this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
-20 points (29.2% liked)

Asklemmy

49481 readers
546 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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€“] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club -3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Ok, why is the trolley problem bullshit? Seriously.

[โ€“] CommunistCuddlefish@hexbear.net 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

You can construct a trolley problem to justify anything you want. It's about the constraints that the person who posed the question chose. You don't really get to choose in a trolley problem. The constraints choose for you. In the real world, our options are not so constrained and the outcomes are not so clear. As such it is useless for actually figuring out what to do.

The trolley problem is a useful basic philosophical experiment to get people to think about things and reflect on constraints, assumptions, and values. And often the best response is in fact "fuck these constraints and assumptions!"

So the trolley problem is not bullshit, but it is very very often misapplied in a bullshit or bad faith way, for example last year in the US I saw a lot of liberals uncritically and unironically appeal to "the trolley problem" to rationalize voting for the party that was committing a live-streamed Holocaust. They were using it to absolve themselves of the responsibility to think about and own their moral judgements, and that is the sort of misuse that a lot of people balk at.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[โ€“] CommunistCuddlefish@hexbear.net 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

*people can construct, not you specifically. But maybe you, I don't know.

Are you going to read or think about the comment or are we done here?

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 1 points 12 hours ago

Sorry man. Lemmy fatigue. I think I've had it.

[โ€“] BussyCat@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 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.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club -4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

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

Not bullshit. Useful and interesting.

[โ€“] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club -2 points 17 hours ago

Thanks man. You really got to the heart of it there

[โ€“] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club -3 points 19 hours ago (1 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.

[โ€“] lattrommi@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago (1 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.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 0 points 17 hours ago

I think that's a different thing.

[โ€“] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Ya it's trolly problem. I just figured that out.

So now I'm reflecting on the trolly problem.

The military gets a lot of trolly problems.

[โ€“] valium_aggelein@hexbear.net 4 points 13 hours ago

Are you old enough to be online?