[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 232 KB, 1280x554, 1533059580621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460327 No.12460327 [Reply] [Original]

Holy shit this paradox is finally solved

>> No.12460415

>>12460327
If he switches the leaver he becomes an ideological martyr and tortured soul touted as a lifesaver by at least 5 people. If he leaves the lever, effectively 'letting what would've happened happen' he has to wonder whether he's responsible for the death of five people who would've died had he not been there, but on the bright side he makes a new friend, who he proved he cares about more than five others (sacrifice of popularity for the better minority).

>> No.12460513

You pull the switch to kill the one guy and then you go and murder the other 5 that are tied down. You are outright a murderer and there is no question. Philosophers actually have trouble with this?

>> No.12460522

>>12460327
Patrician answer. Utilitarianism is for dogs.

>> No.12460537

harvesting organs from 1 to save 5

>> No.12460546

>>12460327
https://youtu.be/-N_RZJUAQY4
Is this kid the most blackpilled guy ever existed?

>> No.12460554
File: 402 KB, 960x619, induction trolley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460554

>> No.12460563
File: 61 KB, 596x585, antinatalist trolley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460563

>>12460546
This kid had been hitting the Germans too hard

>> No.12460566

>>12460546
Absolute based and redpilled madkid he's within the same levels of innocence/evilness of Kant

>> No.12460590

>>12460415
>If he leaves the lever, effectively 'letting what would've happened happen' he has to wonder whether he's responsible for the death of five people who would've died had he not been there
I would argue that he isn't responsible for their deaths. As you said, they would have died if he wasn't present there, so how come, him just being present at the place,
makes him responsible for their deaths?

>> No.12460593
File: 136 KB, 900x900, Dnefb9-X4AAJLkP.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460593

>>12460546

>> No.12460623

>>12460593
>brayden
Did he compare the taste of plastic and water from an objective point of view?, also from a subjective point of view i find that plastic and water are both tasteless
>emilia
Oh fuck off you've seen nothing yet
>jaxton
Based and redpilled

>> No.12460646
File: 177 KB, 900x900, art.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460646

>>12460593
damn I love that page

>> No.12460699

>>12460590
>how come, him just being present at the place, makes him responsible for their deaths?

let's imagine the singular man is no longer there, but the train is still heading toward the five - he has the option to pull the lever and send the train down the now empty track, saving the five, but he chooses not to
is he not now responsible for their deaths? they would have died whether he had been there or not, but he was there and he could have easily saved their lives

or, a man is walking along a body of water when he spots another man drowning, he has access to a life rope that he could easily throw to the drowning man, but similarly chooses not to - is he ethically responsible for the mans death?

>> No.12460700

>>12460563
don't touch the lever but jump in front of the train as it comes past

>> No.12460710

>>12460327
You pull the switch when the train reaches the intersection which derails the train and kills yourself to save the other 6 people.

>> No.12460713

>>12460699
Legally speaking yes, morally and ethically maybe, but objectively speaking hes not responsible for their deaths

>> No.12460778

>>12460646
what's the source?

>> No.12460853

So I have thought about this trolley problem a lot, but I always come back to the same answer.
You see the trolley bearing down on the five people. You want to save those people, so you take the action that will reroute the trolley so it doesn't run over them.
The fact that a different person died, is irrelevant. It's not a consequence, it's a happenstance. Did you kill that one person? No, you saved all those other people. You're exempt from any wrongdoing by the very nature of the situation. So the idea that pulling the lever is somehow more 'interventionist' and wrong than not pulling the lever, is made irrelevant, because all these things could happen anyways with or without you. If you chose not to pull the lever, you're similarly not at fault for letting those people die. They would've died anyway. Your actions don't have any consequences in this situation.

>> No.12460887

>>12460853
>>12460699

>> No.12460910
File: 34 KB, 500x300, determinism trolley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460910

>>12460853
>It's not a consequence, it's a happenstance

It is absolutely a consequence
Happenstance is an unpredictable (or unpredicted) consequence to begin with
And the outcome is clearly predictable here

>> No.12460939

All things being equal, I think the correct choice is to not pull the lever. I would pull it only if the singular man asked me to. It's not my place to change the course of nature or make a sacrifice out of someone else.

>> No.12460949

>>12460939
What if the conductor asked you to?

>> No.12460950
File: 4 KB, 250x240, 1532746320604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12460950

>>12460939
> correct answer

>> No.12460954

>>12460939
You're trying to delude yourself that you're not involved and bear no responsibility for anything that happens.

>> No.12460973

>>12460949
No. But I wouldn't stop him if he did it himself.
>>12460954
Interfering in this course of events which is already taking place would necessitate murdering a person. Rather allow nature to take its course.

>> No.12460978

>>12460778
Welcome to My Meme Page on fb

>> No.12460990

>>12460327
>Pull lever halfway
>Derail trolley
>Save all 6 people on the tracks
>Kills everyone on board the trolley

>> No.12460994

mortality is subjective you retards it all depends on what ethical system you subscribe to (its impossible not to subscribe to one)

>> No.12460996

>check the race of those on either track
>make a decision based on that
simple as

>> No.12460997

>>12460973
Appealing to nature is fallacious and a copout. Your hand is on the level, you are involved. You think that by turning yourself into an object, a metaphorical lever, you become exempt and someone else must bear the responsibility by making the decision for you. An example of bad faith and people being okay with others doing things they're too cowardly to do.

>> No.12461009

>>12460997
You cannot impute to me the setting in motion of the events. I did no do it. It is not mine to bear. It is an already existing course; it is the state of nature which I am encountering. I could indeed choose to change it, and I might if there were a compelling reason, and it would not cause me to engage in an immoral act such as murder.

>> No.12461016

>>12460994

Mortality? Shit, postmodernism is sounding more and more like a religion.

>> No.12461025

>>12460996
They are all cloned Nordic ubermensch
No copouts itt

>> No.12461032

>>12461009
>being protestant Anglo
There is your problem
Most other countries have some short of Duty to Rescue law

>> No.12461033

>>12461009
You are involved whether you like it or not. You cannot will yourself out of it. You are an agent. You even admit you are one, but only for when it's convenient for you, of course. You can't have it any which way you like.

>> No.12461040

>>12461032
This isn't simply rescuing someone, it's actively murdering a person. You keep ignoring this aspect of the problem. Do these laws include the rules for how to make your utilitarian murder calculations?
>>12461033
What do you think that this means, that I am "involved"? How do you suppose that it confers upon a me a duty to kill the singular person lying on the track?

>> No.12461102

>>12461040
>Do these laws include the rules for how to make your utilitarian murder calculations?
No, actually they state more or less, "unless it endangers yourself or another person"
I am guessing endangering yourself relieves you of duty but it is ultimately your choice, while endangering a third party is straight up illegal.
So if you pull the lever you are legally bound on some sort of manslaughter charge.

>> No.12461284
File: 42 KB, 1024x682, 1548192589453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12461284

>>12460950
>moral relativism

>> No.12461308

>>12461025
>Nordic
>ubermensch
ha ha ha

>> No.12461332

>>12461025
>>12461308

multi track drifting it is

>> No.12461349

>>12460327
Hey I mean that viewpoint he claimas is invalid made sense to Emiya so there's that going for it.

>> No.12461372

>>12460590
By being present he has the opportunity to intervene, by doing nothing he is making two decisions the:
>NOT intervene choice
>NOT intervene act
whereas if he were ney present he would only have:
>NOT intervene act
A moral act requires both the choice and the act.

>> No.12461380

>>12460327
The reason people have such a hard time over this is because the picture shows the moral choice having already been made.
By touching the lever the man has committed the 'sin', whether or not he flips it is an argument about which is the lesser evil.
The man never should have touched the lever.

>> No.12461387

Don't pull the lever. Don't let that poor lad die alone :(

>> No.12461391

>>12461380
This is not chess

>> No.12461392

>>12460327
Let the trolley keep going so you only have to kill one man instead of five. That way you can kill as many people as possible in the most efficient way.

>> No.12461398
File: 1.33 MB, 330x171, 1479456209667-tg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12461398

>>12460327
The most interesting twist is what happens if you're on the trolley and can switch the tracks from there instead of off the trolley with the lever in hand.

>> No.12461399

>>12461392
Do nothing, as move is impossible anyway, as demonstrated by Zeno

>> No.12461422

>>12460327
Do nothing, know that by the laws of casualty what was destined to happen will happen and was always going to happen, and that any action taken simply cements in reality the path that was already going to be taken. The one or ones killed by the trolley were always going to die to it, and the machinations of a cold, emotionless universe move your very hand as though it were not your own. And indeed, it is not, for you are but an observer trapped in a body that will forever bend to the whims of the universe, until it too is destroyed. Even if you do act, it is not you that acts at all, but millions of generations of cause and effect which completely overpower any desire you have to change the future.

>> No.12461468

>>12461422
Oh, lay off the booze Laplace

>> No.12461483

>>12461468
How can you ask a slave of casualty to do the impossible? And yet, you too are also bound to ask by the very same laws you question, bound to blindly follow the artifical light created by the very same casualty you reject.

>> No.12461496

Most opportunities to intervene are not as simple as flipping a lever.

That said, I do actually donate to charities listed on givewell.

>> No.12461634

>>12461483
Please stop posting unless it's ironic

>> No.12462979

>>12460973
Your actions, whatever they may be, are part of the course of nature. You can't separate yourself from it.

>> No.12462984

>>12460990
based

>> No.12462986

>>12461634
Again you make the fatal error, for even were I to wish I was not posting, the laws of casualty have forced my hand. By the time you read this, it will have already come to pass, as certain as the setting of the sun. Ironic? Unironic? Either way, I would still find myself doing it. Does irony really matter when the action will be taken regardless?

>> No.12463171

>>12462986
>Again you make the fatal error
>said the fatalist
>Ironic? Unironic?

Oh it is ironic all right, the only question worth asking is on how many levels

>> No.12463172

>>12461025
For the Fourth Reich to be realized, it's better to kill the five. Otherwise, those five will be fighting it out in political power struggles, and the government will fall to corruption and stagnation.

>> No.12463387

Where does the meme that "more" human life is objectively better come from?

>> No.12463497

To everyone posting that they wouldn’t intervene with the “natural” state of thing of “fate” (al though I might also point out that fate and nature decreed that you be there and that your inaction is now an action being full aware of the results) I ask you, what if the second track were blank? If no one need die by your hand if you pull the lever, wouldn’t it make sense to pull it. Because you’ll still interning with what you call the natural state of things

>> No.12463598

>>12460593
The virgin brayden vs Chad Jaxton

>> No.12463646

>>12460994
No, morality is objective. It is only our perception of morality that is subjective.

>> No.12463662

>>12463646
Then what concept of morality exist outside human perceptive
>inb god or any man made idea

>> No.12463720

>>12463662
Even if god did not exist, one could imagine there is an ideal morality that exists that a sufficiently experienced and intelligent entity could understand.

>> No.12463843

>>12460327
This image is honestly a shit way to visualize the trolley problem because he already has his hand on the lever

>> No.12463861

>>12463662
Are concepts not objectively real (as information)? Morality is objective, it's just not universal (valuing agents are objectively different). We work with the overlap.

>> No.12463921

Kill the 5 because I'm an antinatalist.

>> No.12463932
File: 504 KB, 1605x1800, slaveauction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12463932

>>12460327
I'd ask if anyone of them voted for Trump, if any of them says yes I'll aim the train at them.