[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 47 KB, 506x267, trolley-problem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898549 No.4898549[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

.

>> No.4898572

Morality is a social construct.

>> No.4898576
File: 205 KB, 750x512, Product_o_edgemaster1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898576

>>4898572

>> No.4898584

Dr. Harris, Sc.D solved this problem using MRI scans of 15 trolley passengers undergoing a novel social prejudice paradigm.

>> No.4898590

>>4898549
could one not "throw the switch" only partway, thus derailing the train and (hopefully) not killing anyone?

>> No.4898601

>>4898590
Realistically perhaps but that's missing the point.

>> No.4898605

>>4898576
Fuck off.

>> No.4898608

>>4898601
What is the point?

If the goal is to avoid deaths, then shouldnt one seek to do so, utilizing whatever resources are available in the given scenario?

I understand the exercise is meant to be boiled down to "allow 5 people to die through inaction, or proactively kill 1 person to save 5", in which case I would of course choose to kill the 1.

>> No.4898609

>>4898590
Take in mind doing this can mean killing everybody (passengers included) plus other random people who are just passing by.

>> No.4898613

>>4898608
The point is the exercise you boiled it down to. The scenario is just a visual aid.

>> No.4898614

>>4898549
I throw myself onto the track in anguish. Can't handle the pressure, break down, go splat.

>> No.4898616

>>4898576
But morality is very subjective and your personal moral values are very, very much influenced by the social environment you were/are shaped by.

>> No.4898633
File: 40 KB, 506x267, 1400264175438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898633

Avoiding responsibility by killing yourself is always the best option.

>> No.4898635

>>4898608
Killing the one would be on your hands and conscience; not reacting at all would kill five, which is statistically more, however, it wouldn't be your fault as the killings were not caused by you.

>> No.4898638

>>4898549
The only moral choice is to abstain from making a choice at all.

Flipping the switch makes you a murderer. Or making a conscious decision to not flip it, knowing what position it was in, also makes you a murderer.

>> No.4898665

>>4898633
>>4898614
Seems we're in agreement.

>> No.4898676

>>4898638
>Or making a conscious decision to not flip it, knowing what position it was in
While I agree with you on the first part of what you had written, the line quoted does not satisfy the definition of "murderer".

>> No.4898677

>>4898635
So is the goal to save lives or avoid guilt for killing?

Cause those seem like very different and contradictory goals

>> No.4898687

>>4898676
Perhaps not in the sense of homicide, but in the sense that you have contributed towards their deaths both willingly and knowingly.

>> No.4898908
File: 124 KB, 513x572, 1400264175438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898908

>> No.4898927

>>4898908
hhahahaahahah
made my day

>> No.4898934

>>4898908

Schrodinger's train

>> No.4898963
File: 60 KB, 500x361, MultiTrackDrifting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898963

Any other answer would be absurd and inauthentic.

>> No.4898968

>>4898677
That's what you have to decide you fuckwit.

>> No.4898982 [DELETED] 

>>4898549

>> No.4898987
File: 105 KB, 507x508, 1400264175439.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898987

>> No.4898989
File: 218 KB, 1104x568, Morality1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4898989

>>4898549

>> No.4898995

>>4898908
>>4898908
Perhaps the amount of mass of people stopping in the rail, in relation to the speed of the train can stop the train.

>> No.4899011
File: 85 KB, 858x342, Morality2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899011

>>4898989

>> No.4899023

>>4898549
Why don't i just untie the guy on the ropes? this problem seems a little unrealistic

>> No.4899025

>>4898616
> thisiswhyweneedgod.tiff

>> No.4899028

>>4899023
No time.

>> No.4899039

>>4899028
then i guess the more realistic answer would be to kill one man, god forgives

>> No.4899041
File: 48 KB, 628x334, Morality3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899041

>>4899011

>> No.4899044

>>4899025
But god is very subjective and your personal god's values are very, very much influenced by the social environment you were/are shaped by.

>> No.4899063

>>4899044
No, all gods seem pretty consistent.

>Don't fuck with the tribe
>Fuck other tribes

>> No.4899069

>>4899063
Fucking epic.

>> No.4899096

>>4898987

Always switch.

>> No.4899109
File: 128 KB, 3632x1936, Morality4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899109

>>4899041

>> No.4899142

>>4898549
if i dont know any of those people then i naturally i would do nothing to interfere with nature
but if i did then that may prompt me to pull the lever in a direction

>> No.4899144

fuck that was a great thread

>> No.4899149

>>4898572
ahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
how conveniently simple it is to just write it off as that.

>> No.4899150

well surely if i am in a position from which to be pulling the lever i can surely untie them free from being run over at all and then become a hero and write a novel and hope that it becomes a bestseller and then retire rich

>> No.4899154

Idgi.

How can I blamed either way?

For some reason we've been led to believe that the bystander effect is a crime as heinous as the one being observed.
But that argument just does not hold up.

>> No.4899155

>>4899149

How conveniently simple to view it as absolute from God

>> No.4899160

>option A: destroy 5 thought machines
>option B: destroy 1 thought machine
damn, tough choice! what an unsolvable moral dilemma!

>> No.4899163

>>4899155
>if somebody claims that an abstract thing is not a human construct, they mean it is derived from God
what?

>> No.4899165

>>4898590
>I don't understand how hypotheticals work

No.

>> No.4899169

>>4898633
But that isn't avoiding responsibility. That's killing yourself, and 5 other people. Your body isn't going to stop that trolly.

>> No.4899170

>>4898572


is my dick in your ass a social construct? 7LMEO

>> No.4899173

> b-b-but muh guilt
> b-b-but for some reason I don't feel guilty at all for allowing five times the thought machines to die from my inaction
> let's worship a god to absolve us of our moral dilemmas

>> No.4899175

>>4899173
Is it actually an argument that you're in the clear morally by just not involving yourself in the situation? That's pretty fucking stupid.

>> No.4899177

>>4899163

>implying

>> No.4899182

>>4899175
>inaction
yep
> see baby drowning in a puddle, refuse to save its life
> not guilty
> take baby and drown in bathtub with bear hands
> guilty

>> No.4899186

>>4899177
implying what?

>> No.4899188

(there is no right answer)
The reason being that killing someone, on the face of it, is always morally wrong. Its just a shit situation and you can't win. On the other hand that means you can't be blamed for whatever you do either

>> No.4899194

>>4898987
never switch. you stand by your convictions.

>> No.4899200

>>4899182
What the fuck is the reasoning for this?

>> No.4899202

>>4899188
Regardless of whether you flip the switch or stand by and watch, you are killing someone. Inaction doesn't get you out of negligent homicide.

>> No.4899205

>>4898549
the perspective is horribly off

>> No.4899208
File: 120 KB, 1118x596, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899208

what now?

>> No.4899211

The right answer is you kill the man by himself on the track

There is no other correct choice

>> No.4899212

>>4899188
So killing five people is equally immoral as killing 1?

How?

>> No.4899220

>>4899188
The right answer is to take the situation, study it, and choose the course of action that will benefit the most the greatest.

A killing by itself is not morally wrong. A killing will be wrong when you failed to analyze the situation, or, having done so, did not choose the option that benefits the most the greatest.

Killing others to save yourself is the Augustine solution because your own thought processes are innately more valuable than those of others, because you can only think and analyze others by using your own.

In the same vein, the Augustine solution to the trolley problem is to choose to pull the switch, saving 4 lives, as opposed to choosing to not, leaving 4 extra to die. The unmoral solution is to refuse to analyze the situation.

>>4899200
If you have 100 choices and one of them involves saving the baby, then you are not at fault because you would require special effort in choosing, and exerting force in the carrying out of this choice, to save this thought machine.

Otherwise, if you have 100 choices and only 1 of them will lead to killing a baby (you drowning it intentionally), then you are guilty because you went through the extra force and thought required to choose an unoptimal solution.

I don't agree with this, of course.

>>4899212

This can only be done if the value of a thought machine is completely worthless - 0.

0 x 5 = 0. The choices are thus the same.

Otherwise, assuming life-value is a (positive) real number, you choose to save 5 instead of 1, as 5x > x.

>> No.4899226

>>4899208
Do the switch-pullers have communication?
If they blame themselves for 'murder' when pulling the switch (despite ending up killing less people if 1 chooses to pull and the other doesn't, thus saving 6 by making the trains crash into each other), then the switches will not be pulled and the maximum amount of thought machines will die.

>> No.4899229

Kill one. I don't believe in innocence

>> No.4899231

>>4899212

You didn't tie five (six) people to the track.

If you withhold action, you are not responsible for proximate nor ultimate causation.

If you act by pulling the lever, you are (partially) responsible for both.

>> No.4899235

>>4898572
So what? Constructing is fun.

>> No.4899240

>>4899202
No you aren't, you didnt set the train in motion, you were just there. Thats like blaming a bystander for a public shooting because he could have diverted the bullet.
>>4899212
The problem is that none of them deserve to die. Its like if a terrorist says he'll kill five hostages if you dont give him Justin Bieber or whatever, you cant just send Bieber to die.
>>4899220
I think a killing is always wrong. I dont think you can subtract and add human lives like that.

>> No.4899241

I would throw the switch then simply run over and help that poor guy off those train tracks thus saving everyone. Also we would go get the other five guys off the other train tracks afterward.

>> No.4899243

>>4899240
>what is consequentialism
Some things are clearly more wrong than others.

>> No.4899251

>not pushing a fat man into the tracks
the world wouldn't lose much by having 1 less hambeast

>> No.4899252

>>4899240
> I think a killing is always wrong.
You choose to kill 5 with the conscious action of choosing to act towards the purpose of not pulling the switch.

> I don't think you can subtract and add human lives like that.

What causes your actions? Happiness? Do you act according to what gives you pleasure and reinforces your behaviour?

Would you be then happier to have 5 live, or 1?
Would your action be the one that gives you the most happiness?

>> No.4899256

>>4898908
Simple probability says pulling the lever is best absent any moral concerns.

>> No.4899258

>>4899252
You aren't killing 5 people, you're allowing five people to die because you refuse to use a persons life as barter. Theres a difference.

>> No.4899261

>>4899256
no

>> No.4899263

>>4899240
Probability is on your side if you choose to only let 1 die. The chance that all 5 of the others are terrible people who deserve to die isn't particularly high. If it turns out you were wrong, then that sucks ass, but you can't be held responsible because you did what you thought, to the absolute best of your knowledge, was right.

>> No.4899266
File: 55 KB, 506x267, problem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899266

OP's one is easy. Do this.

>> No.4899269

>>4899266
i'd let myself die, unless i knew for a fact that i was more capable of improving the world than all 5 strangers combined.

>> No.4899270

>>4899266

Fuck those five faggots

>> No.4899272

>>4899266
>lever in the middle of the tracks
good engineering.

>> No.4899275

>>4899263
It doesn't work like that. We assign intrinsic value to a human life, the minute you choose to kill a person, even if you're doing so to save other people, you've committed a crime against that person. You *can't* save the five people, you just don't have the means to do so ethically.

If you're strongly utilitarian then go ahead and save the five people but you'll be guilty of the murder of one.

>> No.4899276

>>4899266
They might be heretics, I know I'm not, and so, I let myself live.

>> No.4899277

>>4899266
Don't pull.
Can't think from others' minds, but I can think from my own. Thought is the only way for me to exist, and assuming I want to exist, I won't pull.

>> No.4899291

>>4899275
Not utilitarian, consequentialist. I'd rather have the guilt of one death on my hands than 5 deaths due to my willful inaction.

>> No.4899301

>>4899275
What are your actions?
> pull lever - 1 dies
> no pull lever - 5 die

the important part isn't whether or not you exert force with your arms to pull a lever. it's the fact that you choose a choice, and this constitutes complete responsibility of the outcome as compared to others you could have chosen.

>> No.4899304

>>4899291
But it isn't your fault they died, you couldn't do anything without killing someone.

Would you throw someone onto a bomb to save five people it would otherwise kill?

>> No.4899307

>>4899304
I would throw myself.
No one else should have to suffer thanks to my actions and decisions.

>> No.4899313

>>4899304
Yes.

>> No.4899316

>>4899301
And as you have complete responsibility you can't choose to kill that one person. There's no justification at all for killing them, other peoples deaths cant justify it.

This isn't even about inaction or action its about the one person, who you cant use as a means without their consent

>> No.4899319
File: 74 KB, 850x451, 1400264175438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899319

>> No.4899323

>>4899304
I would throw the person who is, to the best of my knowledge, the biggest asshole. And if I was the biggest asshole in the room, I would throw myself on to it.

>> No.4899324

>>4899307
In the analogy you can't throw yourself if its going to be the same as in the pic

>> No.4899328

>>4899272
I'm studying biomedical engineering, therefore I am excused.

>> No.4899330

>>4899316
I choose to kill that one person as I accept the outcome. However, I do not accept that I am guilty of any wrongdoing, given that there was no better outcome, and that the 5 people dying would have been a worse outcome.

> its about the one person, who you cant use as a means without their consent

Consent is irrelevant. I don't care about what people I want, I care about what I want - for the least amount of people to die. I undertake the choice that conforms to this.

>> No.4899336

>>4899330
This makes you authoritarian

>> No.4899338

>>4899275
No, the ultimate guilt is passed on to the fuck who tied these poor people to the tracks. You were just damage control, the burden of guilt is lifted from you if you make the right decision of allowing less people to die.

>> No.4899341

>>4899336
I am authoritarian for choosing to undertake the actions that please me the most. My body is there to please my mind, and my mind is given my body as its tools.

Death does not please my mind, and I avoid it the most by avoiding deaths in the case of the trolley by pulling the lever.

>> No.4899352

>>4899338
The ultimate guilt sure, and you can be praised for saving 5 people but you're still guilty of killing someone
>>4899341
Which would be fine if you were a Monarch but you're presumably a citizen so you don't have the authority to act that way

>> No.4899356

>>4899352
Citizens don't have minds or bodies?

>> No.4899370

>>4899352
Define guilt

>> No.4899374

>>4899370
>>4899356
ok lel im done
not even in a condescending way, im sure you guys could be right but im just done

>> No.4899381
File: 78 KB, 742x580, whatdoyoudo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899381

Over 100 hours in MS Paint later

>> No.4899391
File: 104 KB, 850x451, fuckinmoralfags.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899391

to all the "guilt"fags

>> No.4899406

>>4899336

I don't agree, but am interested in why you say that with negative connotation. What's wrong with authoritarianism?

>> No.4899407

>>4899391
the dark knight face

>> No.4899408

>>4899391
don't pull. my moral compass hasn't been flipped on its head and deconstructed with this slightly more complicated issue.

>> No.4899412

>>4899381
B

>implying the lives of women or children are somehow inherently more valuable than mens'

>> No.4899413

>>4899408
There are now a billion criminals on the track that will have the train on it if you pull. You are still safe.

Choice?

>> No.4899422

>>4899412
>You refuse to pull your lever
>The man on A pulled his lever and 9 people died

>> No.4899423

>>4899406
I don't think he had any negative connotation but

You are making a decision to end someone's life based on their needs rather than his

Similarly if you cut him up and used his stem cells to save the other five.

He would live. But you decide he will die, since it is better for 5 other people who are not him

>> No.4899424

>>4899381
B, easily
Man A will thank me later

>> No.4899427

>>4899391

Let the train turn the criminals into hamburger.

Afterward though, you will be morally obligated to run over and engage the single surviving criminal, who by your rules has now untied himself and is fixing to do some murder, in brutal hand to hand combat. Hope you're feeling /fit/, /lit/.

>> No.4899428

>>4899412
The man's almost guaranteed to pull.
Your choices are "realistically" narrowed down to either A or C. Choosing to pull will kill 4 instead of 9.

>> No.4899429
File: 22 KB, 506x267, moral delimma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899429

Now for the real question

>> No.4899431

>>4899422

I'll stand by my principles and he'll go to prison. Seems like a good deal for me.

>> No.4899435

>>4899429
itd be more interesting if you switched the qt and the 5 people positions

>> No.4899441

I'm sick of all these hypothetical and unrealistic situations as 'methods' to test morality. And no honest person would admit that what they say they would do is definitely equal to what they might actually do in the heat of the moment.

So all this discussion is proving nothing. It's a shame how much time was wasted on 'problems' like this and others.

I would say all you need to do is to be in general, compassionate, kind & rational and if any morally ambiguous situation were ever to arise you should hope to be armed with the virtues to allow you to navigate it successfully. Trying to argue about specific outcomes is truly pointless

>> No.4899442

>>4899429
Don't pull.

qt3.14 > 5 people. simple as that: I'll be happier with an alive girlfriend than 5 alive strangers.

>>4899435

not really, as this image is for those that have already decided the act of pulling itself is irrelevant, but rather the consequences are.

>> No.4899443

>>4899423

I understand all that, I was asking what his beef with authoritarianism is. Totally unrelated to the train and the lever etc.

>> No.4899445
File: 87 KB, 506x267, sdfgd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899445

what now motherfuckers?

>> No.4899446

>>4899240
>The problem is that none of them deserve to die. Its like if a terrorist says he'll kill five hostages if you dont give him Justin Bieber or whatever, you cant just send Bieber to die.
I don't know, I probably would send Bieber to die with or without hostages

>> No.4899447

>>4899441
> hope to be armed with the virtues to allow you to navigate it successfully.
You really seemed to miss the point of these exercises.

>> No.4899448

>>4899445

What is the probability that those women will have an abortion after being saved?

>> No.4899454

I just realized the train has the same height as the guy on the lever. He must be a big guy

>> No.4899455

>>4899447
Please enlighten me as to what the 'point' of these exercises is?

>> No.4899456

>>4899445
in this case you save the women because a mob will murder you if you dont

>> No.4899458

>>4899448
2.2:100
according to fairly recent US statistics

>> No.4899459

>>4899445
5 definite lives vs. 3 definite + 3 potential lives
Save the 5

>> No.4899460

>>4899454
For you

>> No.4899461

>>4899459
what if one of the baby's heads is emerging from the vagina

>> No.4899464
File: 76 KB, 584x460, ForYou.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899464

>>4899454

>> No.4899466

>>4899429
The problem is that, assuming that your qt gf is a pleb, she will likely be mentally scarred by what you did and will not have the slightest understanding of why you did it. This will cause her to have a tainted view of you and it's likely that she'll either break up with you or stay with you for the wrong reason.

>> No.4899467

>>4899459

There's a very good chance that at least 2 out of the 3 potential lives will come to be, so it's more of a 5-5 with an extra (pretty good) chance of a life on the pregnant lady side.

>> No.4899471

>>4899458

I'd save the five. Taking into account miscarriage rate, birth defect rate, etc., it seems saner.

>> No.4899473

>>4899459
> 3 potential lives
my ballsack
> 100000000000 potential lives
God damn, if those women weren't pregnant but had cabbages in their hands, you wouldn't hesitate to pull the lever. Yet those cabbages digested and converted into an egg and sperm that fused together are all of a sudden much more special?

You guys know that before the age of 3 years old, no one is self aware and only worth their carbon and others' emotional attachment to them?

>> No.4899474

>>4899459
probability is on the potential lives' sides that they will be born.

infant mortality rate in US is 5.2 for every 1000 live babies.

>> No.4899476

>>4899473
>anon kills toddlers

>> No.4899482

>>4899476
Toddlers are fucking irritating, I'd totally kill one if I could get away with it.

>> No.4899485

>>4899445
I don't fucking know off the top of my head, but it's everyone's moral duty to know the probability that the babies will be aborted, stillborn, retarded or have Huntington's, and calculate to make your decision, just in case this dilemma arises.

>> No.4899487
File: 64 KB, 834x413, whatdoyoudo2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899487

>> No.4899490

>>4899487
B

>> No.4899492

CAN SOMEONE PHOTOSHOP THE JEW FACE ONTO THE LEVER GUY

>> No.4899494
File: 14 KB, 233x239, you know what to do.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899494

>>4898549
Save the side thats more likely to give you pussy.

>> No.4899497

>>4899487
B. Same answer if they were all 50.

>> No.4899499

>>4899487

If, on average, each 90 year old survives just three more years, this would exceed the average lifespan of person A.

So logic and probability tell me to kill the newborn.

>> No.4899500

>>4899487
>>4899490
>>4899497
A

abortion logic applies to this, people under 3 years old have no concept of self and are worth but carbon and others' attachment to them

>> No.4899506
File: 76 KB, 516x505, cancer of lit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899506

>> No.4899507

>>4899500
>ave no concept of self and are worth but carbon and others' attachment to them
so what about people with low self-esteem

>> No.4899511
File: 461 KB, 2788x2160, Morality5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899511

>>4899109

>> No.4899512

>>4899506

There are many more than five science trolls, but only one Feminister.

>> No.4899515

>>4899506
fuck

>> No.4899520

>>4899464
Its a giant!

>> No.4899525
File: 547 KB, 2469x1119, asdfgf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899525

>>4899240
Still don't want to take action?
yes, the train can plow through that many people without losing momentum.

>> No.4899526

>>4898549
wish i had a background of this?

>> No.4899531

>>4899526
classic moral dilemma. take action and allow 1 person to die who would otherwise live, saving the lives of 5 people, or let 5 people die through inaction and respect for the 1 person who would die if you took action?

>> No.4899539
File: 28 KB, 527x446, whatdoyoudo3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899539

>> No.4899541

>>4899531
its also usually posed with a sister dilemma which is where you can save them by pushing a fat guy onto the tracks(you yourself arent heavy enough to stop the train but fat guy is), to illustrate that you are indeed killing someone

>> No.4899543
File: 104 KB, 847x428, zeno's train.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899543

>> No.4899544

>>4899539
Is that meant to a difficult choice. Fastest one to pull the lever wins. That's all. As if you could trust others not to

>> No.4899547

>>4898601
>that's missing the point.
great pun there

>> No.4899549

>>4899543
10/10

>> No.4899550

>>4899543

>what is a convergent series

Zeno's paradox is deprecated.

>> No.4899551

>>4899543
only retards think that's a paradox

>> No.4899552

>>4899543
The train is traveling at 10 meters per second. The spreed of the train never changes. The Line is 10 meters away. In two seconds, the train will be past the line. Paradox solved

>> No.4899554

>>4899552
>10 meters
yeah but have you ever walked a meter
you have to walk have of it first

>> No.4899557

>>4899429

>Implying I pull for girls.

DYEP fag?

>> No.4899560

>>4899554
This may blow your mind, but did you know that an infinite curve can

wait for it

Have a finite area beneath it?

>> No.4899566

>>4899560
really? whats the finite area beneath the infinite curve of e^x?

>> No.4899568

>>4899566

Not him, but this may be of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn

>> No.4899572

I won't touch the lever. Because if I do, I would be the cause of one death and probably be tried and sent to prison. If I don't, even if 5 people die, I am not held responsible.

>> No.4899573

>>4899560
A circle?

>> No.4899577

>>4899266
Always i'm.

>> No.4899585

>>4899572
>letting 5 people die just for your freedom

>> No.4899588

>>4899566
>What is a convergent series?

>> No.4899592

>>4899566
>reading comprehension

>> No.4899595

>>4899266
I'd pull it because then I'd have an excuse for suicide.

>> No.4899600

>>4899566
>>4899554
You can sum infinite numbers that get smaller and they converge in a finite number.
This guy explains it clearly if you are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY

>> No.4899609

>>4898549
Shout "Does anybody read Genre Fiction"? Problem solved.

>> No.4899613

>>4899194

>Not understanding basic probablility

>> No.4899614

>>4899413
what do you think?

>> No.4899623

>>4899381
This one is quite intresting. I immediately though that I would pull my lever if the other would pull his.

>> No.4899626

>>4898549
>Implying the train is moving

>> No.4899642

>>4899194
>Not knowing the problem

>> No.4899655

>>4899600
>Is there some sort of force field stopping my hands meeting
Yes, electromagnetism.

>> No.4899662

>>4899445

I probably wouldn't pull. The moral dillemma is too complicated and I'd run out of time thinking about it.

>> No.4899699
File: 255 KB, 384x288, 1394662737006.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899699

>>4899609

>Genre Fiction

>> No.4899703

>>4899391

>implying the criminals commit such acts out of malice and not due to more severe, broader societal issues

0/10 apply yourself

>> No.4899751

>>4899427
I'd rather feel /k/ and not risk personal harm.

>> No.4899805

>>4898987
Change. 33% vs 50%. Monty Hall problem

>> No.4899911

I think the only ethical thing to do in this situation (if you had no ability to change the outcome so no-one was killed) is to not do anything. If you do not act, you are not responsible for the murder of anyone. If you do act, then no matter what happens you caused a death.

>> No.4899935

>>4899642
>implying

>> No.4899946

You know why this is a paradox(apart from the sanctity of life issue)? Its because we see inaction and action as being different except when they're pushed up so close that they seem the same.

In reality they're *always* the same, the fact that we don't give away our time and resources to help the billions in poverty and millions dying and suffering is a crime but we don't think of it like that because it isn't intuitive.

>> No.4899955
File: 625 KB, 1200x1826, 1395431858966.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4899955

>>4898549

The train isa spook

>> No.4899977

>>4899955
>Listening to the words of a fagot

>> No.4900033

>>4899506
Impossible to solve

>> No.4900061

>>4899525
that's the problem for me.
As long as it's 5 people I really wouldn't touch the lever, but this many people.
Jesus...

>> No.4900066

>>4899525
>the number of people magically changes everything
kek

>> No.4900076

>>4899506
add the evola faggot to feminister and we have a deal

>> No.4900104

>>4899487

There haven't been many resouces invested in the one year old so far.

>> No.4900158
File: 63 KB, 660x380, What do you do now little dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900158

http://youtu.be/_WCiBPjckTg?t=1m18s

>> No.4900237

>>4899955
the train raped phoebe

>> No.4900355

>>4899600
is there any philosopher that deals with why we can imagine things that don't exist?

are there any modern books that explicitly apply that principle to our current understanding of the real world?

>> No.4900421
File: 56 KB, 714x374, qq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900421

hmmm...

>> No.4900437
File: 10 KB, 215x235, stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900437

>>4900421
simple. A.

>> No.4900578
File: 1.05 MB, 4552x2008, asdfgf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900578

>>4900066
What about now bitch?

>> No.4900580

>>4900578
Eventually the trolley would lose too much momentum from colliding with bodies. It would never make it that far.

>> No.4900587

>>4900580
In this hypothetical it can :)

>> No.4900609

>>4899955
what exactly is this picture supposed to be saying?

>> No.4900615

get a second trolley and KILL THEM ALL

>> No.4900621

>>4898549
Throw the switch. Be a murderer. Why is this a choice?

>> No.4900622

>>4899506
>don't pull
>break the lever and hit feminister to death

>> No.4900623
File: 174 KB, 506x449, trolley_tumblr_problem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900623

>> No.4900625
File: 84 KB, 667x582, the classic train monster mobius strip dilemma.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900625

>> No.4900626

>>4900609
ignorance > nihilism > (post-)existentialism > theology > nietzsche > stirner (kill your spooks)

>> No.4900631

>>4900609
Growing more "enlightened" by various slave moralities, possibility culminating in Marxism; you know all there is to know, you realize how the world works! then, after reading Nietzsche, finding that it is just about being a slave and going along with other slaves who want to clip your wings, and so you become the Übermensch; then confronting bleak nihilism and despair, the abyss, and realizing the Übermensch is just a song to dance to so as to not have to deal with nihilism. Then Stirner, embracing the nihilism and lack of meaning, the pointlessness, realizing that it is ecstatically liberating: you are free; and that now you may love the world, love yourself, love life, with true sincerity unpolluted by spooks.

I'm guessing.

>> No.4900638

>>4900626
That's interesting. So the gun is not a matter of crisis, but of ghostbusting?

>> No.4900642

>>4900638
i'd say so yes. at first i thought it was crisis too, but "nietzsche > suicide > stirner" didn't make sense to me. also instead of the brain splater there's the stirnerbird. i'd say the bullet through the brain is a representation of shooting out all the spooks below and becoming absolutely true to your ego

>> No.4900645

>>4900631
>Stirner after Nietzsche

I'm telling you, there's no need to read Stirner if you've gone full into Nietzsche.

>> No.4900661

>>4900645
No need to read Nietzsche at all because he continues to live by the slave-morality he so despises by creating a set of values out of nothing.

>> No.4900668

>>4900661
No need to read Plato at all because he didn't live virtuously. No need to read Pynchon at all because he isn't a woman named Oedipa. No need to read Stirner because he failed to live an anarchist life.

You're not raising a "good point", you're being a moron.

>> No.4900674

>>4898572
Not really, there are evolutionary instinctual traits associated with morality.

>> No.4900676

>>4900674
Sure, but so is every part of society.

>> No.4900679

>>4900642
Ahhhh! Interesting!

>>4900645
Considering how much trouble Nietzsche is to go into, and no matter how much you read him someone will use the Derrida-defense and say, "No, you don't GET him!", (which of course you shouldn't have to, it's about understanding the writing, not studying Nietzsche as an enigma wrapped in a riddle) I wouldn't say that Stirner is trickier.

Nietzsche is about creating your own deity to prostrate yourself to and impose upon others. Stirner is an atheist. Nietzsche is still beautiful and enchanting and holds the key to many thoughts, tho

>> No.4900684

>>4900668
no anon you are the morons

nietzsche condemns slave-culture but then creates his own slave-culture by personally constructing a set of morals that he says is best. stirner releases you from even that by saying that any and all guidance outside your own is 2spooky4u. with nietzsche you are being an ubermensch; with Stirner you are your self

Nietzsche is like a guy killing your master then putting himself in charge.
Stirner kills all masters and then himself and now you're the only one left.

>> No.4900689

>>4900676
Yes but morality is an instinct not an embodiment of instincts

>> No.4900691

>>4900679
>Stirner is an atheist.

Is he, now?

>"No, you don't GET him!"
Most people simply don't. It's hard to say, ever, a simple yes or no to any one belief. There are a few times where he seems very deliberate, but Nietzsche seems to specifically avoid being codified into a set of views because he recognizes that ultimately, every single strong position fails. This is why he criticizes both atheists and Christians, and manages to be both atheist and religious in his writings. This is what makes talking about him so frustrating, too, because far too many people want to dichotomize (religious = Aquinas, atheist = Dawkins) which is a pretty dense and basic view of the world

>> No.4900692

>>4900237
What's the origin of this epic meme?
Captcha: bobanda evidences

>> No.4900700

>>4900691
An atheist as in a moral nihilist who doesn't even support creating your own morality any more than creating your own god to worship.

People who say you don't GET him do that too, though. They have an idea of what Nietzsche REALLY meant and how you just aren't well studied enough to know. Nietzsche was a poet who wants his work to be interpreted.

>> No.4900703

>>4900684
>by personally constructing a set of morals that he says is best.
No he does not. You have no fucking idea what you are saying. Nietzsche's "morals" aren't morals in any sense you seem to be interpreting them as, because his "morals" are often more object qualities (such as strength).

>stirner releases you from even that by saying that any and all guidance outside your own is 2spooky4u.
Sounds like a fast track to rationalizations and stupidity. In any case, this is literally almost exactly what Nietzsche thinks, because he goes on about how Goethe is a proto-Ubermensch despite him not being a sadistic tyrant. Do your research.

>with nietzsche you are being an ubermensch; with Stirner you are your self
Stirner is still creating his own slave-culture by creating a solipsistic view of the world, but ultimately solipsism fails. How can you derive meaning from within when everything within is derived from the external?

>Nietzsche is like a guy killing your master then putting himself in charge.
Nope

>Stirner kills all masters and then himself and now you're the only one left.
Nope

>>4900689
Morality is a set of instincts and conditioned behaviors. Morality isn't a single instinct

>> No.4900707

>>4900674
It's not an evolutionary construct, it's a social construct.

>> No.4900709

>>4900700
Sure, of course Nietzsche wasn't trying to set up a single system. He knew he was going to reflect people's views back into themselves. In the end, you argue your own passions and views through Nietzsche. I know what goes on

It sounds like you've simply missed how spooky Stirner's arguments are. How is killing every master not make you a God? Is that not what Stirner is all about?

>> No.4900715

>>4900707
Where did society come from? Society is an evolutionary product, so to divide the two is to make a categorical mistake

>> No.4900722

>>4900703
>Morality
>expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.

>Sounds like a fast track to rationalizations and stupidity.
if you're 100% solipsist from the get go then yes, sure. but this is assuming that you're intelligent and hungry enough to reach Stirner.
>in any case Nietzsche says it too
lol he's covering all the bases

>How can you derive meaning from within when everything within is derived from the external
>tabula rasa
>2014

>Nope
Yep
>Nope
Yep

>> No.4900738

>>4900709
>How is killing every master not make you a God?

Killing everyone with stronger chakras than you doesn't give you the strongest chakra, because chakras don't exist.

>> No.4900741

>>4900722
This is your error: when Nietzsche is speaking about what he considers to be moral values, he's not talking about moral values. His morals aren't morals, they're qualities of an individual.

>if you're 100% solipsist from the get go then yes, sure. but this is assuming that you're intelligent and hungry enough to reach Stirner.
You've missed what I'm saying. All purely egoist or existentialist views are inherently moronic because you can't derive meaning from within, because there is "nothing" within you that isn't defined by the physical. Ultimately, you're not ego-ing yourself into being a writer or a janitor, it's complex physical states that take you there. Egoism is a spook. Nietzsche at least recognizes that being weak sucks, and therefore being strong is good. Of course being strong isn't something everyone is capable of, Nietzsche knew that all too well, which is why you could possibly argue that his philosophy tries to justify his own life.

>lol he's covering all the bases
you don't have any bases set up to cover, so whatever

>>How can you derive meaning from within when everything within is derived from the external
Nietzsche at least knew that the people you were born to would ultimately dictate who you are, at least to some capacity. He doesn't beat around the bush, you can't "become" an Ubermensch, you either are one or you aren't.

>> No.4900744

>>4900738
Of course Gods don't exist you idiot

>> No.4900747

I'd feel guilty for killing the lone man, but I could rationalize with the man's family much easier than allowing 5 people to die, which I'd also feel guilty about.

The train was going to kill those 5 people until I interfered, but what does that matter? Was it natural for thme to die? What does natural even mean, how can nature have a plan, when it lacks conscience.

>> No.4900750

>>4900709
Stirner admits that god would be someone ungoverned by anything but their ego (which of course can't exist). Stirner does not think reverence of the ego is Right; he is a psychological egoist, not an ethical one. Most of his talk about what the world would be like if everyone were an egoist have to do with anticipating the argument of, "If everyone thought like you, it would be chaos and burning and the end of everything!" To Stirner, you are an egoist regardless, it's not a matter of Right or Wrong, it's just a question as to whether or not you have deified middlemen.

>> No.4900753

>>4900744

The metaphor stands. Killing something doesn't turn you into it. That's incoherent.

>> No.4900757

>>4900750
How can this view not be expressed through the will to power?

>> No.4900763

>>4900757
Will to Power is humanism

>> No.4900764

>>4900741
>there is "nothing" within you that isn't defined by the physical
>you are not physical
jesus fucking christ man get rid of those spooks they're fucking everywhere.

>you're wrong
>but even if you were right, nietzsche says it too

??? tabula rasa ???
if you don't exist then who's the ubermensch?

>> No.4900772

>>4900763
Stirner's position is supported by Al-Rodhan

>> No.4900775

>>4900753
killing a murderer turns you into a murderer.
#rekt

>> No.4900776

>>4900763
No it's not? Will to Power encompasses all of the psychological elements you've stated, including the conflict between desire and conflict, and that every person would want to have the world the way they want it to be first and foremost, and if this were possible it would be explosive chaos and so on. Nietzsche doesn't describe slave or master morality as "good" or "bad" either, because he's not stupid enough to think that everyone can be a master.

>>4900764
>jesus fucking christ man get rid of those spooks they're fucking everywhere.
Spooks are spooks; and most of what I know of Stirner is expressed just as well through Nietzsche or is spook territory.

>if you don't exist then who's the ubermensch?
What are you talking about?

>> No.4900786

>>4900775
Executioner, actually.

>> No.4900801

>>4900776
can't call egoism a spook mate it's just not right. i'm saying that your physical body is also part of your ego and shan't be ignored. have i got to spell it out for you: if everything is predetermined and there is no ego then who's becoming the ubermensch? who's reading nietzsche? either everything is predetermined or you have some (SOME) authority in the matter. both nietzsche and stirner fall under the latter.

i'm gonna stop, there's a stirner and a nietzsche thread and we're fucking up the funny train one. it'll run out soon :^(.

good luck with your spooks :^).
being srs

>> No.4900810

>>4900801
Nietzsche rails against free will in nearly all of his books. NO, you cannot choose to be an ubermensch. It simply does not work that way to Nietzsche. He calls things how they are, not how they should be in some morally guided ethical sense

>> No.4900833

>>4900775
tolerating the intolerable is cowardice

all life is destruction, even vegetarians destroy plants

there is no guilt free life

>> No.4900837

>>4900801
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will

E.G. some people have wills that can face the truth, some people have wills to be masters, but the idea that your will is "free" to act outside of itself is moronic

You can't interpret Nietzsche as some guy just giving you advice to be an Ubermensch :-)))) He's more like Machiavelli, giving advice to the people that do have the strong wills but may not be in a position in their life to know how it works. Either that interpretation or one where he's simply calling it how it is are acceptable. Of course, reading Nietzsche inspires everyone to act, and in the end those who deny Nietzsche's arguments here are trying to deny the reality of will. It's not like, a moral fault, they just suck and that's what people who suck do.

>> No.4900862

>>4900810
>>4900837

you guys are such fierce lions ;-3 rawr!

>> No.4900886

>>4898549

>Switchtrack!

>> No.4900896

>>4900623
Yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell.

>> No.4900899
File: 56 KB, 496x254, choose quick.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4900899

This is the litmus test for nobility.

If you hesitate even for a moment here, you betray a lack of breeding

>> No.4900902

>>4900899
Why would I sacrifice 5 other people to save a corpse?

Even if they were corpses too it still doesn't make sense.

>> No.4900907

>>4900902

he's alive you retard. it's a hypothetical, like everything else in this fucking thread

>> No.4900923

>>4899188
> The reason being that killing someone, on the face of it, is always morally wrong.
Killing tyrants is okay regard Thomas Aquinas

>> No.4900926

>>4900899
No hesitation, don't worry. I'd save the five people what the fuck kind of choice is that.

>> No.4900929

>>4900907
>He's alive

Has he composed his greatest works yet? If so, why should he then be saved? Has he not? How am I to know he's then worth saving? He hasn't but I somehow know the works Mozart will create? Why didn't I untie them all beforehand since I am clearly prescient?

>> No.4900932

>>4898549
Depends on who the people are.

Why is this even a question though? Why is it considered interesting? Are people afraid to make judgments of an individual's worth or something?

>> No.4900936

>>4900926

Your ancestors were either farmers or gravediggers

absolutely disgusting

>> No.4900958

>>4900932
It forces people to think of greater power existance. Is it natural to allow those to die? What does natural mean?

It also gives room for people to use their personal philosophies to reduce the anxiety, eg. "It was God's will for those 5 to die, why should I interfere?"

With no higher power, naturalism stuff, it comes down to if you can kill or allow to be killed. Is allowing a death of 5 worse than a murder of one?

>> No.4900969

>>4898549
The correct answer is clearly to leave, find the cackling mustachioed madman who tied these people to train tracks, and kill him. Justice is served.

>> No.4900994

>>4900969
Is vengeance justice, or is asking the man, why? The man's past experiences led to his murders, help him think different, to prevent you from becoming a murderor as well.

>> No.4901039

>>4900994
Eh, the situation is cartoonish enough that i think simplistic retribution justice is enough

>> No.4901067

Clearly, the trolley is headed away from the switch.

>> No.4901136

>>4900899
Oh shit nigger. I know I will pull the lever so the 5 men live, but I thinked like 2 minutes for this.

>inb4 /mu/ comes saying mozart is overrated

>> No.4901145

>>4900625
wat

>> No.4901189

>>4899266
in nature one's own survival always ranks above someone else's survival. it's about you continuing your genetic line.

also; if you want to help someone make sure you are save first because it's not worth the risk getting you both killed.
there is a gif of a guy jumping infront of a train at a metro station. some idiot tries to save his life by grabbing his arm the moment he jumps. so what happens is that the one guy dies by getting squashed and the other guy(who tried to help him) gets dragged with him and ends up in the spot between the train and the platform the passengers are standing on. the train keeps moving and the guy keeps spinning. i think he was still alive by the time the train stopped(unlike the guy who tried to kill himself).
the moral of the story: if you try to help someone make sure you are not taking any risks.

or in our case: their fate is sealed if it means your death

>> No.4901193

>>4898549
I know this is a trolling thread but the question has become actually relevant considering google cars for instance have to consider such things within a unavoidable crash scenario, or a dilemma rather.

>> No.4901231

>>4901193
lol do you work there? You're not supposed to talk about that.

>> No.4901233
File: 92 KB, 506x267, 1400264175438.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4901233

>>4901193

>> No.4901277

>>4901189
>in nature one's own survival always ranks above someone else's survival
> it's about you continuing your genetic line.

Pleb detected. The 5 guys on the track might be your sons, you might be impotent.

>> No.4901282
File: 1.76 MB, 400x206, 1395295313554.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4901282

>>4901233
fucking saved

>> No.4901319
File: 12 KB, 652x266, 1455860_766748483341944_1135631970_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4901319

Best picture incoming (not mine).

>> No.4901399

>>4901319

AMOR FATI

>> No.4901402

>>4901277
i'd know if they'd be my sons or if i'd be impotent.
aka you are retarded

>> No.4901411

>>4900076
Now, that's a deal, and I don't even give a fuck about feminister.

>> No.4901590

>>4901136
>implying Beethoven isn't better

But seriously, I was in the same boat, knew my answer but was very hesitant.

Here is the way i see it the problem, and I will use Tolkien as an example. He goes to fight in WWI, survives, and goes on to write The Hobbit, LOTR, Children of Hurin, etc. Basically creates the most complete fantasy universe in literature, while becoming the standard for the genre. Like Dune would become later for sci-fi. It would have been a tragedy if he had died in the war.

But then, think of the millions who DID die. How many were going to be artists? scientists? authors? musicians? Humanity lost an incalculable amount of culture. This problem is a smaller version of that. Mozart may die, but those five ordinary people could be a young Carl Sagan, Holst, etc. I would kill Mozart

>> No.4901645
File: 71 KB, 640x400, problem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4901645

Edgy mode

>> No.4901694

>>4901645
if the lever man has the option to not kill anyone, why does he have a sad expression?

>> No.4901763

>>4901694

Because he can only kill five.

>> No.4902607

bumping the shit out of this thread

>> No.4902634

>>4901590
The probability that a randomly taken person is going to be a genius is vanishingly small and you already know that Mozart is Mozart.

>> No.4902646
File: 16 KB, 251x326, Erwin_Schrödinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4902646

>>4898549

If the switchguy's goal is to kill em all:

Leave switch 1/2, trolley miscarries, barrel rolls, full strike.

If the switchguy's goal is to save em all:

Leave switch 1/2, trolley miscarries, and stops, everybody safe.

>> No.4902649

This image suggests the terrible fact that we do not actually know to which track the lever is set to. This the same with life, we never know exactly how our actions will pan out, only after it is done we can know if it was good or bad, wrong or right, if we liked it or did not like it.

>> No.4902658

>>4899266
Easy.
Pull the lever then get out of the way.

>> No.4902660

>>4902646
And this is how you solve conundrums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siWh5qnpclk

>> No.4902687

>>4899474
not on a train track

>> No.4902700

>>4898613
The picture is badly constructed then, the guys hand shouldn't already be on the lever.

>> No.4902723

>>4901590
>tfw the black death in 1348 wiped Siena off the cultural map

>> No.4902734

>>4901590
You ever see the family guy episode where peter wins a free boat? He takes the mystery box over the boat with the logic "the mystery box could be anything, it could even be a boat, you know how much we've always wanted one of those". Of course, inside there box there is no boat.

You have a guaranteed boat, take the fucking boat you moron.

>> No.4902867
File: 8 KB, 267x280, 1367113066560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4902867

>>4900622
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

>> No.4902872

>>4900626
Nigger do you even '<'?

>> No.4902876

>>4902872
it wasn't a "greater than" sign it was an arrow.

was that really worth bumping this thread?

>> No.4902909

Watch the 5 janes die, don't kill one jesse.

>> No.4902939 [SPOILER] 
File: 34 KB, 500x283, 1400359110127.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4902939

>>4902876
Why not going full '=>'?

yes

>> No.4903163

>>4902660
Why is this allowed
Fuck this gay earth
Do people find that funny?

>> No.4903205

>>4899511
These have been really funny, thanks guys

>> No.4903210

>>4902939
I was too lazy. i didn't even have spaces to begin with but i went back and added them in.

six more posts to go this was a good thread

>> No.4903213

>>4902939
greater than or equal to?

>> No.4903225

>>4899270
BASED
A
S
E
D

>maxims dtetfor

>> No.4903237

>>4899154

this is the correct answer btw

>> No.4903258
File: 271 KB, 1914x828, 1400206885562.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4903258

>> No.4903294

>>4903258
You are responsible for all the murders you could have prevented but didn't

>> No.4903314

>>4903294
..yeah but i'm not

>> No.4903344

>>4899473
>not self-aware at 3

They are aware that there others who are not them and must be compelled to do their bidding. They are narcissists but they still possess a theory of mind at age 3.

Also, dont cut yourself.

>> No.4903351

>>4902634
Mozart died without children.

If we are aware that he is mozart then we will know that he is not worth saving. If we are unaware that he is mozart we see no reason to.

Those 5 will likely go on to have many children, who will in turn having many more children. offering more in terms of production and genetic diversity for the species than mozart could in 1000 lives. Practical things>music

>> No.4903434

>>4903314
but you are,
what if it was the same scenario but instead of one man being on the other rails, there was no one?

>> No.4903445

>>4903434
You are walking along a hiking path carelessly. Due to your carelessness, one of your friends slips on loose gravel and falls into a river below, where you watch him drown (as it is common knowledge people who are trained and experienced swimmer should never attempt to rescue a drowning pleb at risk to their own life).

Are you responsible?

>> No.4903555

>>4903445
First of all as you stated, you couldn't save him. Second of all the difference here is effort.

Do you have to go out of your way to do this. In the trolley example, the only cost is pulling the lever, which for the most part people accept as a meaningless cost. However if you were to be running around San Fransisco pulling levers all day we can agree that the cost here is significant and you would be free to not save those people.

It's a trade off. That's why it's fine if I don't go around at night beating up rapists, but the people who let Kitty Genovese die were in the wrong.

Also what do you think about my previous hypothetical

>> No.4903568

>>4903555
It seems you've changed the scenario. You've done more than change the values on one side of the track or another, you've made it into a discussion of whether or not life is enough suffering to justify killing them.

And also ofc killing no one is preferable to killing someone. The 1v5 is meant to address the ambiguity of some ethical schools, and is specifically a criticism of consequentialism. hence why the variations change the answer so thoroughly, because the subtleties of an idea are being addressed, not a guiding principle.

>> No.4903974

>>4900899
Do people genuinely ever choose to save mozart in these situations?

>> No.4904079
File: 811 KB, 4088x2176, Morality6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4904079

>>4900899
if you hesitate for even a moment you betray a lack of breeding

>> No.4905082

>>4904079
>5 bodies, 4 heads

>> No.4905352

>>4905082
kek