Trolley problem

Author: Intelligence_06 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 159
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    If there are 6 people that are absolute failures with no achievements on one side of the track and there is one super scientist on the other, where do you control the trolley to go?
  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 538
    3
    5
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    Trolley runs over the scientist. Hope no one disagrees with that
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @armoredcat @Intelligence_06
    If the trolley stays on  track, then no one involuntarily will get run over.

    And the nature of a track dictates that all seven have equal opportunity....Depending on the nature of the trolley of course.

    So the eighth person controlling the trolley has the primary position of power to decide.

    If the primary controller makes the right decision, they will remain in control, otherwise they might or might not remain in control.

    Hopefully one of the seven isn't a psychopath...Though the well being or not of all seven, should be a reasonable indicator.


    Nonetheless, the evolutionary trolley is dependant upon the scientist. And the scientist is dependant upon the social trolley..


  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @armoredcat
    Why? You would be losing SO MUCH value to this world.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Intelligence_06
    In this hypothetical vacuum I would logically choose to save the super scientist (assuming he discovers/invents life saving treatments and doesn’t develop crippling survivors guilt).

    This makes stronger sense than the original.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Intelligence_06
    If there are 6 people that are absolute failures with no achievements on one side of the track and there is one super scientist on the other, where do you control the trolley to go?
    ALL TROLLEY "PROBLEMS" SOLVED FOREVER.

    YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Reece101
    This makes stronger sense than the original.
    CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Intelligence_06
    Why? You would be losing SO MUCH value to this world.
    By what measure?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    Nonetheless, the evolutionary trolley is dependant upon the scientist. And the scientist is dependant upon the social trolley..
    Nobody ever asks who the heck built this trolley deathtrap in the first place.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @armoredcat
    Trolley runs over the scientist. Hope no one disagrees with that
    If they're a true scientist, then their research should all be public domain anyway, so any other scientist should be able to pick up where they left off.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @3RU7AL
    So you think that as long as I go my intended path, no matter how many people lay on the track, I can crush them as freely as possible as long as it is not malevolent and intentional?
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @3RU7AL
    CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.
    Incoherent relative to what? 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Intelligence_06
    So you think that as long as I go my intended path, no matter how many people lay on the track, I can crush them as freely as possible as long as it is not malevolent and intentional?
    (IFF) I am morally responsible for EVERY DEATH I could possibly prevent (THEN) I am a mass-murderer.

    YOU CAN ONLY BE MORALLY CULPABLE FOR THINGS YOU CAUSE.

    EVEN CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS.

    IT'S HOW "YHWH" GETS A FREE-PASS FOR EARTHQUAKES AND HURRICANES.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Reece101
    CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.
    Incoherent relative to what? 
    DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @3RU7AL
    DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS.
    That would make sense. 
  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 538
    3
    5
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    --> @Intelligence_06
    Why? You would be losing SO MUCH value to this world.

    Who cares? People's lives have value regardless of what they've contributed to the world. To deny that is to deny the value of life.  

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 329
    Forum posts: 10,115
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    A 3 year old child is a complete failure in superficial achievements, this question lacks a lot of depth and pretends to be 'deep'. You have no clue what the failures still have to offer, nor what the scientist may have done that was unsavoury or will fail to do in the future.

    This is not different to the original problem, the pulling of the lever makes you a killer whereas leaving it makes you a bystander. Whatever you choose and why is your own thing to justify in a court of law afterwards, it's your decision, stand by it but don't play the fool and say that a job title and superficial achievement is valid reason to pull a lever that you have no concrete guarantee will do what you're told it will do.

    The correct answer to the trolley problem is that there is no definitely correct answer and there never will be.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,628
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL
    YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE.
    false


    IFF) I am morally responsible for EVERY DEATH I could possibly prevent (THEN) I am a mass-murderer.
    also false

    Firstly: if you had the opportunity to stop something "bad" and refused to do so, in other words doing nothing, then you are morally culpable. Because you are indirectly responsible this is easily seen in law: guilty by association and all that

    Secondly: there are different degrees  of moral culpability: this comes from the distinction of being indirectly or directly responsible for an action, thus, no - as the vast majority of murderers you have no opportunity to stop, therefore you are not morally responsible for them

    This is a fairly basic principle.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL
    And I would like for you to specifically answer how "consequentialism" is incoherent. You seem to not fully understand its implications.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @RationalMadman
    The correct answer to the trolley problem is that there is no definitely correct answer and there never will be.
    DOING NOTHING IS ALWAYS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO "TROLLEY PROBLEMS".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Firstly: if you had the opportunity to stop something "bad" and refused to do so, in other words doing nothing, then you are morally culpable. Because you are indirectly responsible this is easily seen in law: guilty by association and all that
    Foreknowledge of a criminal conspiracy that you can report to the authorities is NOT A TROLLEY PROBLEM.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    This is a fairly basic principle.
    You'd think so.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Intelligence_06
    To answer the trolley question - though the "super-scientist" might seem immediately more appealing there are a couple wrenches. What exactly does that scientist specialize in? Archeology? Researching bugs? The answer is much to vague to give any utilitarian advantage to the scientist. furthermore, unless you are ableist or interested in eugenics, focusing on traits such as intelligence will not lead to morally surperior odds, therefore you ought to rescue, you have no justifiable reason to ignore your moral obligation to save the more lives, assuming you accept moral principle and value in humans.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    And I would like for you to specifically answer how "consequentialism" is incoherent.
    There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.

    His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."

    The farmer doesn't reply.

    A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.

    His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"

    The farmer doesn't reply.

    A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.

    The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."

    The farmer doesn't reply.

    The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.

    The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."

    The farmer doesn't reply.