[ 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: 124 KB, 959x573, painlesstrolley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908061 No.4908061[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Well /lit/?

>> No.4908065

Which one is A

>> No.4908067

>>4908061
just cut the ropes

>> No.4908068

>>4908065

I think A's the one with one guy, so there's an incentive to pull at least some of the levers.

>> No.4908070
File: 170 KB, 951x954, 1400181882916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908070

>>4908061

>> No.4908071

>>4908065
Yeah, this isn't at all evident. You might as well be asking us how fast the trolley is going.

>> No.4908074

>>4908068

OP here, this is correct, dun goofed. A is the single man.

>> No.4908075

Throw a penny on the track

>> No.4908077

>>4908061
All five 8()

>> No.4908078

>>4908061

>Pull all levers
>5 painless deaths, 1 painful death

>Pull no levers
>5 painful deaths

>Pull 2 levers
>2 painless deaths, 40% chance of 1 painful death vs 3 painful deaths

I'm convinced there's a statistical balance point that would give us the ultimate moral stance.

>> No.4908080

>>4908074
3

>> No.4908081
File: 254 KB, 800x640, areyousureaboutthat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908081

>>4908061

Let it hit the five. It's not on me to decide, and even if it's painless, it's murder. Maybe we'll get lucky and the trolley won't hit the group anyways.

>> No.4908084
File: 39 KB, 300x392, botd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908084

>>4908077

>pull all five
>You literally committed murder since it would be impossible with even basic logic to kill all six

confirmed for ultimate scumbag of 4chan

>> No.4908097

this isn't even ethics anymore, it's statistics.

the previous argument for not-pulling was that one was not responsible for deaths he did not prevent, only deaths that he expressly caused.

this is just a numbers game to figure out how to cause the least amount of death/pain to the least amount of people. it's all within the mindset that you're a utilitarian

>> No.4908098

I think you should pull 3 times.

Three ensured deaths, but then a sixty percent chance only one more guy dies then all of them. The gambler in me says this is best.

>> No.4908101

Twice, once to kill the guy at the top, again to have the train run over the other five.

>> No.4908102

>>4908097

>Implying you have any moral right to pull any of the levers
>Implying you have any moral right to even touch a lever when the best you have are statistics that might still turn on you
>Implying that solipsism is incorrect and that you could pull all the levers and still have made the right choice

>> No.4908103

>>4908061
Turn 360 degrees and walk away.

>> No.4908104

Pull 5 times
On the same person

>> No.4908107
File: 798 KB, 600x505, 1396387748904.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908107

>>4908104

>Kill a man five times

A-are you an evil wizard?

>> No.4908115

>>4908102
>moral rights
What is this bullshit?

>> No.4908122

>>4908115

What makes you qualified to pull a lever and decide, are you God? Get over yourself, and recognize that shit sometimes happens and it's not your place to interfere.

>> No.4908126
File: 858 KB, 240x228, 1395712015301.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908126

>>4908122


In my opinion, pulling four levers is morally superior to pulling none. In the end, five deaths occur in both cases, however, by pulling, 4 out of 5 of those deaths are painless. You're not playing God then, the situation would be analogous to palliative care: you know five deaths will occur and you made them hurt less for those involved.

>> No.4908128

>>4908122
The fact that I am physically there makes me able to pull those levers
Judging by your logic if you saw a man being tortured to death you wouldn't call the police?

>> No.4908133

>>4908128

Torture is different. This is inevitable, that is not.

>> No.4908138

>>4908133
>this is inevitable
Inevitable means that it cannot be changed
This clearly can be changed by pulling a lever thus decreasing the percentage of the group being killed

>> No.4908143

>>4908138

While also increasing the percentage of the lone man being killed. This isn't inevitable, you're just choosing who to kill and are thus playing God.

>> No.4908151

>>4908143
Which god am i trying to be?

>> No.4908153

>no pulls: retard or philosophag
>1 pull: we gamblers now
>2 pull: we gamblers now
>3 pull: we statisticians now
>4 pull: retard or slightly less retarded no pull
>5 pull: murderer or retard

Any disagreement makes you a philosofag.

>> No.4908155

>>4908138
Inevitable means it cannot be avoided.

>> No.4908156

>>4908143
Going by the normal depiction of God he put me there for a reason
If he did not want me to pull those levers he never would have put me in the situation in the first place

>> No.4908161

>>4908155
That's what I meant I just used changed

>> No.4908162

>>4908151

A fake one. Feel free to come up with the details, I'm sure you've thought of some already.

>>4908156

Why do you assume there must be a reason you're there? Have you no free will? Your choices put you there, just because you're in that situation does not give you moral permission to do whatever.

>> No.4908171

>>4908162
You're the one making the comparison to God.
>have you no free will
Yes I do have free will and that is why I would pull the levers. You do not want to act in a situation that would put people's lives at risk and that can cause more deaths than there could be

>> No.4908174

This makes me think of "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic". People become utilitarian when they are presented with some abstract number.

>> No.4908181

>>4908162
If there was an omniscient god, he must have put me there for a reason. If he did exist, he would also know how i would act in such a situation (so no free will here) and whatever i do would be god's omnibenevolent will.

>> No.4908182
File: 129 KB, 890x690, whatthefuckareyoudoing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908182

>>4908174

It's amazing how quickly people are able to say START PULLING LEVERS in a situation like this, how many of you would actually have the balls to do it if it came down to it?

>> No.4908183

>>4908181

That argument could be used for anything.

"Oh, I'm in a king's throne room with a knife, God put me here for a reason"

"Oh, I'm holding a gas can and a match in an orphanage. God wouldn't have allowed it unless it was meant to be"

Just because you happen to be present and possess implements does not imply moral standing to use them.

>> No.4908184

>>4908182
So now that you're in a losing argument you're saying NO BALLS YOU WONT like a 7th grader
Lovely to know that you've accepted that your argument is bullshit and you have abandoned it

>> No.4908185

>>4908182
I would feel worse if I didn't pull any levers.

>> No.4908186

>>4908184

I'm not the guy arguing the religious perspective, I'm just wondering who would actually start jerking levers in this position and who would only pull them in their imaginary academic scenario?

>> No.4908191

>>4908185

Would it really be your fault in this position though? You didn't tie anyone up.

>> No.4908192

>>4908186
Chances are that if I'm that guy in the picture I'm going to pull at least one lever out of sheer panic

>> No.4908195

>>4908191
I have an obligation to preserve as many lives as possible.

>> No.4908202

I made the maths. Here's the expected value of deaths per number of levers pulled :

EV(0) = 5
EV(1) = 4.4
EV(2) = 4.4
EV(3) = 4.4
EV(4) = 4.4
EV(4) = 4.4
EV(5) = 5

That is you wanna be a fucking utilatarian, of course.

E

>> No.4908211
File: 36 KB, 486x328, 1394382501325.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908211

>>4908192

>Be me
>Wake up one morning
>Look at hands
>Oh shit they're cylinders
>I'm in a trolley problem
>Shit shit shit shit shit shit
>All these fucking levers
>Jesus fuck I'm sweaty
>Maybe just one
>NO TWO
>Run down line flipping levers
>Train goes away
>Phew
>shit, I killed some dudes, they dead. Shit.
>So how do I get home?
>Look around
>Another fucker behind me's splattered
>Mfw
>Look down track
>Trolley stops to ask if something's wrong
>Get mad; it couldn't have stopped before?
>Quickly realize the conductor committed murder.
>Throw open the conductor's door
>Get on the floor
>Everybody walked the dinosaur
>Went home later, ate chowder

How was your day, /lit/?

>> No.4908218

>>4908195

Why?

>>4908202

Your math is wrong, there's always that 1 percent chance of going to A, plus, pulling five levers kills six.

>> No.4908226

>>4908183
But you started the god arguement. Of course this would only work if a god existed. If you dont believe in a god, then you should word your "playing god" arguement differently

>> No.4908246

>>4908218
>Why?

I'm not knowledgeable to justify it but it seems like the right thing to do. If someone were to give an infant a knife, I couldn't just stand back and watch the baby hurt itself and absolve myself of all responsibility because I wasn't the person who gave them the knife.

>> No.4908247

>>4908226

No, subsuming the role of decider of lives is the issue here. Even if you don't believe in god, it is an objective moral crime to say that one person's life is worth less than another or more; that's not your role and that role shouldn't be allowed access to you.

The main issue here is that you don't understand that the choice not to decide on the fate of these lives by not touching the lever does not make you a decider of lives any more than choosing not to drink would make you a non-alcoholic. This is because not being an alcoholic is default, and thus isn't a status different from the norm, there's no moral harm in not touching but the moment you touch, you are responsible.

>> No.4908482

The main difference is that pulling a lever makes you a murderer. Doing nothing means you aren't.

This is kind of analogous to the pushing the fat man off the bridge which stops five people being run over: most people wouldn't do it because you're actively killing someone, even if they would pull the lever to waste one guy instead of five (original version).

In Ops pic, most people would do nothing.

>> No.4908520
File: 49 KB, 500x375, sss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908520

>>4908247
>objective moral

>> No.4908525

>>4908520
>subjective moral

>Oh boy, isn't Kant a hack guys, not even science enough!

>> No.4908532

>>4908525
>objective
>subjective
>not being a full on moral nihilist

>> No.4908541

>>4908532
oh yeah right, /lit/ is Stirner country, I forgot.

Well, at least he's not Nietzsche.

>> No.4908544

>>4908541
Reading Nietzsche when you're drunk and have been up two days straight, makes more sense than morality does.

>> No.4908550

>>4908544
How could I have been so blind.

>> No.4908551

>I'm not willing to accept responsibility for my actions, so I choose inaction and will watch five people die
>Of course I ignore that I am responsible for my inaction
>And the rest of you are monsters

Wow.

>> No.4908555

>>4908550
I don't know, maybe you believe in god.

>> No.4908636

>>4908065
>what is reading comprehension?

>> No.4910724

>>4908636

>What is jeopardy?

>> No.4910750
File: 66 KB, 735x322, lonelytrolley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4910750

>>4910724

Well /lit/?

>> No.4910773
File: 213 KB, 506x632, Trolley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4910773

>> No.4910816

I probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to pull any of the levers, but 3 levers would be the most logical

>> No.4911193
File: 34 KB, 612x326, trolleys are too long.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4911193