• JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The minute you have to make up new rules to it- is the minute you admit you don’t understand how it works.

    It’s not a moral dilemma if you can go outside of its confines to solve it.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If you hadn’t skipped half your classes you’d know that adding new rules/complexity to the trolley problem is literally half the point of it

      • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        No, it really isn’t. The problem is exactly as it’s stated. You don’t get to add new tracks. You just deal with the choices given.

        You can’t make up rules about making up rules man. That’s not how any of this works.

        • Katrisia@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Perhaps we are taking the trolley problem too seriously in the comments. The trolley problem is not meant to be a model for analysis nor a relevant dilemma in all ethical discussions. It was a way to illustrate the objections a philosopher (Philppa Foot) had against certain ethical approaches. It is, at best, a thought experiment with many limitations.

          Parenthesis. Just as in physics where you may find people supporting either quantum mechanics or general relativity; in psychology where you may find people more inclined to behaviorist, humanist or psychodynamic therapy models; you have ethicists (moral philosophers) sometimes divided between deontology and utilitarianism. If I remember correctly, Philippa Foot was trying to demonstrate these mainstream approaches loops/problems with this hypothetical scenario, as she supported a different school of thought other than these two (one called virtue ethics). Also worth noting that just as in these disciplines and many others you also find attempts to “reconcile” apparently incompatible ‘theories’ (or whatever the case), you find the same in ethics (moral philosophy).

          Back to topic, the trolley problem has become a common meme, so I think it makes sense people modify it to illustrate the moral dilemmas they are encountering in the world. It may feel like the trolley problem is not the right thought experiment for some situations because it was not meant to be universal, as I said. Thought experiments are just tools, efforts to make apparent, in this case, the difficulties of moral decisions and the conflicting priorities in given cases (among other problems). Thought experiments should be adapted and created to serve this purpose, to help us illustrate these problems. To do it the other way around which would be categorizing in which thought experiment (and its alternatives) a given problem clicks is to risk a rigid or incomplete framing of a problem in favor of an unnecessary categorization/boxing.

          So, the dilemma U.S. voters are facing regarding the support of the Palestinian cause their two main political parties show is not necessarily going to fit any thought experiment in record. We either create a new one, abstain from using one, or heavily modify a known one. It’s natural some people decided this. Descriptive? I’d imagine a new thought experiment would be more useful capturing the nuances of the problem while also simplifying the hypotheticals. Effective for communication? Well, that’s the strength of this: a well known meme has better chances at being shared* (and virilized) than a whole new thing of a more serious nature.

          Edit: *and here I include shared, commented, discussed, etc.

        • efstajas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Oh man. The trolley problem is a thought experiment. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking it and changing it into another thought experiment that’s loosely based on the original. Who’s going to stop you? The thought police?

          Also don’t forget we’re in a memes channel. You’re taking this way too seriously.

          • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Just making a point. It’s not much of an experiment if you can make it whatever you want. At that point… it’s easily solvable.

            “Just teleport the trolly into another dimension.”

            Done. Solved. No dilemma.

            • efstajas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I understand you’re making a point, but it’s not a good one. Yes, you can create a thought experiment where the trolley can be teleported into another dimension. Is that a worthwhile thought experiment? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean that creating variations of established thought experiments is inherently invalid.

            • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The response to the dilemma doesn’t get to create the constraints though? Only the dilemma itself gets to set the rules.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You have been misinformed. The original researchers made multiple forms of the trolley problem to research the effects of different scenarios on people’s moral reasoning. Since then there have been dozens of forms of the trolley problem on surveys and research papers. The entire point is to change the scenario.

          Even the “classic” dilemma that you’re used to with the man being on the side of the tracks with a switch is a variation on the original trolley problem which had the person being the trolley operator inside the trolley.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

          You can’t just make up rules about not making up rules man. That’s not how any of this works.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      mostly i just made the post as a reaction to others making similar posts with far less nuance

      at this point it’s no longer about the original trolley problem but about using popularly readable memetic symbols to convey a simplified model of reality efficiently

      so maybe i’d encourage you to take a step back and reevaluate with this in mind :) it’s possible this post isn’t for you and that’s fair too

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The trolley problem is limited to the ethics of sacrificing one person to save the lives of many. Anyone using the Trolley problem to describe complex scenarios like this is just having a bit of fun.

      • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s limited by the restrictions that govern the choices. The problem with these memes is that more often than not- their purpose is not in good faith to begin with.