Follow

Pol, caustic 

Reminder that each time some politicians says it's okay to let die peoples to let the economy continue, it also mean we can just kill an handful of billionaires to fund pretty much every projects allowing essentials job to be done safely and to handle everyone in good hospital care :^)

Pol, caustic 

@Miaourt letting die != killing. I would not flip the switch in the trolley experiment.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl Oh, well, it was a kinder way to say "killing" in this case, since that them forcing people to still work under shitty conditions

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl @Miaourt What's the difference, other than your transitory feelings of guilt?

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4 @Miaourt being held responsible for causing an accident in land traffic.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl @Miaourt Fair. But most renditions of the trolley problem don't have a "by the way, if you flip the lever you're legally responsible".

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4 Fair. But most instances of the trolley problem ask you what is the right thing to do, not what you can get away with.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl That's true. So… the politicians are wrong, proof by contradiction?

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl Neither do I.

I think the argument is "if it's okay to take actions that predictably but indirectly cause deaths for cause X, it's okay to take actions that predictably and directly cause deaths for cause X. It's not okay to take actions that predictably and directly cause deaths for cause X, therefore it's not okay to take actions that predictably but indirectly cause deaths for cause X".

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4
My point is, it is ok to take inaction which predictably leads to death of people towards whom the person taking inaction has no obligation.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl That's vacuous, though. Everyone has an obligation to everybody else.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl Okay, strictly speaking that's false, making your statement not vacuous. But *by default*, everyone has an obligation to everybody else.

The reasons for that are BIG, but a small post-hoc justification is "if that's the case, the world is better off; therefore, it's the case".

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4
I disagree.
Moreover, I question your ability to reliably determine if the world is better off.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl Which is better? The world where people help each other out, or the world where they shun each other?

I mean sort of… if everyone owes each other a small favour by default. Not "you must give the shirt off your back to strangers". Small obligation, not massive obligation.

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4
Which world is better off: one in which you expect that everyone owes you a favour, or one in which you don't expect it, but everyone gives you a small favour on first interaction, because, it is in their best interest?

Tit-for-two-tats isn't the best strategy because people feel obliged to follow it.
It is the best strategy because even if you are completely selfish, it will bring you the most benefit in the long term, by opening opportunities for cooperation.

Pol, caustic 

@wolf480pl The second one. I think we've just got different names for the same thing.

In which case, I still don't see why you wouldn't hit the lever in the trolley problem.

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4
Because it's not my lever.

Pol, caustic 

@wizzwizz4
If I interact with the rail infrastructure, I become responsible for all the consequences this leads to.

If I don't interact with the rail infrastructure, and I am not responsible for the consequences of that switch being set one way or another.

Now, if my job was to operate the rail infrastructure, that'd be another story. But it isn't.

Show more
Sign in to participate in the conversation
RaRuRe

A cool community, I guess.