Someone Turned The Trolley Problem Into A Game (Dr. Trolley's Problem)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Dr. Trolley's Problem on Steam: store.steampow...
This was taken from my livestream on January 1st, 2021! I'm live every day but Saturday, come watch: / northernlion
The Trolley Problem is a classic philosophical thought experiment where there are entities on two train tracks, one of which is about to be hit by a trolley. Given the option, would you act and pull the lever to divert the trolley, causing it to miss the original victim at the expense of whatever's on track two? Naturally this is a great fit for a video game, and despite its thin premise it was a lot of fun. Check it out!
Philosophers spent years pondering these scenarios only to be trumped by the bulletproof logic of "they shouldn't be standing on the tracks"
Usually the people are tied down to the track
The fact that he sticks to a philosophy is good, because being arbitrary is worse than having a subpar policy.
NL is just once again finding ways to bring up the old "kill all J-walkers" conversation
@@Viewtiful_J And he's still right
like why are they there though
"Plus we just created 3 new jobs"
I'm dying here
I read this the second he said that lmao
@@styrofoamcow6996 same
Why, are you on the track when you shouldn't be? :P
So are they
Congrats, then, you're creating a 4th!
"God loves all his children equally, except if they stand on the main track" -. Ryab 4, 15-17
Amen brother
AMEN
In the words of legendary Canadian dad rockers "If you choose not to decide, you'll still have made a choice".
Isnt it faster to just say rush?
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 why would you want fast? This isn't a race
@@phabidz They are literally called "Rush" though
@@EndParenthesis this was a giant whoosh that I enjoyed to see, thank you sir.
That sentence makes no sense unless not choosing to decide is an active choice. It’s not. It takes energy to think out the problem but it takes no energy to actually not decide, in contrary to all other possible decisions. Also, the problems issued here are not about personal choice, it’s about choosing for others. You’re not entitled to do so unless you can do it without sacrificing a human for another.
NL canonically doesn't return the shopping cart because "he's creating jobs"
Oh shit, I've been immoral this whole time.
wrong
Pretty sure when he said that he was being tongue in cheek
@@MajorasWrath1 yes
I mean it's one of the only valid reasons to not return the cart.
i wholeheartedly agree with how you digested this, but on the other hand i feel like the trolley problem usually comes with a caveat that the victims are in no way accountable for the position. When you normally see the 2 train tracks all the people are tied to it, when you dont tie them down they're there on their own volition
Commenting because of the brilliant they're there their
There they are! On the tracks!
Do you know them?
No but that's where they are, they're there!!
@@kiyokiyoko English teachers love him.
Their own fault for allowing themselves get tied to the tracks
‘They’re there on their own volition’
Great quote
NL, none of these people put themselves in danger. YOU put them in danger by destroying the breaks of the trolley at the beginning of the game.
*surprised pikachu face*
That's some awesome deep lore, but also it's the fault of the trolly company to not replace the trolly.
@@tristanstrain9751 how are they gonna catch it tl install new brakes? It cant stop!
@@MrLego3160 They just gotta put trucks in front of it!
@@TheDarkeningShadow Or fat people, apparently!
Would be way more interesting if they were tied down. Nl seems to be relying on the fact that they are willingly putting themselves in danger
As would most people. Whoever designed this game fundamentally doesn't understand the trolley problem
Not willingly, but negligently.
@@Tubeytime so willingly.
@@elguty4045 to me, that implies they *know* the train is going to hit and choose not to move out of the way. Negligence implies taking a gamble.
Nah, not just that. He also sees action as murder whereas inaction is not his fault at all. The trolley kills the people if he doesn't pull the switch, but he kills the people if he does (Using the trolley). If they were tied down, the logic would be very similar, and the blame would go to whoever tied them down.
“I can imagine there’s sound?”
2 seconds pass
“Yeah I’m gonna turn that down”
0:52 henlo you stinky Northernlion January highlights!
... "cause I don't have many pairs of underpants left." LOL
The man only has so many pairs of underpants
When the vices in your head are too loud
Narrator Voice: In this episode, Egg solves problem that has has plagued ethicists for decades.
Bro the fact that the game didn’t specify that ppl didn’t know the tracks were unsafe or did not come there by their own free will is insane. Like dude you had 1 job here :(
Very good content tho
Yeah there's a reason most depictions of the problem have them tied down.
Yeah, agreed. While there are some people who engage with thought experiments "the wrong way" (i.e. they want to cheat, rather than think about the underlying issue), the element of how voluntary their presence in the scenario is, can be a relevant thing to take into consideration.
@Karon Nuva yeah but these weirdos are just standing on top of the track dancing
@Karon Nuva Yes, but (as Miguel says) the people seem to be dancing and for some it may be an introduction to the Trolley Problems.
The disclaimer that it deals with people being there against their will would've been smart.
Maybe the game designer started out with people being there voluntarily and would later expand to people being there against their will.
@@coolboyyo654 Yeah and little things make a big difference. Like in one version its a worker on the closed track and 5 people not paying attention on the active track. In that case i let the responsible worker live and Darwinism take its course. lol
Everything seemed straightforward until they got to the "everyone you love" vs "everyone that loves you" question. The fact that there were no people who both love you and and whom you love, well that leads me to option number three and throwing myself on the train tracks to stop the trolley because that is a sad lonely existence.
But what if you theoretically can’t get out the trolley and onto the tracks on time, or what if you don’t theoretically weigh enough to block the trolley.
@@BananaWasTaken Who said you were in the trolley? The trolley problem typically has you outside the trolley being able to change the tracks at a junction via a lever.
In any case it's a moot point if the Venn diagram of the people you love and the people who love you are two entirely separate circles. Not really much point to it regardless what ends up happening afterwards.
@@steampowered0861 I mean we could get creative...but I don't think YT likes too much graphic depictions of self harm so I'll leave it up to your imagination.
Moral of the story: Stay off the tracks, an egg god will not save you
Except if you subscribe
@@orpheos9 false, he killed "people that love you" at 15:14
From 4:55 to 13:37 you witness the complete conversion of an egg from a reluctant Utilitarian into a cavalier Kantian
I hope the mom/dad "glitch" was intentional, actually hilarious.
i wish the infamous ray william johnson track played there it would be nice
Choosing one parent over the other and then having to live with the one you chose to kill? I feel like the guilt was intentional
@@lokosoko it's the dark knight
Northernlion as he allows the proletariat to die: "haha I'm a job creator."
That was gold.
how Mitch McConnel thinks jobs are created
lol yep
I don't think anyone outside of the institutionalized, MSM kool aid drinker trust fundy demographic would actually call themselves 'of the proletariate,' ironically.
26:57
This is incredible, the video and the comments here do a great job of illustrating this thought experiment (great content BTW NL!) A lot of people taking issue with the game, fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the trolley problem. Or thinking that NL has "solved" it because the people aren't tied down. Funny thing is, they and NL all have fallen right into the trap of the trolley problem, and show exactly why this problem is interesting from philosophical, moral, and psychological standpoints.
Look at NL's decision making at 4:55. He takes action to sacrifice one to save the many. He rationalizes his decision in one sentence, "I'm taking the strictly utilitarian approach", and quickly moves on to the next one. Easy. Compare this to the decision at 8:25 - he DOES NOT take action to sacrifice one to save the many, then spends about a minute and a half rationalizing this decision, even so far as coming up with an entirely different situation. Not so easy? This is incongruent with decision making earlier on - this was not the utilitarian approach. These two situations had the EXACT SAME possible outcomes, yet NL reacted differently and chose different outcomes. And most people here nod and say, yes, that makes sense, these are both the correct decision. How is this possible? Imagine viewing this from a robot's perspective. The robot just watched a man in one scenario sac one to save the many...then proceeded to do the opposite? Why? From a mechanical, objective standpoint, this makes no sense - this was irrational, illogical. Yet NL's brain has no problem morally justifying the "truth" of his decisions, despite them being completely opposed to each other. And most everyone would agree (as highlighted by the comments here!) The small difference between the two problems highlights a point, even in a silly, pixelated game form - we have no problem sacrificing one to save the many through an INDIRECT action (pulling a lever to change tracks), but we DO have a problem with sacrificing one to save the many through DIRECT action (pushing a man onto the tracks). But if there were some sort of universal, moral, objective "truth" to good, then this shouldn't be the case. Or should it? :D
Only time I've ever made a YT comment, but I had to because it's awesome to see this experiment played out not only in the video, but in the comments to great success. Keep up the great content Egg, loving it!
Yo this comment was pretty pogged
Was wondering about the difference myself when I got to the second scenario you mentioned. Never realised that it was about the action themselves.
I’d argue your point is weakened by the fact that he changes his mind regarding the utilitarian standpoint later.
Besides, the main problem with the game is the fact that NL assumes these people “had it coming” by virtue of standing on the tracks.
@@mikkelh9757 But that's the beauty of the thought experiment! The very fact that he changed his standpoint! The purpose is to get us to analyze WHY we change our standpoints on this - what does it mean from a philosophical, moral, or psychological standpoint? What makes it interesting is the justifications we make in order to prove to ourselves that in a situation of bad choices, we are in fact making the morally best choice!
NL's assumption that the people "had it coming" is not a fault of the game - it in fact showcases how we rationalize our decision-making processes. Which is the point! Think of how interesting that is: in a silly game that means nothing, doesn't even look realistic by any means, in a space that is completely consequence free, NL's brain STILL has to make up an assumption (that the people deserve it) in order to make himself feel good about his choice, for really no reason at all! And we all do this! The mind is truly fascinating.
@@elreywong Pretty cool, right?
And the thing is, is that most everyone makes the same choices. Interestingly, people who tend to have lower empathy for their fellow human beings tend to be more likely to push the man themselves in order to save the others, generally speaking.
13:44 "Not by wrath, but by laughter do we kill"
*Murders a jock while laughing a few seconds later*
The irony and perfect timing on that, XD
“Chat...don’t look”. Nearly pissed myself laughing
" Here's a simple trolley with WORKING brakes. It's beautiful." NL 100% caused the entire Trolly problem in the game when he chose to stop it for no reason 😂
"The veiled people are the same as the visible ones." I feel like it defeats the entire purpose of the veil of ignorance to disclose to you what is underneath it.
It was a choice of wanting to see or not to see the act of running through people.
I guess its trying to test whether or not you care about watching the people die or not. Maybe some people would pull the switch to avoid having to see the deaths themselves.
@@shadethenovice but Ryan had a foolproof strat for that: 29:13
Would you have acted differently if the people were tied to the tracks against their will?
I believe that is how the original problem was staged, and it indeed carries a different moral weight compared to the near-loophole NL found in this video.
My guess would be that he would, yes. It features heavily into his decisionmaking that people chose to put themselves at risk and should not be saved by harming those who were simply standing by in safety.
Yeah NL's whole point was that they shouldn't be standing on the track. Tying them to the tracks makes a lot more sence.
Probably! It's unfortunate, and also lucky, that they weren't portrayed that way. Makes it easier to walk away with a guilt-free conscience! Though, I guess besides the fat man scenario it just becomes a question of "who you think is more valuable" or "what saves more generic life" because if you choose not to interact when they are there against their will, that's still making a choice.
For the most part, NL was going for the moral inaction of "random" is the only fair way to decide fate. It is immoral to decide a persons' life is a higher value than another persons' so unless the moral scales are tipped too heavily, inaction is the only choice.
But the main point of this is that both the people in the danger rails and the people in the safe rails are put there without their consent. It's not like the ones that will die if you do nothing "put themselves into danger" as you said.
@watson returns I completely agree. It is really fun to watch tho
That would make things much more interesting, but I still think the general principle applies that you can't be held accountable for not intervening on something that would have happened in your absence.
@@spicycupcake That's true, but still, blaming the people in the rails just for being there is kind of a scapegoat.
Philosophical NL - call that René Descarten of eggs
I laughed at that way harder than I shouldve
Heggel
This was so poorly designed. They put all the intuitivey preferable choices on the straight track so you could just do Egg strats and not play the game. They should have made it so you have to have agency in the act with the preferable victim on the second track. Missed opportunity for a game which has a decent sense of humour.
I disagree. I think what makes the trolley problem interesting is that there is no single Right Answer. Some people will take the eggs approach of just never pulling the lever. However, it’s the people in the middle ground that make the trolley problem for interesting. Maybe you value 10 ordinary people more than 1 extraordinary person, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. If the trolley problem had correct answers then it wouldn’t be a long lived philosophical conundrum.
Can't believe they didn't put a parent on the main track and 10 people on the other.
@@TheShadesOfBlack Ok but the game was also really poorly constructed (Something's definately wrong with those statistics, for one, and many of the problems presented are uninteresting)
This is just an inferior version of these kinds of ethical questions which is presented in a different format, which ultimately I think is too complex for its own good and sometimes takes away from the fundamental simplicity which is usually important, bringing in factors which cloud the core question being asked with unnecessary variables.
@@askoldir4538 I'm not saying the game is good. The statistics are probably wrong because something tells me 50%+ of the people playing the game are just memeing. And the game design itself is rather poor, asking the same style of questions over and over.
@@TheShadesOfBlack The middle people dont exist, everyone has some level of "If i dont do anything I'm not guilty but if I do I'm a murderer" whether they say it or not, making it be what people would choose anyways on top of it being already set up makes for a very boring expierence
So many answers were predetermined just by the fact that one track was straight and the trolley would drive over it anyway without intervention. Would be much more interesting if both tracks curved outside like the right one.
It feels like this game fundamentally didnt understand the trolley problem. In the the original its a 5 vs 1, a clear unequal thing where its not a question of which s better but if the better option can be justified to be forced.
Almost all of these scenarios are "here are 2 options pick the one you like more". Which is either meaningless "well I'm progressive so ill pick the conservative" or it just results in NLs playstyle of inaction, because why involve yourself with all things being equal?
These would only be meaningful if they were "The train will run into an orphanage, a puppy hospital and a museum (something objectively horrible) but you can divert it to either a conservative or a progressive so that you HAVE to make a choice.
@@crashingtonsyoutube yeah exactly, like the 2 old ladies vs 2 cheerleaders, the outcome if you don't decide should be they all die.
@@crashingtonsyoutube I agree. Also, they could have made it even harder if the trolley wasn't empty. Like the if you don't choose between left or right, the trolley will derail and everybody will die on it. So you will be forced to choose, even between just 1 on 1 scenarios - you don't want to derail a trolley with 30 elementary schoolers on a trip to the kitten festival
But thats not how trolleys work. The whole point of the problem (and why they chose a trolley) was to ilustrate how refuisng to act in certain situations has moral implications.
@@felipemontero9839 Then the people should have been tied to the tracks. The game portrays them as idiots partying on the railway system out of their own volition.
NL: kills one worker to save 4 workers
Also NL: doesn’t kill one worker to save 5 workers
A more efficient trolly problem, would be that one will be randomly selected to die if you do nothing. Therefore, you must decide which one you would chose, or risk an unwanted outcome. This would get rid of the,"they were on the track situation"
I agree! I feel like it shouldn't be played like he did. I think you should be forced to make a choice
When the fat man on the bridge had no name 20% killed him, when he got a name 95% killed him, when he had a name and could stop the trolley problem 25% killed him.
Honestly just 30 mins of:
- Extremely good takes
- A demonstration of why people are usually tied to the tracks against their will.
You mean a beautiful demonstration of cognitive dissonance 😂
The fat controller laughed. "You are wrong."
The abortion trolley problem: If you pull the lever somebody dies. If you don’t pull the lever, nobody dies.
Based
You have it backwards. I assume pull the lever means get an abortion. Not pulling the lever kills the carrier because they cease being human.
Basically, if they weren’t tied down, if there stupid enough to stand on the tracks, the hafta vanish
Little disappointed he didn't even notice the joke in the stats with the Steele Dossier problem
So let me get this straight. NL believed they were all there willingly, and that the right choice was to hit the people who put themselves on the dangerous track.
Yet in one scenario a head in a jar had its life support put on the tracks, which it obviously couldn't have done itself, he chose to hit the life support. That was literally the only scenario there where someone was on the tracks against their will (from his perspective) and without hesitation he broke his own logic to murder them.
It didn't break his logic because someone else put the life support there and so they're the bad person. NL doesn't act when he has to choose between strangers dying. Like many comments mentioned, the fact that they aren't tied down muddys the water, as it invites other factors like which one is the "dangerous track" and which one was the safe track, etc. The life-support question was actually meant to provoke thought about consciousness as it was only a brain that was alive but it failed to do that and unnecessarily complicated things like you said in your comment.
@@DivyeshVartha That's fair. He did add unnecessary complications to it, and I'm assuming he didn't really think about the scenario fully. I was simply noticing that he said he wouldn't sacrifice an innocent to save someone intentionally on the tracks, because it's unfair to reward stupid behaviour. As you rightly pointed out though, he also said he wouldn't pick between strangers. So I suppose what I noticed wasn't him breaking his own logic, but just two values that weren't completely fleshed out. Ultimately he values keeping his hands clean above all else, and while he won't actively kill an innocent, he won't take action in a 1:1 scenario to save one either.
plottwist! There is a man with a gun offscreen holding everyone hostage.
They should have one where there is someone on the main track trying to rescue someone on the diverted track who isn't supposed to be there and got stuck.
6:25 "Plus we just created three jobs." God, I spit my tea. Hilarious.
"Plus we just created three new jobs" 0_0
This is one of my new favs. I was cracking up at the bazooka scene.
8:30 This is the same as switching tracks and killing 1 person while saving 3 or 5. It's the same problem rephrased.
In the philosophical sense, refusal of action is a choice. You are actively choosing one over the other, even when you "don't choose". That what makes it a problem.
Well. The main thing is that the trolley IS without control.
The people on the mainline are working/standing there because they think the trolley is working fine and will not run them over.
I think the biggest problem is that the trolly problem works because everyone is unwilling and the models they use are just standing there, so you can interpret them choosing to be there.
"Stick to his guns" lie detector determined, that was a lie
"evil is evil regardless of magnitude. If I am to pick between a 'lesser' and a 'greater' evil, I'd rather not choose at all"
-Gerald of rivia
"They shouldn't be on the tracks!"
They're workers. What if it's a run away trolly car? Regular people shouldn't be standing on train tracks ever, and I feel like that might make a difference.
if you are standing on the track, you are not a bystander. you are a trackstander.
Hey NL, that's a great video, I found that watching it while on a train track really increased the immersion... Hey, is that a train heading my way?
13:53 “my beliefs are unshakable. i don’t interfere if someone is on the tracks. it’s their own fault. we are a murder if we pull the lever.” (jock or nerd). (YANKS LEVER).
I was kinda iffy when he said he'll bring more Twitch content to YT but honestly I'm loving these weird 1 or 2-ofs
Luigi does nothing and still feels smug.
I like how this whole video implies that Ryan just wouldn't save a person. "Oh God help, I set myself on fire accidentally!"
"Sorry buddy I'm neutral on this."
so I feel like the way you chose to interpret the trolly problem made a lot of the choices really easy for you; "it's their fault for standing in the way of the trolly." so what if they were stuck or otherwise there against their will?
We truly are in a golden Era of content this year already
True!!! Ilove NL so much!! he is my faavorite p person of all the history of the world becauss he is so cool like my dad
Typically these scenarios are explored with the people being tied up on the tracks (against their will) and then the different scenarios involve loved ones or children. It's never adults consenting to standing in danger
The percentages are off because it calculates based on the amount of deaths instead of the amount of people who made what choice. If it were a 1:2 problem, for example, a 50/50 vote would show up as 33% saved left and 66% saved right
In a lot of these “pick 1 to kill” scenarios, people choose not to act because acting means you chose someone to die. Inaction means they died and you just did nothing. Easier to sleep at night regardless of the number dead lol.
Should've pulled the switch halfway so that the train is derailed and hits all of them. *evil laughter intensifies*
Yeah, but the point is that that rationalization is flawed if you value human lives (or more generally reducing suffering in the world). Like in the classic "many on vs. one off" scenario you may not be directly responsible for putting those people in danger and thus can distance yourself psychologically, but the reality is still that your decision resulted in more death and suffering than if you had taken an active role to minimize casualties.
i was really hoping you'd push the fat guy in front of the train and then it proceeded to just kill everyone anyway
"What if it's a baby?"
"[I want to make that decision]"
14:00 I've never laughed at someone choosing to kill someone before
The "meta VR" line by the robot aged like fine vine.
I think it might have a significant impact on the way people play if when the trolley hits people it turned them into an R-rated bloody splat.
Malf bully joke got me
Interesting how 8:35 he's like "saving 3 at the cost of 1 isn't worth it" whilst earlier he was like "sure" when 1 was on a safe track and 3 who were on the unsafe track.
The people didn't put themselves in danger, it's a runaway trolley because YOU broke the breaks haha
turns out his ethics are just "don't stand on the fuckin track 4head"
I'd just say for workers vs. Bystanders.
It's meta, though I'd believe the workers would believe the train would switch for their work.
"chat don't look"
I lost it
Funny how he says that intervening makes you a murder and then immediately murder the jock without a second thought
The good people at Cyanide and Happiness (aka Explosm) have already turned this into a way funner game, though I don't know about a digital version (tabletop simulator?) It's called Trial by Trolley.
the trolley is an abstraction of the concept itself- it doesn't matter if there's actually tracks or not. it's just "some situation where some people are in danger".
huh didn't think the end would reference a cursed comment where you drift and kill all 6.
Now we know how covid spread. It just needed one flick of the switch.
I love how NL assumes that those people are standing on the track and not even trying to dodge incoming trolley of their own volition. I guess dispensing with the classic trolley problem device of having them bound to the tracks robs the situation of the gravitas.
But then again they were put in place by malevolent AI.
26:09 Top Ten Anime betrayals
Game maker had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trolley Problem.
In said problem, the people were TIED to the tracks against their will.
With the food one, also, starving to death is much slower than getting hit by a train and dying pretty much instantly
This is some Immanual Kant levels of 'The only way we can do anything wrong is if we interfere with the situation. Therefore just tell the truth and if a serial killer uses that to murder your friend in the kitchen, that's just life brother.'
It's massively pog.
Kant is a moron then
27:00 “planes will fly themselves soon anyway...” a few more centuries now you just killed the aircraft engineer.
8:20 "Will you sacrifice one man to save others.....time is ticking." *Cue Saw theme*
"If you're standing on the track that the train is already coming on, tough luck."
Yet you contradicted that mindset every time you change the tracks when someone's on each.
The last one, you save the people on the trolley, because they are allowed to switch lanes, while the others standing on the train tracks aren't supposed to be there.
The issue with this is that workers don't know there's a trolly coming, save for civs, the breaks are broken, likely meaning its coming around without anyone's knowledge
The problem is, that in these situations only one possibility requires an action, which makes this situation much more difficult to choose. Should be like "you have to choose which track the trolley hits" without a default track
this is why the people are normally tied to the tracks unwillingly
Will you ever take a look at the Talos Principle? Feel it would be an amazing game to see your problem solving
But the two groups are both willingly still on the tracks???? They don't know which way the trolley will go
Weird crossover of people who would choose to change track to kill a drug addict but refuse to torture a terrorist to stop a bomb...
Based
I appreciate they've added the bridge to the thought experiment, the way it should be
15:02 "People that love you, people that you love. Chat, don't look."
Sadge
95% of players believe in "Bros before hoes"
This is why they are usually tied to the tracks. The problem is that he is saying these people are on the tracks by their own volition when in fact they are there by super natural means.
Would be better if the player had to choose a path and the trolley kept running in circles until a path was chosen. That way, the "they are in a less safe position than the other person argument wouldn't work.
I could see chat saying “not intervene=win”
Torture doesn't work. See: Reservoir Dogs
NL has probably watched too much '24'
In reservoir dogs, he was being tortured for fun, that totally fulfilled its purpose
Northernlion: I stick with my principles.
Also Northernlion: I have changed my principles.
About the statistics of who switched tracks - you gotta suspect that some people were switching tracks just to do something, or just to watch the carnage.
"This is a great individual"
Doesnt give you any sort of information about how he is great or what he's done.
Cmon man
“Let’s see if visuals will affect your decision.”
*starts laughing at the torture*
Nice
They should make this where it shows you who to save, but doesn't show you what track they're on.