THE TROLLEY DILEMMA

[libertasbella]

A two-year-old has created the only answer to the trolley dilemma that I choose to accept.

[Spendulus]

Select the track that is safest for the trolley.

If 5 people are working on a track, it might mean that, that part of the track needs to be fixed because they all know that the trolley is coming that way. They will have prepared to get out of the way when the trolley comes through. But they need to get the track done to save the trolley.

On the other hand, one worker on a track might mean that, that section of track is not in need of much repair, and would be safer for the trolley in its unrepaired condition.

On another hand, workers might have been pulled off the one-worker track - even though it might be in worse repair - and moved to the five-worker track because that was the way the trolley was scheduled to travel.

Why save the trolley? Because there are 100 people on the trolley. Get them where they paid to go in the safest way possible.

Why not worry about the workers? Workers all know about working on tracks that trolleys ride. They are prepared to jump out of the way.

Moral of the story: If it's a psych student at the track switch, everyone's in deep shit. The only thing worse would be to have a psych prof at the track switch. Instruct the student's to throw him under the trolley.

[BADecker]

Select the track that is safest for the trolley.

If 5 people are working on a track, it might mean that, that part of the track needs to be fixed because they all know that the trolley is coming that way. They will have prepared to get out of the way when the trolley comes through. But they need to get the track done to save the trolley.

On the other hand, one worker on a track might mean that, that section of track is not in need of much repair, and would be safer for the trolley in its unrepaired condition.

On another hand, workers might have been pulled off the one-worker track - even though it might be in worse repair - and moved to the five-worker track because that was the way the trolley was scheduled to travel.

Why save the trolley? Because there are 100 people on the trolley. Get them where they paid to go in the safest way possible.

Why not worry about the workers? Workers all know about working on tracks that trolleys ride. They are prepared to jump out of the way.

Moral of the story: If it's a psych student at the track switch, everyone's in deep shit. The only thing worse would be to have a psych prof at the track switch. Instruct the student's to throw him under the trolley.

Stop the trolley, so that the students can get out and throw somebody under the trolley. Then the students can use voting machines to determine which track they should go down. Later, if the voting machines are proven fraudulent, who gets punished for killing the workers? Best idea is to go down the track with only one worker, so there is only one dead worker to be punished for... and whomever they threw under the trolley, of course. That's a given.

[Natsuu]

Select the track that is safest for the trolley.

If 5 people are working on a track, it might mean that, that part of the track needs to be fixed because they all know that the trolley is coming that way. They will have prepared to get out of the way when the trolley comes through. But they need to get the track done to save the trolley.

On the other hand, one worker on a track might mean that, that section of track is not in need of much repair, and would be safer for the trolley in its unrepaired condition.

On another hand, workers might have been pulled off the one-worker track - even though it might be in worse repair - and moved to the five-worker track because that was the way the trolley was scheduled to travel.

Why save the trolley? Because there are 100 people on the trolley. Get them where they paid to go in the safest way possible.

Why not worry about the workers? Workers all know about working on tracks that trolleys ride. They are prepared to jump out of the way.

That's some big ideology and assumption from the dilemma but think about this. This dilemma talks about who can you save, meaning the workers are not working for the broken tracks like you mentioned, instead of just a description to the persons directly involved in the problem. This goes the same for the 1 worker on the other track.

Also the problem didn't mention anything about the passengers of the trolley, so we can assume that it carries cargo and equipment instead of a human passenger. Ergo, the inside of the trolley can be disregarded in this situation.

Now for the main story, the workers (5 person and 1 person) are unexplainably won't be able to get away from the track for some various reasons we can come up by ourselves. But lets just assume that they really can't get away from the track.

So what choice would you choose? save the 1 person indirectly involved in the scenario, or move the lever and kill that uninvolved person just to save the 5 workers who are directly involve no matter what you choose.

[Natsuu]

in a binary choice the logical answer is
if options are 5 or 1.. the obviously the less damaging option of 1dies

there is no dilemma. in maths thats the best answer
in humanities that is the answer
in morals that is the answer
in common sense that is the answer..
no moral dilemma

the real question is with such an amount of seconds available and with a human available and not a logic robot. why didnt the person have the morals to just shout to both groups of people to just jump/run out the way

so changing the game to a proper option where there is no human variable of multiple options. where there is no time delay offering multiple possibilities.. the answer would be if no age specificity was given again simply 1 vs 5
then yea 1 dies again.

however a better moral dilemma. with no time in scenario to have multiple options. no human ability to have multiple options. but the only variable becomes 1 kid vs 5 old people
then.. that becomes a moral challenge that will change what people decide

yep psychological trials have run different scenarios and tested people
in a choice of 1 or 5 dies.. everyone chooses the 1 dies. no moral debate
in a choice of 1kid or 5old people.. thats where morals pop in and make the results less predictable

again your trolley example has been a bad example to pick
if you are in a psychology class and your tutor used the trolley.. you will find all psychology debaters would say 1 dies. but then debate the scenario as being flawed.

most psychology classes dont use the trolley scenario. they use other examples with a better dilemma in psychology

I didn't know where do you get your deductions and conclusions, which you stated as to be fact and the only truth in the situation. 

I can't argue with something like this conclusion without evidences and studies that supports your argument. Kindly give us some "psychologists" that support your statements.

I don't know if you had this kind of fun in your studies, but as far as I know, we do have fun with it as we acknowledge answers while looking for flaws behind the scenario they chose.

[franky1]

exactly
the fun part is that the scenario YOU chose has flaws. so the debate is about the flaws..
i mentioned it in my first post. catch up

better scenarios if the only answer you want is a binary answer is the car brake fail scenario
less variables. where the options are veer left and hit one kid or veer right and hit 5 old people

that car brake fail scenario has more of a moral clause in it.
your example is just time and math. not morals.

why the moral clause
because first thought is 1 kid has more life potential in future than 5 old people
but second thought 5 families are then affected by a tragedy instead of one
but third thought is 1 kid has better reaction speed to see and hope jump out the way
but fourth thought is the decision makers PTSD/guilt
and so on

however your scenario is just a numbers game not a morals game
enjoy

[Spendulus]

...
That's some big ideology and assumption from the dilemma but think about this. This dilemma talks about who can you save, meaning the workers are not working for the broken tracks like you mentioned, instead of just a description to the persons directly involved in the problem. This goes the same for the 1 worker on the other track.

Also the problem didn't mention anything about the passengers of the trolley, so we can assume that it carries cargo and equipment instead of a human passenger. Ergo, the inside of the trolley can be disregarded in this situation.

Now for the main story, the workers (5 person and 1 person) are unexplainably won't be able to get away from the track for some various reasons we can come up by ourselves. But lets just assume that they really can't get away from the track.

So what choice would you choose? save the 1 person indirectly involved in the scenario, or move the lever and kill that uninvolved person just to save the 5 workers who are directly involve no matter what you choose.

No, let's not. You're trying to narrow the problem down to where you've got the artificial moral dilemma that was your initial intent.

But others have pointed out various alternatives. This is important, because it illustrates that situations are seldom black or white, and there is almost always a third way. In the real world these sorts of alternatives are very important, because they are a way out of a zero-sum game.

[Cnut237]

~

~

~

Come on, you lot. It's a thought experiment with two outcomes. If you start to 'real world' it, and throw in alternatives, the experiment is pointless.
I've had lengthy and interesting discussions with each of you in numerous P&S threads. I'm interested in which of the two available choices you'd make, and why.

in a binary choice the logical answer is
if options are 5 or 1.. the obviously the less damaging option of 1dies

Franky1, I know you've answered with the bare mathematical fact, but if actually faced with this choice, would you find it easy to intervene and pull the lever? Would there be any temptation to do nothing rather than pull the lever?

You're trying to narrow the problem down to where you've got the artificial moral dilemma that was your initial intent.

But others have pointed out various alternatives. This is important, because it illustrates that situations are seldom black or white, and there is almost always a third way. In the real world these sorts of alternatives are very important, because they are a way out of a zero-sum game.

I'm with the OP here. It's artificial and constrained not because it's a flawed representation of reality, but rather because it's a hypothetical and simplified situation set up to enable us to explore moral choices and the reasoning behind them. Trying to turn it into reality misses the point; it's like refusing to play a game of Cluedo because the owner of the mansion was an idiot who didn't set up a CCTV system.

[Spendulus]

...

You're trying to narrow the problem down to where you've got the artificial moral dilemma that was your initial intent.

But others have pointed out various alternatives. This is important, because it illustrates that situations are seldom black or white, and there is almost always a third way. In the real world these sorts of alternatives are very important, because they are a way out of a zero-sum game.

I'm with the OP here. It's artificial and constrained not because it's a flawed representation of reality, but rather because it's a hypothetical and simplified situation set up to enable us to explore moral choices and the reasoning behind them. Trying to turn it into reality misses the point; it's like refusing to play a game of Cluedo because the owner of the mansion was an idiot who didn't set up a CCTV system.

Virtually all economic and technological progress has been based on the finding of ways OUT OF ZERO SUM GAMES, not ways to play them. Why is Europe not a warring feuding bunch of small warlords today, each of whom could only better itself by war on its neighbors?

Throwing the psychology prof under the trolley is certainly a valid option.

[franky1]

~

~

~

Come on, you lot. It's a thought experiment with two outcomes. If you start to 'real world' it, and throw in alternatives, the experiment is pointless.
I've had lengthy and interesting discussions with each of you in numerous P&S threads. I'm interested in which of the two available choices you'd make, and why.

in a binary choice the logical answer is
if options are 5 or 1.. the obviously the less damaging option of 1dies

Franky1, I know you've answered with the bare mathematical fact, but if actually faced with this choice, would you find it easy to intervene and pull the lever? Would there be any temptation to do nothing rather than pull the lever?

without "real worlding" it. all thats left in a binary choice option is a mathematical logic answer

again its not a good 'moral' clause problem. but a great math problem

[Spendulus]

without "real worlding" it. all thats left in a binary choice option is a mathematical logic answer
again its not a good 'moral' clause problem. but a great math problem

REMINDER: You are posting on a forum called bitcoin talk, the product of the thinking of a guy named Satoshi Nakamoto, who explicitly rejected this kind of narrow focus on binary outcomes to a problem, and found an alternative, called bitcoin.

[Cnut237]

~

~

You two are brilliant! Normally I'd divert the trolley to the route with the fewest people... but if I had a choice between:
route A) one unknown person,
route B) franky1 and Spendulus

... then I'd definitely divert it onto you two, safe in the knowledge that you'd find some way to weasel out of the problem completely unscathed!

REMINDER: You are posting on a forum called bitcoin talk, the product of the thinking of a guy named Satoshi Nakamoto

Thanks, got it. This reveals your answer to the trolley problem. Bitcoin is the answer, and pulling the lever would effectively be forking the coin. If you don't touch the lever: bitcoin. If you move the lever: bitcoin cash.
No-one likes bitcoin cash. So you're saying it doesn't matter how many people are on the track, the original vision is the answer, and don't touch the lever.  

[Spendulus]

~

~

You two are brilliant! Normally I'd divert the trolley to the route with the fewest people... but if I had a choice between:
route A) one unknown person,
route B) franky1 and Spendulus

... then I'd definitely divert it onto you two, safe in the knowledge that you'd find some way to weasel out of the problem completely unscathed!

REMINDER: You are posting on a forum called bitcoin talk, the product of the thinking of a guy named Satoshi Nakamoto

Thanks, got it. This reveals your answer to the trolley problem. Bitcoin is the answer, and pulling the lever would effectively be forking the coin. If you don't touch the lever: bitcoin. If you move the lever: bitcoin cash.
No-one likes bitcoin cash. So you're saying it doesn't matter how many people are on the track, the original vision is the answer, and don't touch the lever.  

lol brilliant!