Thank you for watching! I hope you enjoyed. If you're interested, until the end of February, you can get 40% off Blinkist premium. Enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1 & start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder or by scanning the QR code.
:p @parthasarathyvenkatadri you're responsible either way, so it doesn't matter, in your thinking. Not everyone would say the same though. It's not their job to change the direction of a train to satisfy some people, when that train can kill more by hitting another train, and causing a ton of financial loss.
@vaquishers you still kill less with the derailing, if there is another train on the other track (which most probably there is, and you'd hope to stop the train soon enough that anyone far away enough may have a very slim chance to try to stop the their train). :3
:3 The behaviour thing with the tumor and young child thing. Like plenty of p*dos, actual ones, as many misuse the word for being into minors (in a world with a higher age of consent, AOC that varies place to place). When the actual definition means to be "mostly" or "solely" into prepubescent children. Not all of them act on it either. Plenty try to argue like abuse doesn't make a brain do that, but it's argued in psychology that it does happen. Lol. A lot of violent and dumb people... Cognitive dissonance hits many hard. The great Sam Harris, fellow Jewish brother, fellow non-religious (I'm spiritual, and anti-religion), that says the tumor scenario and so forth on so-called free will (in our simulation that they say we live in, in the Astral Realms 💀👻).
I don't know if you look at these comments, but I wanted to tell you how much your content helped me. I few years ago, my dad was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in his abdomen that was bigger than a basketball. He had no insurance, so no hospital wanted to help. A Houston hospital finally took him, but said there was nothing they could do. They put him on hospice care. I was the only one who could care for him. He was even unable to get up and use the restroom. I had to cut his food in small portions and feed him. I didn't have much help, so it was very hard on me. My dad raised me by himself, I never had a mom. I was very close to him. It was by far the hardest thing I've ever done, and I graduated Ranger School. I didn't have anyone to talk to at that time, but I did find your videos. They helped me a tremendous amount. They gave me a different perspectives on life and our experience in this world. Thank you, with all my heart, for everything. You helped me in a time of need in a way no one else could. Please keep posting and bring a brighter light to this world. Good luck with anything you do.
I’m so sorry that you are going through this. And I just wanted to tell you that I’m proud of you and of how strong you are. Even if I don’t know you and you don’t know me, I think you deserved to hear this. Lot of love and support for you
Want someone to talk to? Your seem like a good bloke. Can always use another good mate even if it's online and you're on the other side of the world, almost haha. Sorry to hear about your old man. Dann good of you to stay with him. Nicely done on the Ranger tab. Means something, always will
To further the statment in this quote, I would also add that emotions are based on our culture. For example, there have been cultures that didn't bat an eye at canabalism, but Western cultures would find that disgusting and wretched.
I would argue we have priorities of morality. You owe to protect yourself first, then family and friends, then people you know and lastly others. If you were in the track and had the opportunity to change the button, you owe to manipulate the button to keep you alive on both scenarios. Also, let’s say you have a family member and you hate him because he has harm you, so you don’t have any emotions to keep him alive. I would say you still owe to protect him in both scenarios
I've asked friends, family and coworkers this. "If they were the single person on the track, and I was the one pushing the button (divert the train), would they want me to, or not?" Was very interesting to compare my perspective with other people in my life.
i actually thought of this question before, and i came to realize that: if it were my loved one or family, i will probably choose to take the life of the one i know. this turned out to be the easier choice, because deep down i'd know that she(my loved one) would understand and accept my choice, that i did it in order to save the lives of 5 other. this is a pain i am willing to take. whilst, if i were to kill the 5 other innocent people, i would constantly be living in the past, thinking maybe i made the wrong choice. my POV: i rather die knowing i did the right choice than live regretting.
@Tux surprisingly, I found that mostly, older people wanted me to save the strangers. While most (but not all) younger people wanted me to save them instead. But the one that sticks out to me is my mom's response: "Boy, you better not push that button. There's nothing special about me, other than being your momma."
My problem with the trolley problem is in real life with unknown variables by switching the track you could be diverting the train into an oncoming train thus also causing a train crash. Involving yourself in situations where you don't have all the information can cause unintended consequences.
Those are consequences you not only cannot predict but don’t have time to consider You could use that same argument that by not switching the track, it could lead the train to derail due to a stray human chunk messing up the trains function In a life or death situation, the only consequence worth considering are the ones that involve you, your loved ones and the ones in your immediate area (size of which depends on severity). Unknown variable are unknown for a reason, and any choice could equally be a bad choice, so if you can’t tell which choice has the biggest consequences in the future, then there’s not much point in considering it
Well by not involving yourself then there is also the real world possibility of the train getting into an accident because it was not diverted so your knowledge of the situation makes you responsible either way ..
@@parthasarathyvenkatadri working under the assumption that the trains were running on their predicted schedule, the likelihood that allowing the train to run its current track would most likely not result in a collision, but considering that switching trains between tracks to allow trains to run both directions without causing a collision is common practice I would say if a train collided with a train without your intervention would be the fault of the train coordinator, but by intervention the collision would be the fault of the intervener.
MindField (hosted by Michael from Vsauce) actually tested this (simulation) and most people didn't flip the switch. They were paralyzed by the situation. One person did flip the switch. All participants were debriefed after the experiment. My youngest child and I would do these thought experiments on long distance drives. We concluded that we wouldn't know until we were there and knew the individual situation
:3 Responses I gave on another comment: @vaquishers you still kill less with the derailing, if there is another train on the other track (which most probably there is, and you'd hope to stop the train soon enough that anyone far away enough may have a very slim chance to try to stop the their train). ... @parthasarathyvenkatadri you're responsible either way, so it doesn't matter, in your thinking. Not everyone would say the same though. It's not their job to change the direction of a train to satisfy some people, when that train can kill more by hitting another train, and causing a ton of financial loss.
The behaviour thing with the tumor and young child thing. Like plenty of p*dos, actual ones, as many misuse the word for being into minors (in a world with a higher age of consent, AOC that varies place to place). When the actual definition means to be "mostly" or "solely" into prepubescent children. Not all of them act on it either. Plenty try to argue like abuse doesn't make a brain do that, but it's argued in psychology that it does happen. Lol. A lot of violent and dumb people... Cognitive dissonance hits many hard. The great Sam Harris, fellow Jewish brother, fellow non-religious (I'm spiritual, and anti-religion), that says the tumor scenario and so forth on so-called free will (in our simulation that they say we live in, in the Astral Realms 💀👻).
@@melonusk6120 no. The person who set the train in motion has no responsibility as he/she didn't know that some people were going to be trapped on the tracks. Actually, people are supposed NOT to be on the tracks in the first place.
The most difficult lesson of life is when you don't know if your choices were good or bad until after the fact. Sometimes the road ahead is truly a dense fog with no clear indication. The other hard truth to accept, is that sometimes you have to do bad things to get good outcomes.
I'd decide who to save based on their previous actions. For example, I would never save a group of robbers, if on the other track is someone who never did harm to anybody.
The frustrating part about that is that often things appear obvious in hindsight. And other people tend to judge you on the basis of that hindsight knowledge.
The most difficult lesson in life is: Not being able to do, the best thing you could possibly do. Also, in this trolley problem, both are bad outcomes. The only hard truth is you did something bad.
It's as if the button is connected to true random number generator, and a true randomness will decide whether pushing a button will save one person or five!
naw. i know everyone agrees with this comment but you could just do nothing at all right v(-_-)v why do something bad because it benifits you later? who decides if thats ok? to much effort eat a samwich.
This is why I tend to think of morality as a set of general principles and not as absolutes. I’m not a pure consequentialist, normative, utilitarian, etc. I (as do most people) have a mix of all these theories as the basis of my ethical system.
True,everyone has a bit of everything,but I have a feeling that when push comes to shove everyone will aways prioritize their best interests. For example,in the question about saving 5 or one you love,I will aways save the one I love. That person is part of MY life,make ME feel good and the other 5 are just random people. I capitalized the MY and ME to show that I am not saving the one I love because of that person safety,but for my own safety since living without them would be worse for ME. In the example about the fat guy,do I consider pushing him to save the people since it would be the same as turning the lever? Hell no,it's not the same,whatever the train kills one or five it wasn't my fault the accident happened to begin with and not pulling the lever is not a crime in itself,but would be my direct fault if I push the guy. Now combining the first with the second example,if a person I love was in the tracks and pushing a fat guy might save this person,then how much do I love that person above myself and how big would be the consequences? If it's a person I love too much like my mother or best friend I'd push the fat guy and endure the prison that would come afterwards. If I love the person but not enough like my boyfriend or friends but not the best one I'd let them die. Now if the consequences for pushing the fat guy were ridiculous like prison for life or death sentence then not even my mother or best friend are safe from dying. Now I just have to wait for people to tell me I'm a terrible person lol,even thougb I know that already.
@@lainhikaru5657 fortunately, most people would never find themselves in such a situation, (unless of course someone decides to kidnap a bunch of people and force that situation).
@@lainhikaru5657 Terrible person??? Hell NO. Practical I would say. You know what you are about and assume it. Most people say a lot of good sounding shit, but when situations arise behave just like you said you would in those circumstances: they choose what will serve their best self-interests.
Omg... that's messed up 😂... plus the train would derail... one step further: if it was Amtrak the train would also be full of people and derail even if you weren't there to switch the tracks
In college we had a group discussion about a drunk driver running into a group of kids and killing them. Then we had to switch the drunk driver with a teenage girl who was looking down and changing the radio station and running into the same group of kids and killing them. It was very eye opening...Thank you....
“Evil is evil… lesser, greater, middling. It’s all the same. If I have to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.” (The Butcher of Blaviken)
How about your conscience? Is there really an evil or a good act? or just kind of judgment and perception. ( Or bad negative emotion ) What if we are not able to rationalize a thing? like animal. Do we still commit such an immorality?
@@cr6203 Dude I thought the exact same thing. Actively choosing not to intervene IS actively allowing ppl to die. What he’s saying is the exact same appalling thing ppl do in cities when a guy is stabbed or having a seizure or something on a busy sidewalk and everyone just steps over them and does nothing to help. Which everyone says is abhorrent, repugnant and deplorable. It’s the same as the trolley problem. You’re actively choosing to let someone die. Plain and simple. It’s so obvious that many states have laws punishable w prison time if they don’t render aid and ignore the dying person. It’s a felony in a lot of those states too.
Here's some food for thought. For all we know, during our lifetime, we all may have indirectly contributed to someone's death without even knowing it. For example, say I'm sitting at a stop sign and I courteously allow a driver to make his turn before me. A little ways down the road he ends up getting t-boned by a person running a red light and dies due to the coincidental timing. If I hadn't let him through he might not have been there in the first place. 🤷
I prefer to not judge people for their extremely difficult actions, if they think it was the right choice I will take it for granted and accept that it was the right one for the person, like the example in the video wr never know what makes someone doing those actions.
well like you said it's a very difficult decision and humans have limits they try to make "the right decision" but we can only do so much different people can handle different things but everyone has limits
I almost agree with the op. But in a different aspect. I know what they did is wrong, but I'm not to judge them. Instead, tell them they can still be forgiven.
Here's what it comes down to... I'm fine with dealing with the results of my inaction. That's what would've happened if I wasn't there at all. But if I feel like I can do something to (hopefully) change things for the better, that's what I'm gonna (try) to do. Regardless of the outcome. And my conscience will be totally clear and at peace with my decision (or lack thereof).
What would you do if there's 10 women and men in their 40's and 5 boys and girls, age 10, on the other side...the train is heading towards the 10 people and you know this.... do you hit the button?
I have come across trolley problem a bunch of times, never reaching a decision. During covid, I realised something that may answer what I would do in the part where the 2nd track has someone I love. Covid was terrifying. It really deeply hurt me what people went through. And people's suffering was so much more in addition to the losses in life. Fortunately there was no big loss in my personal life and.... Even after being so much affected by what was happening around, I also realised how much unaffected my life was compared to if there was some big loss in my own life. The grief would be far greater than it is now, when millions of people were affected. And it is a case if you subtract covid out of this too, there is so much tragedy which causes pain inside but on the bigger scheme that pain hardly lasts. Life goes on. The only long term impact this suffering causes is in my own behaviour in principles, deciding to be more and more humble and compassionate. But the suffering from millions is realistically smaller than that would be from 1. So I still don't have the answer for other situations but in saving 5 complete strangers vs saving 1 I love, I would probably switch the track. There would also be a number (of people in track 1) when I would let my loved one go.... No idea how much that is.
this is actually watertight logic here as it is tied up in the end. i had unique experiences that led to my philosophical understanding of these probabilities. people i had known who caused themselves great pain only to become someone really cool and still never really fully recover from the pain they caused themselves. Sometimes appreciating life comes in a bit late in the decision making process of being alive. preventing problems is difficult but usually the best way to ensure lack of failure.
Well, my way of approaching this problem is to quickly analyze the situation from the most valuable values that I set myself and make a decision based on it. The most efficient way to not feel as guilty. 🙃
What would you do if the person that can divert the train is you but you are the one that is trapped on the other side of the track? you can decide to kill 5 and save yourself or kill yourself and save 5... would you then do what the most valuable values you set to yourself would suggest you to do (like self sacrificing to save 5 people)? Or save yourself and feel guilty for the rest of your life?
@@RUclips_4u I would do based on these values too. That doesn't necessary mean my sacrifice. It would depend on many factors, and if it really meant my sacrifice then I would do it. (As for now) But you know... We can wonder what we would do but we can't really predict our decision in such situations. I just say my state as of now but what I would do is a mystery even for me.
@@quax I like your answer, I totally agree. We can say many things but if the time comes that we are faced with the decision in real life, we can't predict what will happen 🤔 At that time a rush of hormones, fear and a mix of primordial instinct would kick in and make everything and every thoughts a mess... What a misery the human mind!
i think a more interesting version of the trolley problem is when you have to choose between a couple kids, or their parents. you want to default to take out the parents, but you are condemn the kids to a life of sorrow as orphans as well, but the parents could potentially have more kids. then you start to see a divergence in choices from people depending on how well their country takes care of orphans. and the age of the kids starts to become an interesting topic as well.... i think there is more depth to this version than the original trolley problem, or even the trolley problem with your best friend or a family member on the track version, though having your spouse or one of your own kids on the track is also an interesting version.
@@nexxanor-1059 the original trolley problem was absolutely an emotional bias problem. its about whether you think God will punish you if you pull the lever, or let you go to heaven if you do nothing. " The Indifference of Good men. "
@@maiskorreldoing nothing is not letting faith decide - throwing a coin and asking Whoever you have faith in to cause the coin to answer what do to is letting faith decide =)
I was taught in trade school when studying commercial transport mechanics that if you see an accident about to happen and if you don’t at least try and let that person know or try and intervene somehow and that person dies, you could be criminally charged
I like the version at 2:42 that poses the question: “Is torture ok in circumstances where lives can be saved through use of the info you obtain from the victim?”
In my personal opinion, yes it is a necessary evil in that case (the only problem with it is if the person is innocent they will talk, even if they aren't the culprit, just to stop the pain )
If you stop the torture as soon as you have the information and you also tell the person you are torturing, that you will stop as soon as they give out said information, then I think yes. If you are 100% certain that the person you have to torture has that information, then physical violence is acceptable. If the certainty drops somewhere below that, the severity of torture should also drop.
@@UnderestimatedPsychic it reminds me of a story: One time comrade Stalin lost his pipe and asked Beria to find it, after a few hours he finds his pipe in one of his pockets so he calls Beria back to stop the search. Beria enters in his office and says:"comrade Stalin there are already 7 people who admitted to have stolen your pipe".
@@UnderestimatedPsychic yes all of which take time unfortunately unless you got information on the person. Then you could threaten to harm or limit/block the person's access to whatever it is they care about.
I now am actually convinced that I have not much emotions and only very few times feel emotional cuz i would not hesitate to pull the lever even if there was a person i knew lying on the other track
@@gaunle6542 I'm bout high as hell right now and when I read your comment I thought of this video and was like "how the fuck did someone know I watched that video? How are they following me on RUclips and commenting on something completely different that I commented on ??? Because it's the same fucking video 😩😩😩😭🤣🤣🤣
@@QuoixYanni haha😂😂 yeah people think they are anonymous in youtube but they are not. I hope this line won't make you paranoid lol. But you didn't answer my question why is it perfect timing? Did you intend on pushing someone off on the track?
Switch the tracks then run and try to save the 1 even if I die trying - 2. Even if it was a stranger or loved one, 3. Why push the fat man when you could sacrifice yourself 4. groups, save the lot than the few, but would hesitate being in the involvement, and circumstances Great video to ponder as usual 😆💗💯👍
I’ve never claimed to be a good person. I will always pick my loved ones over others; not gonna lie! Regardless, lives will be lost no matter what you pick so it don’t matter. So just apologize, pick, and move forward confidently because that’s all that you can really do. Also pushing an obese person does not mean the train will stop so that option will not be part of my thinking process😅
If a fart begins to radiant in the midst of your nasal passageways then remove yourself from the scenario. If you are the one expressing yourself through farts then farts it is. Remember the one who smelt it delt it even if it isn’t your butt hole who felt it.
8:32 - it is not the same at all. You have the choice to jump. That's 3 options. You're also putting the 1 person in the situation, not observing them already in the situation.
I’d spam the bottom a bunch of times and run off and let chance decide. For one I didn’t pick 5 people or 1 person I simply spammed the bottom to give them equal opportunity to live. And two that would leave a less moral blow on my consciousness since I didn’t make a choice but I also didn’t sit back and let it happen
This is by far the most interesting answer to the trolley problem I've ever seen. The reason the trolley problem is hard because not making a choice is still making the choice to kill 5 people instead of 1. Making the choice to pull the lever means you intentionally kill someone. Spamming the button seems like a shitty non-heroic thing to do but it does make it so that you are not at fault for what happens since you didn't intentionally cause it or even knew what was going to happen. It sounded dumb to me at first but when I thought about it I realised this is pretty clever.
@@VI.mp4"Not making a choice" is NOT making a choice - it's a some sort of deception or back rhetoric that it's "still making a choice". It's simply harder to pull off "not making a choice", but it's possible to be wracked by indecision until it's too late. And it's not "choosing to condemn 5 people", it is "failing to make a choice", as in "not making it".
That's why there are mostly psychopaths and people who're only in for personal gain in power, I suppose :D People who have a real morality and conscience would QUICKLY get burned out... But for an uncaring egotist it's just "damned in any case, don't give a shit in any case"
The funny thing about the trolly problem is that it gets easier when you make the one person a loved one, I know my loved ones they would want me to save the other people.
I think the trolley problem really comes down to how you choose you frame it. You could say that you are condemning 1 person while saving 5, or you could just frame it as you are saving 4 lives by pushing the button, since at least one person has to die regardless of what you do. Additionally, I think you need to consider more than just the life status (i.e. alive or dead) when contemplating your action. You need to consider the quality of life of the people being saved, if you let 5 people die so that the one guy can live then there is a good chance that one guy could get really bad survivors guilt. Don't underestimate the effects of survivors guilt either, he could end up alcoholic, suicidal etc because he survived while 5 others didn't. Conversely I think if you save the 5 people instead of the one the survivors guilt will be much less, because they will all understand that the alternative was a greater number of deaths, a greater number of families deprived of one of their members etc., and it is much harder justify post-hoc 5 people dying instead of 1, that 1 guy would need to be really, really important to a lot of people.
@BinaryCommunist you are a ****** man, you don't even understand the logic behind the problem. But what else should we expect from someone with a nickname "BinaryCommunist"?
This reminded me of an incident in Mahabharat where Karna justifies his actions by explaining how life was unfair to him. Shree Krishna replies that life is unfair to everyone but that is no excuse to walk on the wrong path. Note: I don't remember the exact conversation in the story but I think this was the summary of it.
There is a difference between cases where: 1)unfair life BROKE you so your choice is no more FREE, you simply cannot not-choose to do bad things 2)unfair life did not break you AS MUCH as robbing you of free choice, and you, even having heard Krishna's argument, still believe "they shall pay, I want to see the world burn" 3)unfair life did not break you to the point of taking away your free choice, but you had the luck of meeting Krishna and hearing his argument, and it made you a changed person. 4)unfair life did not rob you of moral freedom, but you never was lucky enough to meet Krishna and hear his wise words, so you continue on, believing it is okay to avenge yourself, never having a chance to stumble upon such wisdom yourself ('cause you're not wise)
The music used roughly around the 12:00 mark, the violin music--what song is that? I'd love to hear it in full. I'm hoping there is a full song and not just a sound bite. Also, I'm working on a theory to argue that the trolley problem is something of a red herring. As best as I can summarize it, we as the universe are a system in pursuit of Goodness, which is the set of perfect states of affairs. We have an abstract understanding of what Goodness is, which is to say we can think of Goodness apart from its imperfect variations experienced in life. The trolley problem isn't just one person's decision; its the universe working its way towards Goodness, battling through imperfection, like a child hitting the wrong keys when learning to play an instrument. My theory needs work, and this is a very, very truncated version of it, but still, I think I can crack this.
You've helped me to almost logically explain to my family and friends that no one is actually responsible for their morality which I haven't been able to explain quite so. Thanks brother ❤️👊
The thought experiment concerning the fat man is the one I find the most informative. Regardless of what your natural inclination is, it does seem valid for a model of inclinations to have some parameter expressing the likelihood that others will condemn your decision. The fat man will actively resist you forcing him onto the track, and even if caught by surprise he will condemn you, and even if he has no time to respond he would condemn you if he could, and others would likely do the same, whereas the person on the track is likely to never know that you were to blame for their situation, and anyone else involved may be less likely to notice, or more forgiving if they did. The inclination doesn't seem influenced by the difficulty of the action itself, since if there was a heavy boulder that you needed to move in order to flip the switch, your action is still likely the same. Then again, what would happen in bizarro world, where pushing the fat man was the well known obvious solution, and you would be condemned if you didn't push him? You probably would still do the same thing you'd do in this world, but what would happen if you spent your whole life in that society? 🤷
You can also point out that the fat man is also being presented with a trolly problem. One where he is the sole man on the track, but has the ability to sacrifice himself. Here there isn't as much of a moral issue with switching, everyone agrees that sacrificing yourself for the good of others is virtuous, but sacrifice is hard. Otherwise he wouldn't resist you shoving him.
@@CrakenFlux I tend to agree, but once the discussion starts it does become a little difficult to determine the exact paramaters meant to be a part of the decision. IMHO
I have a 12 year old son. If you had proposed the train thought experiment to me 13 years ago, I would have sacrificed my mom, sister, girlfriend, etc. to save the group of people. Now, I'd let the train hit the group and save my son. I know, when broken down, it's really me just being selfish (by not wanting to sacrifice my son), but I'm at peace with that answer.
@@melonusk6120 Absolutely not. The moral responsibility of allowing 5 people to die when you can save them through your actions and at no risk to yourself is a moral choice. It is the choice to allow others to suffer and die. Palming that off onto someone else is sophistry to avoid addressing the reality that you chose to let others die.
I know the feeling. I have a daughter. If there are all the people in the world in one track and my daughter on the other, I'd do whatever it takes (switch / not switch), to save my child. I wouldn't even flinch.
While switching the tracks how fast does it switch? What I thought about doing is clicking the button just as the train arrived that while switching the train is not completely on either tracks making it go straight??
remember you only have 5 seconds, you probably need at least 2-3 seconds to even process the situation, even usain bolt wouldnt make it far by running. Besides the button was right next to you so that‘s kinda a… questionable move
@@Jenny-pc3vr your not understanding. The intention of behaving loudly is to give the impression to onlookers that you are exerting great effort to solve the problem. Even if it is hopeless. Parents do this a lot to there children in order to tell themselves they tried there best.
@@Dogpool Of course I understood. You didnt understand my comment- In THIS situation specifically with the given conditions, trying to run towards the victims while the button was sitting right next to you only makes you seem like a fool. absolutely no one with common sense would buy that ,,I really tried to help‘‘. People would understand if you became frozen in panic, but running towards the victims???
One of the hardest thing that people have a hard time understanding is that sometimes it's more ethical to do nothing. However that becomes foggy and grey as it is also sometimes the worst things to do
Well, at lest there is a difference between bad things to do and not-as-bad things to do. Differentiating them on case-by-case basis must be skill issue then? Moral skill issue
One person has a better chance of jumping away, but 5 people walking on the track are 5 times as stupid as one. Get rid of the 5 and save the world the agony of stupid.
Honestly I'd walk away and let fate take it's course. For all I know those 5 people are bad people and the 1 person is a really good person who will leave the world in a better place than when they found it. I would simply remove myself from the equation and let whatever happens happen
I thought that too at first but if there was no one on the other track then I wouldn’t “let fate take it’s course”. I would change the track to kill no one, so if it’s 5v1 I think I would also take matters into my own hands.
@@roserven same, I agree with that. The main reason I would leave it alone to begin with is because I do not trust my instincts whatsoever and my luck I will have gotten the whole situation wrong and flip a switch killing everybody when had I just left it alone nobody would've died and next thing you know I'm in court for mass murder when I was just trying to save people 😂
I’d love to see this thought experiment paired with the multi verse concept that every decision you don’t make branches off into another universe. So there is the version of you that made the decision and there is the version of you that didn’t. Each decision branches out into another universe.
Morality isn’t based on emotions, people just aren’t perfectly moral. We have many natural urges- the urge to do what is morally right, what will personally benefit us most, what will help the people we like or hurt the people we dislike, etc. But that doesn’t mean morality itself is flawed.
This, I agree with what you said. I have some rendition if you don't mind. (You don't need to accept it) Morality isn't based on emotions, people, just aren't perfect. We ought to do something we think is morally right. Most of the time, we made this decision based on the benefits it would have. Morality does not really care. It doesn't really change (at least in this world). We are the ones who have flaws.
"Morality is flexible and based on our feelings and not on our consistent logic". If this were true, it would mean that morality is a subjective interepretation of one's own logic. That morality is very difficult to interpret in a common way I can agree with, but that morality is based on one's own feelings seems to me to be a wrong interpretation. Whether one BELIEVES something is right or wrong does not make it right or wrong. I love your channel because it makes you think and use your mind. Honestly, the world needs content like on your channel more than we realise.
"Right" and "wrong" are concepts that only exist in the human mind. The only reason the concepts exist at all is because we _believe_ that the concepts exist.... therefore whether one believes something is right or wrong _does_ make it right or wrong... there is no other way to make it exist other than belief.
Here's another addition to that variation: The one person on the other track is the owner of the construction company, who's choice to use cheaper, sub-standard materials is what caused the structure to collapse. The five workers tried to warn him, but he threatened to fire and ruin them. If you don't push that button, he will most likely blame the incident on the workers, get away with it and continue to cause events like this. The truth might come out eventually, but before that, there's a high chance, that many more people will die for his greed. If you push that button, the workers will reveal his actions, and you will always be able to comfort yourself with seeing yourself rather as a tool of poetic justice than as a murderer.
"Is someone responsible for something if their actions are caused by their past?" Yes, because they had a choice, and they chose not to take responsibility for what they could change.
Personally, I look at this paradox in two cases, first the original one. I won't flip the switch even if it kills 5 people and save one. My reasoning is not because I tilt towards the philosophy of deontology, or it's not because I will feel guilty because my direct involvement might kill an individual and save 5. I look at this paradox as sort of not looking at the quantity of people I save or killed, but rather as some sort of intervention to a deterministic outcome, flipping the switch or not does not matter, the result will always kill people. People come up to me everytime I said my view on this, they said that the weight of guilt of letting 5 people die is worse than one, but if it happens to me in real life or similar to this, I will always choose not to flip the switch. People always tend to view others or themselves as some sort of hero or someone who encompasses a better moral compass in their life in relation to this paradox, but I don't... I just simply looking at it as you'll kill people anyhow so just don't intervene. It's not like you'll become a hero if you switch. The second case if there is my loved on one side of the track. I will, with no hesitation, save my love ones. It does not matter if my love one is on the 5 or 1, I will definitely save them. Does my decision make me a hero? No. Does my decision me a psychopath? Maybe. Does my decision makes me look selfish? Depends on how other look at it. Does my decision make me human? Yes. "Don't make people into heroes, John. Heroes aren't real, and if they do, I wouldn't be one of them." -Sherlock Holmes played by B. Cumbercatch Ps. I save a life.
Greetings, esteemed interlocutor. Your erudite and insightful statement has left me pondering the intricate and enigmatic nature of the universe and its infinite complexities. Indeed, the very fabric of reality seems to unravel before us, revealing a labyrinthine web of paradoxical possibilities that confound even the most astute and discerning minds. It is as if the very essence of existence itself were a recursive loop, endlessly spiraling towards an elusive and ever-shifting truth that forever eludes our grasp. Yet, amidst the bewildering chaos of this cosmic dance, I cannot help but feel a sense of awe and wonder at the sheer majesty and unfathomable grandeur of it all.
Now see, I like to be goofy sometimes so ofc I’m like “oh, I’ll just time it so when the tracks switch, it goes in the middle :)” but in reality I know that I would be so stuck on what to do that I’d ultimately do nothing because I’d freeze up and be torn between decisions. I could have an eternity to think about it and still take up that entire infinite time. No matter what, I’m gonna feel guilt. Families and friends will still grieve. I will still have a part in the whole thing and regret my choice no matter what I choose. I think quite a few people (or at least from my perspective) have a very black and white way of thinking (and I’ll admit I’m guilty of doing that too especially when I’m not given time to think) when little do they know there’s a grey area within just about everything. When I have time to think on something, I really REALLY think even if it seems that the decision I chose makes it seem otherwise; or the fact that afterwards I think of thousands of more options I could’ve went with or combined with other options or the one I chose. Kinda like how you had the right answer to a question unknowingly but then second guess yourself and change it only to find out the first one was correct or more favorable. The fact that I second guess myself also plays a part in my ways of thinking and why I always think of so many ideas and/or ultimately just do nothing. I don’t trust myself even if my first options were more favorable because I know the one time I actually go with my first instinct, I’ll be wrong. I’ve thought of myself as a mostly moral person (with some flaws, yes) but whilst talking to an ex of mine about things, I learned that maybe my actions and words weren’t all that justified when you look at both sides. We both have done horrible things but because of my fears, insecurities, and anger/sadness, I feel like I was arguably worse even if he says it’s fine now as long as I also realize what I’ve done and improve myself as he has too. No matter what, I have no excuse to have been so overly attached that I’d mostly ignore his needs for space or so angry at him for turning around and acting like I don’t matter that I end up being cruel in a way even though my intentions were mostly coming from a good place. But him and I have our reasons for doing what we did, good and bad, and sometimes what we [humans in general] intend doesn’t show in words or actions. These are some things that at 19 I’m starting to think and see more when I feel I should’ve seen it years ago. It’s hard navigating life, sometimes morals change but personally as long as things balance out, I think it’ll be alright. Idk though so yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Excellent video. Good, better, bad and worse are merely individual interpretations of circumstances affecting wants, needs, and desires. Our tendency to make a moral, immoral or amoral decision is subjective based on those circumstances and our individual inclination to being well-intentioned, nefarious or indifferent. There are over eight billion people alive today, all with their own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. So even in a civilized society, morality is subject to interpretation by each individual regardless of majority ideals. In a civilized society, most consider cannibalism immoral, but it would only take the collapse of civilization and a diminished food supply to thrust humanity into cannibalism. We are animals and will do whatever survival requires. There is no moral glue holding the universe together.
One thing needs to be pointed out. As a former train dispatcher, I can tell you that the person in the tower has a radio to contact the train and tell it to stop. When presenting this problem, you need to tell the listener that the tower man has no radio contact with the train to make it a completely moral decision. Even with radio contact or the possibility of taking down signals on the train, the train may not have been able to stop. However, these actions should have been tried first
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Buddhist. He told me that hurting animals is morally wrong and is bad karma. I then asked him how he does then justify eating meat. He said because the animal was killed by someone else and you are just eating it for survival it's not your karma. "Morality is flexible based on our emotions and not based on our consistency of logic"
The more information there is the more complex the decision-making becomes. Th e problem in today's society is many times we judge our decision making based on X amount of factors when other base their on Y and instead of talking about it, we want to shut down the other.
The takeaway point I've got from this is the concept between the person with a tumour or childhood abuse, neither of which the individual wanted or could have actively changed. The concept for me here obviously is the perception we have of people with mental issues. This seemingly automated negative result towards the individual I believe has a lot to do with what society teaches people about when they have mental issues. Either way, the individual Coundnt have chosen to have the illness. What are people's conceptions of this? My answer is, the lack of education towards how mental health is dealt with isn't up to par. If people could acknowledge nobody has bad parts to themselves that are pure bad, only these parts are just hurt and as a result act on protection reactions. If somebody had a hurt arm then people's obvious reaction to this would be to apply care and love so the hurt part heals. But when considering the hurt parts of our mental side, nobody looks at the mental side as hurt. The mental side is just "bad" which for me is where education really is required.
In my very humble opinion, thought experiments like this demonstrate that the details always matter the most and there are not one size fits all rules of thumb for every scenario or situation. There is usually another detail that may be added to any situation to alter the scenario, sometimes drastically. We never have perfect information, such as who someone may become in the future. Therefore, I feel the best we can do is the best we can do with the information we have and that every situation will be unique. Thus we many need to alter our accounting of "good" to account for the uniqueness of any given situation and scenario
@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 I don't think capitalism asks for permission so I don't think anyone told anyone to not do anything. Someone had money and decided to build where they wanted to, and no one said shit because free dumb
@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 This is America ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's stupid because we think in terms other than profits uber alles. Profit is the #1 motive for corporations. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. Humans are just a resource to capitalists
@@BardovBacchus though I agree with that. But it is not really bad to profit. What's bad is being greedy and forgetting important things just for the sake of it.
I remember we were talking about relationships and cheating at work one day. And one guy told me something that made me think: if you cheat on your partner and feel bad about what you did, you want to come clean and admit to your partner what you did. Then you make yourself feel better by pouring your bad consciousness onto your partner. But he/she is on the bottom of the pit and can't do anything to feel better. So the best thing to do to pay for your mistake is to shut up and live with your bad consciousness and not punish your partner for your mistake.
I find the tumor part influencing decission making rather interesting. When is someone responsible for their actions? Does having that tumor stop them from being blamed and accused of what could otherwise be perceived as freewill thinking? The more depending question arrises: do we have freewill in the first place? I don't know, but I think we do not. I think we can neither be praised nor punished for our actions. In the end we seemingly are prisoners suffering from total freedom.
Thank you for watching! I hope you enjoyed.
If you're interested, until the end of February, you can get 40% off Blinkist premium. Enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1 & start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder or by scanning the QR code.
Enjoying every video. 4rl
@@ArnoNymus yeah, very good! Very well put together! :3
:p @parthasarathyvenkatadri you're responsible either way, so it doesn't matter, in your thinking. Not everyone would say the same though. It's not their job to change the direction of a train to satisfy some people, when that train can kill more by hitting another train, and causing a ton of financial loss.
@vaquishers you still kill less with the derailing, if there is another train on the other track (which most probably there is, and you'd hope to stop the train soon enough that anyone far away enough may have a very slim chance to try to stop the their train). :3
:3 The behaviour thing with the tumor and young child thing. Like plenty of p*dos, actual ones, as many misuse the word for being into minors (in a world with a higher age of consent, AOC that varies place to place).
When the actual definition means to be "mostly" or "solely" into prepubescent children. Not all of them act on it either. Plenty try to argue like abuse doesn't make a brain do that, but it's argued in psychology that it does happen. Lol.
A lot of violent and dumb people...
Cognitive dissonance hits many hard. The great Sam Harris, fellow Jewish brother, fellow non-religious (I'm spiritual, and anti-religion), that says the tumor scenario and so forth on so-called free will (in our simulation that they say we live in, in the Astral Realms 💀👻).
I don't know if you look at these comments, but I wanted to tell you how much your content helped me. I few years ago, my dad was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in his abdomen that was bigger than a basketball. He had no insurance, so no hospital wanted to help. A Houston hospital finally took him, but said there was nothing they could do. They put him on hospice care. I was the only one who could care for him. He was even unable to get up and use the restroom. I had to cut his food in small portions and feed him. I didn't have much help, so it was very hard on me. My dad raised me by himself, I never had a mom. I was very close to him. It was by far the hardest thing I've ever done, and I graduated Ranger School. I didn't have anyone to talk to at that time, but I did find your videos. They helped me a tremendous amount. They gave me a different perspectives on life and our experience in this world. Thank you, with all my heart, for everything. You helped me in a time of need in a way no one else could. Please keep posting and bring a brighter light to this world. Good luck with anything you do.
I’m so sorry that you are going through this. And I just wanted to tell you that I’m proud of you and of how strong you are. Even if I don’t know you and you don’t know me, I think you deserved to hear this. Lot of love and support for you
Sending love and strength to you. You are 100% on point his videos are a lifesaver ❤️
Stay strong dude, hope you are doing as well as can be
✨Pursuit of Wonder liked your comment✨
Want someone to talk to? Your seem like a good bloke. Can always use another good mate even if it's online and you're on the other side of the world, almost haha. Sorry to hear about your old man. Dann good of you to stay with him. Nicely done on the Ranger tab. Means something, always will
"Morality is flexible based on our emotions and not based on our consistency of logic"
facts
To further the statment in this quote, I would also add that emotions are based on our culture. For example, there have been cultures that didn't bat an eye at canabalism, but Western cultures would find that disgusting and wretched.
I would argue we have priorities of morality.
You owe to protect yourself first, then family and friends, then people you know and lastly others.
If you were in the track and had the opportunity to change the button, you owe to manipulate the button to keep you alive on both scenarios.
Also, let’s say you have a family member and you hate him because he has harm you, so you don’t have any emotions to keep him alive. I would say you still owe to protect him in both scenarios
If it were the other way around then life would be really dull and even more miserable than it is now
and there's actually a logic to it, we have a list on what decisions we decide based on the individual and context
I've asked friends, family and coworkers this.
"If they were the single person on the track, and I was the one pushing the button (divert the train), would they want me to, or not?"
Was very interesting to compare my perspective with other people in my life.
true.
what were their replies? i am very curious to know
i actually thought of this question before, and i came to realize that: if it were my loved one or family, i will probably choose to take the life of the one i know. this turned out to be the easier choice, because deep down i'd know that she(my loved one) would understand and accept my choice, that i did it in order to save the lives of 5 other. this is a pain i am willing to take. whilst, if i were to kill the 5 other innocent people, i would constantly be living in the past, thinking maybe i made the wrong choice.
my POV: i rather die knowing i did the right choice than live regretting.
@Tux surprisingly, I found that mostly, older people wanted me to save the strangers.
While most (but not all) younger people wanted me to save them instead.
But the one that sticks out to me is my mom's response: "Boy, you better not push that button. There's nothing special about me, other than being your momma."
@@darkhorse5932 yeah... i mean gave you your life, you kinda owe it to her. can't refute that, now can ya?
My problem with the trolley problem is in real life with unknown variables by switching the track you could be diverting the train into an oncoming train thus also causing a train crash. Involving yourself in situations where you don't have all the information can cause unintended consequences.
Don't give yourself a headache friend, the problem was clearly presented in a vacuum to make a larger point.
I think you both are correct 😅
Those are consequences you not only cannot predict but don’t have time to consider
You could use that same argument that by not switching the track, it could lead the train to derail due to a stray human chunk messing up the trains function
In a life or death situation, the only consequence worth considering are the ones that involve you, your loved ones and the ones in your immediate area (size of which depends on severity). Unknown variable are unknown for a reason, and any choice could equally be a bad choice, so if you can’t tell which choice has the biggest consequences in the future, then there’s not much point in considering it
Well by not involving yourself then there is also the real world possibility of the train getting into an accident because it was not diverted so your knowledge of the situation makes you responsible either way ..
@@parthasarathyvenkatadri working under the assumption that the trains were running on their predicted schedule, the likelihood that allowing the train to run its current track would most likely not result in a collision, but considering that switching trains between tracks to allow trains to run both directions without causing a collision is common practice I would say if a train collided with a train without your intervention would be the fault of the train coordinator, but by intervention the collision would be the fault of the intervener.
He discusses philosophy so deeply and vividly through his storytelling... That's what I like about him
MindField (hosted by Michael from Vsauce) actually tested this (simulation) and most people didn't flip the switch. They were paralyzed by the situation. One person did flip the switch.
All participants were debriefed after the experiment.
My youngest child and I would do these thought experiments on long distance drives. We concluded that we wouldn't know until we were there and knew the individual situation
:3 Responses I gave on another comment:
@vaquishers you still kill less with the derailing, if there is another train on the other track (which most probably there is, and you'd hope to stop the train soon enough that anyone far away enough may have a very slim chance to try to stop the their train).
...
@parthasarathyvenkatadri you're responsible either way, so it doesn't matter, in your thinking. Not everyone would say the same though. It's not their job to change the direction of a train to satisfy some people, when that train can kill more by hitting another train, and causing a ton of financial loss.
The behaviour thing with the tumor and young child thing. Like plenty of p*dos, actual ones, as many misuse the word for being into minors (in a world with a higher age of consent, AOC that varies place to place).
When the actual definition means to be "mostly" or "solely" into prepubescent children. Not all of them act on it either. Plenty try to argue like abuse doesn't make a brain do that, but it's argued in psychology that it does happen. Lol.
A lot of violent and dumb people...
Cognitive dissonance hits many hard. The great Sam Harris, fellow Jewish brother, fellow non-religious (I'm spiritual, and anti-religion), that says the tumor scenario and so forth on so-called free will (in our simulation that they say we live in, in the Astral Realms 💀👻).
if you let the other people die ( thru inaction), the moral responsibility is not on you but on whoever set the train on motion at the first place.
@@melonusk6120 no. The person who set the train in motion has no responsibility as he/she didn't know that some people were going to be trapped on the tracks. Actually, people are supposed NOT to be on the tracks in the first place.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I think that vsauce video was probably staged. An actual experiment like that would be completely unethical.
The most difficult lesson of life is when you don't know if your choices were good or bad until after the fact. Sometimes the road ahead is truly a dense fog with no clear indication.
The other hard truth to accept, is that sometimes you have to do bad things to get good outcomes.
I'd decide who to save based on their previous actions. For example, I would never save a group of robbers, if on the other track is someone who never did harm to anybody.
The frustrating part about that is that often things appear obvious in hindsight. And other people tend to judge you on the basis of that hindsight knowledge.
The most difficult lesson in life is:
Not being able to do, the best thing you could possibly do.
Also, in this trolley problem, both are bad outcomes. The only hard truth is you did something bad.
It's as if the button is connected to true random number generator, and a true randomness will decide whether pushing a button will save one person or five!
naw. i know everyone agrees with this comment but you could just do nothing at all right v(-_-)v why do something bad because it benifits you later? who decides if thats ok? to much effort eat a samwich.
This is why I tend to think of morality as a set of general principles and not as absolutes. I’m not a pure consequentialist, normative, utilitarian, etc. I (as do most people) have a mix of all these theories as the basis of my ethical system.
True,everyone has a bit of everything,but I have a feeling that when push comes to shove everyone will aways prioritize their best interests.
For example,in the question about saving 5 or one you love,I will aways save the one I love.
That person is part of MY life,make ME feel good and the other 5 are just random people.
I capitalized the MY and ME to show that I am not saving the one I love because of that person safety,but for my own safety since living without them would be worse for ME.
In the example about the fat guy,do I consider pushing him to save the people since it would be the same as turning the lever?
Hell no,it's not the same,whatever the train kills one or five it wasn't my fault the accident happened to begin with and not pulling the lever is not a crime in itself,but would be my direct fault if I push the guy.
Now combining the first with the second example,if a person I love was in the tracks and pushing a fat guy might save this person,then how much do I love that person above myself and how big would be the consequences?
If it's a person I love too much like my mother or best friend I'd push the fat guy and endure the prison that would come afterwards.
If I love the person but not enough like my boyfriend or friends but not the best one I'd let them die.
Now if the consequences for pushing the fat guy were ridiculous like prison for life or death sentence then not even my mother or best friend are safe from dying.
Now I just have to wait for people to tell me I'm a terrible person lol,even thougb I know that already.
@@lainhikaru5657 fortunately, most people would never find themselves in such a situation, (unless of course someone decides to kidnap a bunch of people and force that situation).
@@lainhikaru5657 Terrible person??? Hell NO. Practical I would say. You know what you are about and assume it. Most people say a lot of good sounding shit, but when situations arise behave just like you said you would in those circumstances: they choose what will serve their best self-interests.
If you time it right and wait for a couple of cars to pass before you switch the track, you might be able to get them all.
Hahahaha that is gold.
Omg... that's messed up 😂... plus the train would derail... one step further: if it was Amtrak the train would also be full of people and derail even if you weren't there to switch the tracks
Lmfao
In college we had a group discussion about a drunk driver running into a group of kids and killing them. Then we had to switch the drunk driver with a teenage girl who was looking down and changing the radio station and running into the same group of kids and killing them. It was very eye opening...Thank you....
That's a cool one thanks for sharing.
People who know me know how much this channel means to me.
I know now too.
Yes now we all know.
Same
Yeah all the atheists agree whith you
@@xogogaal4363 yes
“Evil is evil… lesser, greater, middling. It’s all the same. If I have to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
(The Butcher of Blaviken)
Sin of omission
How about your conscience?
Is there really an evil or a good act? or just kind of judgment and perception. ( Or bad negative emotion )
What if we are not able to rationalize a thing? like animal. Do we still commit such an immorality?
Ironically, not choosing is a choice in and of itself (choosing to do nothing).
A sin of omission, Strong by Lee, carries less moral weight than a sin of commission.
@@Saanza and in choosing to do nothing you are in a way allowing evil to happen
When you quickly switch the tracks right after the first wheels have passed you might be able to create equity.
Jokes aside I would do absofuckinglutely nothing and surrender right away and probably just faint or will try to fake passing out.
yeah fucabsolutelyking
Me likely how you thinky 🤭
@@ArnoNymus just flip a coin.
you missed the point
The trolley problem comes down to ACTIVELY killing someone or doing nothing and actively killing no one.
My biggest issue with the trolley problem is that I can’t figure out a way to kill all of them. It’s a real paradox, it drives me batty, man.
@@jimmynovak7913It's probably not that hard to pick up the one and carry them over to the other pile of people.
@@jimmynovak7913 wait a couple cars to go by then switch the track boom you split the train and everybody’s dead😊
Not true. Doing nothing is doing something, you're choosing to kill 5 by doing nothing.
@@cr6203 Dude I thought the exact same thing. Actively choosing not to intervene IS actively allowing ppl to die.
What he’s saying is the exact same appalling thing ppl do in cities when a guy is stabbed or having a seizure or something on a busy sidewalk and everyone just steps over them and does nothing to help. Which everyone says is abhorrent, repugnant and deplorable. It’s the same as the trolley problem. You’re actively choosing to let someone die. Plain and simple.
It’s so obvious that many states have laws punishable w prison time if they don’t render aid and ignore the dying person. It’s a felony in a lot of those states too.
Here's some food for thought. For all we know, during our lifetime, we all may have indirectly contributed to someone's death without even knowing it. For example, say I'm sitting at a stop sign and I courteously allow a driver to make his turn before me. A little ways down the road he ends up getting t-boned by a person running a red light and dies due to the coincidental timing. If I hadn't let him through he might not have been there in the first place. 🤷
And likewise may have saved many lives unknowingly
Or would have died ourselves if we made one decision or motion slightly differently
Human mind can't comprehend the amount of possibilities ones action can do; they're just so many it's absurd.
@@aguycalledwalker7524 True!
Ignorance is bliss, In such a case at least.
I prefer to not judge people for their extremely difficult actions, if they think it was the right choice I will take it for granted and accept that it was the right one for the person, like the example in the video wr never know what makes someone doing those actions.
humans have limits
@@arn3107 care to elaborate?
well like you said
it's a very difficult decision
and humans have limits
they try to make "the right decision"
but we can only do so much
different people can handle different things
but everyone has limits
I almost agree with the op. But in a different aspect. I know what they did is wrong, but I'm not to judge them. Instead, tell them they can still be forgiven.
Here's what it comes down to...
I'm fine with dealing with the results of my inaction. That's what would've happened if I wasn't there at all. But if I feel like I can do something to (hopefully) change things for the better, that's what I'm gonna (try) to do. Regardless of the outcome.
And my conscience will be totally clear and at peace with my decision (or lack thereof).
What would you do if there's 10 women and men in their 40's and 5 boys and girls, age 10, on the other side...the train is heading towards the 10 people and you know this.... do you hit the button?
I have come across trolley problem a bunch of times, never reaching a decision.
During covid, I realised something that may answer what I would do in the part where the 2nd track has someone I love.
Covid was terrifying. It really deeply hurt me what people went through. And people's suffering was so much more in addition to the losses in life. Fortunately there was no big loss in my personal life and.... Even after being so much affected by what was happening around, I also realised how much unaffected my life was compared to if there was some big loss in my own life. The grief would be far greater than it is now, when millions of people were affected. And it is a case if you subtract covid out of this too, there is so much tragedy which causes pain inside but on the bigger scheme that pain hardly lasts. Life goes on. The only long term impact this suffering causes is in my own behaviour in principles, deciding to be more and more humble and compassionate. But the suffering from millions is realistically smaller than that would be from 1.
So I still don't have the answer for other situations but in saving 5 complete strangers vs saving 1 I love, I would probably switch the track.
There would also be a number (of people in track 1) when I would let my loved one go.... No idea how much that is.
this is actually watertight logic here as it is tied up in the end. i had unique experiences that led to my philosophical understanding of these probabilities. people i had known who caused themselves great pain only to become someone really cool and still never really fully recover from the pain they caused themselves. Sometimes appreciating life comes in a bit late in the decision making process of being alive. preventing problems is difficult but usually the best way to ensure lack of failure.
This is the best trolley problem framing I've ever heard in my life. Wow.
That feeling of panic from the beginning, being trapped under something, that’s how I feel when the sheets are too tight on the bed.
Well, my way of approaching this problem is to quickly analyze the situation from the most valuable values that I set myself and make a decision based on it. The most efficient way to not feel as guilty. 🙃
What would you do if the person that can divert the train is you but you are the one that is trapped on the other side of the track? you can decide to kill 5 and save yourself or kill yourself and save 5... would you then do what the most valuable values you set to yourself would suggest you to do (like self sacrificing to save 5 people)? Or save yourself and feel guilty for the rest of your life?
@@RUclips_4u I would do based on these values too. That doesn't necessary mean my sacrifice.
It would depend on many factors, and if it really meant my sacrifice then I would do it. (As for now)
But you know... We can wonder what we would do but we can't really predict our decision in such situations. I just say my state as of now but what I would do is a mystery even for me.
@@quax I like your answer, I totally agree. We can say many things but if the time comes that we are faced with the decision in real life, we can't predict what will happen 🤔 At that time a rush of hormones, fear and a mix of primordial instinct would kick in and make everything and every thoughts a mess... What a misery the human mind!
Master and slave morality. What is good for me is good in general. More useful than whatever ethics you want to burden yourself with.
@@IfeelKindaSick From some point of view maybe yes.
But I don't think that's the best possible take.
A hero would definitely choose for the greater good, although, a villain would sacrifice the world for you. I resonate with that.
i think a more interesting version of the trolley problem is when you have to choose between a couple kids, or their parents. you want to default to take out the parents, but you are condemn the kids to a life of sorrow as orphans as well, but the parents could potentially have more kids. then you start to see a divergence in choices from people depending on how well their country takes care of orphans. and the age of the kids starts to become an interesting topic as well.... i think there is more depth to this version than the original trolley problem, or even the trolley problem with your best friend or a family member on the track version, though having your spouse or one of your own kids on the track is also an interesting version.
you just lose in either of those siuations, I probably end up doing nothing and let "faith" decide.
This defeats the whole purpose of the problem. You adding emotional bias to the problem is you coping for deciding which option is better.
@@nexxanor-1059 the original trolley problem was absolutely an emotional bias problem. its about whether you think God will punish you if you pull the lever, or let you go to heaven if you do nothing.
" The Indifference of Good men. "
@@maiskorreldoing nothing is not letting faith decide - throwing a coin and asking Whoever you have faith in to cause the coin to answer what do to is letting faith decide =)
lovely outro, always grateful for your work
I was taught in trade school when studying commercial transport mechanics that if you see an accident about to happen and if you don’t at least try and let that person know or try and intervene somehow and that person dies, you could be criminally charged
I guess you could scream " I SWITCHED THE TRACK, YOU'RE ABOUT TO DIE NOW! ". That just seems rude though, I guess.
11:55 programming A.I has finished a long time ago.
It is now self-learning, able to rewrite the errors of its own code, based on its own perception.
I like the version at 2:42 that poses the question: “Is torture ok in circumstances where lives can be saved through use of the info you obtain from the victim?”
In my personal opinion, yes it is a necessary evil in that case (the only problem with it is if the person is innocent they will talk, even if they aren't the culprit, just to stop the pain )
If you stop the torture as soon as you have the information and you also tell the person you are torturing, that you will stop as soon as they give out said information, then I think yes.
If you are 100% certain that the person you have to torture has that information, then physical violence is acceptable.
If the certainty drops somewhere below that, the severity of torture should also drop.
Studies show that torture victims often say what ever their torturer wants to hear even if it's a lie. There are better ways of getting the truth.
@@UnderestimatedPsychic it reminds me of a story:
One time comrade Stalin lost his pipe and asked Beria to find it, after a few hours he finds his pipe in one of his pockets so he calls Beria back to stop the search. Beria enters in his office and says:"comrade Stalin there are already 7 people who admitted to have stolen your pipe".
@@UnderestimatedPsychic yes all of which take time unfortunately unless you got information on the person. Then you could threaten to harm or limit/block the person's access to whatever it is they care about.
morals brought us where we are, lets not undermine them
I now am actually convinced that I have not much emotions and only very few times feel emotional cuz i would not hesitate to pull the lever even if there was a person i knew lying on the other track
Perfect timing, thanks Pursuit 💙✨
Did you push someone on the track??
@@gaunle6542 I'm bout high as hell right now and when I read your comment I thought of this video and was like "how the fuck did someone know I watched that video? How are they following me on RUclips and commenting on something completely different that I commented on ??? Because it's the same fucking video 😩😩😩😭🤣🤣🤣
@@QuoixYanni haha😂😂 yeah people think they are anonymous in youtube but they are not. I hope this line won't make you paranoid lol. But you didn't answer my question why is it perfect timing? Did you intend on pushing someone off on the track?
I love how you dig into this question
Switch the tracks then run and try to save the 1 even if I die trying - 2. Even if it was a stranger or loved one, 3. Why push the fat man when you could sacrifice yourself
4. groups, save the lot than the few, but would hesitate being in the involvement, and circumstances
Great video to ponder as usual 😆💗💯👍
That’s exactly what I though 😂if I at least try to save em 2 is still better than 5
I just found this channel and I've started listening to these in a form of podcast way to when I go to sleep. Love the videos! Keep it up!
I’ve never claimed to be a good person. I will always pick my loved ones over others; not gonna lie! Regardless, lives will be lost no matter what you pick so it don’t matter. So just apologize, pick, and move forward confidently because that’s all that you can really do. Also pushing an obese person does not mean the train will stop so that option will not be part of my thinking process😅
I’ve
If a fart begins to radiant in the midst of your nasal passageways then remove yourself from the scenario. If you are the one expressing yourself through farts then farts it is. Remember the one who smelt it delt it even if it isn’t your butt hole who felt it.
8:32 - it is not the same at all. You have the choice to jump. That's 3 options. You're also putting the 1 person in the situation, not observing them already in the situation.
I’d spam the bottom a bunch of times and run off and let chance decide.
For one I didn’t pick 5 people or 1 person I simply spammed the bottom to give them equal opportunity to live.
And two that would leave a less moral blow on my consciousness since I didn’t make a choice but I also didn’t sit back and let it happen
This is by far the most interesting answer to the trolley problem I've ever seen. The reason the trolley problem is hard because not making a choice is still making the choice to kill 5 people instead of 1. Making the choice to pull the lever means you intentionally kill someone. Spamming the button seems like a shitty non-heroic thing to do but it does make it so that you are not at fault for what happens since you didn't intentionally cause it or even knew what was going to happen. It sounded dumb to me at first but when I thought about it I realised this is pretty clever.
@@VI.mp4"Not making a choice" is NOT making a choice - it's a some sort of deception or back rhetoric that it's "still making a choice". It's simply harder to pull off "not making a choice", but it's possible to be wracked by indecision until it's too late. And it's not "choosing to condemn 5 people", it is "failing to make a choice", as in "not making it".
All my life I never thought of this question so seriously... Life truly is mysterious
The awe i feel for the people in power who had to face trolley problems day in day out ... Damn if you do damn if you don't ...
We all feel the same..
Yes
That's why there are mostly psychopaths and people who're only in for personal gain in power, I suppose :D People who have a real morality and conscience would QUICKLY get burned out... But for an uncaring egotist it's just "damned in any case, don't give a shit in any case"
I want to start watching this channel again. It has been sometime
The funny thing about the trolly problem is that it gets easier when you make the one person a loved one, I know my loved ones they would want me to save the other people.
Would the loved ones who wish you to save other people do the same for you, though? Would they condemn you to save other five people?
I think the trolley problem really comes down to how you choose you frame it. You could say that you are condemning 1 person while saving 5, or you could just frame it as you are saving 4 lives by pushing the button, since at least one person has to die regardless of what you do. Additionally, I think you need to consider more than just the life status (i.e. alive or dead) when contemplating your action. You need to consider the quality of life of the people being saved, if you let 5 people die so that the one guy can live then there is a good chance that one guy could get really bad survivors guilt. Don't underestimate the effects of survivors guilt either, he could end up alcoholic, suicidal etc because he survived while 5 others didn't. Conversely I think if you save the 5 people instead of the one the survivors guilt will be much less, because they will all understand that the alternative was a greater number of deaths, a greater number of families deprived of one of their members etc., and it is much harder justify post-hoc 5 people dying instead of 1, that 1 guy would need to be really, really important to a lot of people.
i dont think you have enough time to ponder thoroughly amidst dire circumstances.
What if the president is on one and 5 labourers on the other?
@@sushrutdongargaonkar2073 the problem assumes that you don't know who the victms are.
@BinaryCommunist you are a ****** man, you don't even understand the logic behind the problem. But what else should we expect from someone with a nickname "BinaryCommunist"?
@@sushrutdongargaonkar2073 that’s what the vice president is for. Save the damn workers
This reminded me of an incident in Mahabharat where Karna justifies his actions by explaining how life was unfair to him.
Shree Krishna replies that life is unfair to everyone but that is no excuse to walk on the wrong path.
Note: I don't remember the exact conversation in the story but I think this was the summary of it.
There is a difference between cases where: 1)unfair life BROKE you so your choice is no more FREE, you simply cannot not-choose to do bad things 2)unfair life did not break you AS MUCH as robbing you of free choice, and you, even having heard Krishna's argument, still believe "they shall pay, I want to see the world burn" 3)unfair life did not break you to the point of taking away your free choice, but you had the luck of meeting Krishna and hearing his argument, and it made you a changed person. 4)unfair life did not rob you of moral freedom, but you never was lucky enough to meet Krishna and hear his wise words, so you continue on, believing it is okay to avenge yourself, never having a chance to stumble upon such wisdom yourself ('cause you're not wise)
I would push the button because I KNEW the 5 people. Those I know are priority. Saving lives is always personal.
Imagine you switch the track to only kill one person rather than five, but then you change your mind and switch it back to kill five people...
💀
The music used roughly around the 12:00 mark, the violin music--what song is that? I'd love to hear it in full. I'm hoping there is a full song and not just a sound bite.
Also, I'm working on a theory to argue that the trolley problem is something of a red herring. As best as I can summarize it, we as the universe are a system in pursuit of Goodness, which is the set of perfect states of affairs. We have an abstract understanding of what Goodness is, which is to say we can think of Goodness apart from its imperfect variations experienced in life. The trolley problem isn't just one person's decision; its the universe working its way towards Goodness, battling through imperfection, like a child hitting the wrong keys when learning to play an instrument.
My theory needs work, and this is a very, very truncated version of it, but still, I think I can crack this.
You've helped me to almost logically explain to my family and friends that no one is actually responsible for their morality which I haven't been able to explain quite so. Thanks brother ❤️👊
I think it's even better to question remembering/not remembering the situation, anonymous/being known for the press, or switching places.
“There are no solutions, only trade offs” Thomas Sowell.
Oh! story of Eren from Attack on Titan is actually a really complex version of the trolly problem.
The thought experiment concerning the fat man is the one I find the most informative. Regardless of what your natural inclination is, it does seem valid for a model of inclinations to have some parameter expressing the likelihood that others will condemn your decision. The fat man will actively resist you forcing him onto the track, and even if caught by surprise he will condemn you, and even if he has no time to respond he would condemn you if he could, and others would likely do the same, whereas the person on the track is likely to never know that you were to blame for their situation, and anyone else involved may be less likely to notice, or more forgiving if they did. The inclination doesn't seem influenced by the difficulty of the action itself, since if there was a heavy boulder that you needed to move in order to flip the switch, your action is still likely the same. Then again, what would happen in bizarro world, where pushing the fat man was the well known obvious solution, and you would be condemned if you didn't push him? You probably would still do the same thing you'd do in this world, but what would happen if you spent your whole life in that society? 🤷
You can also point out that the fat man is also being presented with a trolly problem.
One where he is the sole man on the track, but has the ability to sacrifice himself.
Here there isn't as much of a moral issue with switching, everyone agrees that sacrificing yourself for the good of others is virtuous, but sacrifice is hard. Otherwise he wouldn't resist you shoving him.
external condemnation is not part of this thought experiment.
@@CrakenFlux I tend to agree, but once the discussion starts it does become a little difficult to determine the exact paramaters meant to be a part of the decision. IMHO
"we must not forget this either"
that line was really something
I have a 12 year old son. If you had proposed the train thought experiment to me 13 years ago, I would have sacrificed my mom, sister, girlfriend, etc. to save the group of people. Now, I'd let the train hit the group and save my son. I know, when broken down, it's really me just being selfish (by not wanting to sacrifice my son), but I'm at peace with that answer.
the moral responsibility of letting 5 people die (thru inaction) is not on you. Its on whoever set the train in motion at first place.
@@melonusk6120 Absolutely not. The moral responsibility of allowing 5 people to die when you can save them through your actions and at no risk to yourself is a moral choice. It is the choice to allow others to suffer and die.
Palming that off onto someone else is sophistry to avoid addressing the reality that you chose to let others die.
I know the feeling. I have a daughter.
If there are all the people in the world in one track and my daughter on the other, I'd do whatever it takes (switch / not switch), to save my child. I wouldn't even flinch.
@@melonusk6120 that's just cope
@@parzival3632 Yup as a dad I can relate, this would be the easiest decision of my life tbh! Won't even think twice
While switching the tracks how fast does it switch?
What I thought about doing is clicking the button just as the train arrived that while switching the train is not completely on either tracks making it go straight??
Just run towards the people yelling at them so later you can tell the judge that I did best what I could at that moment.
remember you only have 5 seconds, you probably need at least 2-3 seconds to even process the situation, even usain bolt wouldnt make it far by running. Besides the button was right next to you so that‘s kinda a… questionable move
@@Jenny-pc3vr your not understanding. The intention of behaving loudly is to give the impression to onlookers that you are exerting great effort to solve the problem. Even if it is hopeless. Parents do this a lot to there children in order to tell themselves they tried there best.
@@Dogpool Of course I understood. You didnt understand my comment- In THIS situation specifically with the given conditions, trying to run towards the victims while the button was sitting right next to you only makes you seem like a fool. absolutely no one with common sense would buy that ,,I really tried to help‘‘. People would understand if you became frozen in panic, but running towards the victims???
One of the hardest thing that people have a hard time understanding is that sometimes it's more ethical to do nothing. However that becomes foggy and grey as it is also sometimes the worst things to do
Well, at lest there is a difference between bad things to do and not-as-bad things to do. Differentiating them on case-by-case basis must be skill issue then? Moral skill issue
Also, the youtuber wandering tati has a great video about the trolley problem and all its variants
One person has a better chance of jumping away, but 5 people walking on the track are 5 times as stupid as one. Get rid of the 5 and save the world the agony of stupid.
Honestly I'd walk away and let fate take it's course. For all I know those 5 people are bad people and the 1 person is a really good person who will leave the world in a better place than when they found it. I would simply remove myself from the equation and let whatever happens happen
I thought that too at first but if there was no one on the other track then I wouldn’t “let fate take it’s course”. I would change the track to kill no one, so if it’s 5v1 I think I would also take matters into my own hands.
@@roserven same, I agree with that. The main reason I would leave it alone to begin with is because I do not trust my instincts whatsoever and my luck I will have gotten the whole situation wrong and flip a switch killing everybody when had I just left it alone nobody would've died and next thing you know I'm in court for mass murder when I was just trying to save people 😂
Thank you for all the great content. Means a lot.
This is currently applicable to how self-driving cars are programmed. Should the software always protect the driver first?
Radio the train to stop, switch the tracks, wild slowing down and work on getting the one man out
Why did you make the morbidly obese man look like nicacado avocado 😭
I’d love to see this thought experiment paired with the multi verse concept that every decision you don’t make branches off into another universe. So there is the version of you that made the decision and there is the version of you that didn’t. Each decision branches out into another universe.
The real question is, who is putting all these people on the track?
Morality isn’t based on emotions, people just aren’t perfectly moral. We have many natural urges- the urge to do what is morally right, what will personally benefit us most, what will help the people we like or hurt the people we dislike, etc. But that doesn’t mean morality itself is flawed.
This, I agree with what you said.
I have some rendition if you don't mind. (You don't need to accept it)
Morality isn't based on emotions, people, just aren't perfect.
We ought to do something we think is morally right.
Most of the time, we made this decision based on the benefits it would have.
Morality does not really care. It doesn't really change (at least in this world).
We are the ones who have flaws.
"Morality is flexible and based on our feelings and not on our consistent logic".
If this were true, it would mean that morality is a subjective interepretation of one's own logic.
That morality is very difficult to interpret in a common way I can agree with, but that morality is based on one's own feelings seems to me to be a wrong interpretation.
Whether one BELIEVES something is right or wrong does not make it right or wrong.
I love your channel because it makes you think and use your mind. Honestly, the world needs content like on your channel more than we realise.
Morality is neither completely absolute or relative. Its a mixture
"Right" and "wrong" are concepts that only exist in the human mind. The only reason the concepts exist at all is because we _believe_ that the concepts exist.... therefore whether one believes something is right or wrong _does_ make it right or wrong... there is no other way to make it exist other than belief.
.
Thank you.
Simple.
Any scenario without a loved one = I don’t get involved.
Any scenario with a loved one = I do whatever it takes to save the loved one.
At what point do you save the group of stangers? A thousand, a million? More? Never?
What if they're all loved ones?
...
As you were.
@@Joel-pl6lh read it again
@@earnyourimmortality my younger brother first, mom and dad after that, then my other brother
@@Undaglibenglaubengloben At least you're honest!
Here's another addition to that variation: The one person on the other track is the owner of the construction company, who's choice to use cheaper, sub-standard materials is what caused the structure to collapse. The five workers tried to warn him, but he threatened to fire and ruin them. If you don't push that button, he will most likely blame the incident on the workers, get away with it and continue to cause events like this. The truth might come out eventually, but before that, there's a high chance, that many more people will die for his greed. If you push that button, the workers will reveal his actions, and you will always be able to comfort yourself with seeing yourself rather as a tool of poetic justice than as a murderer.
This channel never disappoints
Thank you
There's an easy solution here no one's talking about. You take the one person and move him over with the other five. One stone six birds. Done :3
I've always said,
two birds with one rock,
You have 5 seconds. No time
@@haydencp1 damnit. I guess I'll jump in myself then. Can't let a good trainwreck go to waste
Morality is the scale in which our emotions and logic sit in equilibrium
"Is someone responsible for something if their actions are caused by their past?"
Yes, because they had a choice, and they chose not to take responsibility for what they could change.
Personally, I look at this paradox in two cases, first the original one. I won't flip the switch even if it kills 5 people and save one. My reasoning is not because I tilt towards the philosophy of deontology, or it's not because I will feel guilty because my direct involvement might kill an individual and save 5. I look at this paradox as sort of not looking at the quantity of people I save or killed, but rather as some sort of intervention to a deterministic outcome, flipping the switch or not does not matter, the result will always kill people. People come up to me everytime I said my view on this, they said that the weight of guilt of letting 5 people die is worse than one, but if it happens to me in real life or similar to this, I will always choose not to flip the switch. People always tend to view others or themselves as some sort of hero or someone who encompasses a better moral compass in their life in relation to this paradox, but I don't... I just simply looking at it as you'll kill people anyhow so just don't intervene. It's not like you'll become a hero if you switch.
The second case if there is my loved on one side of the track. I will, with no hesitation, save my love ones. It does not matter if my love one is on the 5 or 1, I will definitely save them.
Does my decision make me a hero? No. Does my decision me a psychopath? Maybe. Does my decision makes me look selfish? Depends on how other look at it. Does my decision make me human? Yes.
"Don't make people into heroes, John. Heroes aren't real, and if they do, I wouldn't be one of them."
-Sherlock Holmes played by B. Cumbercatch
Ps.
I save a life.
Second 😏
Irrelevant
@@JSFGuy shut up🙁
@@lying6163 That's the best you can do? 13 much?
This is why I don't ever feel bad for calling off of work
Greetings, esteemed interlocutor. Your erudite and insightful statement has left me pondering the intricate and enigmatic nature of the universe and its infinite complexities. Indeed, the very fabric of reality seems to unravel before us, revealing a labyrinthine web of paradoxical possibilities that confound even the most astute and discerning minds. It is as if the very essence of existence itself were a recursive loop, endlessly spiraling towards an elusive and ever-shifting truth that forever eludes our grasp. Yet, amidst the bewildering chaos of this cosmic dance, I cannot help but feel a sense of awe and wonder at the sheer majesty and unfathomable grandeur of it all.
This was outstanding! I couldn’t take my eyes off for a second. Thank you!
Now see, I like to be goofy sometimes so ofc I’m like “oh, I’ll just time it so when the tracks switch, it goes in the middle :)” but in reality I know that I would be so stuck on what to do that I’d ultimately do nothing because I’d freeze up and be torn between decisions. I could have an eternity to think about it and still take up that entire infinite time. No matter what, I’m gonna feel guilt. Families and friends will still grieve. I will still have a part in the whole thing and regret my choice no matter what I choose. I think quite a few people (or at least from my perspective) have a very black and white way of thinking (and I’ll admit I’m guilty of doing that too especially when I’m not given time to think) when little do they know there’s a grey area within just about everything. When I have time to think on something, I really REALLY think even if it seems that the decision I chose makes it seem otherwise; or the fact that afterwards I think of thousands of more options I could’ve went with or combined with other options or the one I chose. Kinda like how you had the right answer to a question unknowingly but then second guess yourself and change it only to find out the first one was correct or more favorable. The fact that I second guess myself also plays a part in my ways of thinking and why I always think of so many ideas and/or ultimately just do nothing. I don’t trust myself even if my first options were more favorable because I know the one time I actually go with my first instinct, I’ll be wrong. I’ve thought of myself as a mostly moral person (with some flaws, yes) but whilst talking to an ex of mine about things, I learned that maybe my actions and words weren’t all that justified when you look at both sides. We both have done horrible things but because of my fears, insecurities, and anger/sadness, I feel like I was arguably worse even if he says it’s fine now as long as I also realize what I’ve done and improve myself as he has too. No matter what, I have no excuse to have been so overly attached that I’d mostly ignore his needs for space or so angry at him for turning around and acting like I don’t matter that I end up being cruel in a way even though my intentions were mostly coming from a good place. But him and I have our reasons for doing what we did, good and bad, and sometimes what we [humans in general] intend doesn’t show in words or actions. These are some things that at 19 I’m starting to think and see more when I feel I should’ve seen it years ago. It’s hard navigating life, sometimes morals change but personally as long as things balance out, I think it’ll be alright. Idk though so yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Excellent video. Good, better, bad and worse are merely individual interpretations of circumstances affecting wants, needs, and desires. Our tendency to make a moral, immoral or amoral decision is subjective based on those circumstances and our individual inclination to being well-intentioned, nefarious or indifferent. There are over eight billion people alive today, all with their own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. So even in a civilized society, morality is subject to interpretation by each individual regardless of majority ideals. In a civilized society, most consider cannibalism immoral, but it would only take the collapse of civilization and a diminished food supply to thrust humanity into cannibalism. We are animals and will do whatever survival requires. There is no moral glue holding the universe together.
This is a not so simple video. Yet too simple and too good.
Thanks for this distress.
I wouldn't have touched the switch but ran down to pull the one guy off the track.
Stunning video, thanks!
This racks my brain. Cool video!
Probably my favourite video from you.
One thing needs to be pointed out. As a former train dispatcher, I can tell you that the person in the tower has a radio to contact the train and tell it to stop. When presenting this problem, you need to tell the listener that the tower man has no radio contact with the train to make it a completely moral decision. Even with radio contact or the possibility of taking down signals on the train, the train may not have been able to stop. However, these actions should have been tried first
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Buddhist. He told me that hurting animals is morally wrong and is bad karma. I then asked him how he does then justify eating meat. He said because the animal was killed by someone else and you are just eating it for survival it's not your karma.
"Morality is flexible based on our emotions and not based on our consistency of logic"
The more information there is the more complex the decision-making becomes. Th e problem in today's society is many times we judge our decision making based on X amount of factors when other base their on Y and instead of talking about it, we want to shut down the other.
The takeaway point I've got from this is the concept between the person with a tumour or childhood abuse, neither of which the individual wanted or could have actively changed. The concept for me here obviously is the perception we have of people with mental issues. This seemingly automated negative result towards the individual I believe has a lot to do with what society teaches people about when they have mental issues.
Either way, the individual Coundnt have chosen to have the illness.
What are people's conceptions of this?
My answer is, the lack of education towards how mental health is dealt with isn't up to par. If people could acknowledge nobody has bad parts to themselves that are pure bad, only these parts are just hurt and as a result act on protection reactions.
If somebody had a hurt arm then people's obvious reaction to this would be to apply care and love so the hurt part heals. But when considering the hurt parts of our mental side, nobody looks at the mental side as hurt. The mental side is just "bad" which for me is where education really is required.
The Good Place represented the train scenario perfectly.
In my very humble opinion, thought experiments like this demonstrate that the details always matter the most and there are not one size fits all rules of thumb for every scenario or situation. There is usually another detail that may be added to any situation to alter the scenario, sometimes drastically. We never have perfect information, such as who someone may become in the future. Therefore, I feel the best we can do is the best we can do with the information we have and that every situation will be unique. Thus we many need to alter our accounting of "good" to account for the uniqueness of any given situation and scenario
Like who told these workers to build anything really near a railway. Technically this could have been prevented.
@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 I don't think capitalism asks for permission so I don't think anyone told anyone to not do anything. Someone had money and decided to build where they wanted to, and no one said shit because free dumb
@Cookie MonstA Capitalism doesn't because it is not a person. Though if it was. He would be stupid if he decides to do things such as this.
@@roelsvideosandstuffs1513 This is America ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's stupid because we think in terms other than profits uber alles. Profit is the #1 motive for corporations. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. Humans are just a resource to capitalists
@@BardovBacchus though I agree with that. But it is not really bad to profit. What's bad is being greedy and forgetting important things just for the sake of it.
Officially the most dramatic rendition of the trolly problem 😂. Love you Pursuit of Wonder
I remember we were talking about relationships and cheating at work one day. And one guy told me something that made me think: if you cheat on your partner and feel bad about what you did, you want to come clean and admit to your partner what you did. Then you make yourself feel better by pouring your bad consciousness onto your partner. But he/she is on the bottom of the pit and can't do anything to feel better.
So the best thing to do to pay for your mistake is to shut up and live with your bad consciousness and not punish your partner for your mistake.
I find the tumor part influencing decission making rather interesting. When is someone responsible for their actions? Does having that tumor stop them from being blamed and accused of what could otherwise be perceived as freewill thinking?
The more depending question arrises: do we have freewill in the first place? I don't know, but I think we do not. I think we can neither be praised nor punished for our actions. In the end we seemingly are prisoners suffering from total freedom.
I chose to put this on before bed not knowing how intense the beginning would be .
I believe that moral is something a human create. It's not something absolute.