4 ms·

This has a "trolley problem" feel to it. It's a contrived scenario that doesn't reflect real life. I'm not suggesting that all our decision making is good. Ter

This has a "trolley problem" feel to it. It's a contrived scenario that doesn't reflect real life. I'm not suggesting that all our decision making is good. Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. A model of the world where everything competes with everything isn't a good one for decision making. Just like "don't build a particle collider until we have solved poverty" is not a workable approach. Terrorism & heart disease don't have the same consequences, socially, politically or geopolitically. We're not machines. Even in machines' decision making, such moral calculus doesn't really play. Self driving cars won't, and don't need to solve the trolley problem any more than we do. ..and don't underestimate our instincts. They may not be as "perfect" as legible reasoning, but they are far more complete.

jjoonathan 5y ago
> It's a contrived scenario Any time you help people is a contrived scenario? Uhh... I certainly hope not. Putting a valuation on life is not a result of philosophical debate, it's a direct, unintentional, unavoidable consequence of any real-world action we take that helps people. The only way to avoid it is to avoid helping people. Which is ludicrous. > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They sure compete for tax dollars and public attention. > We're not machines. No kidding. That's why we prefer chasing Bin Laden to chasing heart disease. The "value of a life" discussion is an accusatory finger that says "yeah, actually we did have a choice there, and our choice had consequences," and I understand how that's uncomfortable, but that's exactly why we need the tool to hold our instincts accountable, such as we can.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  No, the trolley problem (an example used in moral philosophy) is a contrived scenario.
miltondts 5y ago
> Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They do actually. Both for budget and for misery.

jjoonathan 5y ago

> It's a contrived scenario Any time you help people is a contrived scenario? Uhh... I certainly hope not. Putting a valuation on life is not a result of philosophical debate, it's a direct, unintentional, unavoidable consequence of any real-world action we take that helps people. The only way to avoid it is to avoid helping people. Which is ludicrous. > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They sure compete for tax dollars and public attention. > We're not machines. No kidding. That's why we prefer chasing Bin Laden to chasing heart disease. The "value of a life" discussion is an accusatory finger that says "yeah, actually we did have a choice there, and our choice had consequences," and I understand how that's uncomfortable, but that's exactly why we need the tool to hold our instincts accountable, such as we can.

dalbasal 5y ago
No, the trolley problem (an example used in moral philosophy) is a contrived scenario.

miltondts 5y ago

> Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They do actually. Both for budget and for misery.