The Problem With the Trolley Problem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2024
- Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: www.masterworks.art/aperture
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/cd
You’ve probably heard of the Trolley Problem, especially if you’re at all interested in philosophy or ethics. Lately, it’s been a subject of discussion when discussing autonomous cars and was referenced explicitly in the show The Good Place.
Some people think it’s a fun moral thought experiment to discuss in a group. Others feel it’s a good ethical workout to prepare for real-world ethical dilemmas. But what if the Trolley Problem has a problem of its own?
Support: / apertureyt
Shop: bit.ly/ApertureMerch
Subscribe: bit.ly/SubscribeToAperture
Discord: / discord
Questions or concerns? underknown.com/contact/
Interested in sponsoring Aperture? contact@underknown.com - Розваги
The problem isn't the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem -Captain Jack Sparrow, lol.
That’s about it
I personally disagree, because the problem is the problem itself for it is not a problem but we are the problem which in result created the problem
@@skaterduck2389 That's truly some deep philosophical thinking lol.
Albert Ellis; founder of cognitive behavioral therapy, would agree
@@skaterduck2389The problem is never the problem. The problem is always how you feel about the problem. If you didn't care about the problem, the problem would still be there but that wouldn't be a problem.
The fact that real-life dilemmas are more complex than the Trolley Problem isn't the point. The point is that our inability to _solve_ the Trolley Problem suggests we don't understand ethics well enough to reliably code them into AIs.
The people training AI only understand what they want and AI tells them they don't make sense so they have to keep starting over. Seen it four different times now 😅
Hopefully X will stop forcing it and get real philosophers to consult.
Alternatively, it also suggests ethics are so grey in certain situations that it doesn't matter that much. People just feel more comfortable knowing a human was at fault instead of a machine. It doesn't make it morally better.
If an AI is driving a car and has literally no other option but to fatally injure a granny or the passenger(s), how would a human in the same situation be better ethically? The outcomes will be bad regardless and neither is ethically better from the other.
I think people over-philosophize ethics and AI. The real problem is how to treat this legally.
Ironically, you think you’ve understood it so much that you don’t. It was simply a thought-problem that shows that ethics aren’t objective-or at least, we as a society don’t have enough agreement on what is “good” or “bad” to quantify and objectify them. AI applications are an extension of that, sure, but the bigger problems with it come elsewhere in our general legal and judicial systems, as well as in society making judgements as a whole, both on our contemporaries, as well as on those from the past.
Is has also been used to show irrationality in our ethical decision making. A study shows that there were a lot of people who would pull the lever. However, when an alternative was presented, instead of having a lever you could push a Fatman off a bridge that would stop the train, many people said they wouldn't. Additionally, those who answered they would to both were found to take more time answering the Fatman question, indicating that some people judge ethics based of immediate emotional responses (the group who pulled the lever but didn't push the fat man) and some people judge ethics based of logical reasoning (the people who judged the two situations to be equivalent and answered the same in both)
@@ClementinesmWTF What do you mean by "you think you've understood it so much that you don't"? Nothing I said contradicts what you said; I was just objecting to the argument that, because the Trolley Problem is a simplified thought experiment, its lessons are irrelevant to real-world concerns.
That being said, I _do_ object to your claim that the Trolley Problem "shows that ethics aren't objective" --- it does no such thing. At best, it shows the difficulty of defining objective standards of ethics, and illustrates the weaknesses of our attempts thus far. But the jury is still out as far as I am concerned as to whether it is possible to devise an objective ethical foundation.
People of the internet, now that you've watched such a great and well-made video, I'm here to tell you what you should do if the trolley problemm scenario happens in real life!
It's very simple: You need to pull the lever and divert tracks when the trolley is on top of the thing that diverts tracks (Dunno the name). If done correctly, the front of the trolley will go in one direction, and the back in the other direction, effectively causing the trolley to stop. (You risk making the trolley fall out of the rails and harm the passengers. Doing a tokyo drift and getting the max amount of kills may also happen). This practice is done in real life when trian people need to stop a train because reasons
😂 Brooo thats honestly worse than the worst case scenario if things go wrong
@@Zeolocke Usually nothing bad happens. Train just stops. Think about it like gambling but with actual good odds
Would this actually work irl though?
The question is: why are there people tied to trolley tracks and how do we know about them as soon as the brakes go out?
@@erinmagner asking the real questions here, huh?
The problem with the trolley problem
Thx we can read the title shut up
The problem with the trolley problem
Yes the problem with the trolley problem!
The trolley with the problem trolley.
@@unmellowthegamer8946 exactly the problem with the trolley problem
Usually I would go for the track with 1 person, but a girl's gotta get her kill streak up. 💪
Bro really wants his predator drone huh
Bro💀
Someone with the same thought, nice 😂
*Slay*
I think I heard this one line somewhere before "If you are placed in such a situation irl you won't have time to think about such moral dilema or code, you gotta do the best you can at that moment"
Imma Tokyo drift that train , get combo points
💀
☠️
Get treatment
@@wadieamil1472 maybe you should for not getting a joke
Double track drifting!! XD
I am immediately reminded of Trolley Problem, Inc., a game that takes these thought experiments and pushes them as far as possible to the edges. It's an interesting experience.
The problem with the problem is that it’s often problematized. But the problem with the problem that’s problematized is that it’s problematic. And the problem with the problematic problem is that it leads to more problems. So, the problem with the problem that’s problematic and leads to more problems is that it perpetuates a cycle of problematicity. Yet, the problem with this cycle of problematicity is that it’s difficult to pinpoint a solution. Consequently, the problem with attempting to solve the problem with the problem is that it introduces even more complexity. Thus, the problem with the attempt to solve the problem with the problem that’s problematic and leads to more problems is that it’s an endless loop of problem-solving that never quite reaches a definitive resolution. And therein lies the problem with the problem with the problem with the problem about the problem that is all about the trolley problem.
I think I'm beginning to see the problem
@@BeWhoYouWant2Ikr 😅
High risk high reward
This is gotta be breaking some kind of record goddamn
How problematic
Also I loved your shower thoughts series, please do more 🙏
Hell yeah....I love your stuff......it's like things I think of...but never jots down and it goes into the wind
Good video, thanks for that!
The problem with the sponsor of the video being a scam.....
your videos are so peaceful
Love your videos
Those audio tracks from the Stoicism: Become Undefeatable video... where do I find them??
That's why you have to take it a step further like Vsause. He used the trolly problem to create a real life situation that people had to react to.
This whole exercise is about the value of human life. We like to say we're all equal but obviously some individuals are valued higher by society than others. It's uncomfortable to think about but that's the dilemma.
1 like= 1hr study
I hate studying so do ur worst
16hrs of study
Ty aperture science
I thought the dilemma in the trolley problem was that the person was a loved one and the five were strangers.
Others have mentioned the five-kidneyed person. In the case of the judge, was the person he found guilty innocent of the crime but guilty of other crimes he was found not guilty of or did the judge know the person was going to kill the people he thought he was saving?
My problem with these problems is they're never specific enough🤨
Well harm is inevitable in this moment in both case scenarios , it is more of what is the least damage could be done rather than is committing evil in the sake of good evil or not , if you had to act the most coherent way of acting is limiting the loss not sit in fear of doing evil even though it would be Less of loss.
“Never to have been born is best.
Everyone knows that, and a close second,
once you have appeared in this life, is a quick
return, as soon as you can, to where you came from.
In our light-headed youth we carry
blithe ideas, not knowing what blows await,
what hardships are bearing down, closer and closer.
Murder, hatred, strife, resentment, and
envy are lurking, and then, behind them, bitter old age,
powerless, friendless, with evils our only neighbors.”
― Sophocles
Quite the pessimistic view. Ultimately expected from a tragedian though.
@@kalamari3288
he wouldn't have to sacrifice his loved one if they weren't born
He also wouldn't have known love or joy to be near them if they had never been born. Negative emotion does not erase positive emotion; it's not some existential calculus where you determine the value of living by the net total amount of suffering compared to non-suffering. Joy is derived from the awareness of its possibility just as much as the spontaneity of it. To never be born is to not understand this at all, is to not have known the lows or highs or the middles in between. You can say it us better to not be born at all, but I disagree. It is better to live and understand the full spectrum of living, as a means to experience and sensualize. It is better to know hate and love in conjunction than to know neither.
@@Dasbaben if someone isn't born they're not deprived of any positive emotions
@@lovethyneibor22736 Are they not also not deprived of negative emotion, then? I don't imagine a scenario wherein you can experience only positive emotion constantly and have any context for why that's a good thing. What you're saying is devoid of any meaning, seeing as how you can't choose to revert being born, or to stop living within a physical body without doing harm to that body. Perhaps carrying negative responses to the environment through your death allows those responses to perpetuate themselves within your consciousness even after death. The only real solution, then, is to accept the horrors of life, and to choose to respond to them with hope and love. Even if it seems futile. No one ever claims that it's easy or simple. That doesn't mean bleak pessimism is the true realistic viewpoint to filter thought through.
The problem with the trolly problem is that it’s not a trolly it’s a train
I love multi track drift
I love your videos so much peak UA-cam content tbh
I believe ive found the way to be infinitely happy. I know it sounds obvious but, enjoy the simplicity of life and a chosen simple thing. This might be hard but find happiness in something like washing the dishes, walking, cleaning or something you can do at anytime basically like drawing, reading, writing, meditation, etc. If you put happiness in something you can actually have whenever you want or something that may be boring, but you still have to do it everyday, your happiness is therefore alqays available. If you put the attainment of happiness in big and complex things like becoming a pilot or graduating college, your restricting your happiness bejind years of work and learning. It becomes circumstantial, and inturn becomes limited. Then when you finally get that thing your happy and satisfied, yet unhappy cus you relied on acheiving that thing in order to produce your joy.
Yup
@@justinfritz3635 nope
@@SoaringShade 🥲
Simple answer for me. What are the consequences to me if each choice? I take the one with the least consequences. If no or equal, just let it run. I didn't set up the problem, so not my problem. I will sleep just fine either way. Two tours in V-N and Laos and no sleep lost over the years.
I hate this problem. 😐 Thank you.❤
I don't know why trolley is involved here at all if the essence of the problem is:
"You must choose how many people you kill".
Don't let anyone put you in such situation. It's not a casual shopping dilemma. You don't have to choose who lives and who dies.
The only true lesson this problem can teach you is that saving can be just as bad as killing.
family first! ALWAYS! would you buy anything that could decide otherwise? its a matter of thrust and bypass switch
The classic trolly problem, what would you choose?
As per the video thumbnail, I am most definitely saving my loved one. No questions about that.
Gotta get that Exp
Honestly I won't care if I get to save my loved ones(or i'll pretend to), If I empathize with every poor man I see on road, it would cost me my happiness, and slowly eat away my life. If resources are scarce we should preserve it for our lives.
At the end the answer to the question acc to me would be who makes a more significant impact on our lives.
A bit cold reasoning but why lie to yourself.
The best action is always to try to save everyone even by risking your own life. So what is the correct answer to the trolley problem?
Can you look at the content of CS Joseph, it would be nice to know your thoughts about psychology
The problem with the problem with the trolley problem
Fax
Philosophy it’s self creates questions that can’t be answered.
Man loved and bled art. At the end of humanity, the last two lights to fade will be love and art
The trolley with the problem problem
Mere quantity matters less than emotional value.
This isn't a problem at all.. just do whatever you want. It's an absolute win as long as someone you care about survives. Everyone else... well tough luck there. But life must go on
Can you do one on Murphy's law
So what I’m hearing is we need to expand the thought experiment into real experiments
Nobody:
No one at all:
Me: (the trolley)
I would also disagree with the comparison of the trolley problem and the person with 5 kidneys, simply because on the trolley problem no matter what you do someone will die, independently of their own thoughts. On the real life comparison we're actively killing someone against their will. I'm sure that on the trolley problem situation it would also be against their will, but we can't be sure,
What happened to those surreal videos about space, time, and the Universe. ✨
❤
Don't touch the switch. You won't be blamed for the deaths
The problem with "The problem with the trolley problem"
Me trying to figure out how to get all 6 kills on the trolley
Multitrack dorifto!
Your voice is so nice 🙁
Gumper Gang❤️
To many people on the planet let it do what it was going to do
i would jump on to yhe track also therfore removing myself from any further consequences
😅😅😅
Id run away so i cant get framed
Double it and give it to the next person.
Always pull the switch to save the many, unless the 1 is someone I care about.
All strangers. 1 child vs 5 80 year olds?
Did the trolley problem exist before trolleys?
yeah im pretty sure just variants of it
Just ask some platoon captain who's had to make many similar decisions.
The problem is choice...
Its actually really simple
The trolley problem is there is only one trolley. Those people are tied to the tracks for a reason……
maybe that one dude knows he is safe because trolleys don't use that track, so it is okay to be on it; but the other 5 people are knowingly taking a risk to be on any tracks at all ....like say there are 5 kids playing in the street with one kid up in the yard telling the others to get out of the street, when you come driving along and then swerve up into the yard to avoid the kids in the street; if that kid in the yard lives, those other kids will never listen to his good advice and warnings .... its like the saying "stop making stupid people famous" and don't save large groups of them by killing the one smart guy that did nothing wrong
Anyone who would flip the switch to "save" the three is immoral. Remember that we are all beholden to fate, which prevents us from doing anything from unaliving a murderer to save three or quitting our jobs and saving lives in the poorest countries of Africa. We choose to NOT save lives because of fate, which prevents seeing a positive action (saving three) as negating a negative action (unaliving one). Those who choose to take out the one is ultimately acting as God in one instance and then ignoring all the positives they can do every other day of their lives. This is not even a dilemma if you look at how you ignore saving lives. Really? Be a hero/ unaliver just because a question pops up so cleanly and clearly in front of you?
Please make a video on Ephesians 3 20 please it i really want it
My problem is if I intervene then I could be liable cause now it's my fault I killed that one person. If I do nothing, I can't be blamed cause it's not my fault the brakes failed.
I would view it the same with autonomous cars: I don't want a car that if it has to decide between running over a pedestrian or a group of pedestrians, and going into oncoming traffic hitting a truck and killing me that's riding the car, I wouldn't want the car to decide to kill me.
No Brainerd, you save your loved one and then try to save the other people. I don't care if that doesn't seem right but you are always going to save the person you know first.
It doesn't seem right
People need to broaden their narrow perspectives. Everything I heard is focused in limiting casualties/moral blame while they could easily avoid casualties (other than yourself potentially, if you're alone in the trolley) altogether. Let's assume the people are tied to the rails for some reason. Then that still leaves us with a couple of options:
- Using the engine itself to slow the train.
- Emergency Brakes: Applying hand brakes on every car.
- As a last resort, using designated derailment points or techniques to minimize damage.
You have full agency and knowledge in the trolley problem, and -1 is greater than -5. That's it.
You do realise it's called a train and not a trolley...I've never heard a single person in my life say they took a trolley somewhere
Just because you live a limited life
@kimpeater1 when did you last hear someone say they bought a trolley ticket somewhere? 😂
@kimpeater1 what are those things the carriage runs on called again? Train tracks 🛤 😂
Its stupid and it's trying to force someone to take responsibility for a problem that isn't their responsibility.
Daily reminder to watch monster
The trolley problem is actually only half of the thought experiment the second part has a doctor who can kill one healthy person for the organs needed to save 5 other people who are dying & thus is an exploration of what makes them different. at least in the original form.
You didn’t watch the video 😂
@@justinfritz3635 Yeah I commented this in the first few minutes & then watched some more & noticed he said it pretty much after I'd paused to comment.
*tips over and derails the trolley* What problem?
You flip the switch that helps you on the trolley stop, but I'd just do the 5 since that was the fate anyway. That decision is not based on lives being more important than a life, I don't care either way and not a problem because it isnt me.
Bro in that intro he sounds tired of it all. Is he good?
There's only one fair way to go about this. Flip a coin.
Just save whichever side have the cutest girl... Easy.
this is a good deconstruction, but morals are nihl and life is absurd
Let me solve the problem usually the majority are on the wrong side not everyone's life is equal
🤔 ‘Not everyone’s life is equal’ . . . How can you decide that? Which side of the scales are you on - the more equal or the less equal?
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat, because it is always a subjective viewpoint. Those you know and love always have more value (to you, and you to them), than unknown persons.
@@nicodejager8644 🤔 In that case, there is no truth in the psychological concept of ‘Altruism’. Only self interest and selfishness. All those who put themselves at risk on behalf of strangers are acting foolishly.
Is your life "equal"?
Or not.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat id add that altruism without fairness is problematic altruism. there's no need to put yourself at a disadvantage without good reason. if i have a minor injury and somebody else has a severe injury, it'd be foolish of them to act altruistically and let me have the treatment first. and it'd be fair for me to be in a minor disadvantage for their benefit. but if all factors are the same, except i got there first, it wouldn't be fair to allow that this time. you can't have the right to sacrifice yourself without being selfish, you can only be selfless if you treat yourself as any other stranger. thinking that other people deserve more than you simply because they're other people is selfish, you deserve to be saved just like they do. so if there's no significant factors that influence my choice. i should choose the people that are important to me if it's fair to do so, if im not unfairly putting other people at a disadvantage.
+25 pt VS +125 pt 💀💀
The issue with hitting the switch so that it only ends one person instead of 5, is that those 5 would've expired without your intervention and that would've been a tragic accident. By flipping that switch to avoid those 5's tragic fate turns you into a murderer whereas allowing those 5 to meet their fate makes you a bystander.
I didnt think of it that way. That almost makes me want to just turn around and let whatever is gonna happen happen.
This is not a puzzle to solve, the idea here is very simple, its that u have two options and u have to pick one of them.
i do kinda agree with this, but then it's also a numbers game. that 5 turns could turn into 500, or 500K, or 5 Billion; somewhere you'd have to change your decision. also, being a bystander shouldn't absolve you of your moral duty.
Get rid of trolleys. Problem solved.
Brother that sponsor is not it….
Better question. Why did he have 5 kidneys?
Misinterpreted Consequentialism. It is easier summed up by "The ends justify the means."
The video early on painted it as lofty and moral, which is largely not the case.
If the train "needed" to be on time, a consequentialist would have no problem running over 5 people, even if the other track had ZERO people. Consequentialism is a rationalization process that is framework for an ideology. EG Activists use consequentialism to justify being mean to people they disagree with, because their ultimate goal is JUST, pursuing it by any means is automatically granted as okay.
Additionally,
The Trolley Problem may be a good beginner discussion but it's real use is studying how it actually plays out, but it's not really that interesting on it's own. Most people would obviously pick the 1 dead instead of 5.
In practice, some people won't flip the switch from 5......but for fear of screwing something up. That's not consequentialism, that's not the type of consequence that the term refers to, that's general responsibility or cost issue that we deal with all the time, and varying psychology will yield different choices for varying reasons.
As I said, most people would pick 1, so even with not confronted with a, varying psychology will yield ifferent choices. Maybe someone is being an edgelord, or rebelling against the percieved morality judgement, etc.
We vary widely in how we interpret and process things, and that manifests in realistic experiments as well as hypothetical "what if" discussions.
why would you kill one healthy person to save lives of 5 unfortunate people who can't take care of their organs.
🤓👆
First
Don’t invest in art kids
If everyone lies then we can all know what the truth is, since we all know everyone lies.
What😂😂😂buddy u overthinking
@@ronandsorum3440 Come on, all of this guys channel is overthinking :p
You know what, let me tickle your mind too 💀
I would agree with this, but I think by doing that, eventually someone might attempt a lie that turns out to be a truth.
You could say that it's a good idea since that means we would therefore find and practice the truth because of this, despite everyone telling lies.
@@upgradeamongus You're right, in a world wher it's all optional, you are 100% correct. I was just a spickler for the words, I guess.
doesn't take a quarter hour to say that it's facile bullshit
Doodies😂
Would you kill a man with 5 kidneys to save 5 people with no kidneys?
What if I leave the man with 1 or 2 kidneys and save 3 or 4?
No, that is against the laws of this entirely hypothetical discussion.
Can you at least come up with a hypothetical situation that makes sense in this reality?
No.
Pin me 🥺
First time after a while I decided to watch one of your "not-that-long" videos, and Nile! You talk to fast and you're monotonous. Not for me. Goodbye
Could you stop vocal frying? Just end sentences on a soft voice, your voice is great, but when you lose power in the end of the sentence it is not good