What went wrong with philosopy? Seems to me that most of the modern stuff developed into impractiable, overly complicated intellectual wankery.
See the trolly problem in the pic. I mean, it makes it seem like there are only three choices, but life is more complicated than this. It completely discards a huge amount of variables to the situation, imho because it make a "philosophical discussion" impossibe because it falsy assumes equality.
The single guy for instance could be the father of one of the other 4. The guy pulling the lever might hate one of the person, or being love. Maybe two are twins and one of those might lying on each rail.
I get the fat man version might introduce more option but still suffers the problem of the above. And even if it wasn't, you still don't know what the philosopher would do, if he found himself in a situation like. It's a bit like a guy who never was in physical fight and thinks he could salto around and snap your neck in flight.
Dominic James
Yeah but the point of hypotheticals is to remove all factors and leave you with choices that show the effects of moral axioms completely.
Of course reality isn't as simple as that, but that's not the point either.
Sebastian Taylor
what if u pulled it at just the right time for the momentum & trajectory of the force to fling the carriage off the tracks, saving everyone (possibly killing the hundred in the carriage you didnt know about), or yet it slides to a gentle half next to the 2 paths, harmlessly avoiding any injury, or whats more runs over a school of children & ducklings
Christopher Wright
But having those kind of hypotheticals are useless in reality. If anything such hypotheticals, or having a judgement, proves this is a moral statement already. Because it discards the question of individual innocence, in order to have the discussion and to make potential judgements in the future possibly.
Andrew Bailey
What if trollies have some angled shovel in front?
Brody Edwards
No it really isn't, because it shows how people are likely to react in real life.
If you're a utilitarian, chances are you don't have a problem with a lot of real life scenarios that sacrifice the one for the many, for example.
Justin Taylor
What do mean? Like shooting down a bomber before it could harm the city?
Sebastian Thompson
Like torturing one person to learn the location of an armed bomb that is about to kill a million people, for example.
Carter Harris
A million people where?
Easton Brown
Does it matter?
Anthony Cooper
Switch the points when the trolley is halfway over them, derailing it and bringing it to a halt.
Angel Young
Yes!
What if the trolly runs down a slope and derailing it only brings it to rolling over both parties? Or the rail is one some bridge and if you turn it over leads to drowning an unknown number of people?
Dominic Brooks
>Yes!
"no"
Jose Ross
It matters.
Aiden Richardson
One obviously has to appraise the pros and cons of each situation, but based upon the illustration it seems like a potential solution with no one getting injured.
Leo Lopez
>derail trolley >kill dozens of people on board gg no re
Logan Price
Why kill?
Nolan Long
Present an argument or fuck off.
William Rivera
No it does not. But since youre asking, a million people in paris, all tourists fron each country if the world.
Daniel Cox
What if other people are around and could help? What if there are cars driving on the street?
Austin Young
It depends on if you like the city or not. Just for instance.
