>mfw Plebs don't know the answer to the trolley problem is to fuck with the switch at arbitrary intervals to create the possibility of saving the 5 people without actually committing to the death of anyone.
I'm an existentialist. I'd flip a coin because the outcome would never matter.
>>28411588
now you're just being edgy
The trolley problem isn't even hard. How could anyone possibly take any action other than killing the 1 person?
>>28411630
>edgy
this meme needs to die.
tell me why the outcome matters.
>>28411542
It's only a problem if you think it's a problem.:^)
>>28411588
I don't agree with you
>>28411660
thats the utilitarian approach: 5>1
pussy approach: do nothing so you can't be called a murderer
existential approach: 50/50
>>28411660
because there are ethical systems other than utilitarianism and they subscribe to the categorical imperative?
>>28411542
>you will never ride your bike to 7-11 everyday during summer break and buy a slurpee and proceed to play vidya till midnight
>>28411542
MULTI TRACK DRIFTING SENPAI
>>28411542
>Implies there is an objectively true answer to a subjective thought expiriment
>>28411775
>tfw i remember the sweet year before high school biking to gamestop where they had a vidya rental thing 1 month for $20 or something
>>28411588
>I'm an existentialist
take a number champ
>>28411775
Who says you can't do that anymore
>>28411542
>switch at arbitrary intervals
why not just walk away? Why involve yourself at all?
You would only do this if you wanted to be responsible for someone's death, but didn't want to choose who. Thats retarded OP.
>>28411838
I explained the logic behind it in the original post
>>28411884
someone dies no matter what. By involving yourself, you automatically assume responsibility.
By walking away, you choose to let things to run its course.
>>28411936
unless your action is just another contingency
>>28411956
whate the fuck does that even mean?
It is impossible to switch it at "arbitrary intervals" because the brain's decisions aren't truly random.
True randomness could only be achieved through a computer.
>>28412011
you could for instance switch it after every n-Mississippis
>>28412006
I mean if you do what I said then you are adding a favourable variable to the conditions of the scenario without imposing any sort of personal executive decision
>>28412082
You are literally *choosing* to grab the lever and involve yourself.
If those 5 people die, then the question becomes "why did you let 5 people die instead of just one?"
If one person dies, the question becomes "what makes their life any less valuable than the other 5?"
Neither of these questions appear if you choose to walk away because you are never obligated to be a hero.
>>28412147
but I didn't let anything happen because I dispassionately followed an irrelevant protocol in order to create the possibility that less people would die. If my actions result in the death of just the one guy I can think "wow, lucky that less death occurred due to my actions" if the 5 people die then I can think "well that was going to happen anyway". Its a perfect compromise between traditional Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
>>28412225
>but I didn't let anything happen
yes you did - from the moment you touched the lever you assumed the role of judge over those people's lives.
It doesn't matter what method you chose, what matters is that you took a action (even if random) that resulted in someone dying.
You chose to be a variable in an event that didn't need an extra variable.
>>28412311
no, I didn't presume to judge anything. Alternatively I could have flipped a coin without the edgy "nothing matters" rhetoric. The idea is I allow for the possibility that less people will die but I don't actually decide that anyone should die, I just make it possible that less people will die. Are you being dense here?
No one is allowed to use the word "existentialism" anymore. You have all misused it so much that it no longer means anything.
Fuck you guys.
Existentialism is not absurdism nor is it nihilism. Existentialism is a blanket term to describe a subset of 19th and 20th century Continental Philosophy. Sure, it includes people like Camus who were heavily influenced by the absurd (indeed, he coined the term), but it also includes people like Kierkegaard who were very religious.
Funny thing is, most people saw the name "existentialist" as derogatory -- sort of akin how people view the word "edgy" today. The only philosopher who completely embraced the title of "existentialist" was Satre. If you really want to consider yourself and existentialist, maybe you should read how he defined it:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/existentialism.pdf
Once again, fuck you guys. Fuck you guys so hard.
>>28412397
>durr if you don't agree with me you're dumb
like I said, your methods do not matter. If you choose to involve yourself, you become responsible because your methods can be questioned. So even if you devise some complicated method to produce a random variable or flip a coin, the fact that you chose to involve yourself makes you the judge of those people's lives.
AGAIN, your method for deciding who lives and dies does not matter.
>>28412421
existentialism is just a trigger word to draw out all the pseudo-intellectuals who want to seem superior by throwing out the word edgy.
Just point and laugh, friend.
>>28412445
you don't have to agree, you just have to adapt to the debate as your territory is pushed back.
>>28412492
theres nothing to adapt to. I keep nullifying his point and he keeps repeating it.
either way, the discussion is at an end.
>>28412492
>>28412508
Just. Please. Stop arguing to be smart. The world exists. Please. The world. Feelings. Senses. Please. Stop what you're doing. Please. See that there's no way forward with how you are thinking. Please. Please. Please.
Kill the one, join him to absolve of my sin
Can I somehow trigger it to fall on all 6 of them and myself?
Help I'm on an acid trip and I crave for human interaction
>>28411542
>uck with the switch at arbitrary intervals to create the possibility of saving the 5 people
how, derail the train? what if that kills a dozen people?
>>28412560
of course
blx
>>28412563
woh wtf i didnt want to write that herw i was going to make my own thread
>>28412011
computers aren't truly random either
>>28412579
sorry everyone I DONT UNDERSTAND WHT THE FUCK IS GOING ON okay its just im on an acid trip i am sorry for this it wasnt supposed to be on your post
Kill them. Kill them all.oregano spaghettio
>>28412579
Well done, senpai. Have some (you)s and <3s!
>>28412611
????' WHAT THE Fukc am i dont even know on which board i am fuck i feel retarded as f
>>28412602
Please derail this thread. You are the hero we need!!
>>28412637
yo this isnt what i want to do what were you talking about before i arrived fuck i feel so ashamed of me im really sorry
>>28412637
>derail a dead thread
I'd jump in front of the train.
prepare an obstacle course with one of the obstacles being to clear the lever from 8 feet away.
if you don't happen to hit your mark, you'll collide with the lever and switch the tracks, causing the manslaughter of the stupid faggot that managed to get stuck on a railroad track in the first place
>>28412602
Go outside, friend. Look at the trees.
NO ONE HAS TO DIE
>>28412729
I love Enemy. Great movie.
>>28412729
>tfw you nutted but she still suckin
>>28412637
>derail
>the thread is about the trolley problem
>derailing the trolley actually solves everything
BRILLIANT
Wtf that fuck the fuck what the fuck fuck
>>28412831
get out.
j234j
>>28412147
Yeah but you are choosing to walk away also. Switching at random gives everyone a chance. You just assume that because you walked away no one will hold you responsible. As soon as you see the switch you are already involved. It's just a matter that you felt that 4 lives don't matter enough to act.
>>28411542
The correct answer is to avoid responsibility by not pulling the lever. If you pull the lever you kill a man, if you don't the train kills five.
Never understood why this is a dilemma, the answer is perfectly clear.
>>28413074
some morons think that your inaction means your responsible for the 5 deaths
>>28413038
>>28413212
also by that logic, we're all responsible for the deaths in the middle east wars because we're not trying to stop it.
>>28412421
why do you know this? sfggfgsgsd
