this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
-21 points (28.6% liked)

Asklemmy

49481 readers
545 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
-21
If we had to torture and murder millions of innocent children to stop global warming would that be okay? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by DominatorX1@thelemmy.club to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 day 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.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.