The fact that chat is not visible makes it feel like Salty is trying to quell the voices in his head telling him to kill everyone and maximize casualties. This simple fact makes it 10 times more enjoyable to watch this video.
Salty’s genuine panic and remorse at accidentally letting five people die for his life savings makes me think he fully would kill any rich person with no remorse.
You all are missing the actual problem of the problem! (its not a simple maths problem) you are saying its ok to deliberately kill a person to save others! Eg you support killing random people so their organs can be used to save others!
I actually really like these more chill videos, they give off the same vibes as watching a sibling play old flash games on the computer because you have to wait for your turn, but until then you both just kind of banter about what's happening on screen, it's pretty nostalgic
Salty killing the robots is like that one episode of futurama where fry has the choice to save a human or a robot and he chooses the human and then bender is fucking pissed and decides to fake suicide for attention and to make fry feel bad but the suicide booth is one of bender’s exes and she kills him for real
I can explain the percentages of people in the early hypotheticals who allowed the greater number of people to die. Said people could better handle allowing others to die through inaction ("they'd have died if I didn't hadn't turned up anyway, I wipe my hands of this") rather than pulling a lever which could be seen as murder: a direct action from them which caused x amount of people's deaths. That's the often overlooked element from this conundrum, even though it doesn't apply to most mindsets.
@@fireflocs I’m not saying that reasoning is invalid but if I am giving the option I feel like I’m already involved. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice
Honestly you doing nothing out of accident is how I predict that a solid 20%(including myself) of people would react to what is in real life an actually really stressful situation
It's probably a lot more than that. Vsauce did a video where they actually did a trolley problem, set up a fake transit authority office and some camera trickery to make people think it was real. Only 2 of the people pulled the lever.
Yeah, while playing along, I quickly made the decision to answer based on what I'd want to do rather than what I'd actually do, otherwise I'd just never pull the lever (except _maybe_ in cases where it could be that no people die at all).
Something to note, a big part of the trolley problem is that if you do nothing, someone can rationalize that the outcome is not their fault. But by pulling the lever, you are directly the cause of that outcome. Something to remember when you see the choices of others
2:30 Man Derek is a lot more wholesome than I thought. He really took this situation and considered his morals and he had them in the right- *Derek what have you done?*
I really love that a philosophical problem has become a recent trend, just being able to get a look into people’s personal philosophies and what choices they make is so fascinating to me
another part of the trolley problem is if inaction counts as an action. So some people choose not to pull the level regardless of it it results in less death, as they view that taking the action makes your responsible for the deaths while the inaction of ignoring the lever in their view does not.
Alas, choosing to do nothing is still a choice. You knew there was a choice involved. There's a Jewish saying that kinda applies here: "You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it." To me, you are not obligated to be a hero and save everyone and make "the best choice", but you are not free to just let the trolley pass by and claim "inaction", because your choice not to choose leads to more suffering, and it is our job to make this world better than when we found it.
@@salmonandsoup Yeah, you could say that. Though people don't believe in that quite as much as they claim to. There are many things we know we can be doing to save lives, yet we don't and a majority of people feel no responsibility or shame for not doing so. Like recycling, volunteering, etc. And an even further part of the trolley problem is predestination, and many other major philosophical ideas.
@@luciuseclipse That makes sense! And yeah, some people drop the ball more often than not, but I also wanna give people the benefit of the doubt. The world can be overwhelmingly cruel in its indifference at times, and you can only do so much every day-plus, a lot of people are stuck in systems that force them to devote time and energy to jobs that barely pay rent, and their (and our!) consent in these systems is manufactured and coerced. You are the one constant in your own life, so if you can put yourself first without actively harming others, do so. (Plus, in like, ten minutes, a megacorporation could pollute the oceans far more than the average person could in their lifetime, and they could do more good for the destitute by barely lifting a finger, and they actively choose not to while also fucking over everyone else. It's a matter of degree, not of kind, in that regard.)
@@salmonandsoup Yeah, the world is much more complex than the trolley problem. That’s the biggest issue of Philosophy, trying to account for all that and make consistent ideas and arguments. Especially since we are predisposed to follow our own biases.
@@luciuseclipse Of course, but to examine who we are and what ways to live will make the most sense are a worthy endeavor, I think. Everyone is different, so what's right for someone might be wrong for someone else (barring like, y'know, "murder is not a good thing to do"-I'm talking about lifestyle choices tailored to each person), but there are universal tenets to live by.
Wow, these are genuinely amazing variations on the trolley problem that actually do ask some interesting philosophical questions. And it also has lobsters.
I like the idea that Jovenshire just takes up the Saltydkdan mantle without explanation so people just think Salty sounds weirdly Jovenshireesque one day.
the fictional notion of sentient robots is a good litmus test for people's ability to empathize with people who think different than them... but i guess he already made his feelings of those sort clear with the lobster one lol
The lobster question is a very different one than the robot one. The robots are both sentient and sapient; the lobsters are sentient, but not sapient. Additionally, the robots are equivalent to humans in that sense, whereas cats are closer to being sapient than lobsters are. Assuming I'd even have the courage to do anything, I'd save the robots, but not the lobsters.
"In what universe would anyone sacrifice peoples' lives for art?" Yale apparently with their library fire suppression system that kills you instead of just... yknow... not keeping all the books in one impractically large multistory building.
A nuance that gets lost a lot due to the gamification of this problem is the difference between action and inaction. If you pull the lever to divert the trolley and kill the 1 person, you've made the conscious decision and performed the actions necessary to kill that 1 person. You've explicitly taken it upon yourself to decide who lives and who dies, which is fine for a gamey toy problem but becomes much more complicated IRL.
Sure, but the other philosophy on the trolley problem is that you've also made a conscious decision to NOT do anything, and that inaction is a form of action. Because of this, not choosing to do anything is also taking it upon yourself to choose who lives and who dies. Personally, I think that interpretation is probably the one that most people hold, and the one that would most likely occur in a realistic scenario of the trolley problem. There's also a third, often undiscussed philosophy on the question, which is rejecting the need to make the choice to begin with and solving the systemic issues that lead to all these damn people getting run over by trolleys (implementing safety measures, removing the trolley lobbies ability to operate at such dangerous speeds, etc)
This was great, especially the logos at the end. I think a lot of the more confusing percentages were because some people believe that by not using the lever they’re not responsible for the outcome.
dan at the begginning of the video: i am not morally complicit in the deaths of these people dan the moment he sees an opportunity to commit insurance fraud: WELL I DONT WANNA BE A MURDERER
It’s not that they want to kill the most people, it’s that they don’t want to cause someone’s death/be directly responsible by pulling that lever themselves; if they don’t pull the level they haven’t killed anyone. That’s why this is a great moral dilemma!
You would be still responsible for the death of the five, because you CHOOSE to not save 5 people. In both cases you're directly responsible about who will die, so might as well save the more people. It's not "that" great of a dilemma.
Just thought I'd mention this as an interesting fact. The reason on the first 2 instances their are so many disagreements is because pulling the lever has a secondary consequence. Because its not just that you minimize casualty's, but its also that you become directly responsible for the death of the one individual (or four in the second case). So their is a sort of intangible element or guilt involved to the decision. Most people would agree that minimizing is correct, while some do don't want to have that guilt on their conciusness.
2:04 good job clarifying that because fun fact: it is actually a crime to, through inaction, knowingly not save the life of a person or persons that you could have easily saved. Like not throwing a rope or ladder to someone dangling off a cliff, or not pressing the emergency stop on a machine killing a person. Not pulling that lever could arguably be a crime.
Every couple of months I come back to your channel and binge everything the RUclips algorithm made me miss and it’s also such a blast, one of the funniest creators on here, thank you salty!
I think the main moral conundrum with the trolley question is Willful Ignorance. If you pull the lever you are actively killing one person. But if you ignore the lever and let it kill the 5 people on the track are you truly responsible. If you didn't show up those 5 people would've died anyway. Are you going to actively kill someone or willfully ignore the deaths of 5 people. And can you conscience handle either choice. Do you let fate run it's course or do you change its direction. You are either fully responsible for the death of 1 person or partially responsible for the death of 5. I know I'm not the first person to draw this conclusion. I just usually approach it by asking. "By doing nothing am I truly responsible? If I wasn't here what would've happened?"
I feel like Dan missed an important aspect of the trolley problem at the beginning. And important part to the consideration is that you _aren't_ responsible regardless of your choice. If you do nothing, people die, but as a result of circumstances outside of your control. That's just the natural course of events that would have happened anyway. However, if you pull the lever, whoever dies is now a _direct_ result of your actions. You lose the ability to claim no involvement, and you are now explicitly a murderer. Now, some people argue choosing to take no action to save the people on the first track is as bad as killing them yourself, but this line of thinking gets _real_ bad when you apply it to more complex situations. Regardless of your interpretation of the the morality of inaction, it shouldn't be skipped over entirely.
18:46 Fun Logo Trivia: You know where the arrow goes because the Amazon logo starts at A and ends at Z, which is supposed to mean they sell items "from A to Z."
I'll be honest, I watched the DaThings YTP version about five times before coming here, and hearing 'I'm sorry' without it reversing and becoming 'I'm sorry Ross' is honestly more surreal than it happening. Also, people have been saying that, in the original problem, you're not responsible if you do nothing, but here's the issue: in this version, you're shown to have your hand already on the lever before making the decision, so in a way you're right, you're always responsible
Part of the reason for the do nothing option with the basic one is that it has to do with the view of responsibility there. Do nothing and it's not your actual fault there despite the capability for it to be so, pulling the lever is actually doing something that can be viewed as actively killing someone
6:20 also, if you killed the 5, the 1 who's awake would witness it and have to deal with the fact that 5 people died simply because they were the 1 who was awake. The one would have to deal with pain anyways.
To clarify a bit more on the trolley problem, for those who are unaware (I imagine most people are) If you are placed in a situation where there's 5 people on a track and you can switch it to kill the one person, you are not legally liable for the lives of the 5 people if you choose to do nothing (unless you're specifically an employee, but the idea of the trolley problem is that you're just a random passerby), but it's technically considered murder if you deliberately switch the track to kill the 1 person instead, or at the very least manslaughter That's the basis of the original trolley problem. You can let 5 people die and get away scott free, or you can let 1 person die and get in trouble for it I mean there's some ethical stuff to, like "should you be the one who gets to decide who lives and dies", but for me it's the prison sentence that gets to me
Not pulling the lever means you’re not responsible for their deaths since you didn’t do anything, which means you won’t be held accountable for something that you didn’t do
“You’re all psychopaths! This is about the preservation of the most amount of lives possible!” [Spongebob voice] 3 Minutes Later “Oh nah, we need our Amazon package, fuck ‘em.” *splat*
14:58 nah, if nobody would've known, I would've done nothing. My worst enemy is a gaslighting, gatekeeping girl boss, and I'm someone who doesn't forgive people easily and holds stupid grudges for a long time.
The only time a Trolley Problem felt effective was in the video game Prey (the one from 2016) The entire game's theme is the trolley problem, and it's executed in a neat way, first you take it as a psychological test, but then the rest of the game forces you to actually be in that position. It's pretty neat, and never actually made me think how hard it would be to sacrifice a few people you care about for "the many." We can always say that we'd do the absolute virtuous and right thing all the time, hell I went to school with a guy who actually thought he could stop a school shooter with his bare hands. But humans make mistakes, and panic, and go into shock. So we can never really say or predict what we would do in that situation.
The argument to not do it is found in Kantianism. Basically follow moral principle, in this case do not kill. By pulling the lever you directly impact the situation. If you dont pull it you have not intervened. This would be the argument I believe.
Okay, hear me out: I don't pull the lever, my Amazon package arrives on time, I break the news to the victim's family, get them to sue Amazon for manslaughter with me as witness, Amazon loses millions of dollars defending themselves
For the traditional trolley problem, there are a lot more factors than minimizing death. For example, if you pull the lever the courts could put you at fault for their deaths, therefore convicting you of a death and unlawful use of government materials. But if you let the 5 people die, you can’t be convicted of anything.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that chat is not visible makes it feel like Salty is trying to quell the voices in his head telling him to kill everyone and maximize casualties. This simple fact makes it 10 times more enjoyable to watch this video.
He’s like gollum
19:49 "im not insane"
Salty’s genuine panic and remorse at accidentally letting five people die for his life savings makes me think he fully would kill any rich person with no remorse.
Considering 5:00 he absolutely would LMAO
Based
You all are missing the actual problem of the problem! (its not a simple maths problem) you are saying its ok to deliberately kill a person to save others! Eg you support killing random people so their organs can be used to save others!
... You wouldn't?
@@theghostcreator776 not all rich people are douchebags im afraid
i love these laid back videos of salty just talking about hypotheticals
Same here I listened to this stream while doing homework and chilled
Listed to this as I jogged.
Hypotheticals… like GARFELDI?!?!
Laid back salty doesn't exist. It can't hurt you
“Hypotheticals”
I find it funny that a genuine psychology question has been boiled down to pretty much just a meme.
Well it was a dumb thought experiment to begin with.
salty immediately killing the rich dude resonated so much with me it’s insane
HOLY SHIT THE FUNNY WHITE GUY LIKED IT
But he completely missed the $500,000 offer.
@@Rusty_Spy i’m confident he would’ve picked the same answer anyways.
@@Rusty_Spy but you can just go take all his money. what is he gonna do, stop you? he's dead.
@@Drocadile yeah but all his golden shillings will be crushed
I actually really like these more chill videos, they give off the same vibes as watching a sibling play old flash games on the computer because you have to wait for your turn, but until then you both just kind of banter about what's happening on screen, it's pretty nostalgic
Salty killing the robots is like that one episode of futurama where fry has the choice to save a human or a robot and he chooses the human and then bender is fucking pissed and decides to fake suicide for attention and to make fry feel bad but the suicide booth is one of bender’s exes and she kills him for real
Exactly what I was thinking
Episode name?
@@NathanDukes-pb5ij season 6 episode 19 Ghost in The Machines
if you let the 5 people get hit by the trolly then you only have to deal with one witness
And also you have done nothing to witness
@@Top_Hat_Walrus 😉 exactly
Just act like you didn’t see the lever
@@SavageJarJar then the guy you saved will still be a witness.
@@glitchyfox8706 If you can’t win a 1v1 with a traumatized stranger, you’re failing anyway.
Salty the fear of death isn't a phobia, it's literally the root of most, if not all fears, and it's very rational
When Gerber said he'd kill 5 people for Salty, is a lil unhinged, but y'know that's cute as fuck
Get ya a one that would commit unalive for you 🤗
If you wouldn’t kill 5 guys for your homie u ain’t a real one.
you wouldn't kill 5 strangers for a homie? 🤨
@@ryanred1525 what about the burgers and fries
i wouldn't go on a murder spree for a best friend, but the trolley problem makes me less liable, so yes
I wanna imagine this is a real life scenario and Salty just calls Gerber while the trolley is speeding towards him.
I like the implication that Salty's channel doesn't grow in 40 years
It’s more surprising that the RUclips layout wouldn’t have changed lol
Also that RUclips is still recommending that one Markiplier video
@@ashikjaman1940 I fear wondering which one
@@ashikjaman1940 and that Mark hasn't aged a bit and is still buying weird shit on the internet
There are so many funne yt
"there's a rich man on the tracks"
-immediately runs him over
11:45 The funniest part of this apology is the fact that it's 2062 and he has less subscribers than he does now
"Own! A trolley is heading toward the police. You can pull the lever to the other track, but then the original cop will be destroyed. Whoa."
OwO
I can explain the percentages of people in the early hypotheticals who allowed the greater number of people to die. Said people could better handle allowing others to die through inaction ("they'd have died if I didn't hadn't turned up anyway, I wipe my hands of this") rather than pulling a lever which could be seen as murder: a direct action from them which caused x amount of people's deaths. That's the often overlooked element from this conundrum, even though it doesn't apply to most mindsets.
Exactly
let five die who were already in danger or cause the death of one who was initially safe
Yeah isn't that like the entire point of the trolley problem in the first place
@@fireflocs I’m not saying that reasoning is invalid but if I am giving the option I feel like I’m already involved. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice
@Goose I think that’s the original base layer of it but it kinda falls apart as soon as you consider that choosing to do nothing is still a choice
Salty, you gotta make a 10 hour apology video to the robots now.
38 years to go
100 years we go!
get the ukulele out
Honestly you doing nothing out of accident is how I predict that a solid 20%(including myself) of people would react to what is in real life an actually really stressful situation
Vsauce confirmed this in their mind field episode
It's probably a lot more than that. Vsauce did a video where they actually did a trolley problem, set up a fake transit authority office and some camera trickery to make people think it was real. Only 2 of the people pulled the lever.
@@spencergimlin8763 I was being nice to my fellow cowards by making it seem like there are less of us
Yeah, while playing along, I quickly made the decision to answer based on what I'd want to do rather than what I'd actually do, otherwise I'd just never pull the lever (except _maybe_ in cases where it could be that no people die at all).
Something to note, a big part of the trolley problem is that if you do nothing, someone can rationalize that the outcome is not their fault. But by pulling the lever, you are directly the cause of that outcome. Something to remember when you see the choices of others
2:30
Man Derek is a lot more wholesome than I thought. He really took this situation and considered his morals and he had them in the right- *Derek what have you done?*
I really love that a philosophical problem has become a recent trend, just being able to get a look into people’s personal philosophies and what choices they make is so fascinating to me
another part of the trolley problem is if inaction counts as an action. So some people choose not to pull the level regardless of it it results in less death, as they view that taking the action makes your responsible for the deaths while the inaction of ignoring the lever in their view does not.
Alas, choosing to do nothing is still a choice. You knew there was a choice involved. There's a Jewish saying that kinda applies here: "You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it." To me, you are not obligated to be a hero and save everyone and make "the best choice", but you are not free to just let the trolley pass by and claim "inaction", because your choice not to choose leads to more suffering, and it is our job to make this world better than when we found it.
@@salmonandsoup Yeah, you could say that. Though people don't believe in that quite as much as they claim to. There are many things we know we can be doing to save lives, yet we don't and a majority of people feel no responsibility or shame for not doing so. Like recycling, volunteering, etc. And an even further part of the trolley problem is predestination, and many other major philosophical ideas.
@@luciuseclipse That makes sense! And yeah, some people drop the ball more often than not, but I also wanna give people the benefit of the doubt. The world can be overwhelmingly cruel in its indifference at times, and you can only do so much every day-plus, a lot of people are stuck in systems that force them to devote time and energy to jobs that barely pay rent, and their (and our!) consent in these systems is manufactured and coerced. You are the one constant in your own life, so if you can put yourself first without actively harming others, do so.
(Plus, in like, ten minutes, a megacorporation could pollute the oceans far more than the average person could in their lifetime, and they could do more good for the destitute by barely lifting a finger, and they actively choose not to while also fucking over everyone else. It's a matter of degree, not of kind, in that regard.)
@@salmonandsoup Yeah, the world is much more complex than the trolley problem. That’s the biggest issue of Philosophy, trying to account for all that and make consistent ideas and arguments. Especially since we are predisposed to follow our own biases.
@@luciuseclipse Of course, but to examine who we are and what ways to live will make the most sense are a worthy endeavor, I think. Everyone is different, so what's right for someone might be wrong for someone else (barring like, y'know, "murder is not a good thing to do"-I'm talking about lifestyle choices tailored to each person), but there are universal tenets to live by.
Wow, these are genuinely amazing variations on the trolley problem that actually do ask some interesting philosophical questions. And it also has lobsters.
I like the idea that Jovenshire just takes up the Saltydkdan mantle without explanation so people just think Salty sounds weirdly Jovenshireesque one day.
“Why do people want to kill the most people”
Meanwhile Altrive: “Let’s call this the genocide route”
truly a classic "saltydkdan" moment
My favorite part was when Saltydkdan said "It's saltin' time" and salted all over the place.
who?
Great, original comment 👍
I love how Salty's apology video has him with a perpetual grin. Real deep stuff.
i really like how salty says "Basically, the problem is," as if he's going to shorten it down and then he proceeds to read the whole problem anyways
the trolley is such a girlboss i love how it keeps running over those people in such a slay manner
Don't.
Don't.
Get it out of your head.
Don't be a brainless cringe machine.
Never say that again.
do you regret this comment yet
I love this comment good job
I can't believe Salty is robophobic. I'm shaking and crying rn.
the fictional notion of sentient robots is a good litmus test for people's ability to empathize with people who think different than them... but i guess he already made his feelings of those sort clear with the lobster one lol
The lobster question is a very different one than the robot one. The robots are both sentient and sapient; the lobsters are sentient, but not sapient. Additionally, the robots are equivalent to humans in that sense, whereas cats are closer to being sapient than lobsters are. Assuming I'd even have the courage to do anything, I'd save the robots, but not the lobsters.
yummy lobster
Salty: *Worried and anxious noises*
Also Salty: 🙂
I remember in one of the silver comics there was a well that just had every major character dead and strapped to the walls. Freaked me out as a kid.
6:00 fun fact: people who die to trains are quite literally pulverized and feel very little of any pain before dying, thanks parkzer
"In what universe would anyone sacrifice peoples' lives for art?"
Yale apparently with their library fire suppression system that kills you instead of just... yknow... not keeping all the books in one impractically large multistory building.
A nuance that gets lost a lot due to the gamification of this problem is the difference between action and inaction.
If you pull the lever to divert the trolley and kill the 1 person, you've made the conscious decision and performed the actions necessary to kill that 1 person. You've explicitly taken it upon yourself to decide who lives and who dies, which is fine for a gamey toy problem but becomes much more complicated IRL.
Sure, but the other philosophy on the trolley problem is that you've also made a conscious decision to NOT do anything, and that inaction is a form of action. Because of this, not choosing to do anything is also taking it upon yourself to choose who lives and who dies.
Personally, I think that interpretation is probably the one that most people hold, and the one that would most likely occur in a realistic scenario of the trolley problem.
There's also a third, often undiscussed philosophy on the question, which is rejecting the need to make the choice to begin with and solving the systemic issues that lead to all these damn people getting run over by trolleys (implementing safety measures, removing the trolley lobbies ability to operate at such dangerous speeds, etc)
funny saltydkdan video make me go haha
2:42 BREAKING NEWS: Quality RUclipsr SaltyDKDan commits MANSLAUGHTER over LIFE SAVINGS!
Pergatory Trolly: the Infinity Train spin-off we all needed
Pergatrolly
This was great, especially the logos at the end.
I think a lot of the more confusing percentages were because some people believe that by not using the lever they’re not responsible for the outcome.
dan at the begginning of the video: i am not morally complicit in the deaths of these people
dan the moment he sees an opportunity to commit insurance fraud: WELL I DONT WANNA BE A MURDERER
"I would sacrifice five people for you!" - Gerber
It’s not that they want to kill the most people, it’s that they don’t want to cause someone’s death/be directly responsible by pulling that lever themselves; if they don’t pull the level they haven’t killed anyone. That’s why this is a great moral dilemma!
I said the same in a trolley problem video in Alex O'Connor video, and some "intellectual " said that shows "my pathetic unintellctual thinking"!
that person is a jerk@@ivymondal9663
Pretty sure he was referencing the ones where people chose to pull the lever and kill more people.
Those people are just killing the most people.
You would be still responsible for the death of the five, because you CHOOSE to not save 5 people. In both cases you're directly responsible about who will die, so might as well save the more people. It's not "that" great of a dilemma.
oh ok@@VileSentry
11:35 that impression of a robots voice will also be racist in 40 years
11:50 I would have never guessed Salty was Robophobic
5:39 aged like milk, there is now one funny lobster video
?
Just thought I'd mention this as an interesting fact. The reason on the first 2 instances their are so many disagreements is because pulling the lever has a secondary consequence. Because its not just that you minimize casualty's, but its also that you become directly responsible for the death of the one individual (or four in the second case). So their is a sort of intangible element or guilt involved to the decision. Most people would agree that minimizing is correct, while some do don't want to have that guilt on their conciusness.
Everyone seeing saltydkdan post three days in a row: “this guy’s faster than sonic!”
glad we got a proper look into the inner chaotic evil depths of salty’s mind
2:04 good job clarifying that because fun fact: it is actually a crime to, through inaction, knowingly not save the life of a person or persons that you could have easily saved. Like not throwing a rope or ladder to someone dangling off a cliff, or not pressing the emergency stop on a machine killing a person. Not pulling that lever could arguably be a crime.
Salty not being aware of the whole "it's not your fault if you do nothing" aspect of the trolley problem is really funny
Every couple of months I come back to your channel and binge everything the RUclips algorithm made me miss and it’s also such a blast, one of the funniest creators on here, thank you salty!
Three saltydkdan uploads in three days?!?! It's like a TV marathon special
Can we talk about how in the apology bit despite the video taking place in 2062 salty still has 400k
This guy really had the nerve to run a train over 5 cents
5:51 "Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who are Sleeple™-"
1:24 if i do nothing, I'm not a murderer; I'm just a witness. But if i pull the lever, I am intentionally commiting manslaughter.
What do you mean, "people's lives aren't replacable."? that adoption center is always full of fresh prey.
Salty: What do you mean it's backwards? It can't be backwards if the ghost is facing forwards
Ghost: *facing backwards*
I think the main moral conundrum with the trolley question is Willful Ignorance. If you pull the lever you are actively killing one person. But if you ignore the lever and let it kill the 5 people on the track are you truly responsible. If you didn't show up those 5 people would've died anyway. Are you going to actively kill someone or willfully ignore the deaths of 5 people. And can you conscience handle either choice. Do you let fate run it's course or do you change its direction. You are either fully responsible for the death of 1 person or partially responsible for the death of 5. I know I'm not the first person to draw this conclusion. I just usually approach it by asking. "By doing nothing am I truly responsible? If I wasn't here what would've happened?"
Love getting multiple saltydkdan videos in a row instantly after I finished watching all his friendlocks
Don’t worry, the robots were only sentient, they hadn’t reached sapience yet.
Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who are Sleeple™️.
I feel like Dan missed an important aspect of the trolley problem at the beginning.
And important part to the consideration is that you _aren't_ responsible regardless of your choice. If you do nothing, people die, but as a result of circumstances outside of your control. That's just the natural course of events that would have happened anyway. However, if you pull the lever, whoever dies is now a _direct_ result of your actions. You lose the ability to claim no involvement, and you are now explicitly a murderer.
Now, some people argue choosing to take no action to save the people on the first track is as bad as killing them yourself, but this line of thinking gets _real_ bad when you apply it to more complex situations. Regardless of your interpretation of the the morality of inaction, it shouldn't be skipped over entirely.
12:58 That is the longest ONE second I have ever seen. I guess we found out how to manipulate time in 2062.
18:46 Fun Logo Trivia: You know where the arrow goes because the Amazon logo starts at A and ends at Z, which is supposed to mean they sell items "from A to Z."
I'll be honest, I watched the DaThings YTP version about five times before coming here, and hearing 'I'm sorry' without it reversing and becoming 'I'm sorry Ross' is honestly more surreal than it happening.
Also, people have been saying that, in the original problem, you're not responsible if you do nothing, but here's the issue: in this version, you're shown to have your hand already on the lever before making the decision, so in a way you're right, you're always responsible
Part of the reason for the do nothing option with the basic one is that it has to do with the view of responsibility there. Do nothing and it's not your actual fault there despite the capability for it to be so, pulling the lever is actually doing something that can be viewed as actively killing someone
Yeah but doing nothing is still a choice
@@backwardsface3046 still a choice but not a choice that will land you in prison
A lot of the do nothing is literally the dilemma, SOME PEOPLE have the ideal that they like being the one pulling the metaphorical and real trigger
3:55 “60 people agree with me” not 60%, 60 individual people
Don’t worry salty, I’ll tell the robots that we can put them back together, meanwhile a human can’t be put back together.
6:20 also, if you killed the 5, the 1 who's awake would witness it and have to deal with the fact that 5 people died simply because they were the 1 who was awake. The one would have to deal with pain anyways.
That doesn’t make grammatical sense
To clarify a bit more on the trolley problem, for those who are unaware (I imagine most people are)
If you are placed in a situation where there's 5 people on a track and you can switch it to kill the one person, you are not legally liable for the lives of the 5 people if you choose to do nothing (unless you're specifically an employee, but the idea of the trolley problem is that you're just a random passerby), but it's technically considered murder if you deliberately switch the track to kill the 1 person instead, or at the very least manslaughter
That's the basis of the original trolley problem. You can let 5 people die and get away scott free, or you can let 1 person die and get in trouble for it
I mean there's some ethical stuff to, like "should you be the one who gets to decide who lives and dies", but for me it's the prison sentence that gets to me
12:07 oh hey look it's Markipli- HOLY SHIT IS THAT DAGAMES, THE GUY WHO SANG BUILD OUR MACHINE AND ITS TIME TO DIE
??
Salty: *Destroys the original Mona Lisa without a second thought*
Da Vinci: *Rolling in his grave*
just wanted to say thank you for putting yourself through all of the torture and jumpscares to entertain us scrubs!
21:16 scared me beyond belief when I first saw it
?
Not pulling the lever means you’re not responsible for their deaths since you didn’t do anything, which means you won’t be held accountable for something that you didn’t do
“You’re all psychopaths! This is about the preservation of the most amount of lives possible!”
[Spongebob voice] 3 Minutes Later
“Oh nah, we need our Amazon package, fuck ‘em.” *splat*
14:58 nah, if nobody would've known, I would've done nothing. My worst enemy is a gaslighting, gatekeeping girl boss, and I'm someone who doesn't forgive people easily and holds stupid grudges for a long time.
5:39 Blue Lobster Jump Scare: "Am I a joke to you?"
The only time a Trolley Problem felt effective was in the video game Prey (the one from 2016)
The entire game's theme is the trolley problem, and it's executed in a neat way, first you take it as a psychological test, but then the rest of the game forces you to actually be in that position. It's pretty neat, and never actually made me think how hard it would be to sacrifice a few people you care about for "the many."
We can always say that we'd do the absolute virtuous and right thing all the time, hell I went to school with a guy who actually thought he could stop a school shooter with his bare hands. But humans make mistakes, and panic, and go into shock. So we can never really say or predict what we would do in that situation.
5:24: hell yeah free dinner for 5 lol
Salty: I'm trying to be as personal as possible
Also salty: oh damn I don't want my amazon package to be late sorry my guy🥴
The part w the logos after was a real good addition that shit made me laugh hard as hell
20:08 The Lego Movie (2014)
hi
he just progressively gets more unhinged throughout the video
Salty just wants to eat the rich, man
I like how only 17% of people didn't destroy the original Mona Lisa but 23% of people decided that killing 5 people was better than killing 1.
salty these consistent uploads are scaring me
Salty! Holy cow! 3 videos in a row for 3 days! A true November miracle.
no nut november is turning out to be a challenge this year
The argument to not do it is found in Kantianism. Basically follow moral principle, in this case do not kill. By pulling the lever you directly impact the situation. If you dont pull it you have not intervened. This would be the argument I believe.
Even as someone who already seen the full vod, I’ll gladly watch the edited rendition
Honestly prefer Saltys Snapchat ghost over the actual one, it's a lot cuter
Watching salty play games in a chill way just fills my soul with comfort dude
"I've spent way too much time on twitter"
Salty, we can tell
Ok get ready for the next apology video in 50 years when Genetically-engineered Lobsters take offense to your decision.
3:21
Necrophobic
Can't control the paranoia
Scared to die
Okay, hear me out:
I don't pull the lever, my Amazon package arrives on time, I break the news to the victim's family, get them to sue Amazon for manslaughter with me as witness, Amazon loses millions of dollars defending themselves
a good rule of thumb is to always maximise either kills or damage caused
For the traditional trolley problem, there are a lot more factors than minimizing death. For example, if you pull the lever the courts could put you at fault for their deaths, therefore convicting you of a death and unlawful use of government materials. But if you let the 5 people die, you can’t be convicted of anything.