There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm Anyone who says that is cheating is perhaps having the wrong conversation.
The "Trolley problem" (and related examples) are specifically thought experiments for the discussion or moral philosophy, e.g. an exploration of utilitarianism. Anyone who is trying to apply this to empirical engineering challenges is, er, already off the rails.
1/2 -
@mattdm Anyone who says that is cheating is perhaps having the wrong conversation.
The "Trolley problem" (and related examples) are specifically thought experiments for the discussion or moral philosophy, e.g. an exploration of utilitarianism. Anyone who is trying to apply this to empirical engineering challenges is, er, already off the rails.
1/2@mattdm If we are, on the other hand, having a (tedious) discussion of moral philosophy, you would be in the wrong in proposing empirical workarounds. The thought experiment has nothing in particular to do with trolleys, and was originally formulated in terms of angry mobs.
You can't engineer your way out of abstract philosophical discussions (although you can, perhaps, gnaw off your own leg to escape them). 2/2
-
@mattdm Yeah, if you are solving the trolley problem in real life, someone has already made several fundamental mistakes.
As an example: if a car is barreling towards a group of children and the driver can hit the children and save the occupants of the vehicle or can swerve off a cliff, killing the occupants to save the children, the original mistake was traveling at an unsafe velocity in a place where this scenario could occur.
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
-
@mattdm If we are, on the other hand, having a (tedious) discussion of moral philosophy, you would be in the wrong in proposing empirical workarounds. The thought experiment has nothing in particular to do with trolleys, and was originally formulated in terms of angry mobs.
You can't engineer your way out of abstract philosophical discussions (although you can, perhaps, gnaw off your own leg to escape them). 2/2
the trolley problem is simply an analogy, and all analogies are imprecise
but the point matt is making still stands: morality requires action, not sitting there ruminating about how to be perfect in an imperfect situation
such that matt's response to the trolley problem, framed as engineered solutions that avoid the problem in the first place, abiding by the framing of the analogy but in no way invalidating the solutions, works as an answer to the more abstract moral conundrum
-
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm @slothrop "Philosophical questions" like this or "who do you kick off the life raft", remind me very much of "push-polling":
Supposedly "just asking questions", for the purpose of skewing people's perspective.
If zero-sum were how civilization really works (instead of synergy), we'd still be back in prehistory…
with patriarchal bandit clans stealing the food from farming villages, murdering the men and children, then dragging the women off to impregnate them with their own. -
@mattdm Yeah, if you are solving the trolley problem in real life, someone has already made several fundamental mistakes.
As an example: if a car is barreling towards a group of children and the driver can hit the children and save the occupants of the vehicle or can swerve off a cliff, killing the occupants to save the children, the original mistake was traveling at an unsafe velocity in a place where this scenario could occur.
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm
The right solution is to untie the people strapped to the rail.
Experiments on people are a Nazi thing that should be stopped, not collaborated with. -
@mattdm If we are, on the other hand, having a (tedious) discussion of moral philosophy, you would be in the wrong in proposing empirical workarounds. The thought experiment has nothing in particular to do with trolleys, and was originally formulated in terms of angry mobs.
You can't engineer your way out of abstract philosophical discussions (although you can, perhaps, gnaw off your own leg to escape them). 2/2
@jered
I would argue that practical solutions to annoying, reductionist abstract "ethics" questions are perfect for the existential philosopher who would like to remind their colleagues that you cannot reduce the richness and complexity of lived experience to a set of abstract "truths" or ideals.also, throw the switch when the front wheels are past it.
https://www.tumblr.com/josh-thoughtlost/806101943319658496/reblogging-again-just-because-this-is-the-hopepunk?source=share
take that, TROLLEY FUCKERS
@mattdm
(Edited for typo) -
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm@hachyderm.io how does the system know if there are people on the track? what if the disrance is too short for the trolley to come to a stop? problem still stands
-
the trolley problem is simply an analogy, and all analogies are imprecise
but the point matt is making still stands: morality requires action, not sitting there ruminating about how to be perfect in an imperfect situation
such that matt's response to the trolley problem, framed as engineered solutions that avoid the problem in the first place, abiding by the framing of the analogy but in no way invalidating the solutions, works as an answer to the more abstract moral conundrum
No engineer, no matter their brilliance, can foresee an ultimate failure. Shit happens. We learn from that and build better (hopefully).
It's that "shit happens" phase where trolly problem solving applies. All your redundant backup systems have failed, and you're forced to choose where to crash-land to minimize loss of life. It's a reasonable thought experiment.
-
the trolley problem is simply an analogy, and all analogies are imprecise
but the point matt is making still stands: morality requires action, not sitting there ruminating about how to be perfect in an imperfect situation
such that matt's response to the trolley problem, framed as engineered solutions that avoid the problem in the first place, abiding by the framing of the analogy but in no way invalidating the solutions, works as an answer to the more abstract moral conundrum
@benroyce @jered @mattdm And perhaps a vignette of end-stage capitalism. For instance "Do we pour obscene amounts of money into a 'law-and-order justice system' that extracts forced labor from those it doesn't murder, or do we accept an alleged lawless hell?"
Neither. We put almost of all of that money back into the social safety net it was stolen from, and stop creating desperate people making bad choices (out of a limited set, or sometimes none at all).
-
No engineer, no matter their brilliance, can foresee an ultimate failure. Shit happens. We learn from that and build better (hopefully).
It's that "shit happens" phase where trolly problem solving applies. All your redundant backup systems have failed, and you're forced to choose where to crash-land to minimize loss of life. It's a reasonable thought experiment.
absolutely
and problems require solutions
so we push back on jered saying "avoiding the problem is not a solution to the problem"
it is a solution to the problem
that doesn't mean trolley problems are always avoidable and won't keep coming up
but it means that when they do pop up, we apply matt's solution to that particular flavor of trolley problem for future scenarios of that kind
if you're *in* the trolley problem you already fucked up and need to take the L
-
@mattdm @slothrop "Philosophical questions" like this or "who do you kick off the life raft", remind me very much of "push-polling":
Supposedly "just asking questions", for the purpose of skewing people's perspective.
If zero-sum were how civilization really works (instead of synergy), we'd still be back in prehistory…
with patriarchal bandit clans stealing the food from farming villages, murdering the men and children, then dragging the women off to impregnate them with their own.A grace note: The question itself is innocent. But the fact that it gets so much repetition, under a power structure that has pushed illusions like zero-sum and "rugged individualism", feels very telling.
-
@mattdm @slothrop "Philosophical questions" like this or "who do you kick off the life raft", remind me very much of "push-polling":
Supposedly "just asking questions", for the purpose of skewing people's perspective.
If zero-sum were how civilization really works (instead of synergy), we'd still be back in prehistory…
with patriarchal bandit clans stealing the food from farming villages, murdering the men and children, then dragging the women off to impregnate them with their own.@MySideIsHumanity @mattdm @slothrop There's indeed research about those dilemma scenarios, and a whole critique of the scenario setups: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Lind_(Psychologe)#Schriften
Admittedly, I'm not sure which of those, but I've heard that guy worked on more teachable dilemmas. -
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm yep. i’ve referred to this as the “think outside the box! no, not like that!” problem
-
@MySideIsHumanity @mattdm @slothrop There's indeed research about those dilemma scenarios, and a whole critique of the scenario setups: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Lind_(Psychologe)#Schriften
Admittedly, I'm not sure which of those, but I've heard that guy worked on more teachable dilemmas.@gittaca @mattdm @slothrop If so (and I don't know of any reason to doubt it), all of my sympathies to him.
I imagine it must be a special kind of frustrating-bordering-on-maddening to try to create a larger framework to enlighten people… only to be best known for a question, innocent in and of itself (and useful under sharply-limited circumstances), that's being amplified out of its context to fuel a false dichotomy of how to view society.
-
There is a correct solution to the trolley problem.
It is this: you design the system with positive train control. You make it so the trolley cannot enter a section where there are people, and you make it so the trolley can be stopped quickly if something goes wrong.
I've been told that this is cheating, a cop-out, or avoiding the "interesting" aspects of the question. I don't think it is. Framing the world as a series of individual can't-win situations and lose-lose decisions _is_ the problem.
Don't do that.
@mattdm See also: Konayashi Maru, and specifically Kirk’s solutions
