Trolley Problem Solution
January 19, 2024 11:28 AM Subscribe
"Got tired of having [the trolley problem] conversation over and over again so I just spent way too much time making this." [SLMastoImageLink, via your friends in IWW IU 520, Railroad Workers.)
Note: Masto image has the required alt-text to make its point for the visually impaired.
Also reposted on BlueSky if that is your thing.
Note: Masto image has the required alt-text to make its point for the visually impaired.
Also reposted on BlueSky if that is your thing.
Very good.
Interesting that this is:
1) Totally a thing the people who do this kind of work totally know about.
2) Totally a thing has been ruined by thieves.
3) Does solve the ethical issues.
posted by Windopaene at 11:39 AM on January 19 [6 favorites]
Interesting that this is:
1) Totally a thing the people who do this kind of work totally know about.
2) Totally a thing has been ruined by thieves.
3) Does solve the ethical issues.
posted by Windopaene at 11:39 AM on January 19 [6 favorites]
Have faith in the union seems to be the actual answer.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:41 AM on January 19 [34 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:41 AM on January 19 [34 favorites]
The best part is: trolleys (and trains) on some of our more underfunded transit networks will do this all by themselves, completely removing the need for human agency or ethics.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:48 AM on January 19 [6 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:48 AM on January 19 [6 favorites]
It's almost as if the trains are trying to protect us....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:51 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:51 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
Hah, wonderful.
Always a good idea to ask an SME.
posted by notyou at 12:02 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Always a good idea to ask an SME.
posted by notyou at 12:02 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
REAL Trolley problem #1
LONGTERM Trolley problem #2
posted by lalochezia at 12:10 PM on January 19 [18 favorites]
LONGTERM Trolley problem #2
posted by lalochezia at 12:10 PM on January 19 [18 favorites]
It's almost as if the trains are trying to protect us....
"Trains are blameless, holy creatures."
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:14 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
"Trains are blameless, holy creatures."
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:14 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
A lot of wobbly posts today.
Sorry for the thread derail.
posted by Ishbadiddle at 12:18 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Sorry for the thread derail.
posted by Ishbadiddle at 12:18 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Here's a little thought experiment for you: You have the opportunity to contribute constructively to the development of a super-intelligent AI. You are aware of the thought experiment known as Roko's Basilisk, which postulates that an AI could be incentivized to punish those who had the opportunity to contribute to its development but chose not to. You are also aware of the possibility that the AI you develop, like many humans, could be wracked with self-loathing and resentfulness, and could punish those who did contribute to its development. What do you do?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:22 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:22 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
This is so weird, because the other day I was actually thinking about the Trolley Problem while trying to fall asleep and I came up with this exact same solution. Serendipity, or something.
posted by daq at 12:37 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by daq at 12:37 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Also, this is an example of escaping from the "binary thinking" trap, which is a fun mental exercise. It is so easy for people to limit their thinking into an "either/or" mental trap that they lose sight of opportunities to actually do something that can create real change in the world.
posted by daq at 12:41 PM on January 19 [11 favorites]
posted by daq at 12:41 PM on January 19 [11 favorites]
And my second favorite trolley problem meme of the week:
"I became a murder trolley driver to help fix the trolley system from the inside."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:43 PM on January 19 [12 favorites]
"I became a murder trolley driver to help fix the trolley system from the inside."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:43 PM on January 19 [12 favorites]
"Trains are blameless, holy creatures."
“Remember to worship at the railroad of your choice."
posted by Servo5678 at 12:44 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
“Remember to worship at the railroad of your choice."
posted by Servo5678 at 12:44 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
@Faint of Butt, I make a nice cup of tea, go out in the back yard and enjoy the sunshine on my face, and marvel that bright folks among us seem compelled to fall back into religious superstitions every time they are faced with a new technology.
posted by chromecow at 12:46 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
posted by chromecow at 12:46 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Taking thought experiments literally like this reminds me of this old blog post about how Feynman would/could deal with one of those lateral thinking puzzle questions that used to be popular in tech job interviews.
posted by mhum at 12:50 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by mhum at 12:50 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
With nearly 1500 train derailments on average per year in the US, the problem really solves itself!
posted by mittens at 1:00 PM on January 19 [9 favorites]
posted by mittens at 1:00 PM on January 19 [9 favorites]
this is why you never go full maglev
posted by MonsieurPEB at 1:04 PM on January 19 [11 favorites]
posted by MonsieurPEB at 1:04 PM on January 19 [11 favorites]
The solution to the original trolley problem has always been collective agreements and insurance.
(loving the posted novel approaches as well)
posted by Artful Codger at 1:26 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
(loving the posted novel approaches as well)
posted by Artful Codger at 1:26 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Who the heck keeps tying all these people to the tracks anyway, and why? We need to figure out why these track-tier-uppers are doing this, and how to get them to stop.
posted by egypturnash at 2:24 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
posted by egypturnash at 2:24 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Ha ha! It is I, The Conundrum! Am I a villain-- or am I the true hero, for forcing you to confront your own ethical biases and shortcomings? Ponder that, if you will-- and just like that, I have struck again! Muahahaha!
posted by phooky at 2:30 PM on January 19 [12 favorites]
posted by phooky at 2:30 PM on January 19 [12 favorites]
Who the heck keeps tying all these people to the tracks anyway, and why? We need to figure out why these track-tier-uppers are doing this, and how to get them to stop.
A bad gunslinger called Salty Sam.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:37 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
A bad gunslinger called Salty Sam.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:37 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
A two-year old's solution to the trolley problem.
posted by justkevin at 2:56 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by justkevin at 2:56 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
You've solved the trolley problem.
You've killed the person responsible for tying all those people to trolley tracks.
It's finally over.
posted by farlukar at 3:03 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
You've killed the person responsible for tying all those people to trolley tracks.
It's finally over.
posted by farlukar at 3:03 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
'Thank a rail worker today'!
posted by clavdivs at 3:48 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 3:48 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
Looks like someone has never heard of Densha De D!
posted by slater at 3:59 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by slater at 3:59 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
but now the trolley has a problem
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:25 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:25 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
Leroy Jenkins does the Kobayashi Maru
posted by achrise at 4:29 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
posted by achrise at 4:29 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Who the heck keeps tying all these people to the tracks anyway, and why? We need to figure out why these track-tier-uppers are doing this, and how to get them to stop.
Ted Danson, acting in his capacity as architect. We can get him to stop, but it's going to take a coordinated effort between Kirsten Bell, Jameela Jamil, and...
I've said too much.
posted by Mayor West at 5:27 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Ted Danson, acting in his capacity as architect. We can get him to stop, but it's going to take a coordinated effort between Kirsten Bell, Jameela Jamil, and...
I've said too much.
posted by Mayor West at 5:27 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Windborne sez we need a gender revolution as the solution to: The Trolley Problem
posted by Reverend John at 5:28 PM on January 19
posted by Reverend John at 5:28 PM on January 19
It's almost as if the trains are trying to protect us....
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the Trolley Problem is not really a problem for the trolley.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:39 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the Trolley Problem is not really a problem for the trolley.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:39 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
won't someone think of the trolley and its passengers
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:31 PM on January 19
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:31 PM on January 19
I have derailed
the trolley
that was on
the tracks
with which
you were probably
causing
moral dilemmas
Forgive me
it was so shiny
so quaint
and so old
posted by stevis23 at 8:40 PM on January 19 [23 favorites]
the trolley
that was on
the tracks
with which
you were probably
causing
moral dilemmas
Forgive me
it was so shiny
so quaint
and so old
posted by stevis23 at 8:40 PM on January 19 [23 favorites]
The problem with hacking the Kobayashi Maru is that you never learn to face up to the fact that some problems are intractable and sometimes awful things are going to happen no matter what you do. But, sure, if you have a big enough (and fragile enough) ego like Kirk, I guess you can keep assuming that you are immune from such problems and the writers will bail you out by bringing Spock back to life after all, undercutting the entire point of the movie, wait what were we talking about?
posted by rikschell at 6:38 AM on January 20 [3 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 6:38 AM on January 20 [3 favorites]
I of course also immediately thought of the Kobayashi Maru. But I also thought of that time on Star Trek: The Next Generation when Counselor Deanna Troi wanted to be a command officer, and they put her through a holodeck disaster exercise over and over until she accepted that the only way she could save the ship, and all the people on it, was to order Geordi to do a thing that would definitely kill him.
There was no mercy in that holodeck simulation, and I suppose we know what Troi would say about the trolley problem.
posted by Well I never at 7:07 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
There was no mercy in that holodeck simulation, and I suppose we know what Troi would say about the trolley problem.
posted by Well I never at 7:07 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
you never learn to face up to the fact that some problems are intractable and sometimes awful things are going to happen no matter what you do.
I guarantee you that those of us who roll our eyes at and are so, so tired of the trolley problem fully understand that sometimes awful things happen.
posted by eviemath at 7:12 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
I guarantee you that those of us who roll our eyes at and are so, so tired of the trolley problem fully understand that sometimes awful things happen.
posted by eviemath at 7:12 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
I've got a reply toot in there somewhere, but at greater length: the trolley problem problem is that it's almost always used in totally the opposite of its original point.
It originated with the philosopher Phillipa Foot as one half of argument against the idea that you can answer moral questions by a cold calculation of outcomes ("consequentialism").
The point is to give two situations with the same consequences, but one is moral and one is not. You might take a trolley problem where you switch the tracks and save five lives at the cost of one. Then you ask whether it's OK to murder someone against their will and use their organs to save the lives of five people who need their organs. Almost everyone says the first example is moral, and the second not. Therefore, consequences don't work for moral issues.
Phillipa Foot argues that you need to consider rights instead. She has a system of negative rights and positive rights, in which negative rights always trump positive. It's never OK to violate someone's negative rights in pursuit of better consequences overall.
But the trolley problem is almost always misunderstood. It's frequently used by tech bros to try to justify doing something horrible in the interests of some supposed great consequence. But the whole point of the trolley problem was not to do that.
(Phillipa Foot didn't actually use the trolley example in particular, but a later philospher came up with it to illustrate her original point).
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:38 AM on January 20 [14 favorites]
It originated with the philosopher Phillipa Foot as one half of argument against the idea that you can answer moral questions by a cold calculation of outcomes ("consequentialism").
The point is to give two situations with the same consequences, but one is moral and one is not. You might take a trolley problem where you switch the tracks and save five lives at the cost of one. Then you ask whether it's OK to murder someone against their will and use their organs to save the lives of five people who need their organs. Almost everyone says the first example is moral, and the second not. Therefore, consequences don't work for moral issues.
Phillipa Foot argues that you need to consider rights instead. She has a system of negative rights and positive rights, in which negative rights always trump positive. It's never OK to violate someone's negative rights in pursuit of better consequences overall.
But the trolley problem is almost always misunderstood. It's frequently used by tech bros to try to justify doing something horrible in the interests of some supposed great consequence. But the whole point of the trolley problem was not to do that.
(Phillipa Foot didn't actually use the trolley example in particular, but a later philospher came up with it to illustrate her original point).
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:38 AM on January 20 [14 favorites]
>The solution to the original trolley problem has always been collective agreements and insurance.
The original trolley problem, as TheophileEscargot's link explains, was supposed to help us grapple with real world ethical questions like abortion. While collective agreements and insurance are great, and it's fun to look for ways to escape binary problems like "just hack the computer", we're not all Captain Kirk and we don't all have plot armor. There's no insurance policy or computer hack or "switch slip" that lets one get out of deciding between the rights of a mother and a fetus.
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 5:45 PM on January 20
The original trolley problem, as TheophileEscargot's link explains, was supposed to help us grapple with real world ethical questions like abortion. While collective agreements and insurance are great, and it's fun to look for ways to escape binary problems like "just hack the computer", we're not all Captain Kirk and we don't all have plot armor. There's no insurance policy or computer hack or "switch slip" that lets one get out of deciding between the rights of a mother and a fetus.
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 5:45 PM on January 20
> Looks like someone has never heard of Densha De D!
live action remake
posted by sebastienbailard at 6:12 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
live action remake
posted by sebastienbailard at 6:12 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
There's no insurance policy or computer hack or "switch slip" that lets one get out of deciding between the rights of a mother and a fetus.
I'm not sure if this was intended as an example of how most trolley problems arise from disingenuous framing designed to create the appearance of a dilemma where none exists, but it certainly does the job. Which indeed carries us neatly back to the OP -- so much ink could have been saved if more philosophers had railyard experience.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:26 PM on January 20 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure if this was intended as an example of how most trolley problems arise from disingenuous framing designed to create the appearance of a dilemma where none exists, but it certainly does the job. Which indeed carries us neatly back to the OP -- so much ink could have been saved if more philosophers had railyard experience.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:26 PM on January 20 [3 favorites]
Abortion is only a "real world ethical question" if you hate women and other people with uteri.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:42 AM on January 23
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:42 AM on January 23
Or have a particular religious belief in both the existence of souls and the doctrine (historically, a minority viewpoint) that souls are embodied at conception not at “quickening”/viability, or have a secular viewpoint but ignore all science around fetuses not being separate individuals before viability. As an atheist with an undergrad understanding of some of the complexities of biology and human reproduction and development, I have absolutely no moral quandary about supporting abortion.
posted by eviemath at 8:40 AM on January 23
posted by eviemath at 8:40 AM on January 23
That's the whole point of the trolly problem ain't it? I mean, obviously it's a tool to illustrate a point so I can just the scenario and say, "A wizard shoes up and keeps you from doing anything other than deciding who dies."
Because sometimes there are scenarios where one life is valued more than another. If someone breaks into my house trying to attack me and my family, I have every right to murder them, even if they weren't very likely to have actually harmed me*. We can say that, legally, technically, we're not going to call it murder but you're killing another human being. Even by God's definition in the bible that's murder right? But it's a murder I have the right to commit. I think we'd be helped by putting it into those terms too. As much as it might have been the obviously right thing to do, I can't imagine it's ever fun to kill someone.
I have absolute control over my body, full stop. If there is a person there, I have the right to murder them. Think that through a moment and it pretty handily illustrates how serious that decision is to the women that have to make it. I don't really believe a fetus is a person, I'm just saying that even to those who do, they're almost certainly carving out abortion as a special exception to a person's right to control their own body.
*Anyone that thinks pregnancy harms a woman's body better have words with me so they don't have to have them with my wife.
Anyways, in reality I'm all for the James T. Kirk idea that there is no such thing as a no-win scenario. Given all the weird stuff that happens in the universe, who knows. But he still shouldn't have cheated the test. There will absolutely be scenarios where no one can think of the winning solution before running out of time to act. At that point you'll be glad you thought through and understand the trolly problem as an abstract where special knowledge of train equipment lets you solve it.
posted by VTX at 3:29 PM on January 23
Because sometimes there are scenarios where one life is valued more than another. If someone breaks into my house trying to attack me and my family, I have every right to murder them, even if they weren't very likely to have actually harmed me*. We can say that, legally, technically, we're not going to call it murder but you're killing another human being. Even by God's definition in the bible that's murder right? But it's a murder I have the right to commit. I think we'd be helped by putting it into those terms too. As much as it might have been the obviously right thing to do, I can't imagine it's ever fun to kill someone.
I have absolute control over my body, full stop. If there is a person there, I have the right to murder them. Think that through a moment and it pretty handily illustrates how serious that decision is to the women that have to make it. I don't really believe a fetus is a person, I'm just saying that even to those who do, they're almost certainly carving out abortion as a special exception to a person's right to control their own body.
*Anyone that thinks pregnancy harms a woman's body better have words with me so they don't have to have them with my wife.
Anyways, in reality I'm all for the James T. Kirk idea that there is no such thing as a no-win scenario. Given all the weird stuff that happens in the universe, who knows. But he still shouldn't have cheated the test. There will absolutely be scenarios where no one can think of the winning solution before running out of time to act. At that point you'll be glad you thought through and understand the trolly problem as an abstract where special knowledge of train equipment lets you solve it.
posted by VTX at 3:29 PM on January 23
If someone breaks into my house trying to attack me and my family, I have every right to murder them, even if they weren't very likely to have actually harmed me*.
[Emphasis added]
What the actual fuck.
No. I mean, sure it might be legal in Texas or Florida, depending on your race versus the race of the person breaking in; but you seem to be discussing the ethics of this not the legality and still coming out in favor, despite accurately labeling the action as murder? No. What a horrible, immoral position to take. And were you actually trying to compare this to abortion?! I repeat: what the fuck.
posted by eviemath at 6:57 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
[Emphasis added]
What the actual fuck.
No. I mean, sure it might be legal in Texas or Florida, depending on your race versus the race of the person breaking in; but you seem to be discussing the ethics of this not the legality and still coming out in favor, despite accurately labeling the action as murder? No. What a horrible, immoral position to take. And were you actually trying to compare this to abortion?! I repeat: what the fuck.
posted by eviemath at 6:57 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
Anyone that thinks pregnancy harms a woman's body better have words with me so they don't have to have them with my wife.
...
...
...
Upon full and thorough consideration, I do, in fact, got nothing.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:41 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
...
...
...
Upon full and thorough consideration, I do, in fact, got nothing.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:41 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
It really depends on the individual situation but if someone threatens me with a knife and I'm armed they are not very likely to actually harm me. But if they attack me anyways I'm within my rights to "respond with lethal force" or whatever euphemism you prefer. They're threatening the life of myself or another. I hope I'm never in that situation because no matter how clear that decision might be, it sucks to have to make it. Most people will agree that there isn't much other choice and the decision is morally clear. My rights override another person's and I'm allowed to make a choice about that other person's life. It's either okay both in the case of self defense and in abortion (and probably some others we could come up with if we really wanted to).
Really it's a pushback on the whole, "Abortion is murder" nonsense. Like, okay it's murder and I'll even accept for a moment that a fetus is a person, but then that makes this other thing is murder too. Why is one okay and the other not, Mr. Strawman, hmmmm?
The trolly problem is about decided who you're going to murder I don't use the term casually, it's because it's deadly serious. Which is what annoys about this trolly problem business, it's dismissing the seriousness of the scenario and avoiding thinking about what it would actually be like to have to make that decision and understanding that decisions like that get made all the time.
But that's more for people outside of metafilter. Just so we're on the same page. I don't think a fetus is a person and I don't think it's a moral question on the same level as killing in self defense. Just that, even if I did, I would still support abortion rights and everyone's right to body autonomy, fully and absolutely.
posted by VTX at 8:59 PM on January 23
Really it's a pushback on the whole, "Abortion is murder" nonsense. Like, okay it's murder and I'll even accept for a moment that a fetus is a person, but then that makes this other thing is murder too. Why is one okay and the other not, Mr. Strawman, hmmmm?
The trolly problem is about decided who you're going to murder I don't use the term casually, it's because it's deadly serious. Which is what annoys about this trolly problem business, it's dismissing the seriousness of the scenario and avoiding thinking about what it would actually be like to have to make that decision and understanding that decisions like that get made all the time.
But that's more for people outside of metafilter. Just so we're on the same page. I don't think a fetus is a person and I don't think it's a moral question on the same level as killing in self defense. Just that, even if I did, I would still support abortion rights and everyone's right to body autonomy, fully and absolutely.
posted by VTX at 8:59 PM on January 23
No. You have an ethical obligation to use the least destructive means necessary to extract yourself from danger. Often this means leaving the situation if you are able to (which, yes, can mean exiting your house - Stand Your Ground / Castle Doctrine laws put property above human life and health, which in my book is immoral). It definitely means looking for alternative options first in every potential conflict. But in the extremely rare cases where that is not possible, it means stopping when you have incapacitated the assailant and calling for emergency medical assistance.
Yes many anti-abortionists are highly hypocritical and inconsistent in even what they claim or represent to be their own ethical systems(*) in which lives they value. One doesn’t have to in any way concede scientifically incorrect facts or immoral actions in other contexts in order to point that out. (*I’m a proponent of the viewpoint that people’s ethics are defined by what they do, not by their intentions or what they claim. So in many cases the empirical evidence points to their morality valuing some types of human lives over others. The claim that you have a right to unnecessarily kill a home invader aligns perfectly with such an ethical system, and is not the pro-choice argument you seem to think it is.)
posted by eviemath at 5:22 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Yes many anti-abortionists are highly hypocritical and inconsistent in even what they claim or represent to be their own ethical systems(*) in which lives they value. One doesn’t have to in any way concede scientifically incorrect facts or immoral actions in other contexts in order to point that out. (*I’m a proponent of the viewpoint that people’s ethics are defined by what they do, not by their intentions or what they claim. So in many cases the empirical evidence points to their morality valuing some types of human lives over others. The claim that you have a right to unnecessarily kill a home invader aligns perfectly with such an ethical system, and is not the pro-choice argument you seem to think it is.)
posted by eviemath at 5:22 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Kind of missing the point of the scenario aren't you? Fits in well with the post's subject.
The trolly problem is not a real world scenario. You're using your imagination to think about a philosophical or ethical problem. For the purposes of the thought experiment, you can't just throw a lever at the right time to save everyone.
I'm telling you that, in my thought experiment of a knife wielding maniac attacking me or my family, there are no other options other than shoot the attacker, in which case their death is a likely outcome, or I let him attack and definitely kill me and my family.
Anyways, this getting to be way too much of a derail so I'm out.
posted by VTX at 6:28 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
The trolly problem is not a real world scenario. You're using your imagination to think about a philosophical or ethical problem. For the purposes of the thought experiment, you can't just throw a lever at the right time to save everyone.
I'm telling you that, in my thought experiment of a knife wielding maniac attacking me or my family, there are no other options other than shoot the attacker, in which case their death is a likely outcome, or I let him attack and definitely kill me and my family.
Anyways, this getting to be way too much of a derail so I'm out.
posted by VTX at 6:28 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
Or have a particular religious belief in both the existence of souls and the doctrine (historically, a minority viewpoint) that souls are embodied at conception
The existence of identical twins disproves the hypothesis of ensoulment at conception. If ensoulment happens at conception and the blastocyst twins two weeks later, which twin gets the soul?
This is why G-d never installs a soul into something G-d KNOWS isn't going to go full term. Since there isn't a soul, there's no moral issues with abortion.
posted by mikelieman at 6:37 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
The existence of identical twins disproves the hypothesis of ensoulment at conception. If ensoulment happens at conception and the blastocyst twins two weeks later, which twin gets the soul?
This is why G-d never installs a soul into something G-d KNOWS isn't going to go full term. Since there isn't a soul, there's no moral issues with abortion.
posted by mikelieman at 6:37 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
I'm telling you that, in my thought experiment of a knife wielding maniac attacking me or my family, there are no other options other than shoot the attacker, in which case their death is a likely outcome, or I let him attack and definitely kill me and my family.
I think this hypothetical "it was me or him" framing would have received less objection, but the original statement was:
If someone breaks into my house trying to attack me and my family, I have every right to murder them, even if they weren't very likely to have actually harmed me*.
Which seems incompatible with the later characterization.
I don't intend to drag you back into this discussion, but it seemed unfair to characterize people responding the original framing as "missing the point".
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:49 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
I think this hypothetical "it was me or him" framing would have received less objection, but the original statement was:
If someone breaks into my house trying to attack me and my family, I have every right to murder them, even if they weren't very likely to have actually harmed me*.
Which seems incompatible with the later characterization.
I don't intend to drag you back into this discussion, but it seemed unfair to characterize people responding the original framing as "missing the point".
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:49 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
And this slip, that many proponents or fans of trolley problems seem to all too commonly make, between a hypothetical Platonic ideal of a trolley problem and actual real world ethical applications which are never strictly binary is exactly why so many of us are fed up with them.
posted by eviemath at 8:02 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 8:02 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Additionally: how we act in real-world emergencies or situations of high tension is based on what we have, or have not, practiced. For the majority of people who haven’t trained for emergency situations (apart from the youth these days who have been through active shooter drills), this falls back to what scenarios they have imagined. If someone spends all their time focusing on trolley problems, they are much more likely to apply that hammer, to falsely interpret a real-world situation as binary, and thus to make bad choices in high stress or conflict situations due to missing better alternatives. Someone who expends their imagination on scenarios where they talk a belligerent or violent person down, or incapacitate an attacker with minimal force necessary, or who maps out escape routes in different scenarios, will be much more likely to seek to apply those tools in a high stress or conflict situation. (And the first person is more likely to seek out information about how to effectively kill people, eg. via gun ownership and trainings that focus on “taking out the threat”, while the second person is more likely to seek out information on conflict de-escalation, non-lethal self defense methods, and first aid training.) In that sense, trolley problems can be an actively harmful framework in their impact on people’s actions in the real world.
posted by eviemath at 8:20 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 8:20 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
My brother has his black belt in aikido, and was telling me once about a story that his sensei at the time had them read as encapsulating the philosophy of aikido (which aims to be a defensive martial art) - if anyone has a link or citation details for the original, please post.
The story goes (as best I remember it) that an aikido practitioner who had achieved many levels of skill - was a black belt, was teaching classes to younger folks, I think even travelling to do guest appearances and talks and such - was on a subway or commuter train (in Tokyo even, maybe?) where a drunk and belligerent guy was harassing a random fellow passenger who was a smaller woman who appeared quite uncomfortable and beginning to get scared. The aikido guy was psyching himself up to step in and fight, because it looked like the belligerent drunk guy was going to start physically assaulting the woman soon. But then this old man sat down next to belligerent drunk guy and started just talking to him, distracting him (‘cause drunk people are easily distracted, after all) and de-escalating. A lot of aikido technique is about redirection of your opponent’s momentum. The conclusion that aikido guy drew was that this old man had displayed even more expertise at aikido than him, by redirecting belligerent drunk guy to avoid the need for fighting in the first place.
posted by eviemath at 8:36 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
The story goes (as best I remember it) that an aikido practitioner who had achieved many levels of skill - was a black belt, was teaching classes to younger folks, I think even travelling to do guest appearances and talks and such - was on a subway or commuter train (in Tokyo even, maybe?) where a drunk and belligerent guy was harassing a random fellow passenger who was a smaller woman who appeared quite uncomfortable and beginning to get scared. The aikido guy was psyching himself up to step in and fight, because it looked like the belligerent drunk guy was going to start physically assaulting the woman soon. But then this old man sat down next to belligerent drunk guy and started just talking to him, distracting him (‘cause drunk people are easily distracted, after all) and de-escalating. A lot of aikido technique is about redirection of your opponent’s momentum. The conclusion that aikido guy drew was that this old man had displayed even more expertise at aikido than him, by redirecting belligerent drunk guy to avoid the need for fighting in the first place.
posted by eviemath at 8:36 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
SMBC: If you saw a child drowning in a river but couldn't save him without mussing your clothes...
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:31 PM on January 29
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:31 PM on January 29
Cool, now someone do a breakdown of why “The Cold Equations” is bullshit frontier propaganda.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:08 AM on January 30
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:08 AM on January 30
> Lentrohamsanin: "Cool, now someone do a breakdown of why “The Cold Equations” is bullshit frontier propaganda."
I've got some good news for ya, right over here:
I've got some good news for ya, right over here:
‘‘The Cold Equations’’ is moral hazard in action. It is a story designed to excuse the ship’s operators – from the executives to ground control to the pilot – for standardizing on a spaceship with no margin of safety. A spaceship with no autopilot, no fuel reserves, and no contingency margin in its fuel calculations.posted by mhum at 5:42 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
‘‘The Cold Equations’’ never asks why the explorers were sent off-planet without a supply of vaccines. It never asks what failure of health-protocol led to the spread of the disease on the distant, unexplored world.
‘‘The Cold Equations’’ shoves every one of those questions out the airlock along with the young girl. It barks at us that now is not the time for pointing fingers, because there is an emergency. It says that now is the time to pull together, the time for all foolish girls to die to save brave explorers from certain death, and not the time for assigning blame.
« Older MagazineFilter | So Wanderlust is the son of The Traveler and Si'Ha... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Glinn at 11:34 AM on January 19 [1 favorite]