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 )
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.
Ok, why is the trolley problem bullshit? Seriously.
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.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about???
OP, whatever you are on, don’t use it ever again. There is no reason to think that torturing and killing kids will solve global warming. In short, it is a useless hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion about solving the problem. Meaning it useless, while you get to pretend that you are somehow smart. Newsflash: you are not.
It’s insight like that. Thanks
we’re already torturing and murdering millions of innocent children in gaza, africa and southeast asia and we’re actively enabling climate change to maintain american dominance; is that okay?
Your emotions are getting in the way of your thinking
i doubt that there is a clearer example of re-framing the narrative than your question.
We don’t need to. We just need to stop letting business interests direct economic priority.
Sharp as a bag of fresh mozzarella you guys
If you want a serious answer ask a serious question. Not an absurd and ghoulish hypothetical.
If they are going to be living short lives in tortuous conditions thanks to climate change anyways, than yes. Otherwise no.
Could we maybe substitute the children with the one million richest people on the planet?
Ok so replace the 5 guys on the track with 5 terminal cancer patients. Definitely makes it easier.
Makes what easier?
If there is absolutely no other option, yes. Even dropping nukes over the whole earth is okay if that solves a massive long term problem.
Yeah I guess that’s the ultimate math of it. I’m new to chewing this riddle. I think the most popular answer is to shout that the riddle doesn’t exist. I’m still chewing on it.
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 “issues”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
You and me have zero control of the trolley. In fact, statistically we are among the “billions who must die”. Stop wasting your time with philosophical distractions when our lives and futures are at stake now. Let’s kill the billionaires reaping obscene profits from destroying the planet first, and see how that goes. After that, if you still feel that the unwashed masses need thinning, I suggest you lead by example.
