Get 40% off Blinkist premium, only valid until the end of February! Enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1 & start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: https://www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder or scanning the QR code.
In this video, we explore several versions of the popular thought experiment known as the “trolley problem.” These thought experiments bring into question our basic moral intuitions and reveal how complicated things can easily become when all options are bad.
My new audiobook available here: https://pursuitofwonder.com/product/millions-of-little-threads
Pursuit of Wonder books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Robert-Pantano/author/B08DCRJ85C?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
(Also available to more international locations here: https://pursuitofwonder.com/store)
Pursuit of Wonder Newsletter: https://pursuitofwonder.ck.page/newsletter
If you are interested in further supporting the channel,
you can contribute to the Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/pursuitofwonder
Special thank you to our very generous Patreon supporters:
Congruentcrib
Diana Yun
Axel Alcazar
David Piadozo
Landon Enis
Jacqueline Spaile
Martin Cordsmeier
Matthew Sheldon
OnlineBookClub.org
Zake Jajac
Footloose Labs
Alan Stein
Justin Redenbaugh
Christian Villanueva
George Leontowicz
Follow Pursuit of Wonder on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pursuitofwonder
POW Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PursuitOfWonder
source
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: https://www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder or by scanning the QR code.
Well if you drift the train, u should be able to kill all of them
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.
a version of the train experiment should have 15 old ppl on 1 side & 3 babies on the other
This rollercoaster ride of thoughts gave me depression now.
I underestimated this
I feel this is more of a question of rationality and less about morality, being that the whole concept no matter what choice is going to be about rationalizing to yourself which option is better. The concept doesnt give you an option in your beliefs of right and wrong, yes and no's… which is where morals come from, it gives you a "make the best out of a shitty situation" choice. At which point your rationalizing brain kicks in to help decide which option is the best or it just freezes up. Having said that, it's pointless in thinking this whole concept to be a big think. You can't rationalize an unrational topic. At no point ever is some single individual, acting entirely alone, going to just stumble across such a crucial situation no attachment, with only these options at hand or these specific options at all. Might not even have the means to make it happen(example: maybe you can't move the fat guy. Or maybe the train is going to fast for even the fat guy to stop. Cause I don't think most people know exactly how fat a guy has to be to stop a train moving at whatever specific speed. Plus most people wouldnt even look at another human and debate using them to stop a train. Because they most likely cant!)Nor (in the real world) would you know that your choice would have the outcome you thought it would. (Example: track switch looks, feels, and seems in working order. Hell it's brand new. But tracks don't respond and you have no clue till it's too late! Or train hits the people you chose but derails and lands on the other people too or takes out by standers. Or a person you let get hit would have saved millions of people someday). besides to be in this situation for real, your probably somebody that's got some sort of attachment to the problem which means you got yourself there some how and there's going to be more involved in that than just making a rational or moral choice on which is the lesser evil. I'm gonna shut up now though I could say more. But thanks for feeding my own thought experiment with this one.
Interesting video… Didn't know how many variants the trolley problem had lol
To answer your question at the end of the video, AI should always be programmed to be utilitarians to avoid any biases.
If a robot were to do this trolley thing, it'd be for the greater good that they save 5 over 1.
I wouldn’t push the fat man because it wasn’t his fate to die
Those 5 people were already stuck so they would die
In the first case all those 5 people were stuck on the track that is one their end is inevitable
Basically in the first case the 6 people were stuck in an inescapable situation
In the second we push a person to an inescapable situation that they weren’t in
🤔 "I didn't kill one person, I SAVED 4 people" right ? 🧐
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.
It's very simple, morality is a multifaceted lingual construct to explain the normative phenomena and cooperative behaviour in human society which are in fact evolutionary traits that allowed us to survive thus far. To attempt to reduce morality to simple models is akin to doing statistical variable calculus in your head while driving a trolly down a track which happens to have some people tied to it.
My question is what about the train conductor? Doesnt he see the larger blockage on the tracks? Is he not paying attention or doesnt the worker at the switch have a radio contact to the conductor? I have seen many trains brake – or at least attempt to when seeing any type of blockage. Wouldn't it make the conductor the psychopath for seeing a blockage and not even trying to break? Also, why are 6 people just standing on train tracks to be blocked by the collapse in the first place?
Haha not sure this is relevant and it’s fine if people disagree, but if I was the one person on the opposite track and (big) if I understood the situation I was in, I hope I would instead yell “please tell my family I love them and will miss them and Thank you for everything”
The majority of us, would do nothing. We probably wouldn't be able to understand the consequences of actions understand circumstances like that.
But I certainly do wonder what would I do if I did understand.. but I wouldn't and I'd probably hear "switch the tracks" and by instincts switch it. Then live with that dead man's abruptly silenced screams in my head forever.
Edit: and then his family would sue me
There is so much mis-direction here in this endless postulation of different outcomes. The simple fact is that there are endless unforeseeable consequences of flipping or not flipping the switch Therefore consequences cannot be taken into account in your decision making, you are very likely to be wrong whatever your decision if you are using any form of logic in making your decision.
There is however one, and only one consequence of your action that is reality, and that is, if you flip the switch one person will die, if you don't, then five people will die. Do YOU, here and now in this one moment in time, want to kill five people or one person. Future consequences are totally irrelevant as you have no way of judging the rightness or wrongness of those consequences. The only raison d'etre for morality and ethical action in our society are the consequences, and since, in this case, you cannot judge what the consequences of either action will be (apart from the one mentioned) then the morality of the situation is irrelevant.
So, make the decision. Kill one person through your action, or kill five people through your action. Most people would choose kill one person. But at the end of the day is does not matter which decision you make as you have no way of knowing the consequences of either action.
If the one person on the track is the one you love, then the situation is different. In this situation you know with certainty the consequences that will occur to yourself, and almost without doubt the consequences to yourself will be negative. We are biologically programmed to seek out situations that have positive consequences on our lives in order to enhance our self preservation. It is counterproductive to our lives to seek out and perform negative actions, that are detrimental to our well being. Killing the one you love will definitely be detrimental to your well being. In this case, you don't waste time, you flip the switch and kill five people.
This is selfish, you say. No it is not. If we want to live in a civilised society, then we have a responsibility to preserve ourselves in the best condition possible so that we can be a positive contribution to our society in order to do our bit in maintaining the harmony of the society we live in.
"we must not forget this either"
that line was really something <3
I almost wonder what the response would be from law and the public. Say someone pushed the guy to save 5.
Would that make you a hero or would you go to jail for harming a person?
Easy. Empty track. No murder.
Thanks for this distress.
This reminds me of the save a child scenario, pay 100$ to a feed a starving child group, or run into water with new 100$ boots to save a drowning child. This 100$ gifting one is a much easier choice. Good is healthy and happy, bad is sick and suffering. This train scenario is asking weather to change the outcome of an accident caused by poor building management or ? Does the collective consciousness expect us to learn to build better through this accident? It seems obvious to me to save 5 over 1, but choosing who dies is extraordinarily troubling, however women and children first is expected for more life. Especially children, because one thing about all life is it usually wants more life, not less, and as a collective consciousness it seems five is more life than one , but perhaps that one life will somehow save more lives in the unknown future. Maybe thats why creatures freeze when witnessing an accident so as not to change the future implications? More likely it is designed to stay out of the life threatening event and save oneself? Personally I have found that I freeze around extreme danger that will risk my life as well, unless its for my children. I will react to help if instructed or I know I can easily help. Personally the 1or5 I would probably go with sound , who sounds healthy enough to yell loud they will likely be less injured than a quieter life. Follow the sond of the loudest instructions? Maybe, crazy tough choice
We don't know…
Badly used philosophy. Unsubscribed.
You should choose whatever you feel is right, because to say something is morally right or wrong requires there to be someone to judge the behavior, and in this case, the only one who has to live with the choice they made is you. People will choose whatever action will provide them with the least internal suffering balanced with the greatest internal pleasure. It really has little or nothing to do with the other people despite the illusion of such. To make any other choice goes against our biological impulse to survive. Beyond the lives being taken or saved, the most important factor to the decision maker, whether conscious or not, is the emotional, mental, and physical effects said choice will have on them. If letting 5 people die will cause more trauma and turmoil for the decision maker, whether external or internal, then they will make the other choice every time. It's in our nature.
You can only claim that the morality of the situation does not change when your loved one is on the tracks IF you have no greater moral duty to friends/family than you do to strangers. Given how differently we are expected to treat, and in fact largely do treat, family and friends, particularly when in need, I think that most people believe their moral duty is greater to loved ones.
Yes, I'm going to save my child before I save 5000 strangers. I would be sad that the situation could not have been better, and I will empathize with the many people who lost their loved ones on the other track. But I will not accept the guilt of believing it was an immoral action, for the same reason that freely you feed and clothe and house your children but you don't do the same to the many impoverished people in your city.
8:13 Did the guy dirty. Lmao.
Deontology was definitely made up by that one kid that loves to argue for the sake of arguing, what a brain dead idea
What if hypothetically everyone of them is you? And you are watching and experiencing all at same time? Even one person die you die no one knows the problem exists. The problem is with existence not with ethics and morals. They come later eventually when you exist. If you can define the you then we can solve the above problem. Simple..
My answer is Yes
This isn't deep. This is stupid. There is no "good " choice here clearly. This is over thinking a situation to the extreme.
should be:
“you can* barely move.”
not:
“you cant barely move.”
come on people, do better.
Thats what drifring is for
By not choosing you are still choosing something
maybe flip a coin? 😅
This is why I don't ever feel bad for calling off of work