3 ms·

Generally i think everyone would agree with your statement. However, the trolley problem is a though-experiment which shows that the argument is more nuanced (a

Generally i think everyone would agree with your statement. However, the trolley problem is a though-experiment which shows that the argument is more nuanced (at-least psychologically). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem A TED talk on this as well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_what_s_the_right_thing_to_do https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_what_s_the_right_th...

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Yes, like pretty much everything, this rule gets hairy when you zoom in on it enough. That's why, e.g., medicine has the concept of Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), to capture the intuition that it's better to live 10 years in perfect happiness than 15 years in agonizing pain, etc. However, I think the principle is generally sound, and if you oppose the option that would lead to less deaths, you have to show what society loses that's more important than the lives saved (and yes, it happens; for instance, car traffic in general is society trading some loss of lives for huge boost in convenience and economic prosperity).
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  What society loses is an inefficient but largely accepted legal framework for compensation in the event of injury or death. This framework right now is balanced by individuals accepting culpability in the event of an accident. An individual has certain limitations to obtain and use legal leverage to evade financial responsibility. A massive lucrative corporation has far more leverage and interest in avoiding financial responsibility and you have shifted the obvious blame away from the individual. You've disrupted a finely honed set of checks and balances that enable global highway transit. What's needed is a big pot of money for the greater good, and that means government. Government means regulation. Regulation stifles innovation and adds overhead that scares away competition. And now you've got yourself a catch-22 that requires a company with a very specific set of parameters to achieve any progress. Which is what we've got.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Yes, like pretty much everything, this rule gets hairy when you zoom in on it enough. That's why, e.g., medicine has the concept of Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), to capture the intuition that it's better to live 10 years in perfect happiness than 15 years in agonizing pain, etc. However, I think the principle is generally sound, and if you oppose the option that would lead to less deaths, you have to show what society loses that's more important than the lives saved (and yes, it happens; for instance, car traffic in general is society trading some loss of lives for huge boost in convenience and economic prosperity).

progressive_dad 11y ago
What society loses is an inefficient but largely accepted legal framework for compensation in the event of injury or death. This framework right now is balanced by individuals accepting culpability in the event of an accident. An individual has certain limitations to obtain and use legal leverage to evade financial responsibility. A massive lucrative corporation has far more leverage and interest in avoiding financial responsibility and you have shifted the obvious blame away from the individual. You've disrupted a finely honed set of checks and balances that enable global highway transit. What's needed is a big pot of money for the greater good, and that means government. Government means regulation. Regulation stifles innovation and adds overhead that scares away competition. And now you've got yourself a catch-22 that requires a company with a very specific set of parameters to achieve any progress. Which is what we've got.