I believe that by answering the question itself at all. People validate a certain way of reasoning. That direct killing can be considered moral if it stands in opposition to directly killing more people. And that's a very dangerous form of reasoning to accept. And think that people should reject the question entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:You can call me a beep boop robot if you want but it drives me crazy that people try to add additional options to situation where there are exactly 2 options, especially in throwaway unrealistic thought ecperiments Everyone wants to be Captain Kirk, but we're all Ensign Ricky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
This is why I just flat out refuse to answer hypothetical questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Al;so bear in mind that in The Good Place, the multiple versions of the experiment were purely Michael deliberately loving with Chidi because he just couldn't resist the urge to do so. He was still new at not being a villain at the time so hadn't got the torturing out of his system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:Honest answer? Because I've mentally prepared for it. Then he can make that choice for himself at a later date. I'm not helping him commit suicide right there in the middle of an emergency. I respect that you took my bad-faith trolling question head-on and answered it honestly with a nuanced explanation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:47
|
|