7 ms·

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 di

• capableweb 4y ago
  That's interesting. I didn't consider any legal liabilities at all, and would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. I also didn't consider doing "nothing", not pulling the lever was also an act, and I didn't "see" any options doing nothing. Fun to see how differently people approach these ones :)
  • sneak 4y ago
    On what basis do you assert that not pulling is also an act? It seems to me that you are asserting inaction == action which, to me, is false.
    • capableweb 4y ago
      I can either pull the lever or I can not pull the lever. Choosing to not pulling the lever when I know I can save others, would be me making the choice to not saving others.
      • sneak 4y ago
        You could also leave the room, put on a movie, get accidentally distracted, et c. Do these all carry the same weight to you?
        • bregma 4y ago
          There is a reason why negligence is not considered a defence in law.
        • Dudeman112 4y ago
          >Do these all carry the same weight to you? Yes. Alas, we humans ( including myself ) are quite good at not feeling responsible if the issue isn't staring us in the face
    • JoshCole 4y ago
      It can help to understand why some people think inaction is an action by abstracting the problem such that you can model it in a computer using standard decision problem algorithms. When you do that you have an initial state and you have two edges and they lead to terminal outcome nodes. The choice of which edge to take is an action. This isn't (usually) controversial. People generally call the do nothing action an action in these circumstances: game theory extensive form will call it that, as will Q learning, and often you'll see the same framing even in things like the expecti minimax algorithm though sometimes they'll prefer to call it a move. In my estimation, inaction only seems to not be an action, because people are afraid of the idea that they are causally connected with outcomes in which things are killed - they want to avoid tit for tat game theoretic follow on concerns that aren't part of the game definition but might be implied by it. I think for myself, I discount this concern, because I assume policies of mercy are preferred to policies of judgement - the world is so complex and hard and some err isn't just reasonable, but inevitable. Not allowing for mercy in response to harm from decisions seems more likely to trap in tit for tat. So intent ends up mattering to me much more than the outcome when I consider the follow-on games that are implied.
    • com2kid 4y ago
      > On what basis do you assert that not pulling is also an act? A student not doing their homework is an action, correct? That is why their grade is penalized, for not acting. If someone doesn't turn on the fan in the bathroom during a shower and the walls get moldy, that is an inaction that the person will be blamed for!
      • sneak 4y ago
        The student opted in to school and the responsibilities associated thereto.
  • praptak 4y ago
    Actual law strongly discerns between action and inaction. For example the Polish penal code says you can only be criminally liable for a result of inaction only if you had a specific legal obligation to prevent it.
    • capableweb 4y ago
      That's ok, it wouldn't change my mind anyway. If I can prevent more people from getting hurt, I'd be willing to break the law and take the punishment.
      • tut-urut-utut 4y ago
        Would you kill your child to save two politicians you hate the most, one annoying youtuber, a neighbour who goes on your nerves for ages and two complete strangers?
        • praptak 4y ago
          You didn't specify whether the child is annoying.
      • bobthechef 4y ago
      • lupire 4y ago
  • cortic 4y ago
    > [I] would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. This is a quite disturbing statement. So many psychopathic examples; If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people with compatible organs to multiple patients? Or a researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later... In fact we could simplify your statement further; The ends always justify the means., and so endorsing all terrorism and war, even genocide; whenever the ends is enough peace to make a net positive.
    • capableweb 4y ago
      > This is a quite disturbing statement So it is to be human :) > If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people No. > researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later If it was guaranteed to save millions later, I'd think about it, if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts. But "inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people" for the mere possibility of saving millions later? No. It all depends on the context obvious, as life is never between two binary choices or black VS white. I don't think it's so disturbing to wanting to help a bigger part. I (and many others) already do this constantly by protesting and striking. Strikes generally impacts people who don't actually have anything to do with what you're striking against (example: when doctors strike, it hurts sick people), but in order for you and your colleagues to make a wage you can actually survive on, it does sometimes justify the means.
      • galangalalgol 4y ago
        What about the standard but missing question. If there is no lever but someone you can push into the tracks to divert the trolley, would you? If there is no one to push, would you jump in the tracks yourself?
      • Etherlord87 4y ago
        > If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people with compatible organs to multiple patients? > > No. Why not? It's clearly a different approach than your original to turn the lever to kill a person in order to save 5 other people. So what changed? > researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later > > If it was guaranteed to save millions later, I'd think about it, if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts. So you're willing to turn the lever to save 5 people because it's seemingly obvious those 5 people will therefore be saved (reasonable to me) and you see no problem killing 1 person, to reference your previous post, not only you would do that, you would easily break the law to do that! However, when it comes to killing thousands, in order to save millions, so the "net gain" is now not 4 but millions, and it's no longer the same order of magnitude, but it's a difference of 3 orders of magnitude, even if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts, you will only "think about it"???? :D > It all depends on the context It seems to me you don't care about the context when it comes to killing one person, but once the stakes are higher and involve thousands, you hesitate. So I too find it disturbing, not just that you don't want to treat people individually and just consider the outcome of the trolley dilemma as +4 gain, rather than killing to save, but also the automatic disregard to individual rights creates a portrait of a person very dangerous to the society.
• darkerside 4y ago
  Same. I also allowed for the possibility of action by others. For example, in 100 years, someone else may be able to stop the trolley.
• Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  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 second, it's understandable to be biased towards inaction because you may need more time to make the right decision, but that's not the point of these problems in the way they are posed). If you have enough time to think what to do, inaction is a conscious choice and if it does more harm than good, you are guilty of not choosing action.
  • oniony 4y ago
    I guess because there's more wiggle-room with a non-action. If you don't pull a lever, you could argue there wasn't time to pull the lever, or that you were frozen with fear or whatever. I think non-actions are judged less harshly than actions, so people are more inhibited in making them..
    • pteraspidomorph 4y ago
      Clearly not. The vast majority of people responding to this problem usually want to pull the lever, murdering an innocent who would otherwise have lived through the day - an utilitarian perspective that holds that by default it's best to maximize the amount of lives saved. It's difficult for those of us that would argue that every life is valuable, and that, not being god, the bystander does not have the right to make this call. The bystander did not place the runaway trolley there, nor are they responsible for the people who are tied to the tracks. I would ask the person who is (in most of these scenarios) on the diverted tracks what they want me to do. They have the right to make this decision, since they are masters of their own life.
      • NineStarPoint 4y ago
        I’ve always presumed you don’t have time to ask those sorts of questions in these problems. You have to decide that you’d let 5 people die so your action doesn’t kill one, or kill the one not knowing how they feel about dying to save five. What I find…not surprising I guess, but sad is that while a large percent of people would pull the lever only a small percent of people would pull the lever if they were the one on the other track. People not being at least as likely to pull the lever when they are at stake breaks all basic moral principles.
• smitty1e 4y ago
  I was consistently in the "do nothing" camp. Scored nearly 1k kills. Because #FightThePremise
• BoxOfRain 4y ago
  Yeah, I was unlikely to act unless doing so would obviously save life in a way that I think a jury of my peers would agree with.
• bell-cot 4y ago
  +1, and "Implied legal (and moral) liabilities" is just one of the issues if you're viewing the Trolley Problem as a real-world, real-consequences situation. (Vs. something from the land of make-believe, which is cool / interesting / empowering to sit around & talk about.) For starters, real-world railroad (RR) switches are more complex than what you would understand from model RR sets, cartoons, old movies, and philosophy books. They are not binary, are often less than well-maintained, and may required upper-body strength that you don't have to successfully throw. The trolley may be going too fast for the track that you divert it onto, resulting in a derailment that kills everybody you were looking at - plus some more inside the trolley. Plus extra bystanders. Your well-intentioned passerby's understanding of which way the switch is actually pointing may be wrong. RR history has some famous (& deadly) accidents where an experienced RR employee misunderstood the situation, and threw a switch the wrong way. Real-world, I certainly would not be touching the switch.
• HeavyStorm 4y ago
  That's the gist of this philosophical problem.
• SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I take exception to the idea that the legal choice implies it being the moral one. Legality seems to me to be more of the bare minimum expectations and actively avoiding doing the wrong thing (don't kill people) rather than doing the right thing.
  • Etherlord87 4y ago
    If legality is supposed to be based on morals (not sure how many people agree with this?) then wouldn't basing morals on the law be a circular reference?
    • SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      That's what I'm arguing against - legality isn't morals, but the original quote: > Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices. Serves to muddy the two. I'm saying if we want to consider the moral option the legal isn't relevant.
• jorvi 4y ago
  > Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices. This is always my problem with the trolley problem. Are we supposed to take second order effects into account? For example, if I destroy the trolley that is killing 5 people over 30 years with CO2, does another trolley get built to replace it? Or ‘kill 5 people now or send the trolley into the future 100 years and kill 5 people then’. Is it 100% guaranteed the trolley kills them then? Or can I assume there is a tiny chance they figure out time travel and can make preparations? Or the ‘stuck on an eternal loop’. Does this mean true eternity and are the people in the trolley immortal? Or just for 70 years?
  • Etherlord87 4y ago
    I think the trolley problem is not about simply getting the right answer. The problem is about figuring correct answers for various circumstances, defining those circumstances, discussing them and improving one's and others understanding of morality.
  • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    > For example, if I destroy the trolley that is killing 5 people over 30 years with CO2, does another trolley get built to replace it? Or do the passengers take their cars instead releasing far more CO2?
• sbf501 4y ago
  Who am I to decide the fate of other humans. In cases where I have to choose between people, I do nothing. I'm not god.
  • pfraze 4y ago
    That’s a huge assumption that inaction is equivalent to not making a decision
    • sbf501 4y ago
      It is a decision not to intervene. It is as if I weren't even there. I can't possibly decide what life is more valuable, so I decide not to intervene.
• RHSeeger 4y ago
  I had to put the "legal repercussions" concept aside for this; because otherwise I'd never take an action that would involve someone being killed. No matter what the "if I did nothing" option was, you'd be in for a world of hurt in the courts if you took action that wound up killing someone; even if it was them or 1,000 other people dying. Someone would take you to court.
• tromp 4y ago
  Ideally, the problem would require two possible actions, and not allow inaction. Two possible avenues for such a formulation are 1) The lever is in an intermediate state, that will cause the trolley to set into effect some global catastrophe, and therefore must be pulled in one of two directions. This may be a rather unconvincing scenario. 2) Have two trollies, each running down their own track, and the operator has a choice which of two levers---only one of which can be reached in time---to pull to detour a trolley to a harmless side track.