Objectively speaking he’s probably one of the best heroes, guaranteed to save hundreds with only one death?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Objectively speaking hes probably one of the best heroes, guaranteed to save hundreds with only one death?
Objectively speaking, a society that relies on the sacrifice of innocents is evil and immoral. Therefore, in the trolley dillema, there is no reason to not pick the majority to be hit. An evil society deserves to be destroyed so that a better one can potentially emerge from it, but even if nothing emerges afterwards, it's still preferable to an evil society existing.
What if we sacrifice death row inmates instead?
Stuff like prison labor already sacrifices the well-being of the convicted criminals for the benefit of society. Sacrificing death row inmates would be the logical extension of that. Though also controversial because law is imperfect and not everyone convicted might be guilty.
>prison labor
damn it, in my country that doesn't exist, all they do is waste taxpayer money and they get released shortly after so they can commit more crime
Prison labor actually fricks you over in the long run since it's proven to massively depress wages and incentivize corporations to lobby for shittier cops and public defenders.
Doesn't a system that takes advantage of convicts to sacrifice have the obvious incentive to get as many people convicted as possible and go for death row as much as they can, implant draconian laws and make as many arrests as they can while vilifying defense lawyers?
There's already incentives to keep people both in and out of prisons. Prisoner's cost money and trials clog up the justice system. Some companies make money through the prison industry. Defense and prosecution attorneys each pull one way. etc.
It's not like we are starting from a point of total neutrality.
Also there are laws about what can and cannot receive the death penalty.
But enough about Japan
>A society that relies on the sacrifice of innocents
Every society to ever exist?
Sure. Just because the alternative hasn't been found yet doesn't make it theoretically impossible
Any new society would still be built on the backbone of old and current societies, thus making it still reliant on sacrifice.
I see we have Trolley Man's arch nemesis in the house: Doctor Ontology.
There is no sacrifice, everyone in the situation is in danger. You either kill 5/6 or 1/6, but the whole thing is one system.
If you choose someone to die in someone else's stead, you are sacrificing them. But if you kill 5/6 you're destroying the corrupt system that encourages such thoughts.
>But if you kill 5/6 you're destroying the corrupt system that encourages such thoughts.
How?
By sacrificing the selfish majority instead of the innocent minority.
Of course, killing just five people won't destroy society. So after killing them, you're under a moral obligation to kill as many more people as possible, otherwise their deaths will have been in vain.
Explain how you aren’t sacrificing the 5/6 for the sake of your ideals
The 5 people all want the other person to die so that they may live, which is immoral. Even if that one person wants the same, 5 immoral people are a greater evil than just one immoral person.
If you wait until they're tied to the trolley tracks you'll be waiting forever, amateur. The trick is to kill them early, ideally while they're still children, before they have the opportunity to become immoral people. The greater the combined years of their immoral lifespan, the greater the evil.
>Wanting to live is immoral
It is if you're willing to sacrifice someone for your sake. You might say it's natural, but natural desires can still very much be immoral.
>The 5 people all want the other person to die
Nobody's actively willing the other(s) to die, they simply want to live, and they understand the cost. They're also praying for a miracle that lets everyone live.
Look we're just going to sacrifice active and irrefutable pedophiles.
If the Aztecs had done the same no one would say shit about them and that's a reasonable standard.
The issue is who is allowed to define "selfish and irrrefutable pedophile."
Shouldn't we start with child murderers then? Rating rape worse than murder is moronic.
That's if you make them do something useful. What if you make them do something stupid, like building roads to places where no one lives. Or something that otherwise wouldn't be done, like building a tunnel through some mountain so people can save only 5 minutes on their commute.
>What if you make them do something stupid, like building roads to places where no one lives. Or something that otherwise wouldn't be done, like building a tunnel through some mountain so people can save only 5 minutes on their commute.
Anon, that would still be taxpayer dollars going towards useless crap when it could be spent on education or the military or fixing roads people actually use.
>Rating rape worse than murder is moronic.
Oh not this shit again.
He's correct though
>Rating rape worse than murder is moronic
>In comparing sins (the way people do) Theophrastus says that the ones committed out of desire are worse than the ones committed out of anger: which is good philosophy. The angry man seems to turn his back on reason out of a kind of pain and inner convulsion. But the man motivated by desire, who is mastered by pleasure, seems somehow more self-indulgent, less manly in his sins. Theophrastus is right, and philosophically sound, to say that the sin committed out of
pleasure deserves a harsher rebuke than the one committed out of pain. The angry man is more like a victim of wrongdoing, provoked by pain to anger. The other man rushes into wrongdoing on his own, moved to action by
desire
>which is good philosophy
...because IT JUST IS OKAY??
sins are valued on effect, not cause. this argument falls in the first sentence
>sins are valued on effect, not cause.
If you're utilitarian.
>sins are valued on effect, not cause
No they aren't or else self defense or mental illness wouldn't be a viable argument.
>pedophiles
corrupt officials and scammers objectively ruin more lives than sexual criminals, and severely disabled innocents waste more resources
aztec human sacrifices already were thieves, murderers, etc. i don't know why people act like they just picked out a random person in the crowd
They literally drowned babies and flayed children alive
Do you own a smartphone? Any modern conveniences? Made by slave labor
See
This is a better MCU Thanos motive than what we got.
This mf walks away from Omelas
If the sacrifice of innocents is justified in a society, it can't be immoral by definition. A separate society doesn't have the right to morally judge them from the outside. Unless they are more powerful, in which case might makes right.
>If the sacrifice of innocents is justified in a society, it can't be immoral by definition.
Considering you define morality by 'might makes right', this line of reasoning is inherently sociopathic and thus immoral.
Already answered that above. Never claimed our society isn't evil by that metric.
Choosing to sacrificie yourself is not immoral, only choosing to sacrifice others.
See
. It's interesting how the natural desire to survive is often used in rhetoric as something that can override any and all morality. But objectively, your right to survive isn't any greater than someone else's right to survive, so enforcing it at the cost of someone else's life would be immoral.
You're missing the point in that no one is willing anyone else to die in their attempt to live. See
all societies are built upon sacrifice though.
What if people willingly give up their own life to help more people?
TL;DR: Multitrack drifting is the solution.
One issue though. Which can be determined as the evil society? If a god was deciding this answer it probably just kill most of us and maybe spare the tiny peaceful tribal communities
>Instead of sacrificing one life to save many sacrifice many lives for the moral high ground
Is a society built on death and hypocrisy worth all that much objectively?
If push comes to shove, they will still be willing to let others die. And if not, then they'll be willing to die in others' stead anyway.
Not nearly to the same extent as the society in which the sacrifice itself was committed.
There comes a point to where this becomes true, but it's in extreme situations: You are among the last living humans and no one is willing to reproduce, subjugation and rape is the only way to perpetuate it. There is no food so all we have is murder and cannibalism. In that scenario, the suffering and misery willingly inflicted on people for perpetuation are evil, even if the outcomes are a later civil society prone to the collapse that created those miserable and evil conditions, you could argue that wiping out the cannibal rape cult is justified.
Which then poses a new trolly problem: If you could change the way of these murder rapists by killing a few of them, is that good? To just go out and do it is bad because anyone can justify killing anyone with that, but to go through proper channels and formalize the process makes it good... which then runs the risk of anyone being able to game the system to mark any foreign undesirables for genocide.
Objectively speaking the trolley problem is moronic and is solved by intentionally derailing the trolley at the switch.
Then you kill everyone on the trolley, in some versions.
You can narrow it down to convicted and proven sexual predators, child molesters, and serial killers then. Prison is, for the most part, a failed system that purposefully dehumanizes petty criminals for profit, but there's no other reason to keep the truly irredeemable monsters alive.
>Prison is, for the most part, a failed system that purposefully dehumanizes petty criminals for profit
[citation needed]
The prison system is, in every way, a failed rehabilitation model. For profit prisons prioritize things that ensure recidivism and inability to function outside of the prison system. In the few cases where they've found rehab programs, like animal care, that drastically improve mental health and lower the chances of any sort of violent repeat offenses in the future, they've quickly shut them down. In other cases, they've cut off any chance of parole or sentence shortening to maintain the slave labor provided by prisoners, like in California where they kept people in prison to work as fire fighters because it was cheaper than using any sort of municipal fire fighting, which requires higher payment and insurance benefits.
El Salavdor's crime went down, and Sweden's has gone up. Cope harder.
Turns out shooting gang members in the face works a lot better than giving them government funbux and legal immunity and declaring it racist to arrest violent criminals. But those things don't have anything to do with prison or rehabilitating criminals and repeat offenders.
>El Salavdor's crime went down
Because they prosecute, not because they imprison. The same could be accomplished just frickin shooting the criminal.
>Then you kill everyone on the trolley, in some versions.
That's not guaranteed though. Realistically speaking there's only a risk of death for the passengers, with a more probable risk of injury.
>You can narrow it down to convicted and proven sexual predators, child molesters, and serial killers then
but that raises the question of why you have the right to enact justice on those people and have them killed
Your options go like this
>release them back into society without punishment where they are free to rape, kill, steal, and/or harm again
>attempt to use therapy, drugs, etc, which has been proven to have a low success rate with the most dangerous kinds of criminals, and makes them a burden upon society
>lock them away in isolation for the rest of their lives, as a permanent burden upon society that provides nothing
>somehow separate them from the rest of society in a way that allows them to retain some degree of freedom, but somehow also eliminates the possibility that they will be able to harm anyone
>kill them, stopping them from ever doing harm again and forgoing decades of abusive prison babysitting
it's more of a question of why you can even determine what is and isn't a crime, and snuff life away from someone else
That's all well and good and I'm sure your highly extreme moral relativism has personally been fully explored, but if someone is a serial killer who snuffs out life for fun, due to having a completely fricked brain that drives them to seek pleasure by harming others, you have to ask yourself what you do with a person who will only continue to harm others and "snuff life away" -- and furthermore, why forcing them to live a deprived, controlled, empty life in prison is somehow more moral and virtuous than keeping them in a prison cell until they die.
In this hypothetical, we're talking about someone who has provably and actually done harm and displayed a willingness and remorseless desire to continue doing harm. We're not talking about someone pointing the finger at a random guy and judicial incompetence locking him away due to circumstantial evidence and legal loopholes.
Ah yes the assumption of a perfect system, as long as everyone in the system comports themselves perfectly. No feuding rivals or vindictive exs that just want you to suffer, no corporation with a financial interest in you losing your property near their planned development, no victim with a less than perfect memory, no cases of mistaken identity, no contaminated forensic lab results, no reliance on soon-to-be-discredited scientific theories, no procedural errors throwing out exonerating evidence. Seems like you're now angling at repeat offenders but can you definitely say that wouldn't extend to correctional misconduct where even a white collar crime that gets stuck in prison riots and endlessly has their sentence extended with notes as detailed as "Frequent Rioter"?
Hypothetical. Please read more carefully. The system is not perfect. Far from it. The question is, if you have a verifiably, factually, undeniably proven serial killer in your custody, what makes more sense? Prison or Execution?
What you're talking about is a far larger problem that is related, but not relevant to the hypothetical being posed.
It is relevant because "verification" is an imperfect process. You could verify that Pi = 3 with the wrong proof. Does Trollyman personally check all relevant facts of the case in the middle of a crisis to confirm that Ridley Ripper was definitely the one that killed 8 men in an axe murder spree? Or does he trust the government to do it for him?
If you have a verifiably, factually, undeniably proven serial killer in your custody, what makes more sense? Prison or Execution?
Prison, combined with study. You can learn a lot from studying the serial killer you've caught to understand how to find the ones you don't even know exist yet. Killing him without thinking any further about it wastes a valuable resource and dooms more people to be victims.
So they should be reduced to being a lab rat for the rest of their lives? Or is there a theoretical research goal where they could be disposed of because there's no other use for them?
They should be imprisoned and let go multiple times so that they can terrorize innocent people, THEN they should be put onto a special team of villains that have bombs in their heads so that they can be forced to do dirty work for the government.
That's just crazy enough to work.
Now do this again with the assumption that at least 10% of convictions are false.
In theory at least, if you are inocent, you gonna be easy to reform, because you never do the crime in the first plase, but in practice, you gonna end worse that how you enter.
Anyway one can solve many of this problems with the idea that most systems of law follow legal positivism, and Hans Kelsen idea of "pure law".
>Then you kill everyone on the trolley, in some versions.
They shouldn't had tried plowing their trolley into innocents. Reckless vehicle usage kills more people than guns, yet most drunk drivers and the like are given a pass because most people don't like the idea of having cars fall under the purview of the ATF.
>Objectively speaking the trolley problem is moronic
You could have stopped right there.
>guaranteed
That is not a ship, that is a boat. A boat that is in sight of land, and like 30 feet from the dock maximum. The only people that might die are the ones inside the cabin, and the seabed may not even be low enough to fill the cabin with water.
If Trolley Man goes around murdering some people to save others, that's fricked up. It would be chaos.
But even if he only kills volunteers willing to sacrifice themselves, he'd only be an okay hero, albeit a morbid one. The fact his powers only work if innocent bystanders are nearby is a pretty obvious weakness.
It feels like he'd be one of those heroes who would be quickly hooked up to a program where the government feeds him condemned people at a moment's notice.
What Costa Concordia shit is this?
Where are the patrol boats?
The ship's THIS close to shore!
What are Trolley Man's powers? It'd be weird if he could fly. It'd be weird if he was a strong swimmer. Does he just get any power he needs based on the situation he purports he can use powers for?
I assume whatever is needed to make the problem valid.
He can teleport anything anywhere if a life is sacrificed. Which means either transporting civilians to a safe location or evil doers directly to prison.
Honestly I think the idea of a superhero who has to try to save people without using his powers, because using his powers requires sacrificing an innocent life, would be a great read if done by a good author. Since you'd not only have the moral dilemma of "is this worth killing someone?" but he'd also be a wanted serial killer for those times he did have to use his powers.
Weirdly, he'd also need a good sized supporting cast; so people can panic whenever he's in a bind and one of them is the only person handy to kill.
Kind of neat for a superpower to only activate after a sacrifice is given, very old school god worship deal.
My take on the trolley problem has always been that it's best not to get involved.
What happens, happens.
It's basically the same stance I have on Israel vs Hamas.
It only really becomes a dilemma when there's someone I know and care about on the tracks. Then I'm actually motivated to save them, and I have to start making a decision on who to save or not save.
We had a whole anime about this, Fate/Zero
This is Kiritsugu's whole thing.
It is not me who killed the people on the trolley track.
Someone had to tie them there, there is no natural cause of being tied to tracks.
>Someone had to tie them there, there is no natural cause of being tied to tracks.
I learned recently that autistic people are incapable of intuiting what the trolley problem is actually about without having it explained to them so here's the thing: As the problem stands, the 'ethical' thing to do from a purely logical standpoint is nothing. You aren't involved in anyone's death until you make a conscious decision to pull the lever or not. Pragmatically it's better for only one person to die but at the moment you make that decision you've technically become a murderer.
>You aren't involved in anyone's death until you make a conscious decision to pull the lever or not
what does this even mean?
>the 'ethical' thing to do from a purely logical standpoint is nothing
then you made a choce not to pull the lever
Autism, ladies and gents
He's implying that by not being involved, it is not your responsibility to do anything, which isn't the explicit "solution" to the trolley problem, since the actual point is to get people discussing ethics and philosophy, since choosing not to get involved is also a choice which still leads to people dying even though you had some capacity and opportunity to stop that from happening.
The real lesson here is that we should tie more ethicists and philosophers to trolley tracks.
I never said it was the solution, just that autistic people don't grasp the fundamental question of ethics that is really being asked. The state in which you do nothing is the only one where you remain innocent. You (presumably) did not tie anyone to the tracks and set the trolley in motion. When you engage with the lever you are making a conscious decision to kill one or five people. In a purely pragmatic sense it's 'better' to kill the one person to save five others, yes, but you're choosing to either be a murderer or a mass murderer.
>The state in which you do nothing is the only one where you remain innocent.
And we told you, you're fricking moron and the real autist for thinking that. I have never even once met a person who doesn't know that the trolley problem is a moral ethic issue.
The moment you know that situation happens and you are in a position to change it, you are involved. You can't just hold your ears and close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen. In many countries if you see someone collapsing on a sidewalk, it is your lawful obligation to save that person, otherwise you might go into prison.
In the case of trolley problem, you wouldn't be a murderer, good samaritan laws would prevent anyone to be able to sue you for choosing that one person instead of the 5.
>And we told you, you're fricking moron and the real autist for thinking that.
It is factually, objectively true.
>The moment you know that situation happens and you are in a position to change it, you are involved.
Wrong.
>In the case of trolley problem, you wouldn't be a murderer, good samaritan laws would prevent anyone to be able to sue you for choosing that one person instead of the 5.
Imagine calling someone autistic only to then start citing laws. You still killed at least one person when you touched the lever whether you will be legally punished for it or not. Moreover you are arguing with implications. I would also save five people over one. I've said three times now it's the most pragmatic thing to do, what you are seething and losing your shit about is that it means consciously opting to end a person's life. Sorry b***h but them's facts.
>Wrong
not him but why?
if you "do nothing" then you don't pull the lever, hence making a choice
1.playing I'm Not Touching You with the lever is far more autistic.
2. If you are aware that there is a trolley speeding towards people on the tracks you have a moral obligation to pull it. If you do not pull it and 5 people die you are responsible, as you saw that you had the ability to save them and chose not to.
3. You are not a murderer either way. You are simply trying to avoid casualties in a disaster situation. Are you a murderer if you hit another car while swerving to avoid a pedestrian? Of course not. You simply acted in the way you thought would avoid casualties.
>If you do not pull it and 5 people die you are responsible, as you saw that you had the ability to save them and chose not to.
Wrong. I'm sorry you had to find out this way. Let's say you see a cat in your yard about to pounce on a bird. If you don't scare away the cat did you kill the bird? Same thing.
If you're aware of the trolley and the people and you choose to do nothing, then you are leaving them to die intentionally
This is the kind of shit you'd see in Worm.
What comes after the trolley problem? The company get sued for its incompetence? People learn from the accident?
I hardly see the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" in actual practice, but the schizo spamming this thread may be the very personification of it.
Gay ass morality thread