/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14773610
Optimal solution, scientifically speaking:

>>14773610

>>14773610
I don't touch the handle no matter what. No such thing as murder by inaction and I'm no murderer.

>>14773643
Why do people always focus on the one murder and never on the five lives saved?

>>14773610
It's a false choice. What if the lever action is flipped and the wrong people die. Is it still your fault despite your intentions?

>>14773645
Murder is always wrong no matter the cope you come up with to justify yourself

>>14773646
don't forget what if there is already a rescue attempt to save the people in the path of the train, but by diverting the train it needlessly kills someone who'd nobody thought needed to be rescued.

>>14773610
what information about this scenario have you failed to provide?

>>14773645
Why shouldn't we feed utilitarians to starving children in Africa?

>>14773610
Am I the only one that almost didn't get it, so obvious is the pulling of the lever?

a serious and rarely discussed issue with the trolley problem is one of information. you see, the lever in unlabelled, and the position of the tracks is non-obvious. if one does not pull the mystery lever, the expected number of deaths (EV) is three. If one does pull the lever, the ev remains 3. in the real world, the lever would probably be unattached, and if it were attached, it probably wouldn't do anything. This moral "problem" is literally the same as the question "what if a child played with a toy for no reason without knowing what it is"

>>14773645
Why don't surgeons go out and murder healthy people so their organs can be transplanted into five dying people who need them?

>>14773708
No. Most people find it stupid, because it is stupid. utilitarian/consequential vs deontological/kantian. the deontologist COULD say that 1. killing is wrong, 2. throwing the switch kills a person, 3. therefore throwing the switch is wrong. Likewise, the consequentialist COULD say that 1. people dying is bad, 2. throwing the switch saves five (or 5-1) people, 3. therefore NOT throwing the switch is wrong.
However, both individuals could also believe the opposite action to be more morally right, for instance, they could think the people on the tracks are BAD and need to be killed, or that people are bad, or that the one guy on the track is worth more than the five on the other track.

say "not my problem" and walk away. I didn't tie those people to the track so I cannot be responsible

>>14773712
Well?

>>14773660
If a wrong action results in a positive outcome, how is it wrong?

>>14773643
>>14774151
>w-well, it's not my problem
cowardice.

>>14774151
calm down chang

>>14773712
What does this have to do with trains?? Stay on topic

>>14774440
A man has five dying patients each in need of a different replacement organ, however no organs are currently available for these patients. You, a manlet living inside his brain, have your hand on a brain-lever. If you do nothing, the man will catch a train home where he will play train simulator (with all DLC) and his five patients will ultimately die. If you pull the brain-lever however, he will miss his train home and will murder an innocent person in order to harvest the victim's organs and save his patients' lives.

>>14774468
if they're each in need of a different replacement organ, just swap organs between them

>philosocucks have been discussing ethics for thousands of years
>still can't solve this simple ethical problem
Can we all agree that philosocucks are just midwitted wordcels?

>>14774468
Ok I’ve tried to come up with something all day to troll you but I can’t, this is impeccably right. Congrats

>>14774586
It's because of political correctness. You can't philosophize with your hands tied behind your back.
The problem assumes all men are equal when they're clearly not.
The real solution is to see who you think is more deserving of living. A difficult task if you don't have a lot of time, but that's outside the realm of philosophy. You can assume you have infinite time in order to make the correct choice, since time was never stated in the problem.

>pull the lever
>go to jail
No thanks

>>14773610
Just go by numbers, save more people simple, this is true if you believe in Equality and democracy, If you are smart and don't believe in equality, then do a qualitative comparison.

>>14774368
>have problem
>don't care
>no longer have problem

it's literally that easy

>>14774799
>It's because of political correctness
Uhm, who invented PC again? Was it perhaps ... philosophers?

>>14773610
You don't really carry a moral responsibility either way. It's not your fault that some retard put people on the rails and forced you into a position where someone dies as a consequence of your choice no matter what you do.

>>14774468
The diseased people are genetic trash and don't deserve the organs of a healthy man.

>>14775083
is that why you don't have a healthy brain

>>14773710
wron, every time this ethical dilemma is presented it is specified the train is going to trample on the 5 people, and that using the lever will redirect it to the track with only 1 person.

>>14773610
Just choose what you like, how it can be difficult?

>>14773610
get a fucking life faggot, life isnt black and white and it most certainly isn't always a yes and no

>man pushing popping ball toddler toy watches on as train tracks spit in two levitating one man above the rest tied to the tracks below him

>>14773643
I believe that there is such a thing, because I hold myself accountable for the choice made in the moment or for the inability to ascertain the impact of the lever if for some reason I couldn't tell what it would do.

>>14774876
this but unironically

>>14773643
Negligence?

>>14773610
Pull the lever and insist I be tried for murder.

>>14773610
depends on the race

>>14773637
Damn that is some broken ass English, I think I'll stop reading

I have a moral issue with this, if the train turns left the train kills the people much faster.
But if the train turns right they suffer much longer.
=/

>>14773610
This problem is simply undecidable. You can have two perfectly valid sets of rules (moral systems) that tackle this problem (e.g. deontological and consequentialist) but it's impossible to decide which system to use

>>14776948
What makes you think I said it ironically? This problem causes endless irreconcilible disagreemets, and it does so by construction. Even if there is a right answer, it would be absurd to hold someone morally responsible for failing to figure it out. The same goes for the rest of these moral dilemmas and it really goes to show the disconnect between abstract moral wankery and actual morality.

>>14777536
i just kill the people who look more like the people i dont like from real life, as simple is that.

>>14777536
>consequentialism is valid
LOL. LMAO, even.

>>14776966

>>14777645
An easy choice for any real utilitarian, by staying free you will be able to save much more people.

>>14773610
You will be shocked by what I am about to tell you: human life has no inherent value.

>>14777576
Moral systems have no property of validity, they are either used or not.

>>14777878
>Moral systems have no property of validity
Are you a consequentialist? That would explain your mentally ill take. Now you're going to deny it to save face. lol

This one defeats platonist retards.

>>14777894
Consequentialism is an intimate moral system, not for virtue signaling.

Due to the "no good deed goes unpunished" law, pulling the lever will bring nothing but misery to me as a person, leaving me with only the satisfaction i did a good thing, but even that is arguable.

With all this in mind, i step away from the lever, my personal wellbeing takes priority over everything else

>>14778537
Are you a consequentialist? lol

>>14773610
What if you were walking along the road to your job at the railyard, found a hotdog on the ground, and so stopped to pick it up and enjoy a nice pre-shift snack. While you were enjoying your delicious hot dog, late for your shift, the trolley speeds by your empty post, lever unattended, and slaughters five innocent people.

Because you didn't pull the lever, five people instead of one were killed, but you weren't physically present to pull the lever, even though you should have been. Did your inaction kill those five people? Is the above scenario any different than if you were standing at the lever and still decided not to pull it?

What about this: same scenario as above, but you're not running late to your shift. Normally you get there early, so the hot dog delay doesn't cause you to be late, just later than you would normally be. The massacre doesn't occur during your shift but does occur at a time you would have normally been there to pull the lever on any other day.

>>14777500
damn im glad i dont care about english pstd people

>>14779231
does this trigger people without empathy or something?

>>14773660
>Murder is always wrong no matter the cope you come up with to justify yourself
remember when the experts and the news media were telling us how even though young people were lowest at risk of covid, they should all get vaxxed from grandma? good times

>>14774844
based

>>14773610
Jump in the trolley

>>14780147
kek

>>14777642
lol

>>14780147
Low IQ.

>>14777642
Do it because fuck people

>>14773610
Let everyone die and kill the guy who proposed the game.

>>14773610
I'll take the one that won't get me into legal trouble.
Morals? Responsibility? Anon, you know what year it is, right?

>>14773610
what happens if you pull the lever halfway, thus derailing the train?

>>14780147
not trusting the science is silly, isn't it?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYTb9DwKjQ

>>14773610
No infinite set is larger than another. That's just math autism cope invented because some rational numbers don't work the same way as integers. That pic is similar application of this math autism cope where they delude themselves into thinking one infinite set is larger than another. Decrease the space between each individual in the top and each group in the bottom to infinitely small. Is there a difference now? No. Did you change the amount of people in either rail? No. There is no difference between either rail.
Change my mind

>>14773637

>>14781669
C3

>>14779241
Consequentialism is more like a method of judgement than some kind of universal formal system. My morality is better described as chaotic neutral alignment.

>>14773610
>1 vs 3 (or more)
It goes in all fields.