thoughts?

>>8595879
Choosing option B doesn't kill anyone regardless of the other guy either, and you defer the moral dilemma to some other poor soul. And if by "future trolley problems " You mean exactly the same as in the OP then absolutely choose B because as long as 1 person does B no on ever dies

>>8595879
incredible troll
trolley delays > human life

File: 1471992806329.png (322KB, 1914x828px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1914x828px

>>8595879

>>8596149
I argued this in a room full of people. They didn't like it.

>>8595879
That is fucking stupid. One trolly will be stopped by the people, without killing them?

>>8595879
"Further trolley problems down the road" is meaningless shit

>>8595879
You put a lot of effort into this troll. Choosing B guarantees nobody dies regardless of what the other person does.

Game theory 101 sempai. Finding the Nash equilibrium isn't even hard.

New discussion topic: morality of a fully automated electric car system. An anomoly happens, and a car has to choose between killing two people on the street or swerving and killing the driver of the car. Everybody involved is a more or less morally good, average person for whatever that means to you. How should the car be programmed?

>>8596281
>he doesn't know about trolley tribulations
The ride never ends.

>>8596289
>Choosing B guarantees nobody dies regardless of what the other person does.
No. If the trolleys never stop the potential is there for more people tied to other parts of the track and other agents nailed next to levers to be involved in further trolley problems. To prevent this the trolleys must crash.

There is no guarantee the other guy holds the same value system, nor that they have any agency (the lever may not work for example), and as such there is always a risk they will allow A to happen. If you choose B you must accept that you are merely choosing to not potentially be involved in their deaths. If A that you wish not to be involved in the dilemma on one level, but also that the sacrifice of a few is worth preventing great risk to countless others.

LAST MINUTE BONUS INFORMATION: One of the people apparently tied to the tracks is the psychotic mastermind of the entire scenario. If you save him and the 4 pedophiles he has tied to the tracks they will go on to cause unimaginable levels of harm to millions, starting with yourself and the other guy on the other lever.

>>8595879
>thoughts
a retard who barely grasped game theory wrote that shit.

what thought am I supposed to have? the prisoner's dilemma describes game theory in a coherent and logic manner. this is just some monkey shit smeared on a computer screen.

>>8596339
Woah, are you legit having a spaz over a dumb meme post?

The whole deal is that you get pain from killing the people, pain from having to solve more trolley problems, but pleasure from seeing the other guy have to do more trolley problems. If you pick A they die but stop the trolley. You could both pick B and have the trolleys crash into each other, but it is also in each's interest that the other's trolley doesn't stop as they gain pleasure from their pain.

>>8596174
I argued this with the girl i liked. She kept on repeating "i don't know i would still save the 5". Fucking whore. Turned out she has a bf anyway

>>8596289
It should be programmed to swerve and kill the driver. By purposefully entering the car the driver has accepted the risk of placing his life in the care of a computer, the bystanders have accepted no such risk.