/lit/ - Literature

>>21836512
You are, in some way, responsible for every bad thing that you could have either prevented or contributed to the prevention of. In cases where you could only contribute, your evil is distributed among many, and in cases where you weren't aware of how to do good, you are protected by ignorance.

In the trolley problem, excepting any other knowledge of the situation, you have both the knowledge and power to prevent evil, and thus have a moral imperative to do so.

I'm a lever puller but most people aren't.

Tell them that the jab is literally a trolley problem and watch them seethe.

You should get vaxxed. Kill one to save five any day.

>>21764603
Those both are already the case right now. Government organizations like the NSA have the capacity to monitor basically all data flows, they are only "forbidden" to go all out by laws. So much of vital the infrastructure that makes everything work is also extremely vulnerable and has choke points that could be easily attacked fucking everything up. Basically as things stand if you don't force changes things get freely built in ways that leave data unsecure or build things in the cheapest, weakest, manner. Ideally you'd want some sort of constitutional limits and impositions to work out ways to deal with those issues but alas

>>21767023
wargames but with le trolley problem
Also social phenomena isn't Darwinian... memetics are more lamarckian

>>21750475
>>21750486
>>21751638
The trolley problem and similar scenarios actually require to think outside the box which most bugman can't because they are stuck with the quantification of good

>>21666249
There’s Reddit (meh) and also a philosophy board I visited only one time but it was le trolley problem tier shit so I left. Name something else.

Great thread what the fuck are you gonna do in it, discuss Kant and the trolley problem lmao fucking pseuds

>>21508591
I talk about utilitarian benefit because it's regarding a context where objective morality doesn't apply since it operates under the threat of violence, namely avoiding paying taxes. In such a situation, a code of value is impossible to enact when your life is at risk. It becomes a cost-utility evaluation because there are no good alternatives between the two. This utilitarian basis is not outside the parameters of how objectivism examines morality. Ayn Rand has a saying that morality ends where a gun begins; it means that when there are no good alternatives in one's choices to be moral, any choice, whether nihilism or utilitarianism (people usually act under utilitarian principles in a crisis situation) applies. To use a cliché, it's the trolley problem: is it better to forcefully pay taxes or create a system where you don't pay taxes, but someone might abuse it? Objectivist morality doesn't need to consider these life-or-death scenarios since it is about finding the proper method to be productive and coexist with reality to be happy. However, I argue that, in a political context, when your life is at risk, and you want to escape a toxic political climate, it becomes a utilitarian series of options. And I argue that escaping the entire governance system requires it.

Although this is my formulation that it is rational to be utilitarian in a crisis situation, other objectivists would disagree. I see this as coherent and solves the idiocy of Kant's axe murderer scenario, where acting utilitarianly in a crisis situation is the correct moral action rather than shrugging and doing nothing. I argue it falls in life with other aspects of how Ayn Rand formulated her philosophy. For example, she argues that one should be honest and never lie because you have to maintain your coexistence with reality and avoid people from exploiting your lies. But she told Peikoff to lie while learning his philosophy doctorate as though he were in a concentration camp. When you are in a crisis mode, morality allows you to be superseded until you escape this crisis. And I argue that creating a crypto-anarchist system where people could be sold into slavery but achieve the destruction of all states and ensures human freedom to all is a necessary position to accomplish to escape this political crisis climate that we've had since the beginning of civilization.

>>21508591
I talk about utilitarian benefit because it's regarding a context where objective morality doesn't apply since it operates under the threat of violence. In such a situation, your life is at risk and a code of values is impossible to enact. It becomes a cost-utility evaluation because there are no good alternatives between the two. This utilitarian basis is not outside the parameters of how objectivism examines morality. Ayn Rand has a saying that morality ends where a gun begins; it means that when there are no good alternatives in one's choices to be moral, any choice, whether nihilism or utilitarianism (people usually act under utilitarian principles in a crisis situation) apply. To use a cliché, it's the trolley problem: is better forcefully paying taxes or creating a system where you don't pay taxes but someone might abuse the system. Objectivist morality doesn't need to consider these life-or-death scenarios since it is about finding the proper method to be productive and coexist with reality to be happy. However, I argue that, in a political context, when your life is at risk, it becomes a utilitarian series of option.

Although, this is my own formulation of how utilitarianism and other objectivists would disagree. I argue that it falls in life with other aspects of how Ayn Rand formulated her philosophy. For example, she argues that one should be honest and never lie because you have to maintain your coexistence with reality and avoid people from exploiting your lies. But she told Peikoff to lie when he was learning his philosophy doctorate as though he were in a concentration camp. Essentially, when you are in a crisis mode, morality allows you to be superseded until you escape this crisis. And I argue that creating a crypto-anarchist system where people could be sold into slavery but achieves the destruction of all states and ensures human freedom to all is a necessary position to accomplish to escape this crisis mode.

I feel like the philosophy fans in this thread defend philosophy through rather vague words, just as the OP I wonder what you have gained from philosophy concretely.
For example when it comes to ethics, can you prove that you should push the fat man in the trolley problem? can you prove that you should not? I mean this is pretty fundamental, the question whether you should kill a guy and philosophy can't even answer this.

>>21418101
The objectively correct solution to the trolley problem depends upon the qualities pertaining to virtue of the men on the tracks (their "moral qualities": three criminals are not equal to three war heroes), which means that there is no correct solution in abstracto which would apply to a concrete circumstance, except to kill the fewest number because they are all abstractly equal (which, again, never exists in concreto). In the Nicomachean Ethics, this is known as the principle of equity, as particular moral problems do not admit of abstract solutions, at the same time even concrete solutions do not admit of perfect knowledge due to their contingent basis, so that there is the possibility for error in judgement in practice. However, the principle is effectively what is important, rather than the fact that human beings are liable to error (which is our problem, and not a problem with the actual truth of the matter).

The only reason I dignified your retort (I consider this problem effectively meaningless and a trivial thought experiment in the grand scope) is to succinctly demonstrate that there is an answer which does not admit of dispute, so long as one possesses to begin with the correct metaphysical presuppositions of, as an example, act and potency (which would require its own extensive study in order to be fully sure that it is true for anyone not already certain), which were left out of my short answer for brevity's sake. Ethics is not a starting point, it is where you conclude after determining the fundamental aspects of reality.

>>21418079
Tell me the objectively right answer to the trolley problem. Yes, such an answer exists and if you get it wrong you're a pseud.

>>21389542
You can't know that pulling the lever is the cause of the trolley redirection, but you can know a priori that the trolley redirection, as mere event or happening, must have a cause. This doesn't really solve the problem, but it does grant the principle of causality legitimate use as a regulative principle in experience, for scientific and practical purposes.
t. Kant

>>21295106
I'm going to try and do your questionnaire for Raimi's Peter Parker.

Character:
>goal
To get the girl/avenge uncle Ben (which turns into) to be a hero so as to make uncle Ben proud
>motivation
Trickier, perhaps because everything super is usually spelled out. But, broadly, to live up to the responsibility of his great abilities.
>flaw
A martyr complex that drives him to disregard his needs in favor of the needs of others.
>lesson
It is possible to be a hero and to take care of one's needs. The responsibility of great power includes the responsibility of taking care of yourself. Thus, one goal dovetails nicely into the next: to get the girl.

Plot:
>Incident
Uncle Ben's death
>Reaction
Pursuing the killer
>Consequence and new problem
Peter had previously let the killer free for petty reasons (Not my problem), indirectly causing Ben's death. Now, every problem becomes his problem.
>Crisis
The Green Goblin targets Peter and his loved ones. His work as Spiderman is endangering people.
>Climax
Peter's closeness to Mary Jane puts her in peril. He's presented with a trolley problem, where he must choose between the world (children in cable car) and himself (MJ)
>Denouement
I suppose in the first movie, this is where the goals clash. In order to protect everyone, Peter must hide his feelings for MJ, finally choosing the world over himself and embracing a very strict definition of Ben's responsibility dictum.
>Aftermath
Embedded in an unsatisfying ending where the hero denies his needs to fulfill an impossible self-imposed duty.

Very good, anon, I enjoyed this exercise and shall be using it in the future.

>mfw I created a trolley problem so fucked up I can’t figure out whether the good guys are supposed to pull the lever or not
it never even began

>>20936706

Presuming the situation is paired with existence of a moralistic frame work, than yes. One who does not value or believe in anything (truly), wouldn't differentiate for negative outcomes in the trolley problem.

1 or 5 wouldn't matter. Evil/good doesn't exist and 1 or 5 deaths is the same level of irrelevant.

>>20936706
The trolley problem is not a problem. In real life schemes do not exist.

Stop falling for anglo-jewish mindfuckery.

>>20654342
>>20654371
Life being the ultimate value does not mean doing whatever it takes to live.
In the arificial scenario you proposed, the act of infringing on other people's rights so you can not starve to death is wrong because that act counters the corollaries of the right to life, the right to property and the right of freedom.
Further, what is the context of this scenario? For ethical questions or any other question, you cant just make up a situation and say what to do. This is the same shit as the trolley problem. How did the man get so poor or sick? And according to you, how does this need give him the right to force others?

You have a clear confusion of rands argument for rights. The right to life, is not just living longer.
Rands ethics means each person has the right to life, meaning the right to be free, free from coercion. He can go take drugs or go kill himself.

Roark had the right to destroy the building, because his contract explicitly stated that his plans shouldn't be altered. Why are you talking about damages, when you dont even know the legal framework in the novel? Dont apply the real life framework to the fiction.

Rand did not believe that superior men should do whatever they want. She is opposed to Nietzsches idea of the superman deciding his own morality and having the power to not be bound by simple good and evil.
Rand is arguing for a morality free from the rooted morality of altruism and secularized religious morality. This morality does not mean that the ideal man is above it.
In regards to eddie, her point is that in a world where the ideal men are not allowed to be free, the average men are also not free or can even survive. Because it is the few that change history and civilization.

>The trolley problem in our daily choices and the horrors of anti-intellectualism

There is a denial, naivety and fear of the horrors we can cause, it’s a way to cope with the vastness of our responsibility and how even the most simple choices can have fatal consequences, if not for us then for other people still. It’s closer to a mystical experience since it’s the very opposite of the way we are programmed, it can be counterproductive and can cause severe depression since it can put too much burden on us. I will preface it with the fact that most people assume they are good-hearted and well meaning because they aren’t criminals and even then they can claim it’s because they had no other options, but are they really right to claim these things? For an example, even when you’re buying food it can have devastating effects on more than one side, to the brand which you didn’t chose and even yourself if the food is unhealthy. It boils down to either supporting the local farmers or the foreign slave labor if you live in a western country. If you don’t support your local farmers you will become dependent on foreign slave labor that will increase it power and in the end will enslave you as you will have no choice. If you don’t buy the foreign slave labor products they will have to starve to death the next season from lack of demand or although very unlikely, they might fight their oppressors which can be positive if done right. It’s why dictatorships like China and Russia survive and even have maniacal thoughts of conquering the world, they know how dependent the West is on them and that the average citizen is not aware of the consequences of their actions. But we shouldn’t also not neglect the responsibility for our health, if we chose to buy inferior products we don’t just risk our general idea of health but also that of our cognition by denying vital nutrients to our brain, we compromise our high-order faculty and thus have higher risk of making worse both short and long term choices, we can also become both a liability to ourselves but also to that our family, country, and even the world itself, and it’s all intentional. We are just beginning to realize how important our decisions are and how even the most meaningless ones can have immense impact on us, the people around us or the whole world. As we begin to understand more about our bodies we will begin to atomize these choices even more, to the point where detailed energy expenditure planning will be an extremely important part of our lives, either for proper functioning or for dictatorship, something we will have to carefully choose. This is why we need to become hyper-intellectuals, either we begin to fight against the horrors caused by anti-intellectualism or we will become victims of it too.

Easier to read here:https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/03/19/the-trolley-problem-in-our-daily-choices-and-the-horrors-of-anti-intellectualism/

>>20464938
>btw its break not brake :)
I was taught to spell by sound so I often get things like that wrong.
>>20464971
>My personal master plan for educating the public is creating an addicting tropey free videogame which forces players into difficult ethical and moral dilemmas once they're hooked. Sorta like undertale desu
You reminded me that "Trolley Problem, Inc." is a thing.

>>20432141
Crippled: A Love Story
>>20432159
The Big Croc Takes Us All
>>20432284
Revenge of the King
>>20432397
One for the Money
>>20432402
Joined At Birth
>>20432421
Circumcise Me
>>20432427
We Ride Horses
>>20432468
Me On The Right
>>20432522
Niggers Tongue My Anus
>>20432732
The Man Stops Having Sex Now
>>20432777
Pondering Pond
>>20433773
Lawrence of Afghanistan
>>20434070
Crocodiles Tongue My Anus
>>20434097
Schrodinger's Trolley Problem
>>20434100
Why Am I Here
>>20434297
A Guide to Daughterfucking
>>20435080
The Widow's Window
>>20435116
Mountain Blade: Warband
>>20435139
The Fighting Spirit
>>20435158
Death Spiral

>zoomers are this mad that older anons made trolley posts in a trolley problem thread
>zoomer insults are essentially "omg you must be on social media if you're able to sustain a train of thought over a whole metaphor"
pun intended
>>20239748
>it's a mereological problem rather than an ethical nuance
>Multitrack drifting may not exist but it can still be morally wrong
kek

>>20239724
>still no trolley problems
Are you trying to post the nihilism conglomeration? Yeah that happens sometimes, it's a mereological problem rather than an ethical nuance though, so it's not really my field. I recommend starting off with a sick loopdaloop, most kids can grasp that.

>>20239704
I’m not posting shit for you, pal. Your teachers should have taught you well enough about primary sources, no? Keep checking your own repeating digits though, I bet your 50 followers are foaming at the mouths in waiting impatiently for those sweet sweet trolley problem edits

>>20239655
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=trolley+problem+edit