But in the trolley problem, it’s like opting to not vote is equivalent. That’s what makes me throw up my hands. Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice, it’s just a form of abdicating personal responsibility.
2 Likes
Somehow forgot about this. Sounds like this kid’s been reading above their level:
7 Likes
and yet then post the opposite of what the earlier user said 
2 Likes
Clutch & Smulder,
Both valid points.
Only goes to underline how little I really understand the ethical dilemma posed.
It strikes me as similar to the unstoppable force etc, or can God make a rock he cannot lift scenario.
They’re all questions with no valid answers, so does that not make the question itself invalid?
Unless there is an answer outside the realm of human (or rather, my) understanding?
3 Likes
Which is why it’s fundamentally flawed, and the answers it attempts to force are all morally wrong. Instead of forcing a moral dilemma, it forces a laziness of thought and lack of creative problem solving. It’s all about the “gotcha” when the right answer is to try and save everyone, even if it doesn’t succeed.
As @cepheus42 says, Kirk’s solution is the right one.
2 Likes
Your understanding of the point of the thought experiment and mine differ, because my understanding is that the choice between different “wrong” answers, and the process of thinking out why the options are more or less unacceptable than the other is the entire point.
I agree wholeheartedly that grafting a third onto the problem is the only “right” solution. Therein lies the dilemma. But, again, a third option (or 4th, or 99th) with differing upsides and downsides is presenting a different problem for us to consider. (for the sake of discussion, go ahead and graft an option to “save everybody” onto the problem–the way to make it interesting is that it has a 20% chance of being successful, and if it doesn’t work, it kills everyone; or put a 4th option where you can hit a self-destruct button and blow up the train with yourself inside it; there’s an infinite number of alternatives to consider, but they’re only interesting if they have down-sides to consider that actually make it a dilemma rather than just being a magic wand that takes away any costs)
I think a good deal of the unhappiness with the thought experiment being discussed here is actually criticism that too often real-world dilemmas are presented as if they have unnecessarily limited options. I tend to agree with that, but that’s a criticism of dishonest presentation of other problems, isn’t it?
2 Likes
Noob question, anyone know why my last post is awaiting approval? I offend anyone?
Okay, wow, now it’s my next post, not last…
Solved by the outstanding DrNobelDynamite
Nobody mention the T-word.
Fascinating (no, sorry, that’s Spock).
Had to look up the Kirk solution.
But, as has been pointed out above, when the question cheats, then the answer should be forgiven if it cheats also. Because it’s not so much a question as a trap.
And when it comes to two-year-olds, then picking up the (offending speeding vehicle) and hurling it out the window is an equally valid answer.
If we are granted god-like powers of life and death in the dilemma, let us use god-like powers in our solution.
1 Like
Like I said, I’m not a philosopher or ethicist, but the general problem is posed as: do nothing and the trolley will run over 5 people, flip a switch to avoid that and the trolley runs over 1 person. But then you are responsible for running over that one person, because you took action. I get it as an interesting springboard for discussion, but have never really thought it’s actually much of a “problem.” 
1 Like
No. That’s absolutely not the point. The trolley problem is a moral dilemma the way 2+2 is the formula that explains a black hole’s gravitational pull. It’s a child’s concept of determining morality, and as we saw from the video, when you play childish games, you get childish results.
3 Likes
Yeah, I am beginning to get it
2 Likes
I’m afraid we have different understandings of the point, which is fine. Take care!
(also, at the risk of being too cute–I’d argue that the concept of 2+2 equaling four is part of the concepts that underpin the formula that explain a black hole’s gravitational pull–anyone who pretended that it was the whole thing would obviously be mistaken, but anyone who dismissed it out of hand because the concept couldn’t explain the whole thing might be missing some of the point as well)
That is my understanding too, and a big part of the reason why the exercise is flawed. It’s more useful in detecting a replicant than thinking through the moral dilemma. It takes away human reasoning and forces an artificial binary solution set, when humans and the real world are non discrete. There’s plenty of moral agonizing to do with just the idea that trying to use or fix the brakes might not work on time, if the problem is framed in a more open solution set.
2 Likes
I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment, but I appreciate that we’re thinking about things differently.
1 Like
Likewise.
1 Like
Thanks to this post, I have now binge-watched 3 seasons of The Good Place in 2 days flat.
Am now on Season 4.
So thanks.
I think.
5 Likes
You’re welcome.
The Good Place is a superb show, well worth repeated viewing.
3 Likes
Liked, also, I wish I knew how you did that.
With the meme things, I mean.
Hold on, are you a Good Janet?
2 Likes
Oh, I fucking WISH.
Google image search, right click on image, copy and paste.
Results may vary; as some sites don’t allow hot-linking.
3 Likes
Well, you’re at least a Disco Janet.
4 Likes
