3 ms·

I was surprised to see so many leaning towards the switch in the Trolley problem. I still haven't made my mind on that.

by chime 13y ago

RivieraKid 13y ago
Simple, switching results in fewer deaths.
- kruhft 13y ago
  But switching requires an action that will cause the death of another. Rational people look for a lower number of deaths and the less rational (emotional) look to avoid action creating the misery of someone else. People that pull the switch are thought to have more sociopathic tendencies even though doing the action would result in a lower overall number of deaths.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    > People that pull the switch are thought to have more sociopathic tendencies That's interesting. Do you know what is the rationale behind this?
    - kruhft 13y ago
      I originally heard of the Trolly Problem in an episode of the The Brain Series on Charlie Rose where the guest neroscientists presented that viewpoint. I personally don't belive it, but that was the messaage they were presenting. The series is both fascinating and frightening in way. I reccomend watching it to see the current ideas in brain science presented by the people creataing them.
    - manicbovine 13y ago
      In addition to the aforementioned Charlie Rose episode, I recently saw Kevin Dutton talk about this in a short Big Think video [1] (or rather, the converse). I have no idea if it's valid. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ
  - Jayschwa 13y ago
    > Rational people look for a lower number of deaths and the less rational (emotional) look to avoid action creating the misery of someone else. Whether or not the action is rational depends on the underlying principles. If the most important thing is to minimize lives lost, then the moral math of causing harm to one for the benefit of many is simple. However, not everyone would agree with this principle. It's not necessarily more emotional. Inaction vs. action is an important distinction to some.
    - kruhft 13y ago
      By rational I mean the traditional "by the numbers" type of people, not if the action (or inaction) is a rational choice. Pulling the lever is the obvious choice for the rational type due to loss of less lives, a strictly numeric calculation with no regards to feelings. Discussing this problem with my G/F showed me a side which is from what I would call a "non-rational" or emotional person. Their choice not to pull the lever is just as rational to them, but not in the cold, hard, numeric way of the rational person. To them it is rational to not cause harm to others if they would never have been harmed, even if more people will be harmed in the end. It was a bit of a heated discussion that really made me stop and think about why this is such an important question. There is no right answer and each side is quick to justify exactly why their choice is the "right" choice. And the more you think about it the more you realize why both sides can think the way they do; a perfect philosophical question :) The comment about sociopaths pulling the lever was due to the test being given in prisons to people that were diagnosed as sociopaths. That was the choice that the majority of them took when given the test.
      - RivieraKid 13y ago
        That makes sense and I mostly agree. But if you look at it from another perspective, pulling the lever is emotional too in a sense, because the puller feels that less deaths is the better outcome. Ethics is fundamentally about what we feel is right (which is influenced by the society a lot).
wissler 13y ago
One person can get out of the way more easily than 10. Of course, abstract hypothetical questions don't answer what one would do under real circumstances, e.g. there's a difference between seeing an athletic, aware guy on one track who you know can get out of the way vs. a blind lady.
tocomment 13y ago
I think it's interesting that self driving cars will have to decide this themselves someday. What do you think we'll have them do?
- protomyth 13y ago
  Humans fail(1) quite a bit on this problem when it comes to animals. One case I remember was a driver who avoided a dog on the highway which resulted in the driver and 3 teenage girls dying. I am not sure what a self-driving car is going to do. 1) "fail" as in get the car load of people killed.

I was surprised to see so many leaning towards the switch in the Trolley problem. I still haven't made my mind on that.

by chime 13y ago

I was surprised to see so many leaning towards the switch in the Trolley problem. I still haven't made my mind on that.

RivieraKid 13y ago

Simple, switching results in fewer deaths.

kruhft 13y ago
But switching requires an action that will cause the death of another. Rational people look for a lower number of deaths and the less rational (emotional) look to avoid action creating the misery of someone else. People that pull the switch are thought to have more sociopathic tendencies even though doing the action would result in a lower overall number of deaths.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  > People that pull the switch are thought to have more sociopathic tendencies That's interesting. Do you know what is the rationale behind this?
  - kruhft 13y ago
    I originally heard of the Trolly Problem in an episode of the The Brain Series on Charlie Rose where the guest neroscientists presented that viewpoint. I personally don't belive it, but that was the messaage they were presenting. The series is both fascinating and frightening in way. I reccomend watching it to see the current ideas in brain science presented by the people creataing them.
  - manicbovine 13y ago
    In addition to the aforementioned Charlie Rose episode, I recently saw Kevin Dutton talk about this in a short Big Think video [1] (or rather, the converse). I have no idea if it's valid. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ
- Jayschwa 13y ago
  > Rational people look for a lower number of deaths and the less rational (emotional) look to avoid action creating the misery of someone else. Whether or not the action is rational depends on the underlying principles. If the most important thing is to minimize lives lost, then the moral math of causing harm to one for the benefit of many is simple. However, not everyone would agree with this principle. It's not necessarily more emotional. Inaction vs. action is an important distinction to some.
  - kruhft 13y ago
    By rational I mean the traditional "by the numbers" type of people, not if the action (or inaction) is a rational choice. Pulling the lever is the obvious choice for the rational type due to loss of less lives, a strictly numeric calculation with no regards to feelings. Discussing this problem with my G/F showed me a side which is from what I would call a "non-rational" or emotional person. Their choice not to pull the lever is just as rational to them, but not in the cold, hard, numeric way of the rational person. To them it is rational to not cause harm to others if they would never have been harmed, even if more people will be harmed in the end. It was a bit of a heated discussion that really made me stop and think about why this is such an important question. There is no right answer and each side is quick to justify exactly why their choice is the "right" choice. And the more you think about it the more you realize why both sides can think the way they do; a perfect philosophical question :) The comment about sociopaths pulling the lever was due to the test being given in prisons to people that were diagnosed as sociopaths. That was the choice that the majority of them took when given the test.
    - RivieraKid 13y ago
      That makes sense and I mostly agree. But if you look at it from another perspective, pulling the lever is emotional too in a sense, because the puller feels that less deaths is the better outcome. Ethics is fundamentally about what we feel is right (which is influenced by the society a lot).

wissler 13y ago

One person can get out of the way more easily than 10. Of course, abstract hypothetical questions don't answer what one would do under real circumstances, e.g. there's a difference between seeing an athletic, aware guy on one track who you know can get out of the way vs. a blind lady.

tocomment 13y ago

I think it's interesting that self driving cars will have to decide this themselves someday. What do you think we'll have them do?

protomyth 13y ago
Humans fail(1) quite a bit on this problem when it comes to animals. One case I remember was a driver who avoided a dog on the highway which resulted in the driver and 3 teenage girls dying. I am not sure what a self-driving car is going to do. 1) "fail" as in get the car load of people killed.