Interplanetary trolley problem now that we've changed its course

Just on the off chance anyone actually believes in these things.... polygraphs do not work. They're really no better than random.

But still upvote because I'm with @Sagemind, Jennifer Lawrence is genuinely charming.

oh god, trolley problems? seriously??

Philosophically I am conflicted, but gotta admit, I am very curious to know what I'd actually do.

but I don't think I'd get past the screening. It would be interesting to see if the people that may have a predisposition to some sort of trauma would react differently in the moment. I mean, obviously completely unethical to find out, but still interesting.

Also, did any of participants have knowledge of the trolley problem before? Were they able to recognize the scenario without the deception being revealed? Would having thought about how they'd react previously prompt them to make a decision faster in the heat of the moment, or would perhaps doubts about the realness of the scenario cause them to be passive?. questions. so many questions

First thought,

If you find the question interesting, watch the Death Note anime(not the movie), this is more the less the premise of the entire series with a teenage genius gaining said power.

I have to say I find video presenter's approach to the question is interesting. He almost only addresses the crime of passion angle. The more difficult moral question IMO is as MilkmanDan alludes with the trolley problem. If you have essentially a superpower like this, it is not ONLY your use of it that is a dilemma, but also a refusal to use that power to help victims when you could.

Go back 10 years ago, what is morally worse, using your power to kill Osama Bin Laden, or to refuse to use your power when you could end his influence?

Weird. I get the sense that from the perspective of the author of the question, he's taking the specifics too literally; sort of the opposite of how people try to weasel out of introspection when confronted with things like the trolley problem ("I'd pull the lever, AND shout as loud as I could to try to warn the guy", etc.).

To me, the idea is not to be worried about things like accidental use of the power, whether or not you know/believe that you have the power, etc. Assume that you have the power, you are aware that you have it, and that there is no risk of accidentally triggering it. Would you use it?

I can say with near certainty that I would have used it when I was younger; faced with situations like the experience he had with the bully when he was 13. I might have given it up after a single use, when firsthand confronted with the reality of it. Or I might easily have descended into the depths of utter evil, and eventually started using it casually, for offenses real or imagined.

If I got the power NOW, I think it is fairly likely that I would never use it. I'd be strongly tempted, though.

That's why I hate the trolley problem (and by extension every other binary choice philosophical problem).

Life is almost never binary.

The trolley problem. What would you do?

@GeeSussFreeK oh, and I highly recommend watching at least the first half of this, for the introduction to "trolley problems."

But honestly you should take the time to watch the whole series, it's fantastic, and it covers a pretty wide variety of topics.

@blutruth
1. The US census lists the number of Vetrans in the US at 24 million (I'm not sure if by Veterans they mean exmilitary or ex war time servers). The current size of the US military is 3 million (1.5 active, 1.5 reservists). On top of that there is the abundance of sportsman in the US that would also probably pick up a rifle. The military would be handily outnumbered. Also, considering the fact that we currently have a paper thin military fighting two wars overseas, and this conspiracy theory requiring the initiation of a third, who exactly is going to enforce this martial law? Our military is pretty busy at the moment.

2. The Milgram experiment. Even in the Milgram experiment they were only able to get 65% to follow to the end. The Milgram experiment isn't directly comparable because it suffers from the trolley problem, there's a big difference between pushing a button and shocking someone in another room and pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. Also, my impression when I was in was that Bush isn't exactly seen as a holy man worth killing countrymen for. Ron Paul was the candidate the military backed the most after all. The military is about as sick of Bush as the general population is.

@slash
2. Russia, China, and the UN are going to aid president Bush by enforcing martial Law for him. You are an idiot. The international community wants to see Bush gone more that the American community wants him gone.

Sure, Bush could very well attack Iran before he leaves office because he is an idiot. Suspending the elections and instituting martial law though? This is deep into tinfoil hat territory. Iraq is only the size of California and we still haven't squashed the insurgency there. Yet we're going fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and still find enough troops somewhere to occupy the US as well. Maybe it makes an entertaining thought but it is not plausible in the least.

Well, I think the trolly problem is perfect for engineering. It's specifically addressed in engineering ethics. People are happier to use technology to kill. It's technology relevant. It's a moral dilemma, but one with a technological context. To me, that's one of the points of it being harder to push a person that a button. But it's your video, and I wouldn't overrule you. (I never took anything out of any channel so I could put it in engineering, but there was plenty of room in the trolly video).

I have a special button to throw things OUT of my channel, but none to put it in that I know of.

All those sound engineering relevant to me. I just got tired of puting htings in...

And thanks for the congrat.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*engineering

I took the trolley problem vid out of engineering since it doesn't really have any engineering connection. There's not even supposed to be one on the train. Seriously, though, it's a moral dilemma question in the context of a psychology experiment.

I've added some others though - the killacycle vid, the Kurzweil TED talk, and the space shuttle take-off. Obviously, if they don't belong, go ahead and knock them out.

There's a few others I wasn't sure about:

Coyote definitely knows the agony of engineering
Pinky's discussion of Edison and AC (engineering ethics?)
cool software engineering in the SIGGRAPH clip

Oh, and I think there's supposed to be a special button for channel owners to include/exclude vids from their channel, without having to use an invocation.

Congrats on the diamond and your new channel! It definitely fills the void left when the tech collective went away.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*engineering

I took the trolley problem vid out of engineering since it doesn't really have any engineering connection. There's not even supposed to be one on the train. Seriously, though, it's a moral dilemma question in the context of a psychology experiment.

I've added some others though - the killacycle vid, the Kurzweil TED talk, and the space shuttle take-off. Obviously, if they don't belong, go ahead and knock them out.

There's a few others I wasn't sure about:

Coyote definitely knows the agony of engineering
Pinky's discussion of Edison and AC (engineering ethics?)
cool software engineering in the SIGGRAPH clip

Oh, and I think there's supposed to be a special button for channel owners to include/exclude vids from their channel, without having to use an invocation.

Congrats on the diamond and your new channel! It definitely fills the void left when the tech collective went away.

>> ^dannym3141:
Poor video if you ask me, for reasons already stated but i'll clarify:

I don't think you clarified at all why you think the video is poor. You provide your analysis of the two scenarios and why you find them distinct. That's good. That's the point of the video -- to elucidate how different people view the different scenarios, and thus how they form their responses in each.

I'm not sure why people are missing this. The question is intentionally vague because the investigators are trying to look into how people analyze ethical situations. They are not trying to invent a pair of exact scenarios in which there is a right or wrong answer.

>> ^Enzoblue:
jonny, you made the same mistake as Kuga did. You say both die as a direct result of your actions, then say later that one way is more directly involved than the other.

No enzoblue, I put directly in quotes the second time exactly because of that. I personally don't think there is a difference, but I realize that many people will see a distinction.

morally it's much more harsh to kill a guy with a blade than to snipe him from a 100 yards for example.

I very much disagree with that. Killing is killing, whether you do it with your bare hands, a knife, a gun, or by dropping a bomb. If anything, I may be inclined to find those who kill from a more removed position as more morally repugnant.

Even in law one will get you a harder sentence than the other because one is more personal and takes a far more morally corrupt person.

You sure about that? I don't know of any statutes written that way. Now, if you mean using a knife specifically to inflict great pain before death, maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the instrument or proximity.

Flipping the switch takes less guts than pushing a guy, I think that's the crux here.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you're saying because one action requires less "courage" than the other, it is seen as more morally acceptable?