4 ms·

I know there are flaws to my reasoning, but I can't shake the thought: How/Why those poor people ended on the track is more important to fix than to focus on th

• andybak 4y ago
  It’s that cabal of evil experimental Utilitarians.
• layer8 4y ago
  But what if fixing the problem causes double the number of people to end up on a different track?
  • gfiorav 4y ago
    ... then you didn't fix it? My reasoning is: say that bad city design leads to a lot of pedestrians about to be struck by cars in intersections. Does it really make sense to focus on the drivers?
    • layer8 4y ago
      The premise of trolley problems is that you can’t generally prevent situations where you have to choose between two evils. But we’d like to have morality rules that allow us to make the “right choice” in any situation. It turns out that it is really hard, if not impossible, to have such a rule system that (a) allows to derive the “correct” choice, that (b) is logically consistent, and that (c) people agree with all its results.
• pnt12 4y ago
  I also take this stance. In the real world, that would be the top concern, not the bystander who is thrown into the situation. Or if the situation is unclear, better run away instead of getting involved in a mess which you didn't cause. If someone says "ignore all the real world concerns", then does it even matter? It's the death of fantasy people, who cares? But I would take an exception if it were family or friends. In a real scenario, saving them would be worth more than saving strangers or avoiding legal problems.