-19
If we had to torture and murder millions of innocent children to stop global warming would that be okay? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT Ok so it's just the trolly problem.

EDIT2 : AHA War Games 1983. "The only winning move is not to play." (We might call this the final product of a lot of smart philosophical digestion, because it's a famous movie). There's always the perfectly valid option to ditch the riddle. (Because maybe the riddle is dumb, or maybe the riddle is no better than a thousand others, utilitywise )

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Ok, why is the trolley problem bullshit? Seriously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Because it implies utilitarianism is the best option by oversimplifying the problem. For example in your example you gave zero details on the situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    It's what we call an abstraction. This particular abstraction highlights a moral point.

    Not bullshit. Useful and interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Typically, an abstraction maintains the essence of the original. Asking "what if , but it costs " isn't an abstraction.

    I'm not aware of a proposed solution to climate change that involves mass torture or murder.

    The question feels more like one of those terrible parlor games where you have to pick a few cards and then argue some randomly generated point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Okay let me try another abstraction. Should we cure cancer but kill a bunch of people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's the same riddle. You get that, right?

    And so we find ourselves without an easy answer. And so we are forced to inspect the riddle more closely. To uncover hidden assumptions and such. We might even do that in conversation, on a forum like lemmy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The core of the riddle is that it is an ultimatum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum

    Ultimatums have been debated historically, in great detail. For example, in the old testament of the bible.

    https://www.bibleoutlines.com/isaiah-361-377-dont-make-a-deal-with-the-devil/

    Even if one is not religious or cares not for reading biblical stuff, it is simplified effectively as such:

    If given only 2 choices, it is never fair. Find another choice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think that's a different thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    You are right, it's not the same thing. I had an English teacher who tossed out her vocabulary lesson one day and instead went off on a very energetic rant about critical thinking, ultimatums, game theory, dilemma, paradox and so on. I've always wanted to recreate her lesson but never get it right.

    I do think my final line still applies for this scenario. There's always another way. I think War Games does the same idea I was trying to convey but I've never seen it, I've only seen enough references to it, to vagely know what it's about..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)