4 ms·

> The trolley problems invalidate the principle because of the unlikely certainty that they assume. We're living the trolley problem problem in real life, righ

> The trolley problems invalidate the principle because of the unlikely certainty that they assume. We're living the trolley problem problem in real life, right now, because human beings are bad at estimating risk. A lot of people are operating with a certainty that IF you are EXPOSED to the virus, you WILL contract it, and it WILL be terrible, and PROBABLY fatal. Therefore, no amount of safekeeping -- masks, distancing, wiping down delivered groceries, baking mail and newspapers -- can be too aggressive. For such people, diverting the "trolley" to make long-running, terrible financial hardships for a third of the population is an easy call, when they feel they are literally saving the life of everyone on forward track.

yyyk 6y ago
I don't see how this could be framed as a trolley problem. A trolley problem needs to compare two equivalent goods, where intentional 'action' is likely to cause less overall loss but at a direct cost to an 3rd party. Neither side regarding lockdown views this problem as such: People who support aggressive measures don't view their actions as killing the bystander. 'Financial hardship' is far from letting people die (i.e. no equivalent good from their PoV) and they almost always support measures to alleviate economic damage. People who oppose lockdown have differing arguments which don't map into a trolley either. An argument for lack of efficiency isn't relevant. Others' argument that governments' action is taking away liberty for security is closer, but no trolley either. For that, they'd have to weigh liberty of 'bystanders' again liberty of those that will get sick, and it's clear their concept of liberty does not accept the latter condition as a loss of liberty (no equivalent good either). You might wish to drop my suggested equivalent good criteria. I'm not so sure. If diverting the trolley merely slightly inconveniences the bystander, are we still talking about a trolley problem?
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  I wasn't arguing that the virus response was a trolley problem, but that it was a "trolley problem problem." Your response is almost too good to be true.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Ouch. I guess I fell into the trap where one reads a word and doesn't notice it repeats twice (trolley problem problem). But I think I still got the jist of your argument: That people supporting lockdown are applying trolley problem logic ("hurt the economical bystanders to save sick people"). What I wrote in response applies. That isn't trolley logic since the goods are noncomparable. I'll go further: financial harms in general aren't a good fit for a trolley problem, since one can always compensate later.

yyyk 6y ago

I don't see how this could be framed as a trolley problem. A trolley problem needs to compare two equivalent goods, where intentional 'action' is likely to cause less overall loss but at a direct cost to an 3rd party. Neither side regarding lockdown views this problem as such: People who support aggressive measures don't view their actions as killing the bystander. 'Financial hardship' is far from letting people die (i.e. no equivalent good from their PoV) and they almost always support measures to alleviate economic damage. People who oppose lockdown have differing arguments which don't map into a trolley either. An argument for lack of efficiency isn't relevant. Others' argument that governments' action is taking away liberty for security is closer, but no trolley either. For that, they'd have to weigh liberty of 'bystanders' again liberty of those that will get sick, and it's clear their concept of liberty does not accept the latter condition as a loss of liberty (no equivalent good either). You might wish to drop my suggested equivalent good criteria. I'm not so sure. If diverting the trolley merely slightly inconveniences the bystander, are we still talking about a trolley problem?

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
I wasn't arguing that the virus response was a trolley problem, but that it was a "trolley problem problem." Your response is almost too good to be true.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Ouch. I guess I fell into the trap where one reads a word and doesn't notice it repeats twice (trolley problem problem). But I think I still got the jist of your argument: That people supporting lockdown are applying trolley problem logic ("hurt the economical bystanders to save sick people"). What I wrote in response applies. That isn't trolley logic since the goods are noncomparable. I'll go further: financial harms in general aren't a good fit for a trolley problem, since one can always compensate later.