99 trolley problems

They're the peak of memes.

I know you're fucking around, but responding seriously anyway: I've never found them terribly interesting.

When you think about it, there's almost always one answer that most people can recognize (at least intellectually) is the "right" choice. But the problems are constructed in such a way that the right choice seems repulsive and people instinctively shy away from it and will tend to give the "wrong" answer even though their brain knows full well that it's "wrong" (or inconsistent/contradictory if they've been given multiple versions of the trolley problem). Fine. So the takeaway is ... people can agree with utilitarianism in principle, but most of us have conceptions of morality that are contextual and social, and what we believe intellectually doesn't always jive with that? In short, that it's not that fucking hard to cook up a scenario that'll cause people's brains and guts to disagree? What a fucking stunning insight that is.

Doesn’t that say something about the failure of utilitarianism as a moral system? It doesn’t matter how many intellectual adherents a system has, only how many people put it into practice.
Also trolley problems have great meme potential.

OK Mr philosopher, what's the intellectually "right"choice to this one.

B, they're more useful than A in the continuation of society.

Children obviously

Not even a question really

No, I think most people throughout history would save their children over their parents, and for that matter most grandparents would rather you save the grandkids over them. I don't think even the Chinese or the Jews at their most conservative would ACTUALLY put their parents first, even if that's what their culture seems to suggest, the logic for that is all wrong, evolutionarilty speaking.

threadly reminder that the point of the problem is that if you even consider touching the switch you're evil

...

Your parents are at least 30-somethings, if you have kids. Your kids will have more chances to propagate your genes, going forward.

>I don't think even the Chinese or the Jews at their most conservative would ACTUALLY put their parents first

At least in a Chinese confucianist mindset the expectation would be that your parents (elders) would instruct you to save your kids and not themselves, thereby freeing you of choice and allowing you for a final ultimate display of respect for your elders.

>save your parents or your children
Are you fucking joking? Is this actually a question?

Evolution's logic does not apply to human actions.

I vaguely remember a tale about such a case.
A king or some other figure of authority offered this choice to a woman. He wanted to execute her father or her son (or some other combination of parents/children).
She chose the child, explaining that she could not replace her parent but could have another child.
Impressed with her wisdom, the king released them all.

I don't remember where it was from, though.

>Your parents are at least 30-somethings,
How fucking old am I, 10? If I were 10 and I had kids I'd be super fucking impressed with myself, somehow managing to "get puss" at that age but I'd kill the kids.

"Adam Smith reax only"

At least is the operative phrase, numbnuts. You’re parents could have conceived you at around 15, and you could have conceived your kids at the same age.

I don’t know, if Romance of the Three Kingdoms is anything to go by, throwing your baby at the ground is less of an offence than harming a hair on the head of one of your parents. I think most modern Chinese would rather save their kids, but with the birthrate and the infant mortality rate in any pre-modern society, I think the average person from any part of the world without modern medicine may save their parents first, the rationale being that you can just have more kids, but you only have two irreplaceable parents.

That's what i said you dumdum, picking A means the trolley will kill your parents, saving your children.

What if your father was a leading authority on cancer research and your child was a brain damaged little mongoloid?

It would be a harder choice if :
A: your mother
B: your father

>Evolution's logic does not apply to human actions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well exactly, even there I think people would be more surprised if you saved your parents over your own child than vice versa.

A very small child in ancient times only had a 50/50 chance of growing up anyway so I can see that skewing things. But once the kid is old enough to walk around and talk, I think you'd find very very few who could allow it to die in place of a parent, and probably even fewer grandparents who would want to live in place of their grandchild.

>you can just have more kids, but you only have two irreplaceable parents

This is better but still easy, 99.999% will spare the mother.

I'm 19 and my mum is 35. My gf is getting broody too, wants to have her first kid soon

I'd save my mum over a bastards life and I'm yet to meet sanctified heir so children until that point, probably.

>From a biological/evolutionary point of view
You mean B. Your parents have already made you, and are probably too old to have many children if you're already of childbearing age.

Biological imperative dictates that you save the next generation, even if you could have more children

For some reason this one has always been particularly hilarious to me

C: mental illness.

C