/lit/ - Literature

Don't pull it

>>9356556
You ask them what their favorite books are, and then do nothing upon hearing their response.

Don't pull it = not a murderer
Adhere to the spook of the greater good and pull it = senselessly murder a man

Hint: most Americans pick the wrong answer

Obviously you pull a Captain Kirk and find a way to save everyone.

>>9356573
This. I'd rather murder five people than one.

Go back in time and stop the trolley in the first place

>>9356556
don't pull it, grab the one guy and jump in front of the train with him.

Fricken pull it!!!

whatever you do, you join the dying side so you dont have to live with the guilt and disdain of the suvivors.

step 1: don't pull the lever, the trolley kills the five people
step 2: receive thanks from the guy you saved
step 3: put on shades, remove a pistol from your coat and shoot him, there can be no survivors. it's only fair, nothing personal kid
step 4: ironically look at camera before turning the gun on yourself

>>9356641
>step 4: ironically look at camera before turning the gun on yourself
In a dream I did a Shaftian head tilt, smiled, and blew out my brains. Really funny.

Throw yourself in front of the train and you wont have to deal with the consequences

>>9356556

>>9356573
>adhering to the spook of murder

That's your property dude, do what you want with it.

>>9356556

>>9356673
I unironically think this is the best answer.

What's frustrating about this problem is not your own perception of it but the way other people will judge what you did. I can pull the lever fine and I save four lives.
I am thrust into an impossible situation, where I can pretty well be called a murderer in any case. No matter what you do, there is some caveat. So, what really dictates this is a hope for future empathy.

Otherwise, grilling yourself is a good choice.

>>9356689
best edit

>>9356762
What about the way your family and friends will feel after you kill yourself? You don't wanna make your mom cry and feel a certain degree of emptiness for the rest of her life because of your death.

>>9356556
If you pull it you're a murderer. Does that make the situation in itself immoral? From my point of view I have now killed a man, but that guilt is not present in the society itself. Can't we consider this an acceptable sacrifice?

I mean, what could we say about a ethical system that does not see that to save 5 people is better than saving 1 while keeping in mind that such a statement does not have to devolve immediatly into utilitarianism?

>>9356784
>What about the way your family and friends will feel after you kill yourself?
This is silly. I've talked about this too many times on here in real life to do it again. Even a utilitarian can be made to understand that killing yourself is a lesser punishment on the world than living to save some tears.

This is trivial.

>>9356794
You're a murderer in any outcome. The more interesting argument is what if the one person is someone you love, and the five are people you have never seen before.

I know I'm letting five people die, and I don't think I made the wrong decision.

I think I don't believe there to be a wrong decision for yourself, but it's impossible to make a decision which will satisfy all parties. Ethics is tricky, and it's rarely worth talking about.

>>9356818

Wasting money on trivial luxuries instead of literally saving lives through charity is immoral, the fact that most philosophers and people in general don't think so is just a giant rationalization of a moral failing.

pull the lever, maximize utility
you'd be a "murderer" anyway you approach this (either directly or by neglecting the decision)

>>9356841
I don't care enough. Charities are nothing but power brokers but that doesn't even factor into it for me. I just don't care. I take care of the people that mean something to me.
I doubt people reallly think it's "ok".

>>9356841
When does expenses stop being "trivial"?

>>9356658
>Shaftian
we've reached a whole nother level

>>9356885
>a whole nother
What are some other common uses of tmesis?

>>9356841
epic bait

>>9356895
the first one that comes to mind is "anyplace" as in "any old place" or "any such place"

i think in english theyre virtually always colloquialisms

>>9356867
When they're not necessary to function comfortably in society. If you've already got a place in which you can live, your basic necessities, some clothes, and everything you need to keep earning money.
While I'm advocating for (maybe for you) a excessively frugal life, you should also notice that no one is close to that, in fact in most people there is literally no effort for any ethical causes that need partecipants and funds.
See it as a spectrum where at the end of it there's you living a ascetic life, and on the other one there's you, completely detatched from any of this world's problem. Being in the middle is ethically better than being on the latter extreme.

>>9356921
>See it as a spectrum where at the end of it there's you living a ascetic life, and on the other one there's you, completely detatched from any of this world's problem.
dawg are you retarded?

>>9356932
>helping no people is as ethical as helping a few people only because you're not giving EVERYTHING you own

What's the logic behind this statement, my friend?

>>9356921
>>9356941
Not everyone strives for an "ethical" lifestyle. In the end, you only try to live according to your particular ideals because they appeal to you in the first place, to put it simply. you're also selfish.

>>9356972
>Not everyone strives for an "ethical" lifestyle
Everyone should.

>In the end, you only try to live according to your particular ideals because they appeal to you in the first place
Philantropy appeals to my ideals? Saving people with money I would have wasted anyway is not something universally right, but it is something inherent to my values. It's not like most people don't examine their ethical life, right?

>you're also selfish.
In what sense?

>>9356986

>>9357079

>>9357082

>>9357085

>>9357089

>>9357094

>>9357097
B4?

>>9357113
before what?

>>9357137
not an argument

>people who claim to value human life but won't raise a finger to do so for fear of 'being a murderer'

lmao

You were raised to believe that your state having a monopoly on violence is an inherent law of morality and now you are incapable of independent action if it would violate your states means of societal control

And by propagating this viewpoint, you ensure no one is coming to save you unless the nationstate gives the thumbs up to one of their mercenaries who are invested with the power of violence

You think your hands are clean so long as you keep them over your eyes, but all you're doing is hiding from the mountain of corpses you're standing on

People are forgetting the context of the original trolley problem. The person pulling the lever knows that pulling it will save 4 people guaranteed. Because of that certainty you should probably pull the lever. It's the uncertainty when this is applied to practical situations where the real dilemma arises.

>>9356556
how about this one buckaroo?

>>9357242
Jump over the five because they will not see you jump over the one guy, but the one guy AND the five guys will see you jump over the group

Man is mortal. What this picture doesn't show is that there is a trolley coming down each track from the other direction. They can be slowed. but never diverted. Also, the man by the lever is tied to a track and there is a fourth trolley coming at him. Pulling the lever doesn't save anyones lives, it just extenda the time they spend tied to the tracks before the trolley hits them.

>>9357113
C3

>>9356986
Amusing.

>>9357097
im pretty sure its C1

>>9356556
You rapidly keep switching the levers until the train hits the turning point, in which case you hope the train derails itself and goes down the middle

>>9357302
put the front wheels on one track and rear wheels on the other.

>>9357311

>>9357097
A2
im assuming there are n people on the pads, otherwise only 20 people die

>>9356556
What if I pull the lever because I want to be responsible for killing the man? I would commit murder and get away with it, I'd even be praised as a hero. The mayor would give me the key to the city and a reward for my selflessness, and I'd get to fuck his hot daughter. There would be a somber celebration, where people would comfort me. I would have to act as if I cared, but that's not hard. I would make connections with important people and secure my future.
All the incredible possibilities are making me drool. And in the end, I'd get away with murder and even benefit from it! Who wouldn't pull the lever?
Furthermore, I think the train will be able to run more efficiently if it only has to go through one person. Think of all the people who need to get to work on time. Plus, the mess will be easier to clean up. Its the right thing to do.

>>9356573
you can murder by neglect

>>9357097
i added the rest of the numbers to make it more clear.

red and purple lines = pads you can plainly eliminate

yellow arcs represent possible paths, and yellow circles represent impossible outcomes (would allow multiple solutions if true)

between the two possible outcomes (C1 and B2) i attributed numerical values and eliminated C1.

maybe im wrong tho lmao

>>9356732
Good work, Anon.

>>9357097
A2

>>9357336
no you can't, unless you have some affirmative legal duty because of your relationship with that person (such as to provide care for a minor in your custody)

t. lawfag

>>9356556
First you calculate what the utilitarian action would be, then you do the opposite to prove you're not a fucking anglo pussy

>>9356573
This.

>>9357097

>>9356841
>I'm in college: the post

>>9357406

Would deontological ethics or any other system disagree with utilitarians that the correct thing to do is to allow the one person to die?

Save 5 people. It is more likely 5 people will reward me/feel indebted to me than one person.

>>9357493
>expecting good from humans who are inherently evil
>expecting gratitude and gifts from the greediest species in the universe
Nice meme anon. Your own assertion proves my point. You were trying to sound cool but in the end you're a fool.

>>9356980
>should

>>9357496
Pepe is a spook.

>>9356818

>watching a child fall into a shallow pond and drown while doing absolutely nothing is morally permissible

Now don't get me wrong, I hate utilitarians as much as any reasonable person, but deontautistolgists are almost just as bad.

>>9357336
Thousands of people are on the verge of dying right now. By the time it took you to read these sentences, somebody died an unnatural death. Somebody got raped. Somebody got injured. The world is full of suffering and injustice, yet here you sit in front of computer being a patronizing asshole instead of donning a cape and saving them all. Aren't you being a hypocritical little shit?

1 person will die no matter what. It's your choice whether 4 more die. Pull the lever.

>>9357533
You're not even trying anymore.

>>9357537
Why not? Yes, I exaggerate, but by your logic, any second that you spend not trying your best to alleviate the suffering of others, you contribute to it by neglect.

>there are people who wouldn't pull the lever

>>9357588
>he unironically would pull the lever

>>9357534
Being a utilicuck only takes you so far.
Saving 4 against 1 sounds reasonable, but what about pulling the lever to murder a 1000 to save 4000? What about personally taking part in holocausting a billion to save 4 billion? Shouldn't be any different, right?

>>9357604
>he fell for the illusion that the responsibility isn't his if he doesn't pull the lever

>>9357455
I d-don't understand...

Jesus the edginess in this thread. /lit/ used to be different, now it's colonized by edgy 17 year olds

>>9357681
People have to play devil's advocate to move the discussion. But, you're probably just being a whiny faggot.

To the plebs who think it's better to not pull the lever, because then at least it's "not your fault"... still think so?

>>9357761
>completely change the conditions and implications
>HURRR SURE SHOWED U XDDDD

>>9357768
It's basically the same thing. Just making it easier for stupid people to make the sensible choice.

>>9357778
except your image will directly affect the lever-guy, while the death of one/five person(s) doesn't have solid effects unless they are your relatives etc

>>9357768

No I'm making the argument that if you agree to the changed comic, you admit that it is right to change the course of the cart to prevent more deaths.

And you admit that fewer deaths is a preferable state to more deaths.

Thus changing the cart is the correct course also in the original also if more deaths can be prevented.

You clearly have no idea how philosophical discussions work if you think "you must only discuss the one original question and make no analogies or look at the problem from different perspectives".

Imagine the history of philosophy if everyone was as retarded as you:

Plato: The most perfect state would be an autocracy run by a benevolent ruler
Theaetetus: But Plato, what if that ruler were to become a tyrant?
Plato:
>completely change the conditions and implications
>HURRR SURE SHOWED U XDDDD

>>9357787

So you are saying the right thing to do is only what benefits you?

>>9357761
>a majority of the human race will be wiped out
I.e. Reduce our carbon footprint to almost zero and solve climate change? The choice is even more obvious.

>>9357761
I'd jump on the button myself.
Not even memeing.

>>9357761
Wouldn't pull.

>>9357761
Yes, it's definitely easier with this one:
Let the train go. The button must be pressed. There's over 7 billion people on Earth.

>>9357797
obviously

>>9357761
Pull the lever and then jump on the button. It's like you aren't even trying to make it difficult.

>Continentals calling Anglos utilitarian

That's rich.

>>9357851
>being an autistic analytard
That's poor.

Not even an utilitarian and the right answer is to pull the lever. Still is murder, sure.

>>9357617
And it isn't

Kill more people to reduce survivors guilt

>>9357604

No, I would ironically pull the lever

Then when I'm explaining things to the dead guys grieving family I would explain "I only did it ironically, get a sense of humour motherfuckers"

>>9357906
Should have added one more man so that the final death toll for each man pulling the lever would become five.