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 )

top 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about???

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Trolley problem is a bullshit in the first place, just as your "what if" nonsense. Millions of innocent children are dying and being tortured already by the capitalism, which is also main cause of global warming.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Ok, why is the trolley problem bullshit? Seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think that's a different thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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..

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)
    1. Per capita it's not, by far it's not.
    2. Ever wondered why it has such emissions? Because it produce literally half of everything produced in the world, for usage of both you and me and everyone else. Sourcing of emissions by consumption make it way worse for west. Why? Capitalism, imperialist countries consume far more.
    3. Historical emissions. Wow. Even worse picture for the west. They don't get to deindustrialise then whine about China's emissions. Why? Capitalism again.
    4. Outsourcing production to cheaper countries isn't ecologically friendly move. Capitalism again.
    5. China is the only country which consistently rolls out ecological initiatives on a systemic level, US dismantle even their own poor as shit regularions and euros set up the emission market and are trading it, pretending it's meaningful. Capitalism again.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wow you managed to make a complete illiterate and bad faith dumbass of yourself in just two sentences. You should repost that to some reddit main, maybe you would get some reward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    At one hand I'd say : you really need (mental)help

    At the other hand .... Global warming is doing just that.

    So if it's guaranteed global warming is reversed and not starts over, one could reason it's justified (biggest question, which/who's children is it ghonna be)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I was recently traumatized by an incident of gratuitous moral simplemindedness. Maybe you can gimme some complex fresh air. Or maybe you can't

    It was the ending of King's"The Institute". He autocastarates bigtime. But I guess you gotta ask, who is he writing for?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    We don’t need to. We just need to stop letting business interests direct economic priority.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If they are going to be living short lives in tortuous conditions thanks to climate change anyways, than yes. Otherwise no.

    Could we maybe substitute the children with the one million richest people on the planet?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Were you on drugs? Of course that's not okay.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's the trolly problem. So yr spending 100 to save a million

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    we're already torturing and murdering millions of innocent children in gaza, africa and southeast asia and we're actively enabling climate change to maintain american dominance; is that okay?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which is ironically undermining American dominance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    only because of gaza and even then only because of tiktok. after all: we've been murdering millions of across the entire world to maintain our comfort and none of it got anywhere near as much attention as it does now because of social media platforms that were not controlled by our oligarchy. ie tiktok.

    emphasis is "were not controlled" because tiktok is very much under control now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I have only tortured children as a passenger in an automobile, using flatulance and automatic window locks. I have not murdered anyone. I have never used ticktalk.

    It irritates me a lot when people use 'we' and 'our' in contexts that include me, when they do not apply to me.

    So to rephrase your first comment in this chain:

    The american government, via israeli and other proxy and puppet armies they have created, are already torturing and murdering millions of innocent children in gaza, africa and southeast asia and unchecked capitalist corporations, both american and international, are actively enabling climate change to maintain american military dominance to serve as their shield from the people who resist; is that okay?

    The answer is: No.

    I have not been comfortable for a long time, figuratively and literally, long before I ever heard about gaza, since before I was considered an adult, a few weeks prior to 9/11.

    I have protested in many ways since then, with several years incarcerated because of it.

    I have lived an impoverished life by american standards, although not the same level of poverty as other places, by several orders of magnitude for some places.

    It is the billionaire kleptocracy that is controlling the country I am trapped in, that is causing climate change. Not me, with my lack of using fossil fuels whenever I had the choice, eating locally grown as much as available, avoiding supporting the worst companies such as big oil and the process and/or fast food complex.

    Sorry for the rant. Like I said, I really hate when people say 'we' and it includes me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    OP, whatever you are on, don't use it ever again. There is no reason to think that torturing and killing kids will solve global warming. In short, it is a useless hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion about solving the problem. Meaning it useless, while you get to pretend that you are somehow smart. Newsflash: you are not.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Are we witnessing the DNC forming their 2028 presidential platform here in real time? I can't wait to have a bunch of right-wing liberals tell me why murdering millions of kids is absolutely necessary and that I'm obviously a conservative Russian plant for not supporting it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • What if we had to torture and murder you to solve global warming? Would that be ok?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If there is absolutely no other option, yes. Even dropping nukes over the whole earth is okay if that solves a massive long term problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Yeah I guess that's the ultimate math of it. I'm new to chewing this riddle. I think the most popular answer is to shout that the riddle doesn't exist. I'm still chewing on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I will gladly torture some puppies if it means that no more dogs are killed after that. The end result is more important than short term β€œissues”.

    I used to have an ethical dilemma about animal testing in medicine but then realised that the animals would have been killed anyways and would have had a shitty life before that, in farms or something. Now, at least their suffering is not in vain.

    Ideally, there would be no suffering of any organism, but if push comes to shove, you have to make sacrifices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah the logic is clear. But consider the lesson of War Games.

    The riddle can also be a mindfucking trap. The first, implicit, assertion of these kinds of riddles is that you must solve the riddle because the riddle is important (because it accurately represents reality or something)

    But that might not be so.

    So if we're gonna cut through the riddle then that might be our access point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I know what you are trying to say but I assume that there is no other option to solve the problem, what the post implied.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Well yes, that's my point. For the purposes of our game of riddle-solving the assumption is valid. But for the purposes of "reality" it isn't.

    So there's something going on with perspective there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You and me have zero control of the trolley. In fact, statistically we are among the "billions who must die". Stop wasting your time with philosophical distractions when our lives and futures are at stake now. Let's kill the billionaires reaping obscene profits from destroying the planet first, and see how that goes. After that, if you still feel that the unwashed masses need thinning, I suggest you lead by example.

  • source