Hacker News Reader

I noticed I kept switching between several principles. Possibly triggered by the details of the problem. Some of the principles:

1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not.

2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.)

3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me.

All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent.

Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.

Imagine being at a railyard at the time of a crash and being seen throwing a switch in front of a moving train.

There’s no real-world case where that person is not considered responsible.

Not to mention that trains really cannot go over switches at speed. A runaway trolley would probably derail at the switch if it was set on the side track.

I think it’s reasonable to assume the trolley goes fast enough to do the deed, but not fast enough it couldn’t round the bend.

If you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

That's clearly a reasonable assumption, since a trolley will kill people underneath at any speed, no matter how low (the slower, the more horrible the death will be though…)

I posit there is a small positive non-lethal speed. Where are the MythBusters… :)

> Not to mention that trains really cannot go over switches at speed.

As someone who used to work on the railway (Maintenance of Way Workers Unite!!); in real life ... I'd throw the switch hoping to derail the train!

Exactly. In real life, I'd try to derail the train, and then call the police so they can figure out who tied these people to the track. The problem is a very artificial situation, and therefore hard to apply to real world ethics.

> Inaction is a choice too

Only in the narrow situation where you know all possible outcomes and have a sufficient time to consider them. In the real world, given a limited amount of time and ignorance of many details, inaction is not even remotely the same as action.

Not sure why you state #2 contradicts #1. If you are in a position of ignorance, choosing inaction (unless and until said ignorance can be rectified, anyway) is the correct action.

> 4. If my life is at stake, I pull the lever to save myself.

I find this answer really interesting, because in the entire corpus, this was the most morally unambiguous question of all, and the answer is diametrically opposed to yours.

Would have I the courage to do so in real life, I don't know, and it's probable that I would not. But from a moral perspective it's damn clear: the only people I am unambiguously allowed to kill to save someone else is myself. Killing someone to save someone else is a moral dilemma as it makes me take someone's life, but killing myself isn't.

I also find it interesting. I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people?

A solipsistic view might say that those people are part of our own consciousness. If we let them die, we continue to exist. If we sacrifice ourselves, all of us cease to exist since they are just manifestations of our consciousness. As Christopher Hitchens once said, beware of solipsism...

> I wonder how extreme the parent comment would go? Would they sacrifice themselves to save, say, a million people?

On the other hand, how many people would you need to save to sacrifice yourself? 5? 2? 1? Does that one person need to be younger than you? Not disabled? Not a criminal?

Interestingly, I had almost the opposite reaction. In the absence of information, I don't know how these people got here or why. Maybe they're being executed as criminals, maybe they are suicide attempts, maybe they are truly heinous people in the hands of a Just God.

But, I do know, if it's me on the track, I don't want to die. It's almost the only truly inarguable choice. With everything else, you think you know best for other people. With that one, you just know you don't want to die.

I think you're mixing up two things: willingness to die, and the morality of the sacrifice.

Most of us will be scared shitless if we were in that situation, and I'm pretty sure the majority (me included) will act as a coward. But nobody would blame them, because we all know we would likely have done the same.

But on the other hand, we praise the heroes who sacrifice themselves because we recognize that they did the right thing, no matter how much it costed them.

I think we have the right to save ourselves with the options we have available. I didn't tie these people to the rails, I didn't set the trolley in motion towards people tied on rails, I'm not the one that had any sort of input on what the safety systems should be for the trolley. If I pull the lever to save myself and 5 people die, they die as a result of circumstance and insufficient safeguards of the trolley system itself.

This doesn’t seem morally unambiguous at all, and in fact society reached the opposite conclusion for many centuries in outlawing suicide but allowing some killing of others (e.g., the executioner tasked with killing the person convicted of attempting suicide).

An equally compelling principle might be that the only person I know to be worth saving is myself.

The ultimate trolley problem is one where you pull the lever to save a larger amount of people that have chosen a unsafe area while punishing a smaller amount of people that have chosen a safe area (unless someone pulls the lever)... Ultimately this is politics.

Morality is not math, but, as always, things might be more foggy: lack of free choice and a really skewed ratio (e.g. punish one to save 100 million) may test the limits of morality.

Please be explicit. Do you mean something like insurance: a small amount of people has insurance but someone decided to insure even the people who haven't paid insurance?

In that case it's clear that I won't pull the lever. It's not a question of life and death, and because I am not sure whether pulling the lever helps preventing lots of damage, I won't do anything, especially because perhaps it's just a vague and abstract story you made up.

An extreme example:

Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a lever" to flood the safe area instead and save 99K lives. They don't have time to evacuate anybody. Should they pull the lever?

By limits of morality I mean:

- Free choice: if the people living in the unsafe area didn't understand the danger or didn't have another choice but to live there?

- Skewed ratio: if only 10 people lived in the safe area and 1 million had chosen to live in the unsafe area?

It's easy if you're politician that's up to reelection. If it's your base voters, then pull it, it's 100K of potential voter. If it's not your base voters then let them perish.

If you're enterpreneur, see whether 100K people is more beneficial than the other 1K. For example if you have a factory that needs many workforce and can utilize the 100K, save them.

If somehow you pull the lever, make a press conference showing sorrow and guilty face telling it's inevitable. If you don't pull the lever, don't expose the info until asked.

If you're not a decision maker, leave it to your supervisor. If somehow you have the loved one in 100K, pull the lever anyway.

Sadly this is the shape of our world right now.

This is alarming yet accurate. One simply has to look at things like automobile recalls, the 737-max debacle, or the Camp fire, to see actual examples of the above heuristic in action.

Reminds me of the Scenario in Fight Club:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

More realistic example: The contractors in charge of the dam cut corners to pocket some extra money, but they'll be dead before the dam breaks anyway so they move into the valley. Land developers paid off the government to open the land for construction despite it being unsafe. Bankers gave predatory loans to those who would not otherwise be able to afford a house in the valley. The public has been misled and everybody is under the assumption that their society has reached a new age of prosperity where everyone can now live in the valley. At the last minute, the politicians, bankers, dam contractors, and land developers use their private helicopters to leave the valley before the flood crashes down.

Yeah one of the issues with the trolley problem is how literally you take the problem. If you take it perfectly literally and say "5 vs 1" (for the pure example) no other context I think you can very easily come to a conclusion that is the opposite of what you'd do in real life, where either due to lack of certainty, lack of perfect knowledge or some iterative game theory interpretation, you would act differently.

The problem is the responsibility. If you aren't willing to take over responsibility, it's better not to do anything. If you already have responsibility then it's a different matter.

The problem I have with the premise, is that as soon as you're standing next to the level, you're responsible. You had the opportunity to pull the lever, but didn't, which makes you responsible.

Similarly, if you're diving a car and someone walks across the road in front of you, are you not responsible for their death if you choose not to step on the brakes? Does inaction relieve you of any responsibility?

> if you're diving a car

... then you accepted responsibility by getting in the driver's seat and taking control of the vehicle. In the case of the trolley, you are an onlooker.

> Only pull the lever if you are sure. With an action you assume responsibility for the outcome.

Letting people die just because I don't feel super comfortable assuming the responsibility sounds pretty close to the definition of evil to me.

> and finally that I "have solved philosophy"

I guess it displays that to everyone, I chose to kill someone to get my amazon package sooner, I don't think that's solving philosophy

re #4: There are many instances of people sacrificing themselves to save others, Chernobyl workers, figher pilots not ejecting but steering the plane away flightshow visitors etc.

I expect these people to act this way routinely, give hazard pay to their entire profession to compensate for the risk, but likewise consider it my obligation to act likewise when the situation is clear (like in the Trolley Problem).

Copenhagen interpretation. If you haven't interacted with system you can't be blamed.

Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction? I feel like once you’re exposed to the system and what it does depends on what you do (even if “doing” is nothing) you’re involved.

> Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction?

It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is.

In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.

No.

It is only the case if you don't kill someone to save someone else.

Curious which countries. Fwiw, in the US, you can pull up a lawn chair and watch someone drown instead of offering them any assistance (not saying that is moral). Legal liabilities have been explored including the case where a person is pulled from a burning auto accident and the act of saving them caused back injuries and paralysis. Cue Good Samaritan laws to protect would-be do-gooders but also the acknowledgment that there is no legal liability to act (aside from designated first responder types).

I don't have an exhaustive list for you, but I know it's the case in Netherland. I suspect we're not an exception in this.

Think responsibility. Even if you watched the thing roll you don't have a lot of responsibility. Only a little. Because as you said that I am involved.

Let's say there will be an investigation because of criminal liability by inaction (civil law jurisdiction). First you aren't in guarantor status (one example is the surgeon during a surgery), and second if you explain that you tought it through and showed that the what-if case is dangerous, you won't be punished for inaction.

So, no, it does not really matter that you are involved by being there.

And now I am sure that many people could develop post traumatic stress disorder because they feel they have failed to save people. I am sure that these people can be helped if they are shown the possible outcomes of action and inaction, especially that action is often more problematic than inaction.

Since you've observed the system, you've already interacted with it. Sorry, nice try.

(if you don't click on the link though, you're fine)

Nice to meet a reasonable man who solved philosophy as well. So many think that they have a right to project their idea to someone else’s reality without a doubt.

I think I did the exact same thing you did (except for 1 problem which I misread).

This happened to me too, I answered one problem a bit differently than I intended.

But exactly that's the case in point!

That damn lever is way too dangerous to touch. Only touch if you are extremely confident.

I did nothing and it says i killed 91 people. My lawyer disagrees.