/sci/ - Science & Math

>trolley problem

Stopped reading here.
Please make your troll threads more subtle and don't admit being a troll in the first line.

I do nothing because I dont care

>>3960026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
>>3960038
Then you're a sociopath *and* a thief.

Well. You are saving five lifes in cost of one life in both situations. I would have done both, or do it like an action movie, and jump infront of the train myself. "jk i would never do that"

>>3960042
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_is_a_troll_thread_It_has_nothing_to_do_with_science_just_philosoph
y_also_OP_is_a_faggot

>>3960046
You're not heavy enough, or you have a weird medical condition that means you fall too slowly or something.

>>3960051
I like you. Why are you trolling?

Also: What if the person on the bridge is your son?

This should hopefully give a firm enough line between the pure utilitarians and those acting in self interest.

I would do nothing because I can't be blamed for doing nothing.

The difference is the second one is deliberate cold-blooded murder.

Good job trying to make yourself feel like a Nietzchean protoman in the last few sentences by bragging about how you're heroic enough to kill a dude.

>>3960053
You have 1 minute to justify why this pure philosphical problem belongs on a board about science and math.

To take away some fallacies, here an inb4:
1. No, it's not psychology. This thread doesn't deal with psychological theories or research.
2. No, the high frequency of other off-topic shit threads on /sci/ doesn't justify to make a new one.

>>3960020
Taking an action that results in loss of life is worse than more life being taken by no action, imo.

It's cowardly, but I don't want the responsibility of taking his life for any purpose. I can't "play god", pardon the phrase.

>>3960053
Tip: philosophy isn't a science.

To answer your question:
When you pull a lever or do nothing, the people die through no fault of your own.
When you push a man onto the tracks, he died because you pushed him, so you're now a murderer.

It's basically a problem that shows that the utilitarian point of view doesn't work in real life, because we (the human race) are hard-wired to find someone to blame.

>>3960079
oh wow, fuck you.

Seriously, lighten the fuck up and get your head out of your ass. There's no way you're autistic enough to think this ISN'T about psychology, or that the logic of ethics isn't intimately tied up with science and the scientific endeavor.

and who the fuck are you to dictate the board's content? Piss off.

>>3960020
pushing the fat person is not a "good ethical decision".
by utilitarian standards, at first glance it is ethical to do so, but we would increase the happiness in the population if everybody knew they could be sacrificed if the numbers are against them.
duty ethics would say that you can never use a person as an ends to a means.
contractual conception of morals would say that nobody would enter an arrangement where they could be used as sacrifice to save others.

so no, by no ethical system pushing the fat guy is "good"

>>3960074
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Possibly not. Anyway, assume you're a police officer in this scenario.

>>3960075
As opposed to being self obsessed enough to kill 5 dudes through inaction so I can claim the emotional high ground? Surely you understand why the killing of one actually has a net +4 effect?
>>3960079
It's not purely philosophical, RTFQ, Is psychopathy better than regular old emotional morality?

It deals with psychology, sociology, and ethics. If you want to be a snob, then the questions now include "From a darwinian point of view, is sociopathy useful".
>>3960101
Psychiatry/ology is.

>>3960113
>Anyway, assume you're a police officer in this scenario.

Don't care about any laws, on the moral level inaction can't be blamed.

>>3960113
DSM 4 says:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

so no, not good from an evolutionary standpoint.

>>3960113
>Surely you understand why the killing of one actually has a net +4 effect?

In total numbers you are right. you cant build a society on this principle though. see >>3960109

>>3960113

>+4 effect

I don't care what the fucking math is, you edgy child. It's not your call to make.

>>3960109
>by utilitarian standards, at first glance it is ethical to do so, but we would increase the happiness in the population if everybody knew they could be sacrificed if the numbers are against them.

But only because people are irrational. And people are already aware of this, hence support for law enforcement, military forces, etc. Also, the fact that others will kill to protect you despite not knowing you has a definite reciprocal effect.

Like it or not, ultilitarianism is definitely the best method of making snap moral decisions, unless you're willing to take on faith that some people you don't know are worth more than some other people you don't know.

>duty ethics would say that you can never use a person as an ends to a means.
Wat, duty ethics is now duty ethics but never under any circumstances killing people?

In terms of duty to each other, inaction kills 5 people. Not 0.

>contractual conception of morals would say that nobody would enter an arrangement where they could be used as sacrifice to save others.

Show me the terms and if they're reasonable I'll sign up.

>>3960125
Yes, it can. We're in a society.

>>3960086
>>3960086
OP read my post.

>>3960135
you misunderstand utilitarianism. it aims to maximize the happiness/pleasure/personal preferences in a given population.
by pushing the fat man, you increase that for the 4 people, but decrease it for the rest of the population, that now has to expect to be sacrificed for reasons outside of their control. pushing the fat person is a net negative harm on the population.

duty morals is reformulated and adjusted idealism. morals from first principles. cant use a person as a means to an end. always act that your actions can become natural law etc.

as for contractualism, the terms of a society that involves the possibility to be sacrificed arguably would be unrealistically good for you to enter into from a position where you don't know if you will be sacrificed on the spot.

>>3960135
>Yes, it can. We're in a society.

That has nothing to do with it. It's completely unreasonable to claim someone is at fault for refusing to act.

>>3960129
When your rights include the right to not have your privacy invaded, or the right to total free speech, then I'll be in opposition with your rights. Rights as a whole are a social construct (as is everything else a sociopath is judged by, some would argue) and consequently if you believe yourself to be entitled to rights I disagree with then I will violate them as far as you're concerned.

being over 18 is useful for breeding. Also, one can be a psychopath under 18, simply not diagnosed as one. Like a 22 year old cannot be a paedophile by regular definitions, there's a barrier in place to stop people who are too young from being unfairly diagnosed.

Giving blood if you're a homosexual qualifies you for conduct disorder. Protesting qualifies you for conduct disorder. Again, crimes aren't linked directly to actual social needs and consequently they aren't going against society. Same goes for defiance.

>>3960134
And it is yours? You're in a position where your apathy kills 5 people, and yet I'm being grilled?

>>3960136
Sure you can. We don't, because we have a moral imperative to look after ourselves more than we would other people.

>>3960168
>Like a 22 year old cannot be a paedophile by regular definitions,

Fuck the what am I reading?

>>3960102
>and who the fuck are you to dictate the board's content?

I didn't dictate it. If you were able to read, you'd see that it is written on top of the page in big red letters: "/sci/ - science and math".
Since I have to assume that you can't read, I realize that I wasted my valuable time with this futile attempt to bring education to a mentally retarded idiot.

>>3960186
hahaha
good retort, and OP turned out to be a faggot, so i concede the point to you.

rock on

You know, I bet most of the people claiming philosophy isn't a science haven't even studied the subject.
Go read Dewey and come back.

>>3960210
Philosophy is less of a science than fucking biology, go fuck yourself, dipshit.

>>3960020
> Now, 90% of people answer this second question that they wouldn't. I answer that I would. Apparently this lends itself to the idea I'm sociopathic.
Where did you hear this, an email?

Sage for bullshit.

> You're standing by some railway tracks.
Contradiction. kthnxbye

>>3960212
y u so mad

>>3960159
>you misunderstand utilitarianism. it aims to maximize the happiness/pleasure/personal preferences in a given population

Nope. Utilitarianism is the maximisation of "good", in terms of mood or otherwise. If it was about maximising happiness we could kill off all children and keep ourselves permanently high and that'd qualify as good. It doesn't.

Everyone also knows that their lives matter enough for people to be willing to kill to protect them even though they aren't known. It gives everyone an inherent worth.

If I live in a society where I'm at extremely low risk of injury but I know I'll be protected I feel <span class="math"> incredibly [/spoiler]safer than one in which people are willing to walk past knowing I will die with certainty and not act, thinking they're doing the right thing. The thought that this is the case disturbs me far more than any thought experiment on utilitarianism, and would disturb everyone were they to think about it enough in my opinion. What you're saying is "If people cared more about me, I'd be worse off because they'd care more about other people too and that's bad".There's a *lower* risk you'd die in any situation like this, a *lower* chance you'd be the victim of someone else's error.
>>3960165
No it isn't. Good samaritan laws, I linked to them further up, are an example of this. I do not want to live in a society where I am a victim of your apathy and self centred existence.

>>3960183
Check the medical definition. You can still be a child sex abuser, but not a paedophile. In essence it's just an attempt to make sure nobody under 22 is branded a paedophile for life for having a relationship with someone they could've been in one with legally before they were >AoC
>>3960186
It is science.
>>3960193
OP is always a faggot. Care to bring up a point?

>>3960223
http://www.rps.psu.edu/indepth/brainscans2.html

>>3960212

>curing cancer is less scientific than pondering imaginary scenarios

Enjoy your liberal arts degree.

>>3960223
Sorry, I can't actually find citation. Only the study showing that psychopaths were more likely to do it.

>>3960233
>Good samaritan laws, I linked to them further up, are an example of this.

And I told you I couldn't care less about the laws. Inaction is always the best choice.

>>3960233
cool lack of support for the sociopath interpretation

>>3960243
Then you're not a member of any society I'd like to be in. If nothing else, you have a moral obligation.

>>3960250
I'm pretty sure I'm allowed a point of view, actually.

>>3960251
>If nothing else, you have a moral obligation.

Nope, because morally I can't be blamed for something I did not do. Your system of morals is shit.

>>3960233
read practical ethics by peter singer.
your superficial understanding of utilitarianism annoys me.

>>3960259
You really don't understand this social contract thing.

If you act, you kill one and save 5. If you do not act, you save one and kill 5. Your inaction is responsible for four deaths that wouldn't otherwise occur. Therefore, to society, you have just through apathy killed 4 people.

OK, modification of the problem just for you: Let's say you're responsible, directly, for the out of control trolley heading down the tracks. You got up ahead to try and stop it, and this is your dilemna.

>>3960251
you have a right to your own opinion. not to your own facts.

when you are pulling shit out of your ass, expect to be called out on it. and seriously, that post was pure shit.

>>3960269
>pure shit
>everything true or opinion except for a single misremembered statistic

sure, whatever you say.

>>3960265
>Your inaction is responsible
>inaction
>responsible

Nope.

>Let's say you're responsible, directly, for the out of control trolley heading down the tracks.

And how exactly would I be responsible for it?

>>3960265
inaction cannot be a grounds blame.

at any given time you are inactive in regards to a million things. you could be sending food to africa. you arent. so you are to blame for the death of every individual you could have helped survive? even if you are sleeping, eating, tending to your basic needs you are inactive on helping others.

this conception of inactivity creates fault is too strong, makes everyone guilty of everything and invalidates the concept of being to blame.

>>3960279

Again, social contract. Whether you like it or not, you have obligations and limited rights, and always will. Morally as well as socially you're obliged to help.


You decided it would be interesting to see how fast the thing would roll if you removed the brakes. This is besides the point.

>>3960283
I think we're deviating from the actual question here, which is understandable. What if you're responsible for the trolley being out of control, directly?

And I'm partially to blame for not helping others on a planetary scale, yes. I have an obligation, as a voluntary member of the human race on this planet, to help others. I try to, within my means, and I realise that the lack of help I offer is unethical and something I can be blamed for.

I'm not the only person who could help, no. I'm also one of the people others look to when they say "meh, they could help instead". The bystander effect is a bitch, I try to counter it when I can.

>even if you are sleeping, eating, tending to your basic needs you are inactive on helping others.

Yeah, and were I not in a society, I wouldn't have any social obligation to help others. I am, through choice, though. I opted in, effectively, to a group where I'm helped by others and legally required to (through taxes) help others, and as a result I am responsible for injury caused by inaction on a personal level.

>>3960296
>Morally as well as socially you're obliged to help.

So you are implying that by merely being surrounded by people I should change my morals? Nope. Fuck that.

>You decided it would be interesting to see how fast the thing would roll if you removed the brakes.

That's retarded, and I wouldn't have done that in the first place.

> This is besides the point.

No, it's not.

adf

>>3960302
Yeah, I am. Let's not.

>That's retarded, and I wouldn't have done that in the first place.

Do you realise what you're doing? You're actually avoiding the question in whatever way you can to get out of providing a decent answer, which is a pretty standard response.

You <span class="math">are[/spoiler] responsible, in this scenario, and you have to deal with the result. It doesn't matter how you got into this place, you did, and now you have to find your way out. Answering "Well I'd never put myself in that place" is not answering the question, it's making a (poor) excuse for not doing so.

>>3960296
if you loosened the breaks yourself you have the choice between being responsible for the death of 1 person or 4. you might want to pick the one.
the problem though is that the intention of loosening the breaks was curiosity and the resulting deaths would be an accident. you pushing the fat guy would be murder as your intention is to kill him to save others.
so unless you are intentionally loosening the brakes to kill the 4 workers, you are not responsible for their deaths but only for accidental killing. if you wanted to kill the workers, the question of pushing the fat guy or not is absurd.

and no, you are not required to help in a society if you have to do something immoral to do so. your reasoning is flawed. you should really read into the matter if you are interested.

>>3960312
You are an idiot for failing to realise that you can't abstract a situation from it's surroundings.

I would never be in such a situation because my morality prevents me from ever accepting any position where I am responsible for anything, and even if I somehow were forced into it, I wouldn't do idiotic actions that would result in me being blamed.

the real correct answer for the first one is that you pull the lever HALF WAY thereby derailing the train.

>>3960317
>>3960317
1 or 5*. One scenario has you kill four more people than the other.


You keep telling me to read into it without actually responding to my arguments. If your intention was to piss me off,you'd be going in the right direction.

>>3960328
Again, you're avoiding the problem. I don't have anything to say to you other than that you're being dishonest with yourself by trying to pretend something entirely possible is not. Do you honestly believe you will never make a mistake?

>>3960378
If I run the risk of making a mistake with actual consequences, I simply choose not to act. This is why your premise is idiotic.

>>3960382
You're being absurd to try and avoid looking at the problem and testing your moral system. Like I said, you appear to believe you will never make a mistake.

>>3960395
by trying to*

>this thread

>>3960395
Since you seem unable to understand how it would be impossible for me to make any mistake that carries consequences, I'll entertain you.

I would still do nothing, because inaction is still the best choice, in any fucking situation.

Are you happy now?

>>3960412
>EK trip

I remember when I told people how to use tripcode explorer to piss of EK. Oh, those were the days.

>>3960417
You've fired a nuclear missile that will kill you and everyone you know unless you press a button in front of you. Do you press it?

If you answer yes, you are a liar. If you answer no, you are a fool.

>>3960412
oh wow fukken saved

>>3960424
See? You're a fucking moron. An absolute fucking moron.

>You've fired a nuclear missile
>You've fired

This implies ACTION.

Objective morality exists.
Killing is principally wrong.
Therefore we shouldn't pull the level or push the fat man.

Utilitarianism is "correct".
Pulling the level will kill one and save five.
Pushing the man will kill one and save five.
If one would pull the lever, one should (almost always) also vote for pushing the fat man too. If not, then not.

Utilitarian idea is more complex, though... to make a proper evaluation, we'd need to know absolutely everything about the situation i.e. everything about the workers, the fat man, ourselves and any observers. Basically we'd need to actually know the consequences, which we never will.


I think people agree with pulling the lever but disagree with pushing the fat man simply because being more directly involved in killing seems, at first and to the "normal" person with little understanding of moral philosophy, to be more wrong than being less directly involved.


While Philosophy is science, moral philosophy isn't... I won't sage though, "experiment" sounds scientific and this is most certainly a thought experiment.

>>3960437
You're being retarded. You've acted by typing on your keyboard, you've acted by breathing, you're acting by reading this. You commit to positive action all the fucking time. Deal with it, grow up, and respond to OP

>>3960442
Utilitarianism is bankrupt because it requires a level of understanding we don't have, and measurement tools that don't exist.

>>3960417
>I would still do nothing, because inaction is still the best choice, in any fucking situation.
I bend over backwards sometimes to be polite to other posters when they are being stupid, but you are an idiot.

>>3960020

>Most people will answer "pull the lever" which is the correct response from a utilitarian point of view.

Thats extremely incorrect.
The inquiry is incomplete and loaded.
You havent any knowledge of those people.
Hence it is arbitrary which action you choose.
For all you know, those 5 people could all be Terrorists that intend to release a lethal virus and kill Thousands of people.

>>3960328
>not understanding thought experiments

It's like removing extraneous variables in a "regular" experiment, and it's necessary to tackle the real issue.

>>3960437
I don't see much reason to continue with this. Bye.
>>3960442
>Utilitarian idea is more complex, though... to make a proper evaluation, we'd need to know absolutely everything about the situation

Actually, the opposite is true. Utilitarianism provides a way to make judgements able to help society as a whole without any knowledge of individuals' traits.

This thread was actually supposed to be about whether psychopaths and sociopaths were better members of society, which would fall staunchly in sociology/psychology. It didn't really go in that direction though, so I suppose it depends on how you see logic and whether it deserves to be here.

>>3960449
However, inability to meet a standard of morality does not mean that said standard of morality is "wrong".

>>3960463
> Utilitarianism provides a way to make judgements able to help society as a whole without any knowledge of individuals' traits.
...wat

Are we just making shit up now?

>Utilitarianism provides a way to make judgements able to help society as a whole without any knowledge of individuals' traits.

What? Surely ro know what would increase overall utility we would need to know the consequences of killing and not killing these individual people - consequences that would necessarily depend upon their traits/properties..

>>3960467
The knowledge problem means we can't meet the standard. The measurement problem means there isn't even a standard.

Utilitarianism is empty.

>>3960458
For all I know the one person on the bridge might be, too. Unsurprisingly I'm going with the assumption that life is better than non life for people,

>>3960469

The correct utilitarian response can be supplimented with knowledge about those in the situation, but doesn't require it. Moral judgements don't have to be an exact, absolute science, and utilitarianism can still be used to make snap decisions with nothing more than the knowledge of the number of affected parties and the scale of potential actions against them.


>>3960473
Do you have an alternative?

The scientific methods means we can't meet the standard. The measurement problem means there isn't even a standard.

Gravity is empty.

>>3960020

So tired of the trolley problem.

It's not even an interesting philosophical query.

The real answer is that we stand aside as bystanders and don't do shit, let alone affirmatively decide to involve ourselves by pulling a lever.

>>3960487
Relevant name.

What if you're responsible for the trolley rolling and didn't intend to be?

Like, if you wrongly estimated the ability of the carriage's brakes and as a consequence it rolled after you parked it, consequently putting you in your situation?

The best argument for NOT pushing the man in the second example is the obvious unknown that the train MIGHT have functioning brakes and perhaps our assessment of the danger for the 5 workmen was wrong.

Switching to the track with the 1 person might still give the train time to use it's brakes, so that it also the correct decision.

>>3960481
> The scientific methods means we can't meet the standard. The measurement problem means there isn't even a standard.
That doesn't even make sense. We can meet the standard of the scientific method. And we do indeed make measurements in science.

When you can explain how to measure people's happiness so that you can apply your theory on happiness maximization, utilitarianism *may* be acceptable. Until then it is just hot air.

>>3960500

>>3960500
We cant meet the standard of having objective evidence gravity exists, and we can't measure adherence to the standard because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.

Maximising happiness is not the same as utilitarianism. Maximising good is utilitarianism. If I wanted happiness for everyone, like I said, I'd be putting dopamine in water supplies and heroin in flu jabs.

>inaction kills 5 people
Nope. the trolley already killed them. They just wont know it for a few more seconds. Or more specifically the 5 peoples lack of attention killed them. In no way should the worker, a man whose duties include working on the track, be sacrificed to save trespassers. Especially if the worker is on a downed line.

As for the second case. The fat sitting man has done no wrong. But the 5 workers standing on active rail, are not doing their job as workers, or paying attention to health hazards as is their job as humans

>>3960491

The construction of the question assumes that people will make this decision. They won't involve themselves in reality.

They stand aside. It happens all the time.

Secondly, I dislike the construction of the second part of the question. People have an inate "monkey physics" that they are loath to drop even when instructed to.

They will doubt the efficacy of the pushed person even if you tell them that it will work with 100% certainty. Why? Most people are dumb.

We can do a lot better for a utilitarian thought experiment.

>>3960507
> We cant meet the standard of having objective evidence gravity exists
So not only do you not understand utilitarianism, you don't understand science.

What board are you from?

>>3960514

Monkey physics...like the fact that, in the heat of the moment when a quick reaction is necessary, a person will sooner crash their car than drop their cheeseburger on their pants?

A real utilitarian thought experiment would look like this:

There is a healthy waitress who turns out to have organs that match 5 desperately ill cancer researchers. If they get a transplant, they will recover fully and live long lives where they will unlock many key advances toward curing cancer.

Is it permissible to murder this woman for her organs saving the five and possibly millions more?

>>3960511
>Nope. the trolley already killed them. They just wont know it for a few more seconds. Or more specifically the 5 peoples lack of attention killed them. In no way should the worker, a man whose duties include working on the track, be sacrificed to save trespassers. Especially if the worker is on a downed line.

A car stuck in on a crossing containing 5 civilians who cannot get out for whatever reason.

You're actually saying that in the first case, you would stand by? I'm kinda taken aback by that, we've talked before and you haven't struck me as the kind of person who would do that.

Assume both tracks are active. I mean, if the lever's in place then they must be. Also, nobody ever goes to work on an active track, the workers on the one the train will continue down from inaction are no more to blame than the single worker on the other track.

>>3960507

>We cant meet the standard of having objective evidence gravity exists, and we can't measure adherence to the standard because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.

>because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.

Then by your own argument, you contradict yourself as your senses with which you accumulated the knowledge needed to support Utilitarianism are too unreliable, hence your knowledge is unreliable, hence your support for Utilitarianism is unreliable, hence Utilitarianism that was develop by humans who have unreliable senses is also invalid.
You have just defeated yourself.

But the man does not have sufficiant mass to stop the train. I used to fuck with trains all the time. I put all kinds of junk on the tracks, steel girders, stolen cars, all sort've shit. One time I even took every picnic table from a nearby pub and put them end to end along with a bunch of metal barrels on tracks in town near the trainyard where trains are not even going at a fast speed and it turned the tables into splinters as far as I could tell. I couldnt even FIND the barrels.

And whatever, fuck all of those workers, have you ever stood on tracks when a train is near? If they dont notice its coming, they are too stupid to live. I'm not getting peged for murder just because some dumbfucks are too dense...how is this even possible? Even when falling down drunk I could always tell when a train was coming before I could even see it, let alone having one actually get that close to me without me noticing...this is a really stupid scenario.

>>3960514
You didn't respond personally :D

>>3960520
Give me some objective evidence of anything, or get the fuck out of my science board and learn what the scientific method is.

>>3960523
It is, yes.

>>3960530
>Nothing objective exists so nothing can be known to exist

You can also GTFO my science board. Seriously, people?
>>3960533
In the problem you know with absolute certainty that he does. You're avoiding the question.

It's not supposed to be totally realistic, if it was then there'd be no out of control trolley and there'd be no workers on a line that was in service and there'd be no manual level that could be used to change the train's direction and there'd be no bridge you could just push a guy off over the line. The problem itself is what's important.

>>3960538

>We cant meet the standard of having objective evidence gravity exists, and we can't measure adherence to the standard because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.

>because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.
>Nothing objective exists so nothing can be known to exist

This is a Science board and you are unwelcome here.
Your /x/ is that way >>>

>>3960547
Show me objective evidence, admit that I don't need it, or get the fuck off of my science board. It's not difficult, by any stretch of the imagination.

>>3960538

>It is, yes.
Except now you are living in a society where you may be arbitrarily picked up off the street and murdered for the use of your body parts. That will likely raise anxiety levels society-wide.

This is why utilitarianism fails. There is too much uncertainty about secondary effects, you can't really make accurate calculations society-wide.

Personal autonomy is more valuable than millions of cancer patients lives.

As for the troll problem, the answer is that I would pull the lever as the trolley went over the turn, derailing it and killing all 6.

>>3960538
> Give me some objective evidence of anything, or get the fuck out of my science board and learn what the scientific method is.
Wow, you're failing so hard I'm actually kind of embarrassed for you. But like your op, the train wreck is kind of cool to watch.

Protip: the scientific METHOD doesn't require demonstrations of objectivity to operate. Hint; method. METHOD.

>>3960526 car stopped on track
Illegal. They are at fault.

As for me being heartless. This is a mental exercise with no basis in reality. I can afford to be logical.


Also if it isnt an active track why are there moving trains on it?

>>3960552
>Except now you are living in a society where you may be arbitrarily picked up off the street and murdered for the use of your body parts. That will likely raise anxiety levels society-wide.

At the moment I live in one where 5 of the most important people in the world, who will in turn save many thousands of lives, will die for the sake of one person who is essentially of little worth to society. This worries me more than the idea that people are willing to make utilitarian decisions that disadvantage me.

Remember that the only situations in which this kind of thing would be allowed are ones in which it has a blatant benefit, and ones in which inaction has worse effects for society and for most individuals.

>>3960550

>Show me objective evidence

L2 Scientific Burden of Evidence

>evidence I don't need it

L2 Scientific Method

>stretch of the imagination

Take your Bible and imagined God, shove them up your ass, and fuck off /Sci/ you crazy creationist.

>>3960554
>He thinks I don't understand science because I pointed out he didn't understand science

Lawdeh me.

>>3960557
They were forced onto the track by a natural disaster, that pushed rocks in front of and behind the car. The doors locked through a design fault that can be traced back to a copy error in a korean work shop, the error was made due to a machine malfunctioning, the machine malfunctioned due to a quantum fluctuation.

>>3960569
I know you don't understand science, or utilitarianism, or what it means to have a standard, or what measurement is. You've revealed all that plainly in this thread.

>>3960560
>Remember that the only situations in which this kind of thing would be allowed are ones in which it has a blatant benefit, and ones in which inaction has worse effects for society and for most individuals.

Pure collegiate bull-session bullshit. If you have ever practiced law or administered anything, you know that even 'simple' rules have so many marginal cases that it quickly becomes impossible to distinguish.

>>3960569

>Lawdeh me i was just pretending to be a retard

Fuck off.

>>3960568
There are more people on the track than there are on the bridge and we have no information about either other than their build. We assume our senses to be valid.
>>3960574
Cite that.

>>3960575
So they should be rejected?
>>3960584
Apparently pointing out flaws in your opponents arguments by using the same argument against them and getting them to refute it themselves makes me wrong. This is interesting.

>>3960589
> hurr happiness is just like gravity, I sure showed those faggots
You're dumb. At this point it is revealing itself to be the willful kind of ignorance, rather than the more understandable accidental kind.

Seriously, what board did you come from before you were posting on /sci/? I want to make sure I never go there.

>>3960598
My goal is good, not happiness. straw men everywhere.

And I'm not trying to prove to you that utilitarianism is right- there are several systems, utilitarianism is the default logical method of making non-zero sum moral decisions intended to do the most good possible.

>>3960437
I don't know why the other guy didnt ask you this, but:

Say there is a missile headed towards <populated city>. Through no action of your own, other than simply being aware of your surroundings, you know about this, and know that the button next to you will deactivate the missile. What do you do?

>>3960614
> my goal is good, not happiness
Oh, well then! I stand corrected. Utilitarianism is now obviously the most logical system ever and I was totally wrong to doubt your deep understanding of the issues of moral systems, their support, and their application.

>>3960628
Doubt it, don't be an unreasonable hypocritical penis about it.

>>3960614

>My goal is good

Define "Good"

>>3960639
Utilitarianism!

>>3960639
This is where it gets opinionated.

My definition of good is "contributory and not inhibitory to the evolution and proliferation of the human race". No circular bullshit.

>>3960651
Weeding out undesirables is good, then.

>>3960651
So you support evolution, so long as we're still humans? What?

>>3960651

>This is where it gets opinionated.
>My precious Utilitarianism is the default correct decision on opinionated subject

This is where you leave the discussion in utter embarrassment.

>>3960651

>inhibitory to the evolution

You dont know what Evolution is.

You are maintaining that "good" can be defined to begin with; this presupposition stems from my knowledge of your vague question. To understand the grounds of this debate, one must first admit that language as a mechanism that facilitates the exchange of interpretations is a fundamentally flawed system. Given that we cannot truly know the definition of any concept for that matter, to answer your question regarding the conception of "good" would be folly. Your interpretations of certain subject meaning mental registries is different to my own. Ever brain has its own unique neural network of interconnections. The structures of meaning that you have imposed upon your universe are separate from mine. Each man's mind is a metaphorical island, and our perceptions of reality are wholly our own. Can you know what is good?, That question seems redundant when we are given are more pressing issue, are the words that we exude worth anything?

Op, that isn't evidence for psychopathy. a psychopath would gain nothing by doing any action, and so would do no action. He might even enjoy watching 5 men get hit with a train if he were also a sadist.

You describe something more as a Machiavellian personality, which is distinct, but overlaps in places, with psychopaths.

I would pull the lever, and push the fat man. Anyone who makes a decision on how things will reflect on them is selfish. I would not be at fault for the train killing five, but i would be the savior of five if i acted. I would also be the murderer of one. IT is better for me to take the blame of the action, and in essence sacrifice myself to punishment and guilt, than to walk away from 5 deaths and think my hands are clean from blood.

It is selfish, always, to not act because of how things would reflect on you.

>>3960660
Letting environmental pressures decide what is and isn't inhibitory is natural selection, not applying artificial pressures.

>>3960662
Humans go back a long way, and I'm fairly sure we're going to be homo sapiens until our method of defining animals in discrete categories changes. Humans and their evolutionary successors, if you will, are what I'm interested in the proliferations of.

>>3960663
I don't understand why you're quite so mad. Utilitarianism is the default, "good" has no default definition AFAIK.
>>3960666
Yes I do. Nice trips.

>>3960673
And this is the logic for solipsism. I have no explicit refutation of it, I just assume it to be untrue because it's a dead end. Sorry.

>>3960675
>Op, that isn't evidence for psychopathy. a psychopath would gain nothing by doing any action, and so would do no action. He might even enjoy watching 5 men get hit with a train if he were also a sadist.

Evidence would suggest otherwise. http://www.rps.psu.edu/indepth/brainscans2.html
I also question the idea that psychopaths mustn't care about society. One obviously benefits from there being one, after all.

> It is selfish, always, to not act because of how things would reflect on you.

rAmen

>>3960694
>randomness leads to better results than control

fullretard.jpg

>>3960704
Do you even know what natural selection is? It sounds like you don't.

This thread is fucking embarrassing. OP should feel bad.

>>3960694

Psychopaths benefit from society the way that a dog benefits from a food bowl. As long as something is gained from something, it is useful.to him/her there is nothing lost by letting the train hit people, it will not effect his life on a societal scale. If the train where going to run into his only source of money, then yes he would act.

>>3960694

>I don't understand why you're quite so mad.

Thats just your immature/infantile defense mechanism that renders you to think so.

>Utilitarianism is the default, "good" has no default definition AFAIK.

Incorrect.

>utilitarianism is the default logical method of making non-zero sum moral decisions intended to do the most good possible.

>utilitarianism is the default logical method intended to do the most good possible.

>"good" has no default definition

Picture related:

>>3960711
>OP has sociopathic tendencies
>OP should feel bad

Does not compute.

>>3960713
Inaction leads to damage to society, leading to punishment for the inaction and/or a less efficient society. No, the effects wouldn't be major, but if all trains on the line stop for a week so enquiries can be held into how it happened, and there's a shortage of engineers for the next 6 months, then there'll be a noticeable economic effect from reduced business, etc.

Also, a lot of people will adopt an ideological stance like utilitarianism, to give them a stand in for an emotional moral system.

>>3960719
Still quite mad, still not providing anything I can even provide evidence against.

>UR AN IDIOT

Quite right, I see the error of my ways.

>>3960759

If a sociopath were to make decisions based on how the trains would run after he pulled/left the lever, then he is making an entirely separate decision than the one at hand, of trading fewer lives for more lives. Killing five people to make more engineering jobs, avoid an investigation (that would actually happen either way), or making the trains run on time is about as selfish as it gets.

This was a question of a sociopath making a decision to save lives, which does not follow the rationality of a sociopath. He wouldn't care about either people, nor the morality of the decision, just the effect of the level in how it effects him. The fact that you care about the morality of the action points to you not being a sociopath.

>>3960569
Well obviously the lever needs to be pulled to move the train off of this perilous track, thereby saving an unknown amount of lives from an unfortunate derailing accident.

The dead worker would understand, we are required to ensure customer safety.

>>3960759
> sociopathic tendencies
What sociopathic tendencies? The ones you just asserted with "apparently" modifying your assertion? The ones your own citation didn't support?

You're just acting retarded and willfully ignorant. While problematic, it can be corrected by not being such a stubborn fucking ignoramus.

Would I get in trouble for pushing the man onto the tracks?

>>3960784
> Killing five people to make more engineering jobs, avoid an investigation (that would actually happen either way), or making the trains run on time is about as selfish as it gets.

Do one thing that I can't contribute to your purely selfish reasons. A single thing.

<span class="math"> everything~ever [/spoiler] is done for selfish reasons. The sociopath is taking more into account, like the well-being of others, and he does that because the well being of others helps his well being. You and I do the same, as did Ghandi, as did Stalin, as did Carl Sagan.

>This was a question of a sociopath making a decision to save lives, which does not follow the rationality of a sociopath.

Why? Why must a sociopath not care about saving lives?

>He wouldn't care about either people, nor the morality of the decision, just the effect of the level in how it effects him.

Again, I ask you to find one case in which this isn't true.

>The fact that you care about the morality of the action points to you not being a sociopath.

Sociopath doesn't mean amoral.

>>3960791
Ok, now what about the bridge one?

>>3960792
I supported it, and I withdrew the statistic. IIRC I got it from a lecture from some guy at the IAA conference in 2009, but I can't provide much more in terms of citation.

>>3960805
Probably, as you wouldn't be able to prove your actions would help. However, they definitely would and you would be aware of this at the time.

>>3960811

No, then I do not push the man onto the tracks. 5 Idiots who don't notice a train coming deserve to die.

>>3960811
I already answered that one. Fatty did nothing wrong and engineers are stupid for working on a live track.

>push the man to cause commotion
>don't shout out instead

Also you're a sociopath because the act of pushing activates neural pathways independent from the utilitarian approach. It's this antisocial behaviour that in the past led to the destruction of tribes (hypothetical). In this day and age I'd have to side with you however. I'd look to see if the five appeared to have more genetic worth than the lone person i.e tallness, charisma. Since they're manual laborers one can infer I probably wouldn't care all that much for their wellbeing anyway. I'd rather the problem involved family members.

>>3960814
It's not their responsibility to look out for the train, they've been told the line is clear. You do not know who told them

Also, what the fuck? You'd seriously let 5 people die here? The guy who is on a bridge in such a way that he can be pushed off onto railroad tracks is an idiot.

>>3960826
The track isn't supposed to be live, it's live because of a signal error that's because a squirrel jumped onto the tower and got caught in the mechanism. The tower mechanism was flawed because of a slightly different korean machine that's entire assembly entered a wave state for a fraction of a second and didn't print the cover that was supposed to protect it.

>>3960830

>It's not their responsibility to look out for the train, they've been told the line is clear You do not know who told them
>It's not their responsibility to look out for the pool of lava, they've been told the hot lava wont kill them You do not know who told them

You are extremely incorrect.
They have responsibility for their health and life beyond all else.

>>3960837
So you look out for lava all the time? Is there any behind you now? or now? or now?

If you've been explicitly told "There will be no lava because you need to be there" and there's lava, it's not your fault.

>>3960811
You need to look up just what a sociopath is. What you are refering to, is being purely pragmatic about everything. That=/= sociopath.

The old "humans are purely selfish, cause when they aren't its to feel good" is an old, and foolish, argument.

People can either be altruistic, or not. they have either decided the best course of action is to help others before themselves, or themselves before others. Sympathy is an emotional indicator to someone who believes the first point of view, and guilt is the feeling one gets when he betrays that point of view. The very fact that they have good feelings for helping others, and not having good feelings when they don't is what makes them moral.

>>3960830
fatty still did nothing wrong

>>3960848

>You need to look up just what a sociopath is. What you are refering to, is being purely pragmatic about everything. That=/= sociopath.

Agreed, but it's a trait of sociopathy. I'm not saying "all utilitarians have ASPD" or anything like that, but there's strong correlation as indicated by the link earlier ITT.

>The old "humans are purely selfish, cause when they aren't its to feel good" is an old, and foolish, argument.

No, it's completely valid. Every action a human makes is because it benefits them either directly or indirectly.

>The very fact that they have good feelings for helping others, and not having good feelings when they don't is what makes them moral.

It means they have an emotional understanding of morality, sure. It isn't the same as having morals though, or following ethical rules. For example I can tell you that shooting people is bad without feeling any sympathy for people who get shot. Is it a moral judgement? yes. Is is emotionally based? Nope.

>>3960851
Neither did the crew. You're letting 5 innocent people die because you want to save one innocent person through your decision.

>>3960845

>So you look out for lava all the time?

When i am bout to leap into a pool, i certainly do always check what is in it.
Failure to do so, renders you deserving of any harm that may happen to you for being reckless.
The same applies when you play on the street or stand on rail tracks.

>>3960851
and neither did the five men on the track. Stop imagining variables to the problem to avoid the actual situation at hand.

We have something which is no ones fault about to kill either five innocents, or 1 innocent. The default is killing five, or killing one instead of you choose. by choosing to kill one you take responsibility for killing one and saving five, by not choosing you avoid responsibility by shifting it to the train which kills five.

Now, lets hear no more about why they are there, or why the train is let loose, and who is deserving to die. that is all speculation and the problem at hand is save five by decision, and kill on, or save one and kill five by opting out of said decision.

>>3960871
>When i am bout to leap into a pool, i certainly do always check what is in it.

Right. If the lifeguard said "The pool's safe" and it turned out there was a man 'o' war hiding under a lilo then you wouldn't be to blame.

>Failure to do so, renders you deserving of any harm that may happen to you for being reckless.

Trusting trusted people is reckless?

>>3960864 save
I am saving no one. My inaction does not do that.

Hell the fat guy could be tothering on the edge, with a certainty to fall moments to late, and I would still not push him.

>>3960875

If it all boils down to a decision to kill 1 or to kill 5, you still do have one choice left. Push the fatty or just throw yourself on the tracks. Either way only 1 dies instead of 5.

>>3960879
see
>>3960875

I like it when people say what I'm thinking better than I do.

>I am saving no one. My inaction does not do that.

How?

>>3960882
re-read it. You're not heavy enough.

>>3960875

There is no predicament nor correct action in that scenario.
Those individuals are people, and people have influence on daily our life whether it is direct or indirect.
You cannot discount the factor of influence.
You dont know what kind of influence any of them may have on you since you dont know the individuals as is already stated in this scenario.
Hence it is arbitrary.

>>3960891
Avoiding the problem, still.

You're actually saying that the value of the life of anyone you don't know, regardless of their traits, is 0. You're quite literally saying that people you know nothing about have no value to you.

If i do a bad action, i feel bad. that is morality.
If i do a good action, i feel good. that is morality.
Morality is liked to emotions, you can't separate them.
If i steal a car, i feel bad. there is nothing biological in me that says taking cars is bad, it is all mental. Disregarding my own views on right and wrong results in negative feelings.
If i did not believe stealing a car was wrong, i would not feel bad. That would make me illogical, not immoral. Why can't i understand stealing a car is wrong?

If i did not feel bad about shooting someone in the head, but believed it was 'wrong',what does that actually mean? What makes shooting someone in the head wrong? For me, it is the idea that a humans life is ended, and that is terrible to imagine. i want to avoid that situation. if i fail to do that, it results in negative emotions.

Morality is acting in harmony with personal belief. A sociopath is either a person with a brain unable to understand sympathy, or a person who does not understand why things are evil.

>>3960897

>Avoiding the problem, still.

Incorrect.

>You're actually saying that the value of the life of anyone you don't know, regardless of their traits, is 0

Straw-Man Fallacy

Thats a blatant distortion of what i wrote.

This is what i wrote:

>Those individuals are people, and people have influence on daily our life whether it is direct or indirect.
>You cannot discount the factor of influence.

If any, you are the one that arbitrarily chooses who's life value is 0.

>You're quite literally saying that people you know nothing about have no value to you.

Straw-Man Fallacy

Are you even trying anymore?

And:
>you know nothing about have no value to you.

Thats exactly what you do with your arbitrary choice, you diminish the value of those people by arbitrarily ascribing lower value and by killing them.

>>3960941
>Incorrect.

Would you or wouldn't you?

>Those individuals are people, and people have influence on daily our life whether it is direct or indirect.
>You cannot discount the factor of influence.

I have no idea what you even mean, it sounds like you're saying "all people will affect us" in which case yes, and implying "therefore they all don't matter unless we can work out their individual worths" which is brainfucking.

>Straw-Man Fallacy
You know, when you say this and you don't say why all it does is confirm for me that you're more interested in winning than in having an dialetic discussion.

>Thats exactly what you do with your arbitrary choice, you diminish the value of those people by arbitrarily ascribing lower value and by killing them.

I give people a positive value, so 5 people are worth 5 times what one person is worth. You say the decision's arbitrary and that without sufficient data 5 people and 1 person are worth the same, and for that to be true you must give them a value of 0.

>>3960941

I will further expand on these statements:

>Those individuals are people, and people have influence on daily our life whether it is direct or indirect.
>You cannot discount the factor of influence.
>Thats exactly what you do with your arbitrary choice, you diminish the value of those people by arbitrarily ascribing lower value and by killing them.

To further explicate why that Train Scenario is loaded, is that it beckons you to judge the life and value of people not based on their influence to society but rather how many people there are around them.
Its a ludicrous inquiry.

>>3960830

why would i risk getting myself in trouble?

>>3960988
Problem still avoided. This is a possible scenario, as you're well aware. You can't say "nope wouldn't happen" when it blatantly could, and you could end up making the exact same judgement in the exact same terms.

You're allowed to assign value to the other people, sure. You just don't get to fabricate information artificially when you wouldn't be able to in reality. like their value to society beyond what you can see at the surface. The workers maintain transport systems, the fat guy has free time. That's all you can derive

>>3961004
Because you'd save lives by doing so.

>>3961009

sorry, all 5 of these men could be rapists or something. why would i risk my own well being to save people i don't know?

>>3960885

I meant to link 75, missclicked. Same point though.

>>3961017
So could the guy on the bridge, why would you let 5 people die so a rapist could live?

you have very little information about any of them other than that 5 of them are workmen and one of them is obese and sat on a bridge.

>>3961020

Same response then :D

>>3960960

>"therefore they all don't matter unless we can work out their individual worths"

Straw-Man Fallacy

The decision is arbitrary, their lives are not.

>You know, when you say this and you don't say why all it does is confirm for me that you're more interested in winning than in having an dialetic discussion.

And your Straw-Men confirm that you cant even participate in a discussion without twisting other peoples words and are more interested in winning rather than having a discussion.

>I give people a positive value, so 5 people are worth 5 times what one person is worth

You have just arbitrarily increased and decreased those peoples worth just because there is five of them.
They do not have the same value.

>You say the decision's arbitrary and that without sufficient data 5 people and 1 person are worth the same, and for that to be true you must give them a value of 0.

Straw-Man Fallacy again.

I never asserted that they have the same value nor that they have no value.
The decision is arbitrary until further information is acquired.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.

>>3961027

so i'll do nothing because then nothing happens to me.

>>3961027 same response
Now we are in a loop. I responded to you
Your response is for me to look at the post I responded to.
Which would just garner my same response
Which would just have you direct me to the same post
Etc

>>3961030
>And your Straw-Men confirm that you cant even participate in a discussion without twisting other peoples words and are more interested in winning rather than having a discussion.

>I CARE ENOUGH ABOUT WINNING TO TELL YOU YOU'RE WRONG BUT NOT ENOUGH TO TELL YOU WHY

Fuck that, give me reasons it's a straw man or clarify your point.

>I never asserted that they have the same value nor that they have no value.
The decision is arbitrary until further information is acquired.

What do you mean it's arbitrary? It doesn't matter whether you act or not?

>You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.

>Ask for clarification
>get told to read it again
>get told interpretation is wrong
>Ask for clarification

If you don't clarify, this discussion is over. I'm not willing to talk with contrary idiots.

>>3961035
So you'd be responsible for five deaths instead of one.

>>3961045
But you didn't respond to >>3960882.

>>3961009

>Problem still avoided.

There is no problem.

>This is a possible scenario, as you're well aware.

How does that prove that your position is correct?

>You can't say "nope wouldn't happen" when it blatantly could, and you could end up making the exact same judgement in the exact same terms.

Now you dont make any sense.
I never asserted that it wont ever happen.
You are blatantly using Straw-Man here.

>You're allowed to assign value to the other people, sure.

How does that prove that all people hold the same value as you asserted here?:
>I give people a positive value, so 5 people are worth 5 times what one person is worth

>You just don't get to fabricate information artificially when you wouldn't be able to in reality. like their value to society beyond what you can see at the surface.

Now you have contradicted yourself as that exactly what you just did.
>I give people a positive value, so 5 people are worth 5 times what one person is worth

You fabricated their value just because on the surface you saw that there is five of them.

>The workers maintain transport systems, the fat guy has free time That's all you can derive

And your derivation isnt really a derivation and is arbitrary.

>>3961063
You either act and kill one person or don't act and 5 people who wouldn't die if you acted die. Your problem is deciding whether you act or not.

>How does that prove that your position is correct?

Where did I say it did? You dismissed the problem, even though it's valid, and my response is to that.

>You are blatantly using Straw-Man here.

"There is no predicament"

>How does that prove that all people hold the same value as you asserted here?:

Straw man.

>Now you have contradicted yourself as that exactly what you just did.

Horrifically, I tend to assume that people have an undefined positive value. I know, it's absolutely nauseating.

>You fabricated their value just because on the surface you saw that there is five of them.

I asserted that 5 people have 5 times the value of 1 person, if we don't modify their values based on our knowledge of them.

>And your derivation isnt really a derivation and is arbitrary.

>You're wrong but I won't say why

You're wrong until you can give me a reason you're right. You never get to say "Well no" and leave it at that, though it seems to be what you're relying on at the moment.

>>3961050

>If you don't clarify, this discussion is over.

I have provided quotes and explanations for every fallacy of yours.
Your choice to avoid them proves that you are incompetent to defend your position that has no merit.
Also your avoidance of discussion proves that you are just intent to win, not to actually learn from it.

>I'm not willing to talk with contrary idiots.

Clarify what is exactly contrary.
And your resorts to insults after i exposed your views inconsistencies only prove how immaturely you try to salvage what is left from your shattered ego.

>>3961085
I'll take that as a "The discussion is over". You clarify and we can talk.

Wait, are people actually supporting the first scenario, where you pull a level, as moral, while decrying the second, where you actually push the guy as immoral? They are both morally identical, the only difference is you don't use a tool in one, which is an emotional response.

And there are people saying inaction is better in every situation? Jesus crap. What is with this thread?

Also, because people are missing the point, the idea of utilitarianism is to make the best choice you can at the time, with the information provided to you, by calculating the expected utility of an action.

If all the people in the situation are random and you know nothing about them, then yes, it is simple arithmetic.

Lets say the guy you have to push is Einstein. Suddenly the balance of the equation changes. It's not all arbitrary, and you don't need to be omniscient either. It's the best decision, given the data you have at the time, and with the projected result you can perceive.

That's it.

>>3961095

explained it perfectly. doing nothing is the obvious choice in both situations.

>>3961083

>I asserted that 5 people have 5 times the value of 1 person, if we don't modify their values based on our knowledge of them.

Based on what evidence and proof is every human of same value to another?

>>3961091

>I'll take that as a "The discussion is over"

Yes, just leave the discussion with your tail between your legs.

>You clarify and we can talk.

Irony here is delicious.

Clarify what?

>>3961097

That's... not what I said at all.

I said it's situation dependant, and the answer to both is the same. In the case of random people, the answer is in both cases, kill one to save four.

Inaction is not an excuse, morally. Look at the bare-difference argument. Two identical people, both intend murder for personal gain.

The first kills a boy by drowning him in a bathtub.

The second goes to do so, but the boy trips, hits his head, and lands facedown in the water, drowning which 2 watches.

Both had the intent and the will to kill, 2 just got a lucky break. Morally, they are identical in terms of guilt. There is a reason attempted murder is still a crime, even if you fail.

>>3960020

It's a junction. Pull the lever halfway, watch the trolley do a glorious series of spins between the tracks. Collateral wipes out maybe a guy at best. Trolley's wrecked but you never said it was manned.

Also the utilitarian answer to these questions is to carry around a fucking bullhorn everywhere, hth

>>3961102

They aren't, because some people use skewed emotional reasoning to judge the value of humans they know nothing about but their appearance.

Lets give an example.

Same question, push fat guy, only the fat guy is now a women, and the 5 on the tracks are all Arab.

Same question, 5 on the tracks are attractive early 20's women, and the 1 is an angry bald man with a swastika t-shirt.

Same question, the 1 is a priest of your religion, the 5 are of a different faith.

The real-life version of the question is specific to the people involved, which is why it is by necessity vague in hypothetical.

>>3961109
What your point is, what your argument is, any of it. Start with why I made straw man arguments, move on to the general point.
>>3961102
Because making value judgements with no distinguishing information other than location is, in the politest terms possible, completely fucking retarded. There's not even a basis for you to discriminate on.

>>3961050

Well with 882 it says I could jump myself and save lives. I would go that route.
>>3961118 intent to kill
Bad example. In the train incident you do not need to intend to kill anyone shit happens and people die. It is better to let 5 people die than to cause the death of one. Unless some other duty requires different action.

>>3961148

>What your point is, what your argument is, any of it

Once you do that i will do so too.
As it is extremely apparent that you cant defend your argument and are desperately trying to cling to it by blatantly discounting all opposing arguments.

>>3961148

>Because making value judgements with no distinguishing information other than location is, in the politest terms possible, completely fucking retarded

What the fuck are you talking about?
Why do you even involve any locations into this?

Also you have exactly made a value judgement with no information other than a number which is extremely idiotic.

This is your statement.
>I asserted that 5 people have 5 times the value of 1 person, if we don't modify their values based on our knowledge of them.

And you are a fucktard.

>>3961160

It applies the exact same way if you have an "intent to preserve life" instead of "intent to kill". If you intend to preserve life, taking an action that preserves life is equally valid to preserving life through no action.

This was actually originally used as an argument for voluntary euthanasia, showing that "killing" by administering lethal drugs at a patients request and 'letting die' by withholding treatment and allowing the patient to a die a long, slow, often painful death, are morally identical so why the hell is the second legal and the first not when it causes MORE harm?

It's only applicable here in a limited manner, but I was mainly proving that inaction is not ALWAYS the best option.

>>3961160

Also, as a counterquestion, why is it morally superior to allow 5 to die than to cause the death of one? Assume all people are morally equal in this scenario.

>>3961188

Red Herring Fallacy

What works for your scenario doesnt work for the one that was previously discussed.

I wouldn't push him because I know I'd get into trouble for pushing him. Why put yourself at risk?

>>3961160
882 is incorrect
Assume you are responsible for the trolley being in motionless

>>3961195

I'm going to assume you linked the wrong post... If not, how is this not the exact scenario in the OP?

>>3961202

That changes the entire nature of the scenario.

>>3961188
>>3961182
Because I am not a god. I have no right to value life.

Eugenics doesnt count either. Because I am not judging life, simply acting toward the will of the patient .

And you cant argue "intent to save lives" by requiring an the end of a life

>>3961211

>Assume all people are morally equal in this scenario.
>If not, how is this not the exact scenario in the OP?

Why wont you first explain why it is exact?

>I'm going to assume you linked the wrong post

Well if you will just discount everyone then you dont need any discussion here.

I'd pull the lever half way so the trolley derails.

As for the second problem. I'd throw a nearby bench or bin onto the track.

>>3961188

I side with you on this, like i said before, it comes down to guilt. anyone can stand by and say "not my fault", but to actually take blood on your hands takes courage.

People that say "id stand by, because i can't be blamed" are cowards, pure and simple.

>>3961232

>I'd throw a nearby bench or bin onto the track.

Why do you assume that there is any bench or bin if it isnt mentioned in the Op?

>>3961241
Why do you assume that there isn't a bench or bin if it isn't mentioned in the Op?

>>3961245

I dont.
But your solution excludes the possibility that there isnt any bench or a bin.

>>3961228

Oh no, I meant my wrong post, as in the post one above it which actually had an argument in it. I thought you had meant to link to that one. I wasn't trying to say I'm immune to criticism, by any means.

When I read the OP scenario, I understood it to be representative of 5 random people, and 1 random person. They all have the same moral significance if I do not know anything else about them. If I apply moral significance to them because of appearance without knowing anything substantively, I an including emotional bias in my logical reasoning. That's a nono.

Which is the same as my proposed scenario, I was just explaining it blatantly since some people do not agree that all people are baseline equal if you know nothing about them.

>>3961220

>And you cant argue "intent to save lives" by requiring an the end of a life

Sure you can. Lets make it a bit larger.

Would you go back in time and kill Hitler to prevent the Holocaust? Assume there were no major temporal hurdles, it was a simple trade, one life for 6 million+.

You intend to save lives. Doing this requires taking a life. This is basically the foundation of the idea to 'protect'. Protecting one person, saving them, often requires harming or killing the one threatening them.

If the Holocaust scenario is too heavy handed, take a standard Hostage scenario. Is it morally justified to snipe the armed hostage taker to prevent him from killing 5 unarmed women he took hostage?

If you have a different answer to any of the above than to the train scenario, you are valuing life.

>read OP's subject: Trolley problem
>see thread
>see butthurt

more like Troll problem

>>3960442
>While Philosophy is science
>Philosophy is science
>whatthefuckamIreading.avi

>>3961259

>They all have the same moral significance if I do not know anything else about them.

Now this is what i want you to prove and provide evidence for, because you assert it with certainty as if it is always true, or true at all.

>If I apply moral significance to them because of appearance without knowing anything substantively, I an including emotional bias in my logical reasoning That's a nono

Even if you assume that they are all of equal worth then:
But its also a "Nono" to consider all their worth as different just based on the "appearance" of their company.
Just because 1 individual doesnt have the "appearance" of additional 4 people around him, doesnt mean that you should diminish the worth of his life.

>>3961163
>You give an answer
I refute it.
>You tell me I was wrong and don't say why.
I ask you why.
>You tell me to clarify.
I clarify.
>You tell me to do something you haven't asked me to do at any point you should've
Answer the fucking question, You've not brought this up at ANY POINT before, you're just being deliberately difficult because you're too pathetically incapable to provide a simple backup for your "NOPE"s. I'm not even going to pretend you deserve politeness any more, you've bullshitted enough for one thread.
>>3961176
>Why do you even involve any locations into this?
Because it's information you have.
>Also you have exactly made a value judgement with no information other than a number which is extremely idiotic.
You seem to think that people have no worth by merit of their being people. And be incapable of telling me why this isn't the case when you think the worth of 5 people is the same as that of 1 (or rather, that if we have no value altering information that this is the case). I don't think this is necessarily deliberate avoidance of the problem, but it's irrational and you need to clarify or stop it.
>>3961211
Agreed, it's a modification specifically for people who wouldn't push the guy.
>>3961245
OP here, there's no bench or bin. The only object other than you is the fat guy

>>3961284

Why do you assume that a persons life is more important if 4 people happen to be next to him?

>>3961303
>because there are 5 of them

pull the level
regards to pushing th guy, nope, if the sound from pushing him in is enough to warm them, I can shout to them.

>>3961308

Why do you assume that a persons life is worth more if with x additional people, there are 1+x people in total in one location?
You do realize that people arent number, and that this isnt a mathematical question?

>>3961308

>Dat Autism

>>3961327
I assume that the worth of 1 person is x, and that the worth of 5 people is 5x. If 5x=x, x=0, so you're saying people are worthless
If my goal is utilitarian, x!<=0 and 5x=5(x)

>>3961308
Which mean the 5 people group has a bigger chance of having a terrorist, a rapist, etc.

>>3961345
that doesn't imply people are worthless, just imply that people have different level of worth

>>3961345

No you Autistic idiot, what i assert is that you cant apply mathematics to the inquiry of morality and worth of people, that worth of people isnt the same, and that you are infinitely autistic.

Or in your language:

5 People=1x+1y+1z+1p+1q
1 Person=1n

>>3961282

You're right, And none of what you said invalidates my point. It's not the "appearance" of 4 people around him that's the issue, it's the danger and threat to life that's the issue. Threat to 1 life versus threat to five lives.

As to the equality argument, that's an easy one.

Take a person you don't know to be a random subset of the population, they have an equal chance to be a charitable doctor on their way home from work, a secret serial killer, a corrupt politician, higly pious, athiest, anarchist, rapist, whatever have you. As such, if there is no time to determine their actual worth through interaction, the only logical thing to do is to treat them all as having equal value in the moment in question, because you do not have the information to tell otherwise.

If you did not, you would be including personal opinion and preference in what should be an objective valuing of the value of life.

>>3961354

It also has a bigger chance of carrying an Einstein, a Mother Teresa, or a Ghandi. We can play this game on both sides you know.

>>3961365

Group one {x,y,z,p,q}
Group two {n}
Which group contains more letters?

>>3961365
So you're differentiating between people not on any empirical basis, but because they're grouped differently. You have no knowledge distinguishing x from n, for your purposes x,y,z,p,q,&n are all identical.

>>3961361
And it assumes that workmen must have equal to or less than 1/5 the value of the bridge guy for no reason whatsoever

>>3961345

>I assume that the worth of 1 person is x, and that the worth of 5 people is 5x. If 5x=x, x=0, so you're saying people are worthless

>I assume that the worth
>so you're saying people are worthless
>When i assume that there is no light in the world, you are dark to meh and that is trufax :)

You are an idiot.

>>3961375
yeah, because Einstein loves to play in the tracks.

>yfw you're helping OP with his homework

He has to write an essay on the trolley problem.

>>3961380

As do rapists and murderers. Can we bypass the semantics?

Yes, Adrian Veidt was right.

Fuck feel good spiritual faggots.

>>3961380
>>3961379
Probability me and H+ are being trolled is at least 0.9
>>3961386
>MFW I'd never take psychology

Debunked speculation and endless essays. Nope.

>>3961370
>>3961375

Five people have increased chances to be Terrorists or Scientists, and statistically to reduce the chance of a potential terrorist you must choose to kill the collection of 5 people.

>>3961397
You assume people have negative worth.

>>3961393
is me, by the way.

>>3961393

After being on /sci/, psychology essays are easy A's.

>>3961397

That's retaded. The terrorist at his maximum efficacy killed what, 3000 people? The scientist could be the one to discover a cure for aids, thus saving hundreds of millions.

You are bad at math. Terrorists are a retardedly overblown threat. You could have at least included "the next Hitler or Stalin".

>>3961402

>You assume people have negative worth.

Explain how exactly?

I have explicitly stated that the chances for terrorists and scientists among those five is equal.
And that percentage of a potential terrorist in a set of 5 is larger than in a set of 1.

>>3961410

You are also arguing the danger of a terrorist is greater than the value of the scientist. Which, statistically, is bupkis.

I can't believe people still believe terrorists are a major threat. I mean fuck, LIGHTNING is a more serious threat.

>>3961406
i love the flawed reasoning with the terroists. by that logic we should kill any number of people that is less than the actions said possible terrorists would commit.

oh wait.. killing masses of people for arbitrary reasons... there's a name for that.

That guys just dancing around the issue because he doesn't want to face the fact that killing one to save five is morally right.

>>3961406

>You could have at least included "the next Hitler or Stalin".
>Argues semantics and entirely misses the point

If you have to be Anally Retentive and Autistic like that then allow me to reword it.
Instead of Scientists and Terrorists, it would be maximally helpful and maximally harmful individuals to society.
There, happy now?

>>3961406
I could handle them easily, but I'm too lazy. Plus like I said, I'm not entirely happy with the lack of rigour in the field

>>3961410
P=(<0) 5x > P=(<0) x

You're saying that 5 people are worth less than one person because there's a proportionally higher risk 5 people will have negative effects, and not acknowledging that there's a 5* greater positive effect.

>>3961428
Again, you're saying 5 people are worse than one because the average person has a negative worth.

>>3961421

>Still clings on a sole word, misses the point and argues semantics

You are an idiot.

>>3961428

>> Making an argument based on value.
>> calls opponent autistic for stating his value system is off.
>> I can say 2+2 =5 if I want, Autist! Omgwtfbbq!

In which case, IT'S STILL MORALLY EQUAL.

As long as their values are equal, + infinity and - infinity, it doesn't fucking matter. It balances.

The only scenario in which your suggestion works is if the negative value of the one guy overwhelms the positive value of the one guy. Which, as it's a pure random thing, is not happening.

>>3961430

The intention is to minimize the risk.
And thats perfectly valid.

>>3961440

Should have been "negative value of worst case and positive value of best case" but you get my point.

>>3961448

Not if you also minimize gain. If we were risk minimizers instead of benefit maximizers we'd still live in huts.

>>3961450
Some of us do still live in huts...

>>3961448
You're saying that 5 people have a net benefit less than one person, and for that to be true 5 people must be more negative than one person and therefore people are worth less than nothing.

>>3961450

>Not if you also minimize gain.

Im not as selfish as you to seek gain profit from killing people with a train.
However you apparently do.
And you have lost the game.

>>3961465
>>implying people aren't generally worthless

>>3961470
Ok, so you admit that causing the most death is your imperative. That explains it.

>>3961450
>>3961465

>Not if you also minimize gain
>You're saying that 5 people have a net benefit less

Trying to gain from peoples deaths?
Haha
You fell right into the trolley questions trap.

>>3961469

Motherfucker. I was doing so well.

I hate that cat.

Also, appeal to emotion. Nice try.

>>3961485

>Also, appeal to emotion.
>No proof nor explanation

Clarify why is that an appeal to emotion.

>>3961485
Fuck it dude, let's go bowling. Looks like all the non-trolls have gone.

>>3961474
Not the guy you were arguing with. Just joking around.

>>3961493

"Hah! You are gaining from people's deaths! I am obviously superior because I'm trying to guilt you into feeling shame over the support of your position because I have no more logical arguments against it!"

Appeal to emotion.

>>3961496

Appears so. Ima go make a sandwitch.

>>3961474

>Ok, so you admit that causing the most death is your imperative.

No, that is your confirmation bias being fed by a random anonymous poster.

>That explains it.

Not really.

>>3961259 Timr travwlling hitler traim
Glad you broight this up. I was going to.

Hitler is a different case, not because I value his life less than 5 people, but because i specifically want to kill him. The 5 workers are just a bonus.

>>3961524
I FUCKING KNEW IT

>>3961510

That incorrect.
My position is morally superior to yours, whether you are emotionally butthurt about that is entirely irrelevant.
Heh if "Appeal To Emotion" was really like you described it, then any emotionally disturbed/hysterical person would always be correct because their emotions would always be evoked in an argument.

Try harder failtroll.

>229+ posts
>no one has pointed out the deontological difference between diverting a train, and throwing someone in front of a train

>>3961563
Taken as a given.

>>3961548

I didn't say I actually felt guilty, I said that was the goal of the statement. Which it was.

Appeal to emotion is the intent to use the emotions of the opponent or audience to support a point which cannot be supported by reasoning alone.

Which is what you were doing.

>>3961566
Apparently not, since you implicitly make the assumption that a utilitarian perspective is superior, by saying throwing the person in front of the train is the selfless decision.

Fuck reading all 200 posts, I'm just going to jump in.

It's not enough to argue that it is wrong to push the man off for some reason. You have to state why pushing the man is different from pulling the lever.

Another example given was to derail the train, saving 5, but the train will then roll down a hill and kill a man in a hammock.

It is silly to judge whether sacrifice is okay based on whether the person seems particularly "involved" with the situation. Same with whether or not it's your arms pushing a man or your arms pushing a lever that pushes a man.

>>3961573
It is selfless. If you're willing to let 5 people die through your inaction because you don't want to implicate yourself, then you are a selfish coward.

>>3961568

>I didn't say I actually felt guilty, I said that was the goal of the statement Which it was.

But you havent even quoted any statement, why would i take you seriously at all?

>Appeal to emotion is the intent to use the emotions of the opponent or audience to support a point which cannot be supported by reasoning alone.

That i understand, but you have provided no clarification of how that definition is applied to any of my statements.

>Which is what you were doing.

Did what?

Face it, you are morally inferior because you will allow the risk of an another Hitler to survive just because you want a benefit from a potential discoverer.
And i am morally superior (In this scenario so you dont pull it out of context) because i am willing to sacrifice that potential benefit so that the risk of another Hitler doesnt plague the planet.

End of discussion.

>>3961578

That's basically exactly what I've been saying the whole time. The only argument's I've heard against the pushing over mechanical assist is closeness, which is a emotional argument.

Several people are equally dismissing both the level and the push for a do nothing answer though, that's where the big debate is.

>>3961580
Perhaps, perhaps not. Fact remains that you judge the action by the outcome and not by the act itself. That makes all the more clear that the deontological difference cannot be taken as a given but is ignored altogether instead.

>>3961580
thank you for constructing an argument

>>3961580

>It is selfless

Its extremely selfish.

>If you're willing to let 5 people die then you are a selfish coward.

You are a pathetic spineless worm, that would risk another Hitler, because of a potential person that would discover something great for your benefit.
Fuck you, you idiotic leech of other people.

Someone's been reading Michael J. Sandel

>>3961598
>assuming people have net negative worth

Like I've already said, if you think people are less than worthless, then you would want more people to die and therefore make the opposite decision to the one you would otherwise, killing the workmen in your case.

>>3961587

You know, pretty much anytime someone uses "End of Discussion" they look like an idiot, right? Especially when it follows a picky "but you didn't quote me" counter which can be countered by actually quoting you, indicating the argument can easily continue.

Also, if you can't follow a chain of links back to your original statement, despite that chain being a straight line from the post you linked, I'm fine with doing your work for you.

>>3961469

>>Im not as selfish as you to seek gain profit from killing people with a train.

>However you apparently do.

So, we have directed statement of superiority "I'm not as selfish... ... you apparently do." an attempt to incite shame or guilt " to seek gain profit from killing people with a train."

Yup, seems like a clearcut case to me.

In before 'autist'.

>>3961607

Thats what i stated.
Those 5 people have to be killed by default.

>>3961598

Again, you are bad at this.

"You are a pathetic spineless worm that would risk the loss of a man who could discover the cure for cancer, saving hundreds of millions, just because you fear another Hitler! Fuck you, you selfish terrified luddite prick!"

You can't give me a random person so bad that I can't counter with a random person equally good.

>>3961613

>So, we have directed statement of superiority

We are discussing a position that would be maximally moral.
The "I am not selfish and you are" indicates exactly that your position isnt as moral as the one i advocate as it is selfish.
Superiority and inferiority has to come in play or else you are appealing to "All opinions are equal" and that bullshit and you know it.

Your insistence on that Appeal to Emotion fallacy is unwarranted.

>In before 'autist'

Nope.

OP

>>3961636

>>3961619

>You can't give me a random person so bad that I can't counter with a random person equally good.

But you are allowing the increased existence of risk that may harm a lot of people, because of increased personal benefit.
That is selfish and immoral.

>>3961591
A+ son. You're the only person in the thread who gets it.

Okay, new hypothetical. Standard lever trolley problem. Someone grabs your arms and gently moves them to pull the lever. Do you resist?

Now imagine a reversed version, where the train is going to run over 1 person, pulling the lever will kill 5. Someone gently moves your hands to pull the lever. Do you resist?

>>3961640

>> Personal benefit.

Well, I don't have cancer. I fail to see how it's of personal benefit to me.

Now, to the hundreds of millions of other people who DO have and are dying of cancer, yes, it's of benefit to them.

How the hell do you turn "I want to help the maximum number of people" into selfishness anyways, when you are arguing that everyone should let others die when the have the ability to save them, because there is a non-zero chance they could be the next Hitler?

By that logic, everyone should commit suicide as soon as they become self aware, to avoid the chance of becoming Hitler. To do otherwise would be selfish.

>>3961640

because of increased potential* of personal benefit.

>>3961650

>By that logic, everyone should commit suicide as soon as they become self aware, to avoid the chance of becoming Hitler.

False Analogy.

Not really, as you can act in a manner that would avoid becoming a Hitler.

In the Trolley Problem you only have two options: to kill 5 or to kill 1.

>>3961650
I guess you're right, except that rather than killing yourself, you should stay alive in order to kill more possible hitlers. We need to kill as many people as possible, lest we risk one of them turning into another hitler. What is a good way of doing this? I think gas chambers would be an efficient method.

>>3961660

Cherry picking, Ignoring an entire post but for the throw-away analogy at the end meant more for dramatic effect than as a viable argument.

>>3961663

Ironic, isn't it? But no, we have nukes now.

>>3961672

>Ignoring an entire post but for the throw-away analogy at the end meant more for dramatic effect than as a viable argument.
>throw-away analogy at the end meant more for dramatic effect than as a viable argument.
>I was just pretending to be a retard.

Your entire argument relied on that analogy of yours.

The difference between the two situations is it is easier to kill at a distance using a lever than to kill up close and personal with your own hands. There is a greater emotional toll pushing the person off the bridge and it is therefore harder to disengage emotionally and act purely logically. Thats why in combat, pilots have an easier time schwacking the enemy than grunts on the ground do.

>>3961678

No, it relied on the fact that the goal is to help the hundreds of millions of people dying from cancer, and that stopping that is of a greater positive benefit than the chance than another Hitler will be able to gain power, despite our historical hindsight as to the methods the first used. Even assuming he is equally as bad, there is more good.

You are overvaluing preventing evil and undervaluing enabling good. That's been your argument the whole time, you've just changed the levels. And the only argument you've made in the last 10 posts is that trying to enable good is selfish.

Funny story, trying to prevent evil is selfish too.

But, I digress. I'm going to go shoot some orks. Not because the argument is over, but because it isn't going anywhere and I'm bored with it.

The whole idea of one corpse stoping a train is so fucking stupid as to entirely nullify the questions worth.

If you want to play at social/anti-social questions come up with something fitting.

TLDR Choke on a cock.

I still say letting 5 die is better than killing 1

>>3961696

>You are overvaluing preventing evil and undervaluing enabling good

Not really.
I am just choosing a neutral path as any other would bear the risk of extreme evil.

I'd rather have no chance of good or evil as a repercussion of my action in this scenario, then to have good with the risk of evil.

You are the one that will take the risk of evil.

Deal with it.

>>3961649
I want to hear the opinion of a person who thinks "letting die" is different from killing on my hypothetical.

>>3961709
You sir, are a shallow pedant.

>>3961649

Whatever it takes to kill those 5.

>>3961649

Thata a tough one.

>>3960020
Assuming I wouldn't be held responsible for it, I'd kill for a "better" end. No use being arbitrary about it.

>>3961731

Oh ho. Why hello there.

Forgot your trip on.

Also, a infintessimal risk of extreme evil means nothing. You take the same risk when you walk down the street without pushing everyone you see into traffic. Not taking an action IS a choice.

I'd say the one who washes his hands and says "I'm afraid" because of risk is not superior to the one who dares.

Audaces fortuna juvat.

>>3961766
I commend your modesty. You're wrong, but at least you're not arrogant about it. Give it some more thought. I believe you have the power to change your mind.

>>3961792

My position minimizes harmful repercussions and in turn helpful repercussions on this matter.
Hence it is maximally neutral.

That is the effect that i want to achieve.

State your argument and why is yours is more appropriate for achieving the effect that i stated.

Appealing to a quote isnt an argument nor does it in any manner invalidate my argument.
And discounting statistical chances without any valid explanation nor evidence renders you an idiot.

>Forgot your trip on.
>'m going to go shoot some orks. Not because the argument is over

How is leaving a Trip by which you can recognize me later to discuss further until the argument is over equal to "Forgetting a trip on"?

>>3961793
Mt first thought would be to resist in both cases. I dont want to be forced into doing anything. But resisting would directly cause deaths. Which is bad. Not resisting would also cause deaths. Which is also bad. The problem is that by not resistig, it isnt that I have not taken action. I did take an action, I stopped resisting.

So what I cannot decide is wether I would continue resisting in both cases, or stop resisting in the first case and lessen the amount of deaths. Im leaning for resist. But I am not happy.

>>3961898
Fucking hell

If we ever have a meetup remind me to stay as far from you as I can.

>>3961873

Probably because using EK as a trip implies that you are one of the many fake EK-trolls who have been poking around /sci/ ever since EK got doxed, which leads to the thought that you may have forgotten to remove it in between trolling another thread and returning here.


>>State your argument and why is yours is more appropriate for achieving the effect that i stated.

Assuming the anticedent. You are assume the effect you want to achieve is the only possible and the goal of the entire process. You created an effect specific to your answer and then asked me to find a more efficient version of it.

That's not how it works.

You are attempting the maximally neutral outcome, I am attempting the maximally good outcome. That is the difference. I've already given arguments for why it is such. I'm done.

>>3961901

Why?

>>3961921
Because you're even considering taking positive action that would be directly responsible for five deaths because you think you have some kind of right to not be co-erced. You lack the ability to think rationally and seem to misunderstand basic social principles.

At least I would only kill if it meant I saved more people, you would do it for irrational ideological reasons.

>>3961920

>You are assume the effect you want to achieve is the only possible and the goal of the entire process You created an effect specific to your answer and then asked me to find a more efficient version of it.

>You are assume the effect you want to achieve is the only possible

Incorrect.
I have explicitly stated what my position is and what its intended effect are.
You have never mentioned your desired effect and have directly assaulted my position, with a different effect in mind, despite that i have explicitly stated its intended effect.
My assumption that you have subscribed to the effect i wanted was entirely warranted.

>You are attempting the maximally neutral outcome, I am attempting the maximally good outcome That is the difference I've already given arguments for why it is such I'm done.

Good riddance.

>>3961898
If you take all of the emotions out of a person, you are left with a rock. But listening only to gut feelings will leave you with inconsistencies that lead to dissonance and poor decisions. Your desire to help humanity and your desire to not cause harm are in conflict here. I think you should try to forget about the latter in this case and worry about the former as it is a much better and more nobel desire, less likely to conflict with other desires of yours.

>>3961941

I dont see it that way. The person is forcing me to kill someone. I am resisting killing someone. But 5 people get killwd as a result.

I am not choosing to kill those 5 people. It is a unfortunate consequence. But it is a xhoice we all make. If someone tries to steal my money I will resist. Because I want a cellphone, or cigarettes or other creature comforts.

Yet that money could be going towards feeding 5 children. Maybe the thief was robin hood. Or I coild just be more selfless. But I will not admit guilt to every death that could have been avoided by my taking a different action. Im am proud that I refuse to kill the one man. Or refuse to give thieves money

>>3961963
Can you tell me why neutral is more desirable than good?

Would you rather have:
>a 99% chance of getting a dollar, but a 1% chance of losing a dollar
>or just nothing

And exactly what would you in the trolly problem?

>>3962021
Nothing, because there is a 1% chance of losing.

>>3961996
And this is why I'm scared of you. You don't see your actions as causing 5 deaths, you mentally distance the two despite the direct causal relationship. If you resist, then your positive resistance is responsible for 5 people dying.

I'm trying my best not to devolve to allcaps insulting you, you're a risk to everyone around you. I am completely serious when I say that I would avoid being in contact with you at all costs.

>>3961996
I think a society where no one can enjoy their lives for fear someone else somewhere in the world can do more with their money is a bad one. We should all give more to children than we do, but needn't give our entire life savings.

But in not pulling the lever, you are not simply saying you would rather have a cellphone than help give someone a few meals. You are saying that whether it is your muscles contracting or someone else's is more important than 4 lives. You are saying the ridiculous feeling that you are a murderer for trying to save lives is more important than the lives, hopes, and dreams of 4 humans, a total of perhaps 200 combined years of living. That is one of the most selfish things I've heard in a while.

>>3962038
Interestingly, I would consider myself the least harm to others and the finest character to hang around. For outside of rediculous scenarios I am harmless to you.

I completely understand if you dont want me as president though.
>>3961979
Dharma is hard

>>3962029
In that case, I will have to award you a 3/10 for making me respond to you.

>>3962057
I think you'd be completely wrong there. As you just showed, you're willing to be responsible for four un-necessary deaths for the sake of your idea of rights. A utilitarian would always try to do the very smallest amount of harm possible, you have demonstrated you wouldn't.

>>3962021

>Can you tell me why neutral is more desirable than good?

Did you seriously just inquire me why Opinions differ?

>Would you rather have:,,,,

I wouldnt gamble at all.
I'd rather have what money i own and earn more in an honest way.

>And exactly what would you in the trolly problem?

Now you are incoherent.
Do try to clarify.

>>3962055

If could jump infront of the train to save 5 lives I would. But that isnt an option here. . There is no value, or all valummoe to life. Choosing 5 over 1 isnt better, it is only different.

>>3962102

Imagine it is not gambling, but creating trees, an honest and noble goal. You would create more trees by gambling. If you desire trees, you should gamble. Find something you value, and you will objectively have more of it if you gamble. That`s just math.

And I don`t see how I can be any more clear: What exactly would you in I accidentally Trolley Problem?

>>3962109
So a life you know nothing about has no value to you?

>>3962149

So a life you know nothing about has no value to you if its not surrounded with 4 people?

>>3962168
You already did that one, remember?

>>3962175

And you still cant refute it.

>>3962193
>there are 5 of them

>>3962195

So what if there is 5 of them?

Thats no refutation, its just irrelevantly stating the obvious.

>>3962149
>>3962069
You cannot place valie on life. 1 life, 5 lives. It is the same. You call me cruel for letting 5 men die, I call you cruel for killing 1 man. It is not I who is making justifications, but you.

>>3962220
>1 life is equal to 5 lives
This is a depressing and ridiculous assertion you're making. Does 1 life = a billion lives? Are you religious or something?

>>3962220
You're saying 5 lives are worth the same amount as one life. You're saying that a life is worth 1/5 of itself. The only way in which that would be true would be if lives were worth nothing at all to you.

>>3960020

In Addition to my precedent position i present you this.

By Determinism i can do whatever i want, as whatever happens is in truth, just destiny.

Bam!

>>3962253
In that case you can't do whatever you want.

-Logical conclusion

Also, since when is determinism a valid method of seeing the world? Have you been away for 90 years?

>>3962260

>In that case you can't do whatever you want.

Whatever i think that i want.

Do you even know what Determinism is?

>Also, since when is determinism a valid method of seeing the world?

Also, since when is determinism an invalid method of seeing the world?

>Have you been away for 90 years?

Have you been away for 90 years?

>>3962237
Just a bit philosophical today
>>3962239

Infinityx5=infinity
Infinity/5=infinity

>>3962284
<span class="math">5*(\infty)-\infty=5\infty[/spoiler], and in fact <span class="math">5*(\infty)-5*(\infty)=5\infty[/spoiler]. So you're saying that empty space is worth as much as people, which is <span class="math"> Exactly~the~same~thing.[/spoiler]

>>3962284
Also: was the holocaust as bad as Hitler's suicide? Was Holodomor as bad as euthanasia is? Should a serial killer be punished more than someone who kills once? infinite damage is done each time according to you, after all.

Your position is absurd.

>>3962284
limit as x approaches infinity of 5x
divided by
limit as x approaches infinity of x
equals 5.

Not that assigning a value of infinity to anything makes sense anyway.

Tell me this: There are five people drowning in front of you. You can save one, at the cost of your slurpee. Do you conclude that since 5*infinity minus 1* infinity equals infinity, there is no sense in saving 1?