The Trolley Problem Debate | EFAP Highlight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- The gang debates the ethics of the trolley problem, and the absurd scenarios that can come of it.
ORIGINAL VIDEO: • EFAP #250 - The Fifth ...
WATCH EFAP!
- EFAP Main Channel: / @everyframeapause
- EFAP Audio Version: / user-624219017
HOSTS’ CHANNELS
- MauLer’s Channel: / @mauleryt
- Fringy’s Channel: / @fringy
- Rags’ Channel: / @rags
COMMUNITY
- MauLer Subreddit: / mauler EFAP
- EFAP Discord: discordapp.com...
- Fan Site: www.efap.me/
MERCH & DONATIONS
- MauLer’s Patreon: www.patreon.co...
- MauLer’s Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
- MauLer’s Merch Store: maulers-store....
- Rags’ Patreon: / yourpalrags
- Rags’ Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
FEATURED UA-camRS
- Jedi Brooks’ Channel: / @jedibrooks7235
- Nutsa’s Channel: / @nutsa
- PSA Sitch’s Channel: www.youtube.co...
- MarcTheCyborg’s Channel: / @marcthecyborg
- Capital-O Opinions’ Channel: / @capitaloopinions
- The Act Man’s Channel: / @theactman
- E;R's Channel: / @esemicolonr
OUTRO MUSIC: “Last Stop” by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio - Ігри
The secret answer is find whoever keeps tying all these people to trolley tracks and defeat them.
So kill one person to prevent the deaths of multiple other people? Huh that reminds me of something
@@heskymarkywe can never escape this trolly-filled hell.
@@heskymarkyThe final boss of Trolleys.
That’s more of an after-action
Preferably by tying them to some trolley tracks.
A trolley is barreling down, but you're Kronk and have a 50% chance of pulling the wrong lever...
Isn't it a 100% chance the first time?
@@LukasJampenThe first lever unleashed the trolley.
@@zonbichaos5844 Allright that's fair.
Why do we even have that lever?
trolley will kill 5 people on both tracks
but one will do a sick loop which would you choose?
question: what is the ethnicity of the people on the tracks?
answer: both are meth addicted in and out of rehab cis gendered white males
Oh no, a trolley is heading towards 5 orphans, who don't own their own blood. You can pull a lever and divert it to the other track, where it will plough into Movie Bob, killing everyone in the tram, as Bob weighs more than the tram, all of the people in the tram and the orphans combined. What do you do?
Bob tells you to pull the lever because it has republicans and commends the democrats for their sacrifice
Call down a fire mission from a battery of MRLS artillery.
Sacrifices must be made against Movie Bob.
Now you're just being silly. 😅
WHO DON'T *OWN THEIR OWN BLOOD*
0_0
wat
Depends on who owns the orphans blood, and how much they'll pay me to protect their property/merchandise.
5:42 “But then the Mona Lisa will be destroyed!”
*Please don’t give me Glass Onion PTSD. Please.*
at least this one is justified, the other was only a literal temper tantrum of a woman on her period
Do you let the trolley run over Knives out, or pull the lever, destroying Glass Onion And LOTR?
@@councilofkarens729 I would let the trolley go and then destroy Glass Onion on my own
"It's just dumb"
(screaming in the distance)
Do you pull the lever and destroy the original copy of the Mona Lisa while the cops are in sight and will arrest you for it meanwhile giving a lot of positive sympathetic press to the bad guy who currently has the Mona Lisa thereby helping him implement his dangerous new fuel. You also almost run over the bad guy's best friends which totally convinces them to cover for you.
OR
Do you walk away from the company that you think you own because someone related to you contributed a half-remembered bar napkin with a dozen vague words written on it and use the evidence you've gathered together with the world's most respected detective, backed up by the bad guy's best friends who have been betrayed by him, to get the bad guy to face justice?
I gotta say, Rian Johnson is a master at subverting the expectations of any sapient being.
As someone who worked for the railroad if you let the first set of wheels cross the switch and pull the lever before the rear set crosses you can send the trolley down both tracks.
Moral problem solved, moral problem staying solved
Taking that to the analogy: do everything you can to find a third option. To create one if possible. To try everything you can to save everyone
MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!!!!
I'm having trouble visualising that, would it kill or save both?
No witnesses.
@@bushturkey798hypothetically, if the trolley has two sets of wheels and the two tracks run parallel at exactly the same distance apart as the trolleys front and back sets of wheels, then it would kill both.
If the tracks don't run parallel then it saves both.
The trolley problem is there’s only one trolley
Let me introduce you to Multi-track drifting then
Based.
I hop on the trolley so I can be in the splash zone.
trolley will kill 5 people on both tracks
but one will do a sick loop which would you choose?
question: what is the ethnicity of the people on the tracks?
answer: both are meth addicted in and out of rehab cis gendered white males
You have one trolly: there's a woman on one set of tracks & a bear in the woods on the other: which one do you run over? 😂
The woman for sure
If its headed for the bear i would pull the lever
Definitely the woman
I'd save the woman so I could look at her
The woman. I will definitely choose the woman.
EFAP: Spends ten minutes discussing the answer on the rich guy question.
Me: Already pulled the lever the second money was offered.
Zero debate as far as I'm concerned. One lives and one dies either way. Might as well choose the option that helps pay for any therapy I might need as a result.
therapy? i'm gonna go on a long vacation with that money...
I remember that Southpaw's solution to all trolley problems is to do nothing because it's not his problem.
Genius.
I think YMS had a similar conclusion, but instead of just not caring it was because he doesn't want legal trouble.
@@turtspotatolmao
If you pull the lever, you become a murderer. If you don't, you are just a witness, that's the thing.
That BTAS video is never coming out.
The proper answer to this is to investigate trolley safety standards, clearly those breaks aint working properly or we got a murderous trolley driver
I'm pretty sure the confusion is from people using train and trolley interchangeably the trolley problem makes a lot more sense if you use a train instead, the original called the vehicle a tram which can be many things
Start an NGo, get funds from the Goverment and "have opinions" for the next 20 years xD
That's certainly a good thing to do after the situation is over, but you still need to decide if you pull the lever or not.
"You've done it! You've finally defeated the evil person setting up these trolley problems in a dramatic trolley-top fight."
Wolf, we absolutely _NEED_ an immortalization of the first 16-odd minutes of the first Rebel Moon EFAP.
"Zack Snyder was so genius he broke EFAP's collective brains" would make a perfect title.
I think Mark's actual argument is once you die, one of the clones is gonna say, "well, time to head home now" and then they'll all stop and look at each other realizing only one of them can do that and if the clones are you then they have just as much attachment to all of your belongings and relationships as you; so theres a likelihood afterwards that it just becomes a bloody mess anyways cause they're gonna argue over which one gets to have the wife and kids and family.
Who gets to use the social security number and have a job?
Theoretically, they could trade off time with their family and just live somewhere else in the meantime. Still would make things complicated, but it could work.
@@reginaldcampos5762 yeah then a different version of you could be doing who knows what when they trade. Also, how do relationships work? If one has to wait like a year and 3 months to get a "turn" in the life they have to deal with the paranoia of banging your spouse, possibly ruining the relationship, possibly exposing everything, etc.
I assume the mechanics get really complicated once everyone starts to think about how this would run long term. You have to just assume that 4 of the clones would just fuck off and decide they don't care about all of the memories they have. As well as having to start from ground up and having no ID to get a job because the one clone with the family is the one with the ID and SSN.
What does a relationship with your wife even mean when you're trading off with 4 other versions of yourself and only see her for 3 months as she gets passed to 5 guys without her knowledge?
I could see the sex life of the marriage completely disappearing actually because of your 5 clones feeling insecure about the situation and not sleeping with her and your wife thinking you hate her or are cheating as well.
The clone one makes me laugh. No one would ever kill themselves for a clone.
Exactly.
Just print more. It’s like an antique one of a kind grand piano vs 5 electric keyboards from Amazon. One of these is easier to replace.
@@Gingerrhino Just a matter of perception to me. They are copies of you but you do not share your perception and in the moment experience. That is what you care about in the end.
I think the cast that chose to sacrifice themselves may have a bit of a Christ complex.
The thumbnail is the correct answer
😂
Walk away from the lever. I don't need these problems.
That is literally one of the options.
@@ScooterDoge yes
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
@@mjbull5156 i will choose free will!
@@mjbull5156
Yeah a choice not to take action. A sad accident that I am not responsible for is not my problem.
Utilitarians like rags should never have power over other people
Can you explain your reasoning?
Edit: lol he would kill the baby! Alright now I understand you. Killing an infant over 5 old fucks who already lived their lives is batshit and evil.
Even from Rags' sociopathic utilitarian perspective, his take is stupid. No society has ever thrived valuing the lives of the elderly over the lives of children. The baby boomers are the clearest example of this. They are far and away the largest voting demographic and they constantly vote to enrich themselves at the expense of every generation that came after them.
This is the covid 19 equation, that our leaders failed miserably.
If the clones share your love for your family, partner, children etc. Would they not argue that you, as the original, should live to save them the heartache of losing you?
If cloning exist, wouldn't it better to keep the original and make more clones to replace them?
Counterpoint: in that case you're eliminating the competition
If they shared all my memories and love for my family, wouldn't it be irrelevant to my family which one died?
@@tevenpowell8023does the family know about the clones? Like how would your wife feel sleeping with someone she knows isn’t you?
@@charmandergamer1287 Idk. I'm not married. But if theoretically it was my wife that came back as a clone I wouldn't think of her differently.
Because surely if they're completely identical down to their memories there'd be no substantial difference. Just the arbitrary notion that one is the "original"
Like two identical computer files but one's labeled (1) and the other is labeled (2)
On one track is the EFAP crew. On the other track is the only thing that brings Boogie joy in life. Will you pull the lever?
Boogie had his chance!!!
- Snyder Superman
Editt3d for clarity
Will pulling it save or kill the Efap crew?
@@thedoomofsodan5163 yes
Not only is it objectively correct to save yourself over the 5 clones but it is your RESPONSIBILITY to end the lives of those clones to protect the people who love you from the absolute horror that is having to deal with 5 identical clones of you. There is no scenario where sacrificing yourself would cause less total pain to not only your loved ones but the clones themselves who would most likely have imposter syndrome.
Since we're quoting Invincible here, when the original got scarred marking him as for sure the original, he became a tyrant and the clones poisoned him.
These are 5 DIFFERENT instances of you, and it's the peak of arrogance to assert no life circumstances could make your personality shift in a negative way.
'Trolley problem' question (UK edition) :
If there's a trolley full of shopping from Tesco and a trolley full of shopping from Asda and they're both hurtling down a steep hill towards an old lady and a little boy -and you only have time to save one of them - which one do you save?
The trolley from Tesco or the trolley from Asda?
Hhhmm the Tesco one, for their meat
Who the hell is driving all these trolleys and why hasn't he been fired
1:11:38 *The public rage against the litter bug was hilarious and justified.*
You have to wonder how many people answered these questions in a troll manner.
Would you say, a troll-ey manner?
I think I would have answered them properly until the Amazon one then just trolled the rest of it.
I'm not a stick in the mud or anything... I thought it was funny but I tend to kind of mirror the mood of the people around me or the task at hand.
How does paper or metal money go "splat" under a trolley and ooze a liquid like all the previous bodies to the point its no longer usable? What kind of life savings did this guy have?
Maybe it's in liquid assets?
(I know that's not what that means, I'm just being a tism)
@@insulttothehumanrace3807 *rimshot*
@@insulttothehumanrace3807*Slow clap*
...blood money
The trolley is really really hot
Holy yes!
That was the highlight of the fifth anniversary!!
I laugh so much during this.
Thanks Wolf.
That 5 v 1 was infuriating because after the whole time of the gang saying we need to take it as it is they all decided to add in backgrounds for the 5
A highlight suggestion: EFAP 150, 5h02m, so it starts with Meme acknowledgement, to, arguably, 5h11m, so it ends with Shad declaring a winner. Or, a longer version to end at ~5h17m.
52:51 kill the robots. Robots can be repaired. Dead people can’t
I notice they arbitrarily decided to define the robots as permanently "killed" but this isnt part of the hypothetical. Thats something they added to the scenario.
I agree by the way.
i recommend playing the game SOMA
They seriously spent over 10 minutes on the 5 sentient robots vs the 1 human question? Really? Humanity is doomed.
- Some animals are sentient, but that wouldn't mean they'd be equivalent to humans.
- Robots can be rebuilt/repaired. There could be a chance that all their memory drives are destroyed but there could also be a chance that they're not. If you're choosing to run the trolley over the human, that human is 100% dying.
- In the far (or near) future where sapient robots actually exist, it'd inevitably be us vs them. There's no reality in which coexistence with sapient robots that want everything a human would want is possible without devaluing human life.
- In the court of law, choosing to kill a human by saving machines would be tantamount to murder.
I personally wouldn't call animals sentient. Before this video I'd never heard someone say the word sapience. Humans are sentient. Animals act on instincts and positive/negative stimulus. Animals aren't able to logic a hypothetical. But ill still kill robots cause their robots. I value human life over any non human life. Id even take a dog over 5 robots because robots are man made life not god created life.
The real problem with that is nothing tells us in the question that the robots die or are even destroyed. So it becomes property damage/harm vs death and that's a calculation, not a dilemma.
The one where Marc the Cyborg went full Alex Jones on the clones.
The clone argument makes me think of that movie where Arnold S is a clone and he’s looking into a home window saying “He’s eating _my_ cake with _my_ family!”
I’d pull the lever if movie Bob was on the tracks but it would probably just derail
Sacrifices must be made.
the trolley and all the passengers are dead
Put the lever in the middle, derail the trolley
Then everyone lives
The true solution the trolley problem is to do everything you can to save everyone. Sometimes you don't succeed...but you still have to try everything you can
The Green Goblin and the Joker have been busy.
2:24 Jokes on them, I don't have any life savings!
I'm so poor I'd probably get more money for saving 5 people than I'd lose if my life savings were destroyed.
Same, which is what makes the follow up $500k one easy.
The real trolley problem is the trolley barreling towards a fascist but if you pull the level it'll hit an obnoxious internet socialist instead
The fascist gets the trolley. They have power to enact change, whereas Internet socialists just whine to their NPCs and are easily ignored by sane people.
I don't think that ones hard. Fascist's have zero pull in society, meanwhile socialists are bringing whole nations to ruin right now.
It's a trick because there is no difference between the two
I don't see the problem
The fascist at least probably has a family who loves them.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) would come into account if you were to be prosecuted for your participation.
@1:05 when you asked about the other 20 something percent of people who answered by not diverting the track, I've met multiple people who said that they would refuse to pull the switch because then they would be making a choice on killing that one person
My brain will never understand that.
4 extra people died because the person didn't want to get involved / where the person could have stopped it.
Can argue semantics and responsibility all you want, fact at the end of the day is still "you could have acted to save lives, you chose not to."
Oh well, I suppose that's why it's such a famous problem.
@aroyals339 that was my argument to them is that their inaction caused more deaths than acting did but it was because they had to act they thought they were killing the person vs they denied all responsibility for the 5 people that died because of their inaction
22:59 "TRIPTON HAD HIS CHANCE"
Stop it, my sides can't take it.
This is something that came up in Knights of the Old Republic 2. You give a guy money and he gets beaten up, and the anti-moralist comes up and says, "You thought you were doing a good deed, but it just lead to him being beaten up." No, it doesn't follow that just because you give a person money they're going to be beaten up.
It's the fault of the people who are driving the trolly, tying people to tracks and people forcing you to decide. It's not up to you to decide who lives or dies. And it's not certain that the five would live anyway. If someone's tying people to tracks, maybe there are explosives under the 5 like in some dumb kind of SAW situation.
To be fair to the KOTOR2 thing, if you don't give the begger money(by scaring him away with threats) Kreia also scolds you and it turns out he went and mugged someone else.
The point of both was to simply make you question potential consequences of your otherwise generic RPG choices that usually never have consequences beyond making your good/evil points go up and down.
Though it definitely isn't the best at it, especially since it's on a planet you theoretically can go to very late in the game, and it feels like a borderline tutorial moment...
@@RipOffProductionsLLC Yes, both cases prove my point. You are not responsible for the actions of others.
I think the fact that the rich guy is only offering 500k so save his life tells a lot about his character. Middle to upper middle class families are willing to pay up to a million dollars over time for cancer treatments and medication that doesn’t even guarantee recovery and this cheap son of a gun is lowballing me with 500K? I ain’t pulling the lever
I wouldn’t pull the lever either, just out of spite
All of my disagreements with the panel here is fundamentally that I do not agree that people are fungible. One random person is not equal to another random person. You can not replace someone with someone else and have the circumstances be the same. They all seem to think that any 5 people are the same as any other 5 people, and I do not agree with this. Everything is specific and particular, and when no context is given onto those particulars, I will either refuse to engage OR I will side with those whom I have personal relationships with. Me, my family, my friends, my money. My connections to these things impose a moral responsibility upon me that is absent from those with whom I do not have a connection to.
While true that people aren't fungible and one random person is not equal to a random different person, it should be noted that if you have no other information to go on other than "5 people on 1 track, 1 person on the other," there is no use in going "but what if the one person is someone I know? Or is some scientist about to cure cancer?" A person of similar quality might be among the five, and the chance of that person being among the 5 is higher because there are more people there.
So while people are not fungible, in no-context environments all we have to go on is numbers. You can refuse to engage, but I think making sure 5 people survive is better than making sure 1 person survives.
And yes, when there is context is where the trolley problem becomes interesting. I very much doubt I would pull the lever to redirect the trolley to me rather than 5 random strangers.
They determine that choosing your life savings, over the lives of five strangers, is immoral because no amount of money is worth a person’s life. If a person gives up their life savings, they are not simply losing their money. They are also sacrificing the financial security of their children.
Most things are not so black and white.
exactly
They are all lying. They would definitely choose their friends and family first.
It's easy to say now you'd save the 5, while off-ing the 1 person - but when you actually imagine yourself coming out of a forest, seeing this situation, knowing that none of it is your fault (you're just a witness) - and if you pull the lever you'll probably have to face the mess of a "justice" system, waste a lot of your money, reputation, nerves, maybe your friends and family, possibly be given a life sentence and live for years or decades with actual criminals (the worst of the worst) - all for intervening, in good will, in a situation that doesn't necessarily concern you - would you then do it?
Feeling bad for the 1 person is not everything that's at stake here.
This would unironically be a cool plot for a Saw-type horror movie, where a person kidnap people to carry out this morbid experiment in real life.
They kinda did this in Saw III or whichever one was it with the carousel-shotgun thing? Though it was not exactly the same.
@zolikoff I believe it was 5 or 6. But yeah he had to make several difficult choices. Another was a young man with no family vs. an older lady with family.
6:06 The art one isnt as crazy as you might think ....yeah it wouldnt take the form of a train but say you are in a warzone in Iraq do you give the greenlight to a mission to save priceless artifacts from a museum despite the fact soldiers could die from it
The standard problem isn't a crazy hypothetical in the first place. Let's say... There is a disease that kills or seriously harms 1% of people who get it, and you have a medicine that prevents it, but kills or seriously harms 0.1% of those that take it. Do you as the government force people to take the medicine, knowing it saves lives overall?
Never forget that Jay was right.
I asked for a highlight of this but I don't think wolf saw it
Yeah i thought that this was gonna be the one with Jay vs Mauler And Rags (with Fringy being a bit centrist and Anna just not being there)
I WAS THERE WHEN JAY WAS RIGHT
@@stormsand9 what's funny about that debate too is just how right Jay was and how wrong Mauler and Rags were
I forget this one. Where was this?
@@joesmutz9287 EFAP #85, Starts around 1:00:00
I prefer the further inward look at the trolley problem.
You see inside the trolley are 2 people, one who is sad and one who is happy…
Refusing to take action is not the same as taking an action. Sacrificing others for what you deem to be the greater good is not actually good. No matter what the numbers are.
Pulling the lever makes you a murderer. Not pulling it makes you a bystander.
This is the only correct answer. You didn't put them there it's not your responsibility to save them at the cost of others.
@@gottesurteil3201ok. One track has Hitler moments before he sends the order that causes the Holocaust, other has Jesus Christ, are still going to be a bystander?
Just wiggle the lever back and forth as the trolley crosses the switch. The front wheels will go down one tract, the back wheels will go down the other track. That causes the trolley to stop in place, saving both groups.
Have you considered multi-track drifting?
Holy shit the damn Act Man, thats a new one
Lewis does not approve of the trolley only being able to travel down one track. But Joel is satisfied.
Joel is driving every trolley in every one of these problems
In the 1 vs 1 scenario, the trick is, grab the lever and just keep switching it back and forth as fast as you can, hoping that the front wheels go down one track, then the back wheels get sent down the other track, de-railing the trolley and saving both people.
1 hour in and the quiz successfully turned the band into killers who would kill a person just for littering
The day Jay was right.
Me as a 40k fan: Trolly the robots then use the bolter to make sure its done.
I remember when YMS did this and choose friend over the strangers because he’s “ride or die”
2:55 Actually, you are not saving one person. Morals aren’t math; you are saving four people and killing five. And in morals, action is always more condemnable than inaction.
See, when you commit manslaughter, you usually are convicted for having killed people. Meanwhile, when you decide not to perform CPR, you are not convicted of gross negligence, because expecting you to do so is beyond reasonable for a number of reasons.
TLDR if you dont pull the lever, you are reasonably indecisive; if you do pull the lever, you are culpable for the results.
You are equating law with morality when they aren't necessarily the same. I would advise against getting your morals from the letter of the law, since laws are downstream from morality.
@@MrSchnorkel You‘re absolutely right of course. I was moreso just trying to provide an example of this reasoning being applied in practise. Kind of to show that it makes sense and is useful - and not just an idea I pulled out of nowhere.
I admit I was a bit shocked at how Rags just jumped straight to „its obvious“ and couldn’t seem to fathom the idea that „not choosing“ could be seen to be the better choice, morally.
@@mayhemivory5730 Yeah, I was also annoyed with the notion that there is nothing more to it than simply weighing the numbers against each other.
Where I live, people can go to prison for not rendering aid if doing so wouldn't put them in danger. What are the reasons for not having to do it in your region?
I also have to ask: how is action always more condemnable than inaction as a general rule of morality?
Take a medical triage for example. The doctor has to decide which patient to save, and if he doean't act at all the outcome is worse than if he treated the objectively worse choice of patient.
@@MrSchnorkel It is the doctor’s responsibility to perform the act of triage, and he accepted that responsibility when he accepted the position. I wouldn’t place the same responsibility on a stranger, if that position was thrust upon him/her.
@@mayhemivory5730 They over-simplified the questions, from the beginning, when they defined action and inaction to be fundamentally identical in terms of culpability. Nutsa seemed to disagree at first, but quickly relented that position when nearly the entire panel disagreed with her so adamantly. It bothered me even more later when it was considered weird to even contemplate diverting the trolley when there both tracks contain only one average person.
You can’t reasonably defend that inaction and action bear equal culpability, and simultaneously judge that someone pulling the lever resulting in one death is different than not pulling the lever resulting in the other. The only difference between the two IS culpability, or if pulling the lever equates to murder.
Does anyone else get flashbacks to Rivendell in Fellowship when everyone is yelling and arguing? 🤣
The Act Man joined the call so MauLer would be in the middle. And then E;R joined and now MauLer is nolonger in the middle.
Pulling the lever puts the cause of death on you, rather than the one that made the situation in the first place
But that doesn't really answer the question of which outcome is more moral, just who gets the blame.
@@tevenpowell8023 The question isn't "which is more moral". The question is, do you or do you not? Adding morality and subjective perception is part of discussion after your answred the hypothethical itself in your mind.
46:23 (identical) only applies to the genetic make up of the cloned person. memories could not be cloned because experience and is impossible to re-create thus which is why "back to the future" had problems and created butterfly effects.
Not valuing human life is such a freeing state to be in.
+
The 10% 10 and 50% 2 example is EXACTLY why selling options is the superior market strategy for your portfolio.
How do we know if we can derail the Trolley by throwing the switch exactly when it starts to cross the switch points? That is the problem with the Trolley question, because they are just vague hypotheticals.
I always thought this hypothetical was no better than an evil villain scheme from a Batman story.
"What's gonna be Bat? Save the girl/sidekick or save the city?"
And the ideal answer is some third way. Because a forced choice between crappy choice and even more crappy choice is hardly a choice.
I always said to this "moral dilemma", if I can't save everyone and everyone's a stranger to me, let the train or trolly take the path the universe set it on. And if everyone is not a stranger to me then that changes my choice on who I'm saving. And if I can save everybody then there's no dilemma. It's such a stupid hypothetical and I won't play along with the Joker's twisted game.
Interestingly, I thought this was a clip of the debate Jay had with the gang. Since they actually kinda disagreed and argued about that whole entire ordeal.
If you can't save everyone then you wouldn't even try to save anyone? What kind of logic is this? What if not making a choice in the trolley problem causes everyone to die? would you still allow the course of the universe to claim everyone?
Inaction is itself an action. Allowing someone to die when you could save them is little different to killing them yourself.
I also dislike how the trolley problem seems to set up a collectivist view of humanity. Like if I had to choose between my child or a two strangers, that I am morally forced to save the two strangers cause two is more than one.
The trolley problem is basically deontology vs consequentialism, but hugely biased in consequentialism's favor because the outcomes are set, which is otherwise a problem you run into 99% of the time when applying consequentialist ethics: "How do you know, that that's what's going to happen?"
The trolley problem does not force you to pick the two strangers over your child.
It is about discovering where your values lie. For example, I would not pull the lever to redirect the trolley to me rather than having it go to 5 strangers. This is not a "wrong" answer. It is merely *my* answer.
Given a situation with complete strangers, I'd say save as many as possible. There really isn't a value judgment to be made other than "would this make me culpable in the death of these people?" in those cases.
Once we know things about the people, that is where individual values come in. Would I pick 5 murderers over the orphan they created? Would I pick a friend over strangers? Would I pick a neurosurgeon who is scheduled to operate on my sister over 5 homeless people? Would I pick 5 homeless people over a filantropist?
The trolley problem isn't "solved" by saying "always preserve as many lives as possible."
I feel like the 5 clones is pretty cut and dry to save yourself and I was surprised they actually went the other way
Me too, then they were so different for the sentient robot question.
If we go with the idea that in this case sentience is on par with hopes, dreams, fears, love etc: I don't see how the clones and robots are any different.
I wish they discussed that.
I'd never be willingly cloned so those clones are automatically an abomination in my mind.
Their lives still matter.
If 5 people chose to put themselves in that danger I'm saving the 1 who didn't every time. I don't care if they intended to die or were just being reckless or ignoring warnings because of Dunning-Kruger. Whatever the case I'm saving the other person. Ideally very few (or none) of those 5 would have procreated. If not then I'd be helping out Darwinism. And yes I realize the other person might be rather clumsy to have somehow found himself in that position but I'll take 1 clumsy person over 5 dumbasses.
They are clearly tied up.....
Edit: never mind. Cleary I spoke too early and can't read. I see what you're saying.
I would never pull the level in any hypothetical.
You pull the lever, then the lawsuits come.
I'm being forced
not my choice
I'll just flip a coin
unless my shit is involved
don't care, you forced me
Who forced you?
@@MrSchnorkel whoever put me in the spot to pull the lever
Otherwise I'm leaving, I'd never put myself in that situation.
This problem works better and yields more honest results as the doctor example.
Does anyone else get this sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach that websites like this are literally just designed to teach an AI morality?
I love how at the 5 lobsters and 1 cat everyone immediately said "save the cat" (especially Rags xD)
The crazy thing about the clone question, is I know for a fact that *if* I gave my life to save them, they'd all five just immediately turn around and kill each other, because that's what my own thought process would naturally come to. That no matter how many clones of me might exist, I only have one self (or one soul), and I refuse to share all the most precious things to me in my life with anyone else who believes that they're me, and that those things are rightfully theirs too. Not that I blame them, because they can't help it, but the world does not need another me
Perhaps the real trolleybus the friends we killed along the way...and the babies.
Imagine with the 100 year one you send the trolley to the future and the person in the future gets a trolley problem xD
For the killing five people in the future one, imagine explaining to the five families from your timeline that you had to save future people.
When YMS did this, his logic was “ if I do nothing, I’m not responsible for those 5 people’s deaths, but if I pull the lever I am responsible for that one person’s death” and the rest of the test was skewed caused it’s designed for people who pulled the lever on the first one
It's not particularly skewed, it's meant to map your moral compass. Even a person who realizes what you said can and will pull it given certain stakes, and this is to find out where that line is for you.
An interesting thing my ethics professor brought up was a different but similar hypothetical challenging the idea that not acting is a choice and you’re still guilty for the 5 deaths if you do nothing. Here’s how it goes.
You are a world class surgeon, the best of the best, but you have 5 patients who absolutely need 5 organs, say a pair of lungs, a kidney, a heart, and a liver. Do you secretly sedate your assistant and harvest their organs to save the 5 patients, killing them, or do you let the 5 patients die? He argued that pulling the lever to kill 1 and save 5 was the same as harvesting the organs to save the patients and kill your assistant. Despite this, most of the people who pulled the lever to save 5 switched and refused to harvest the organs. It was an interesting discussion that day. I’d like to hear others thoughts on this.
Not sorry. In ANY situation where my life is at risk, I'm choosing to save my life. I did not put myself in this situation and as such, I am morally justified in doing anything to save my own life. You could put 100,000 babies on that track and I'm still saving myself.
Maybe not 100 000 babies, but 5 sure I'll save myself
Id love to see the rich man thing reversed. The man on the tracks the trolley is on says he is a new father has a baby to feed at home, the rich man on the other track says he will give you and the family 500k each if you pull the lever.
Re: level 3, I would do nothing and save my life savings because at the end of the day I have to put myself first and I know without my life savings I'm screwed
Yeah, I’m willing to bet the news coverage and go fund me I’d set up would probably help with that
@@NoPowerintheVerse That's wishful thinking
I wanted to comment something that would flex my efap knowledge in honor of such a wondeful event in the show, the season 5 finale!, but it would probably just end up resembling something like
protein in urine
Boil down it’s really just a question about the greater good and the bottom line is you as a human being cannot have the future information you need to make a moral decision on what would be the greater good over the course of the lifetime of those people , so because we’re monkeys with simple brains we just always always go to save the most people. Hope that does the most good
Not always, I think the 5 elderly or the 5 idiots who tied themselves to the track go against that. But I agree that most of the time yes, I would just go with the numbers.
A sentient robot can be rebuilt
A clone can be regrown
So I have to ask what is the morality behind destroying a clone? Especially if they operate just like robots. Both can be rebuilt and given false memories of a previous life. The only difference is the flesh and metal.
This is exactly why Atheism is necessarily unethical.
you all chose to save randoms over a best friend. and to kill yourself over clones😂😂😂 clowns
THE PART WITH MARK AND THE CLONES HAD ME DYING.
this was one of the best moments in EFAP history lmao
THE CLONE ONE DOES NOT SAY THEY HAVE YOUR MEMORIES OR PERSONALITIES. IDENTICAL TWINS DO NOT SHARE THE SAME MIND.
The robots aren't even tied down. If they don't have the motivation to step to the side to preserve themselves, they aren't a human analogue to begin with. Also, even if they were people, not being restrained changes the dynamic of the hypothetical.
Send it 500 years into the future to start The Trolly Prophecy.
In the 5v1 problem I would do nothing.
I honestly think that inaction both legally and morally is not culpable.
But that also depends on the number.
10v1 I still wont pull it. 50v1 I might have to think about it.
I don't know at what number I would pull the lever.
8 billions v 1
Fuck the clones. They gotta go. Btw, Captain Rex is an identical clone of Jango Fett. He does not have his memories, feelings or experiences. A clone is just a genetic copy.
But in Multiplicity or The 6th Day they DO have the memories. Also plenty of others I'm sure.
You can't just point to 1 example and say that's how it is.
@@aroyals339 we can't compare fictional universes with different rules. A clone is a being made by copying the DNA of one. They won't have the same memories or experiences unless they lived an identical life. In fact, if the clones did have the memories, etc of the original, that would make them less human, not more, since they're obviously incapable of having their own distinct personalities and experiences.
The easiest answer to the trolley problem is to save everyone.
What if sending the trolley to the past kills your parent and you fade away like Back to the Future
Why save the clumsy guy? Hes gonna just trip in front of the coroner's van when they show up to clean up the 5.
If you send the trolley to the future, you are pretty much also dooming the driver
This is turning into a bad case of queuing incorrectly
43:57
The only reason your perfect clone would want to harm you for personal gain is because you would do that to your original if you were the clone.
Regardless of original/clone status, your consciousness can only inhabit one body at a time, and I think that's enough of a reason as any to view clones as independent thinking entities, even if they think exactly like I do.
Like, imagine saying someone else's life has less value than yours, just because they agree with you on everything. You be thrown in a vault and forgotten about immediately.
Edit: And I suppose by extension, that person too.
@@Ginger_bityou're wrong
@@Jackinthebox7892 Can you elaborate?
@@Jackinthebox7892 Could you elaborate?
@@Jackinthebox7892 Care to elaborate?
(Sorry if I've posted this multiple times by accident, I'm experiencing a weird UA-cam glitch right now, but would like to have an actual dialogue.)
This is a phenomenal segment. Thanks, Wolf!