3 ms·

Agreed, and the effects of this kind of positive vs. negative phrasing us one of the fascinating things to examine using tools like the trolley problem. Speaki

by taneq 3y ago

Agreed, and the effects of this kind of positive vs. negative phrasing us one of the fascinating things to examine using tools like the trolley problem. Speaking of which, I believe the trolley equivalent of this rephrasing would be one track, one person tied to the track, one freight trolley with no passengers but with a total dollar value of $x, and one lever which will derail the freight trolley destroying it and cargo entirely. What value of $x would be worth pulling the lever?

hef19898 3y ago
Sacrificing one life for money? Easy, derail the trolley regardless of cargo. Anyway, as philosophical or moral problem, the trolley question just sucks.
- taneq 3y ago
  That's literally the point of the trolley problem. "You can't put a dollar value on human life, or compare the value of different human lives" is the socially accepted 'correct' answer. It's also a polite fiction, and using a mental tool like the trolley problem you can uncover what you and others actually think.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Reminds me of a scenario that I was asked once in an assessment center (a military one): Ypu are defending a bridge, the last one across the river, the enmy is approaching, refugees are on tje bridge, the enemy crossing would mean the front collapses. What do you do, let the enemy cross or blow the bridge? My, partially smart ass answer: retreat, let tze enemy and refugees cross. Because I don't see a point in killong non-combatants to, maybe, save a situation that was screwed up months ago. Because why am I, without enough forces to hold the bridge, the last obstacle for the enemy before he breaks through? And even if I blew the bridge, I don't take out the enemies engineers, so they will just cross the river elsewhere. Since I didn't fail the assessment, the answer at least wasn't completely wrong I think.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Eh, the formulation you've proposed doesn't really give people much reason not to derail the train. The moment you start saying "10 million dollars of cargo" people will naturally picture a container full of ipads owned by some trillion-dollar megacorp that won't feel the loss at all, and derail the train.
harimau777 3y ago
I think I might also need some idea of the degree to which the contents of the trolley can be replaced and what will happen if we lose those resources. Does it contain diamonds that are valuable but useless or a limited supply of life saving medicine? It would also be relevant to know who will bear the cost of losing the trolley. Is it society as a whole or some capitalist?

by taneq 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

Sacrificing one life for money? Easy, derail the trolley regardless of cargo. Anyway, as philosophical or moral problem, the trolley question just sucks.

taneq 3y ago
That's literally the point of the trolley problem. "You can't put a dollar value on human life, or compare the value of different human lives" is the socially accepted 'correct' answer. It's also a polite fiction, and using a mental tool like the trolley problem you can uncover what you and others actually think.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Reminds me of a scenario that I was asked once in an assessment center (a military one): Ypu are defending a bridge, the last one across the river, the enmy is approaching, refugees are on tje bridge, the enemy crossing would mean the front collapses. What do you do, let the enemy cross or blow the bridge? My, partially smart ass answer: retreat, let tze enemy and refugees cross. Because I don't see a point in killong non-combatants to, maybe, save a situation that was screwed up months ago. Because why am I, without enough forces to hold the bridge, the last obstacle for the enemy before he breaks through? And even if I blew the bridge, I don't take out the enemies engineers, so they will just cross the river elsewhere. Since I didn't fail the assessment, the answer at least wasn't completely wrong I think.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Eh, the formulation you've proposed doesn't really give people much reason not to derail the train. The moment you start saying "10 million dollars of cargo" people will naturally picture a container full of ipads owned by some trillion-dollar megacorp that won't feel the loss at all, and derail the train.

harimau777 3y ago

I think I might also need some idea of the degree to which the contents of the trolley can be replaced and what will happen if we lose those resources. Does it contain diamonds that are valuable but useless or a limited supply of life saving medicine? It would also be relevant to know who will bear the cost of losing the trolley. Is it society as a whole or some capitalist?