/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17811040]

>this makes philosophers piss and shit their pants

[Anonymous No.17811049]

>>17811040
Wrong board.

[Anonymous No.17811050]

>>17811040
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4guKLlbVU
I believe that this answers you.

[Anonymous No.17811051]

>>17811040
I never understood the trolley problem tbqh. Assuming all people on the track are of equal 'value' (they're not criminals, or your friends or relatives etc) you obviously pull the lever and save net total of four people what else is there to do?

[Anonymous No.17811052]

>>17811040
Only degenerate commies and brainlet lefties switch the lever.

[Anonymous No.17811053]

>>17811049
>>17811040

This board is lit, I read fit instead and was vonfused that every thread is total gibberish.

[Anonymous No.17811054]

>>17811051
If action and inaction are equal you are a continuous murderer due to capital.

[Anonymous No.17811055]

>>17811051
How about not murdering an innocent person you disgusting dipshit?

[Anonymous No.17811058]

>>17811051
Then you chose for that guy to die.
If you don't do anything, you can feel less complicit, but you could have saved 4 people.

[Anonymous No.17811063]

>>17811051
Doing-allowing distinction, though some philosophers don't think there's a distinction at all. "Kill" the one person or "allow" the five to die?

[Anonymous No.17811067]

Reminder that modern academics are free criminals who would murder you without a trial because they feel like it's the right thing to do.

[Anonymous No.17811069]

>>17811067
>other 24.2%
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.17811076]

>>17811069
Probably pseud answers such as "it's not enough information to make a choice"

[Anonymous No.17811086]

>>17811069
if pull the switch an infinite number of times, who gets ran over?

[Anonymous No.17811090]

>>17811067
Where did you get this from?

[Anonymous No.17811099]

>>17811090
https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-percentage-of-philosophers-believe-in-god-485784336

The only saving grace is that it's predominantly anglos and there's a glimmer of hope that continentals would've voted differently but not much hope

[Anonymous No.17811100]

>>17811086
if you pull it an infinite numbers of times then math tells us that you actually pull it -1/12 amount of times.

now what does it mean to pull something a negative amount of times? im kind of stuck interpreting this result.

[Anonymous No.17811104]

>>17811099
Kant, Hume, and Aristotle wouldn't switch the lever.

[Anonymous No.17811108]

>>17811053
>People kill themselves simply because of Vanity

Good. We don´t need more retards in this world

[Anonymous No.17811117]

>>17811040
I would pull it if I had nothing better to do, this isn't a philosophical question

[Anonymous No.17811128]

>>17811117
Also it depends who those 5 people are. If they were five niggers I'd probably let the train kill them because I'd prefer a world with fewer niggers.

[Anonymous No.17811201]

>>17811054
>>17811055
>>17811063
There's no "inaction" in this scenario, you're already involved.

[Anonymous No.17811208]

>>17811040
Sacrifice yourself. Lie down in front of both tracks before they intersect so that the train derails saving everyone else.

[Anonymous No.17811210]

>>17811201
Murdering an innocent is illegal regardless of how much you try to change the meaning of words dipshit.

[Anonymous No.17811212]

>>17811201
So you've already murdered 3 people on average.

You're a cunt mate.

[Anonymous No.17811214]

>>17811208
>killing everyone in the train instead AND yourself
Based retard

[Anonymous No.17811217]

>>17811053
This thread belong on >>>/his/ because it’s a general philosophy discussion not centered around a book or an author.

[Anonymous No.17811218]

>>17811217
It's based around the Big Book of Reddit

[Anonymous No.17811252]

>>17811214
It never states that the train has people in it.

[Anonymous No.17811329]

because the whole premise is wrong, is made to fuck with morals because is unequal in both choices. The right problem would be all of them or none of them

[Anonymous No.17811337]

>>17811329
No, there is only right choice: don't switch. It's corroborated by the laws in your country, the social contract, Human Rights, God, Plato, and every foundational philosophy that ever led to civilisation. You don't just decide when it's ok to kill an innocent person or there's no point in building a society at all.

[Anonymous No.17811355]

>>17811040
it's just evidence of the absolute conceit of the modern philosopher that they didn't even think to include an option to kill both groups of people, a la multi-track drifting. i'm a dangerous unstable sociopath and i deserve representation in ethical dilemmas too

[Anonymous No.17811358]

>>17811337
>muh argument from popularity
>You don't just decide when it's ok to kill an innocent perso
Yes I do.

[Anonymous No.17811361]

>>17811355
>modern philosopher
No, this wouldn't have been considered an option at any point in Western intellectual thought. Societies have never been inclusive of sociopaths.

[Anonymous No.17811372]

>>17811358
You can, but you're wrong. Also it's not an argument from popularity (as you can see above, the popular option is "switch"). It's an argument from authority, which should be your moral compass seeing as you're too dumb to arrive at this conclusion by reason.

[Anonymous No.17811375]

>>17811100
'Math' does not tell you that the infinite summation you posted equals -1/12; some youtuber told you that, it's proven false. t. fell for the same lie

[Anonymous No.17811387]

>>17811372
>You can, but you're wrong.
No, I'm right. You're wrong.
>Also it's not an argument from popularity
It was the argument you made that was an appeal to popularity and authority.
>should be your moral compass seeing as you're too dumb to arrive at this conclusion by reason.
I arrived at the correct conclusion via reason, not the wrong one as you and the other pseuds did.

[Anonymous No.17811397]

>>17811100
Kek what a disaster, leave this board and never come back

[Anonymous No.17811399]

>>17811387
It's the right choice from a societal perspective, which society members are concerned about. You being a barbarian who can't tell right from wrong is not anything special, and it is why you get punished by society.

[Anonymous No.17811400]

>>17811361
>Societies have never been inclusive of sociopaths
Good one, mate.

[Anonymous No.17811410]

>>17811040
It depends on their race and occupation.

[Anonymous No.17811411]

>>17811399
In general, yes. But in the case of the tram, there is no necessarily right or wrong choice. It's a matter of individual decision. You can't say it's wrong "just because that's how we've always done it", that is not rational at all.

[Anonymous No.17811414]

>>17811040
it's easy lol. Don't pull the lever and let the four people die. Then, I would pull out my switchblade(that I carry at all times), and slit the throat of the fifth person. After this, I would dedicate my life to find the person that put all of us in this situation in the first place; if I find him, I kill him too. Lastly, I kill myself to give conclusion to the whole affair. This is the ultimate and final answer. You cannot refute this.

[Anonymous No.17811424]

>>17811100
I don’t understand this, can someone explain?

[Anonymous No.17811430]

>>17811411
Societies form so people collaborate in surviving. Killing innocents has always been bad for this reason, and it continues to be in the trolley problem too.

[Anonymous No.17811434]

>>17811430
>Killing innocents has always been bad for this reason
Are you literally too stupid to understand the problem given?
>and it continues to be in the trolley problem too.
No, it doesn't, not at all. You're literally using the exact same appeal to tradition fallacy I just mentioned. You're a brainlet who thinks shouting "reason reason reason" means he is making a rational argument.

[Anonymous No.17811445]

>>17811434
State your argument with civility then. Why is it acceptable to murder an innocent in the trolley problem?

[Anonymous No.17811477]

IF YOU PULL THE SWITCH AND THEN PULL IT AGAIN JUST AFTER THE TROLLY MAKES IT'S TURN THEN IT WILL DERAIL AND CRASH INTO YOU THUS SOLVING YOUR DEPRESSION

[Anonymous No.17811489]

>>17811445
It is always acceptable to murder an innocent.

[Anonymous No.17811494]

>>17811445
Why is it acceptable to allow five people to die when their deaths could be averted by a single, simple action? In both cases there is death from my action or lack thereof. As an example, legally speaking, in a case where a bunch of school children are walking across a road, and my brakes have failed in a truck (which was not ultimately the driver's fault), I would actually be forgiven for diverting the truck into a nearby car and "murdering" the driver, than allowing it to plow through the children without altering the course via the steering wheel (I have just used your pseudo-rational style of argument against you). In both cases, I would actually argue it is not murder either way, or if you prefer, that it is ethically justified murder (just as war is, which is another ancient tradition of murder that is justified by your same logic).

[Anonymous No.17811497]

>>17811494
It is always acceptable to allow five people to die.

[Anonymous No.17811520]

>>17811494
>Why is it acceptable to allow five people to die when their deaths could be averted by a single, simple action?
>In both cases there is death from my action or lack thereof
you are not involved with their deaths, not in any direct way. You could claim not saving them is the same as murdering them but then you are also responsible for not saving those African children by going to their village and trying to fix shit up. I mean you could save those dozens upon dozen of children but you don't. Why don't you? are you evil?
No, they are simply not related to you.
There is a reason why most legal systems don't punish NOT HELPING, and even those who do do not punish it as harshly as murder. Inaction is not equal to action ethically, by not doing anything you are an asshole at worst, by moving the lever you are a murder.

[Anonymous No.17811530]

>>17811494
Last response to you because you seem to have mental issues.

>by a single, simple action
Sophistry, it's averted by killing someone.
> into a nearby car and "murdering" the driver,
You would only be forgiven if you could prove you didn't expect to murder the driver

You didn't provide any reasoning. You use an analogy presumambly due to your lack of ability to argue with reason, invoked war as a red herring, and simply restated your initial affirmation: that it's fine to murder an innocent because... just because.

You're dumb, arrogant, and unpleasant.

[Anonymous No.17811531]

>>17811497
>>17811489
Based, life is pain, and therefore to save as many as possible form suffering as you can is the only correct option. Let the trolley roll on and kill the other guy who will offer you no resistance as he is bound by rope.

[Anonymous No.17811582]

>>17811530
>You use an analogy presumambly due to your lack of ability to argue with reason
You provided the exact same kind of sophistic argument, so I provided the same in return. I never even claimed the OP was easily solvable, which you did, and then proceeded to provide zero rational argumentation beyond an appeal to authority and popularity.
>You're dumb, arrogant, and unpleasant.
Same to you buddy.

[Anonymous No.17811594]

>>17811520
>you are not involved with their deaths, not in any direct way.
Yes, you are.
>You could claim not saving them is the same as murdering them but then you are also responsible for not saving those African children by going to their village and trying to fix shit up
False equivalence. One is direct, the other not.
>and even those who do do not punish it as harshly as murder.
Never claimed it should be. In fact, my only argument this whole time is that the answer is ambiguous and it shouldn't be considered a matter of a simple right or wrong. That's basically what these supposedly philosophical ethical questions always come down to. I would personally divert the carriage, some people wouldn't. Both answers are correct. Neither are murder.

[Anonymous No.17811595]

>>17811210
I guess my moral character is just that much superior to yours. There are 5 people that could be saved with a pull of a lever, and I'm not about to let that chance go.

[Anonymous No.17811609]

>>17811424
The Riemann Zeta function at (-1) is that picture. It has some applications in physics, but it's not "proof" that the sum of natural numbers is -1/12. Just Google it and see all the autistic discussion on various fora.

[Anonymous No.17811671]

>>17811069

[Anonymous No.17811700]

>>17811424
The sum of all positive integers is divergent, which means that it either goes to +- infinity, or to no particular value.
Some retard on youtube did a couple math tricks on this infinite *divergent* sum, that only applies to infinite *convergent* sums, yielding a nonsensical result, as expected.

[Anonymous No.17811713]

>>17811700
Euler is a retarded YouTuber

[Anonymous No.17811729]

>>17811040
What would Jesus do?

[Anonymous No.17811737]

>>17811729
Let he who is without sin pull the first lever

[Anonymous No.17811758]

>>17811713
In the context of complex analysis and Riemann zeta function, as another anon pointed out, it's okay (if Euler did that). However Numberphile didn't specify any of that.
Also convergence tests prove that it's divergent, and not -1/12

[Anonymous No.17811888]

Intellectual jerk off like the trolley problem has no importance in a practical ethical framework

[Anonymous No.17811922]

Depends entirely on who the people strapped to the tracks are.
Is it five trannies vs one man with a family? 5 family men versus one tranny?
These are questions that need to be asked

[Anonymous No.17812050]

ITT: Retards who don’t understand that the distinction between action and inaction is a mental and linguistic fabrication. You pull the lever because not preventing a death when you could easily have done so is the same as committing murder.

[Anonymous No.17812217]

>>17811104
oh no Hegel bros we got cocky

[Anonymous No.17812240]

>>17811888
>ethics has no importance in a practical ethical framework

[Anonymous No.17812388]

>>17811414
Godspeed fren.

[Anonymous No.17812451]

>>17811477
>30 people die by your folly

[Anonymous No.17812478]

>>17812050
>action is inaction
>freedom is slavery
>war is peace
imagine getting filtered by a middle school education

[Anonymous No.17812482]

This thread is a perfect example of why no one takes philosophy seriously in the real world.

[Anonymous No.17812494]

>>17811051
Obviously, only normies have a problem with this, unless it was say a relative or friend, or perhaps the 4 other people are immigrants from some third world dump.

[Anonymous No.17812499]

You don’t pull the lever. It’s not your problem they are tied to a track. IANAJ.

[Anonymous No.17812662]

the graphic actually makes it look like the one person is close enough to you that you could pull the lever and then untie them really quick, better yet cut them free if you have a knife I know that's not an option but still