The Trolley Problem

Discussion, in general

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Marcuse » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:37 pm

Serious lack... did i not say "kill ma"?
precident? hah, k push everytime.
Since I cant be understood no matter what, I will only continue speaking like that here.
no blame for others


What a spectacularly unproductive thing to do. Being questioned doesn't mean you're not being understood, it means that people are trying to address the problem by referring to your argument.

At the moment it's some version of your previously stated assertion that the problem exists in isolation. The counter argument is that the problem is itself written to utilise the method of cases, and present a challenge to the reader in the decision they would make and therefore it's not helpful or useful to consider the Trolley problem in isolation. The subsequent conclusion is that when one chooses to consider the trolley problem in isolation, this is missing the point of the example, as it doesn't lead one to the complex examination the problem is intended to achieve.
  • 7

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby SandTea » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:33 pm

oh maybe I'll go with haikus then

problem not approached
inferences and philos
unnecessary

productive intent
gleamed darkly with assumption
mind views; difference
  • 0

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:11 pm

SandTea, I'm not trying to dismiss you, and I am listening to you.

You believe this is a useless question because it can never happen.
You believe there is an objectively right answer, and it's an easy one to come to.
You believe that because we have the information that killing one man will save five people, it is the right thing to do, because this is a one-off situation.

My response, that I have perhaps been verbalizing poorly, is that the purpose of this is to find your gut reaction, and then apply that to real-world situations. To find out what your conditions are, what your limits are. Should you kill if you know you will save five people? Yes. Even at the cost of going to jail or even the death penalty? Again, yes (I think). Would you be okay with this setting a precedent that leads to more instances of killing one person to save five? So far, I can't really tell. I think no? Is this question a simple matter of 5>1, and if it is, why are other circumstances of 5>1 not okay? If they aren't, then there's more to this than 5>1 for you, and what is it? I think that the other condition for you that I have gleamed so far is that if it only happens once, it's okay, but if it becomes more widespread that creates problems and you're not comfortable with that, but I might be wrong.

It is a question that exists to lead you to deeper questions. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, I don't like watching football, listening to heavy metal, or watching horror movies even though other people do, but not everyone agrees with you that it's a an easy answer and that the right answer is to kill someone, so it demonstrably holds at least some objective value; if it was as simple as you say, we would all come to the same conclusion and it would raise no other questions. You might think this is pointless, and you certainly don't have to like philosophical spelunking, but that is the point of the posed problem. If all philosophical spelunking is pointless to you, fair enough, you don't care for philosophy (I believe you've said that). But it serves its intended purpose.
  • 6

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Australia » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:27 pm

Okay, so I have yet to take this question seriously but if we're comparing 5>1 scenarios, I think the glaring difference between the trolley and the organ example is that one is instinct and the other is premeditated murder. Whether it's a justifiable motive is not important if you plan somebody's death just so others can live. I'd shove the guy instinctively, considering this is a universe where that will absolutely solve the problem, and I'd justify it under the 'defense of others', even if it doesn't count legally. It's a split-second decision and there's no time to think out the repercussions. But if there's any time, whether it's five seconds or a week to second-guess myself before actively murdering someone, then it becomes vigilantism.

Actually, vigilantes are pretty cool... I changed my mind. Ignore all that. Always justified.
  • 8

YamI JamesT Eyebrows Edgar Logan Eric Michael Tess Sunny Notch Kate Jamish Lao Carp Moo FaceCitizen Aquila Nisi Qinglong Chaise Nullbert NotCIAagent JackRoad Delta MURDA Bert Czar Ambi JulyJack Adric Marcuse SilverMaple Nudge 52xMax Damiana Doma Pumpkin Toy Fry Andro Carrie Snarky Royal RLG Pikajew Windy skooma Kleiner Java Sellers Piter Gisarmbards Grimstone Recluse Esteban Syrup Krashlia Twistappel MacReady Funkotron mcfooty Pseudoman Creepy Kivutar nerd Ladki Jim Youghurt satan GL Angler
Scari
User avatar
Australia
Resident Dickhead
Resident Dickhead
 
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:15 pm
Location: Take a wild guess
Show rep
Title: Kentucky Fried Colonel

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:50 pm

Kate wrote: If that is the right thing to do in that situation, it shouldn't mather how often it is done

This doesn't follow at all; it presumes there aren't some consequences that might magnify disproportionately through repetition. E.g. if I have a computer algorithm that takes O(n^2 + 1000n) steps to complete, and another that takes O(n^3) steps, then the "right" thing to do if I'm only dealing with n < 30ish situations is to use the n^3 algorithm, but for other situations I'd used the n^2 one. When killing a janitor to steal his organs, you might have the first order consequence of more organs, but continuing it you'd have the second order consequence of nobody wanting to work in hospitals, but this is not the kind of behaviour that can really emerge from a single trolley instance.

But that's kind of a tangent. It's not about the number of times you're doing it, it's about the fact that it being non-precendential means it doesn't have other implications, and in other situations there are usually better options than "kill 1 to save 5".

Again, if you can find me a realistic situation where an answer to this trolley problem implies an answer to that situation, then you'll have made your point. But as such, the only situation mentioned is the organ donation situation, and this doesn't apply because the organ situation is precedential and because there are better alternatives in the organ donation situation. Are there any others?

As Marcuse pointed out, the trolley problem is there to get an initial gut reaction from you, and at that point you can examine if that initial reaction holds up to similar situations and why or why not.

Gut reactions should not be the means by which we arrive at moral conclusions.
  • 2

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby SandTea » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:53 pm

Most think this is supposed to mean more than just the problem. I do not. I won't say that it can not as I may have hinted at earlier. The difference between points is in approach of intent(about what the thing means). The organ harvesting is saying there are implications and extrapolations that can be rightly made from this 5>1 thing. I guess you could say my thoughts are that in the trolley scenario as presented my answer is clear. Anyone is free to assume whatever from the answer I provide, not really my problem.

Clarification. Would I be ok with the assumptions made? Meh, I'd have to be omnipotent so it just seems silly to consider but yeah if I had all info I could see killing any innocent to save more innocents... or not doing so. We're taking a simple thing, complicating it then making it simple again with analogies about the repercussions and inflating the single decision.

not saying youre wrong
if the circle is jerky
teriyiaki please?

...I'd thank everyone and apologize for perceived slights but I'm generally a dick and neener neener neener I'm right.

but seriously no hurt feelings on my part and I hope none on any others. If there are, idk, ohm for a bit or whatever and I'll tell you how right and perfect you are. :D
  • 2

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:54 pm

I agree that one is a split second decision, but part of the problem is that it's not entirely about what we would do but what we should do, and we have ample time to think about that here. SandTea and Avi both maintain that not only should we, but that it is the only right decision. That's kind of what I'm trying to understand, because I don't think that logic of 5>1 holds up when applied to other scenarios.

I might instinctively just do it in a split second, but if I would consider that an almost involuntary reaction, like instinctively reaching to catch a dropped kitchen knife before it hits the floor (which, for the record, is not a good idea).

If I think about what I should do, though, that leads to other questions. I disagree that there is only one right answer to that question and that the answer is obviously to kill the guy.
  • 2

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Kate wrote:That's kind of what I'm trying to understand, because I don't think that logic of 5>1 holds up when applied to other scenarios.

That's because it doesn't really apply to other scenarios. In most other scenarios, a lot more calculations need to go into it. In this one, it's all you need. It's why this situation is so unrealistic.
  • 2

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:01 pm

aviel wrote:
Kate wrote: If that is the right thing to do in that situation, it shouldn't mather how often it is done

This doesn't follow at all; it presumes there aren't some consequences that might magnify disproportionately through repetition. E.g. if I have a computer algorithm that takes O(n^2 + 1000n) steps to complete, and another that takes O(n^3) steps, then the "right" thing to do if I'm only dealing with n < 30ish situations is to use the n^3 algorithm, but for other situations I'd used the n^2 one. When killing a janitor to steal his organs, you might have the first order consequence of more organs, but continuing it you'd have the second order consequence of nobody wanting to work in hospitals, but this is not the kind of behaviour that can really emerge from a single trolley instance.

But that's kind of a tangent. It's not about the number of times you're doing it, it's about the fact that it being non-precendential means it doesn't have other implications, and in other situations there are usually better options than "kill 1 to save 5".

And like I pointed out, since it is setting a precedent, it does have other implications. In fact, it has more implications than something that's already been established, because you are making a rule for the situation that people will live by forever more. If it is established that the morally right thing to do in a situation where the absolute only way to save 1< people is to kill 1 person, and you know for a fact that you will save them by doing so, then that applies to all situations like that.

That means no one will want to go outside because they'll be afraid of being killed to save other people.

If you get away with it legally, it means no one will want to be around you, because you might kill them. In fact, no one will want to be around any utilitarian, because they might kill them if they decide it's for the greater good.

Which, frankly, they might. Here's a fun read!

ETA 4:05PM EST: And remember, the question doesn't say that this is a one time thing that will never happen again. That's not a guarantee. You might run into it again. Someone else might run into it. And your first case is the one that we refer to for the right course of action.


Again, if you can find me a realistic situation where an answer to this trolley problem implies an answer to that situation, then you'll have made your point. But as such, the only situation mentioned is the organ donation situation, and this doesn't apply because the organ situation is precedential and because there are better alternatives in the organ donation situation. Are there any others?

I maintain that if the only factor is more lives = better, that it counts. But, it seems to be more than that. So I'll let it go for now.

Okay. Instead of China harvesting organs, here is a real life decision that doctors are faced with.

Keep in mind that some hospitals have their own in-house organ specialists and give priority to their own patients when organs become available.

You are Dr. Avi. You know of five patients in this hospital who are dying because they need organs. Your hospital's organ team is the best of the best; they have a high success rate that makes it so you know that it's likely that they'll all live through the surgery given their ages. Organ rejection is always a danger, but it's lower for some organs than others and at the very least, it buys them some time. You have no time to wait for legislation that makes organ donation mandatory; that could take years to happen. Your patients are dying now. Using the "other solutions" argument doesn't work here, anymore than saying "Well they should build something that will keep people from becoming immobilized on trolley tracks," would work for the other scenario, because there is no time.

A car crash victim comes in. He's very healthy, except for his brain injury. You are sure you can save him, but if you leave him be, he'll be brain dead. He's an organ donor and a perfect match. If you don't do anything, it'll be blamed on a hospital error, or a misdiagnosis. That might open you up to a suit or probation, but it's a small price to pay for saving lives, and it happens all the time. No one will ever know you did it on purpose to get his organs, so there won't be any fear associated with it. It won't even be the worst hospital error that's happened that year, or that month probably.

If that's too passive for you to think it's the same, switch it out for, you could give him a medication that causes his brain to bleed, leading to brain death. Again, it can easily be blamed on an error.

What do you do, Dr. Avi? This is a one time situation, never to be repeated. This is possible in the real world, right now. I'm going to go ahead and say it probably doesn't happen because the business of saving lives is a difficult situation and doctors are highly trained and usually won't risk their careers just to save a few extra people, especially if that means killing someone, but this isn't about what doctors do but what they SHOULD do. Again...one-time. You will never do it again in your life and it cannot be traced back to a decision to kill him for his organs, so it won't have any of the consequences that come with people knowing what you did.

Second, related scenario. You are still Dr. Avi. You are the best surgeon in the world. A highly dangerous foreign dictator lands on your operating table. He has every legal right to be there and you are compelled to save his life. You know that if you do, he's going to go back to forcing children to be soldiers and having his detractors tortured and all that jazz. The next in line is his son, who is far less vicious and has been making noises about reform. Do you let the knife slip? It would save countless people.

...it's just easier to do doctor things because doctors have life and death in their hands, and despite the stringent regulations, it is relatively easy to make something look like an error instead of intentional as long as it's a one-time thing and the person involved has no relation to you at all.

As Marcuse pointed out, the trolley problem is there to get an initial gut reaction from you, and at that point you can examine if that initial reaction holds up to similar situations and why or why not.

Gut reactions should not be the means by which we arrive at moral conclusions.

That is literally the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying this is a way to examine how we come to our moral conclusions so that we can apply reason to them and see if they stand up. What you know about yourself is that if it is a one-time deal and you can kill one person to save five more, you will. You also know that it is only because you know the outcome; if you cannot predict the outcome with 100% certainty, you won't take that chance. You know that it means that you have a cap on the value of life; one life is not worth an infinite amount to you, and lives can be bartered for other lives if it's done in a reasonable way. It means that it's not just a matter of 5>1. It means you need to make a multitude of decisions, and it means you make those sorts of decisions about other moral problems as well. It can reveal a flaw in your gut reaction, which can reveal a flaw in your logic.

If this problem doesn't do that for you, then you're right that it is useless for you but it's pretty clear that it's not useless for everyone, and it helps them do those things, which means it serves its purpose. So you can say that you find it to be useless for yourself, and I'll accept that. But I won't accept that there is a clearcut right answer here, and I won't accept that it's useless for everyone.

ETA: Sorry, had to fix my quotes. Twice.
  • 6

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:21 pm

Kate wrote:And like I pointed out, since it is setting a precedent, it does have other implications.

Find me the situation where this problem has implications on the solution to that problem.

What do you do, Dr. Avi? This is a one time situation, never to be repeated.

Having a patient with a brain injury but no other organ failure is not a one-time situation never to be repeated.

Second, related scenario. You are still Dr. Avi. You are the best surgeon in the world. A highly dangerous foreign dictator lands on your operating table. He has every legal right to be there and you are compelled to save his life. You know that if you do, he's going to go back to forcing children to be soldiers and having his detractors tortured and all that jazz. The next in line is his son, who is far less vicious and has been making noises about reform. Do you let the knife slip? It would save countless people.

If I had certainty that it would save those people then it would be morally required for me to kill him. Of course, in politics especially there's never that kind of certainty. Either you've proposed a more realistic scenario in which, thanks to the fact that I really can't know what the political consequences of my actions would be, there's a moral grey area, or you've proposed an unrealistic scenario similar to the trolley problem in which I have amazing perfect foresight, in which case it's again non-precedential and so has no implications.

James Earl Jones was great in that House episode.

What you know about yourself is that if it is a one-time deal and you can kill one person to save five more, you will.

I don't know this at all; just because I recognize what the moral thing to do is doesn't mean I'm able to do it.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:08 pm

aviel wrote:
Kate wrote:And like I pointed out, since it is setting a precedent, it does have other implications.

Find me the situation where this problem has implications on the solution to that problem.


That means no one will want to go outside because they'll be afraid of being killed to save other people.

If you get away with it legally, it means no one will want to be around you, because you might kill them. In fact, no one will want to be around any utilitarian, because they might kill them if they decide it's for the greater good.
...
ETA 4:05PM EST: And remember, the question doesn't say that this is a one time thing that will never happen again. That's not a guarantee. You might run into it again. Someone else might run into it. And your first case is the one that we refer to for the right course of action.


There are more implications, though. If it's decided that it is the morally right action to kill someone to save more people and you know it's the only surefire way to do it, you should never isolate patient 0; you should kill them immediately. It is the only way to ensure that it won't have a chance to spread. Yes, there are other ways to deal with it, but those ways are not guaranteed to work.

If you see a bus full of school kids about to careen off the road, and you are absolutely sure that the car in front of you will be enough to stop it and save those kids, you'd have to ram it into the bus's path.

If you are pro-life and believe that fetuses are people who are being killed, then it becomes your moral duty to kill the abortionist because you have no other means to stop them from doing it. I know, I know, you'll argue that they aren't really people, but if you're pro-life and think they are, it doesn't matter what the reality is, your situation is that people are being killed and the least force necessary to save them is to kill one person. Those babies right now can't afford to wait for legislation and all that jazz.

In a world where it is legally acceptable, and worse, morally imperative to kill someone if you are 100% it will save other people, all these things can happen, and none of them are things that I am comfortable with, especially not that last one.

Having a patient with a brain injury but no other organ failure is not a one-time situation never to be repeated.

Sure, but you know you're only going to do it this one time. No one else is going to know about it. It's not like it would be legitimized, that's just your moral choice to do it this one time and no other times. That is never going to be repeated by you, and won't influence anyone else.

If I had certainty that it would save those people then it would be morally required for me to kill him. Of course, in politics especially there's never that kind of certainty. Either you've proposed a more realistic scenario in which, thanks to the fact that I really can't know what the political consequences of my actions would be, there's a moral grey area, or you've proposed an unrealistic scenario similar to the trolley problem in which I have amazing perfect foresight, in which case it's again non-precedential and so has no implications.

Again, the trolley question makes no promises that such a situation would never occur again, so if it can occur once, it can occur again...that makes it a precedent. In fact, in the trolley question I have pointed out how it can set a precedent. This would not set a precedent because no one would know, but it wouldn't set a precedent either way because no one would know. Do we have ways to deal with people who get caught? Sure, but you're not getting caught in these scenarios I've presented. There are more complications here because that will affect an entire country, instead of affecting one man's sphere. But in the trolley problem, you know nothing about any of these people. The fat guy could be someone who is pretty important in his sphere, and it could be a large sphere; you don't know how many lives will be affected by it. Meanwhile, for all you know, the people on the tracks could be homeless without anyone but eachother in their spheres. That doesn't say anything about the value of their lives really, but it would turn out that the death of the fat man will have a greater impact than the deaths of those five people, whose deaths were tragic but ultimately not felt by anyone but the person handling the trolley. ...I don't mean that in the insensitive way of physically feeling the impact, but the actual, dealing with the weight of having been responsible for five deaths, thing.

This is relevant only because we're getting into the impact of the dictator's death, which means we need to think about the impact of the fat man's death vs. the impact of the death of the five.

It adds an interesting twist to wonder if those five were actually suicidal and intended to die on the track. The problem says nothing about why they are there. You could temporarily save them, only for them to go kill themselves tomorrow. You just don't have the information to make the call definitively, even as presented. It's not that I'm saying we should let people kill themselves, just that we probably shouldn't kill other people to keep people alive for one more day. BUT THIS IS A TANGENT. I love tangents because they sound delicious.

James Earl Jones was great in that House episode.

Right?

What you know about yourself is that if it is a one-time deal and you can kill one person to save five more, you will.

I don't know this at all; just because I recognize what the moral thing to do is doesn't mean I'm able to do it.

Fair point, I retract the statement that you would, and say you know about yourself that you believe you should.
  • 2

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby SandTea » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:48 pm

If I was god I'd totally do all those things. I could not be wrong.(just pointing out the omnipotence thing not that aborting dictators to steal their babies organs is wrong or right... I might have skimmed) Trolley imo gives you a bit of that. There are only knowns, no unknowns. Examine away.
and not "know" as in "feel" like the anti abortion people in ur example.

the point never heard
pft, Poes poems pwn posers
e r b come back?

edit: i suppose "god" and "wrong" are bad word choices :lol:
  • 0

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:41 pm

Au contraire, mon ami, there are unknowns. As I said, there are still unknowns, even if you do know that pushing the fat guy will save the five people, killing him in the process.

But in the trolley problem, you know nothing about any of these people. The fat guy could be someone who is pretty important in his sphere, and it could be a large sphere; you don't know how many lives will be affected by it. Meanwhile, for all you know, the people on the tracks could be homeless without anyone but each other in their spheres. That doesn't say anything about the value of their lives really, but it would turn out that the death of the fat man will have a greater impact than the deaths of those five people, whose deaths were tragic but ultimately not felt by anyone but the person handling the trolley...

This is relevant only because we're getting into the impact of the dictator's death, which means we need to think about the impact of the fat man's death vs. the impact of the death of the five.

It adds an interesting twist to wonder if those five were actually suicidal and intended to die on the track. The problem says nothing about why they are there. You could temporarily save them, only for them to go kill themselves tomorrow. You just don't have the information to make the call definitively, even as presented. It's not that I'm saying we should let people kill themselves, just that we probably shouldn't kill other people to keep people alive for one more day.


We also don't know the characters of those people. What if those five strangers are escaped serial killers, and the fat guy is a philanthropist who donates more than half of his income to charity on a regular basis? Does that change your answer?

Simply put, this is not a case of entirely knowns, there are two knowns and the rest are unknowns. The two knowns are that if you push the fat guy he will die, and that if you do not push him, five other people will die instead.

For the record, it is very easy to confuse feeling and knowing. For example, my dad is the polar opposite of avi in everything except personality, and they both are sure that they know the right answers to things. They can't both be right, and yet, they will tell you that they are objectively right. For that matter, you are telling me that you know there is an objectively right answer to the trolley problem, when even if I accepted your parameters (which I do not), I disagree and know someone who knows just as well as you do that there is a 100% right answer and that is to let the trolley hit them.

Considering that personhood is really a human construct (we are highly evolved animals who decide for ourselves what constitutes as a person) we can be entirely certain that we are right about who is and who is not a person. I am certain that you are a person. I am certain that if I was pregnant, my unborn child would be a person. You can disagree with me on that, but that doesn't change how certain I would be. If that is a feeling, than my certainty that you are a person is a feeling as well. Are you a person?
  • 3

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:47 pm

Kate wrote:There are more implications, though. If it's decided that it is the morally right action to kill someone to save more people and you know it's the only surefire way to do it, you should never isolate patient 0; you should kill them immediately.

But this isn't what anybody said, so I'm not sure with whom you're arguing.

In a world where it is legally acceptable, and worse, morally imperative to kill someone if you are 100% it will save other people, all these things can happen, and none of them are things that I am comfortable with, especially not that last one.

Again, nobody is making this argument.

Sure, but you know you're only going to do it this one time.

Then why not another time? Because that would result in bad outcomes; I would be contradicting myself to do it only once.

Again, the trolley question makes no promises that such a situation would never occur again

It's so unlikely that it wouldn't even occur in the first place.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: The Trolley Problem

Postby CarrieVS » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:48 pm

If I nuke the entire site from orbit, no-one will be a person because they won't exist and nobody will exist to decide what a person is. It's the only way to be sure what a person is.

Especially when there are supervillains setting up elaborate traps like tying five people to tracks and setting the fattest man in the world on top of a bridge. That's the only way that would happen.
  • 5

A Combustible Lemon wrote:Death is an archaic concept for simpleminded commonfolk, not Victorian scientist whales.
User avatar
CarrieVS
TCS Redshirt
TCS Redshirt
 
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:43 pm
Location: By my wild self in the wet wild woods waving my wild tail
Show rep
Title: Drama Llama

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron