How would you adapt this picture in to a film?

>>86868924
It's the x-men series
>C is humans
>B is mutants
>A is magneto and raven
>person in question are the x-men

>>86868924
So if we both pull the lever it ends up on B?

File: 1482880792157.jpg (64KB, 897x334px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 897x334px

How would you solve this?

>>86869353
i like this one

>>86868924
>>86869353
I would walk away and say "not my problem"

>>86868924
Isn't Saw kind of like this?

>>86868924
Don't pull anything. The only deaths in this scenario I could be directly responsible for is either 2 people total on B, or 4 people total on A, so I choose 2 by not pulling.

The only way all those people on C die would be the man at A pulling the lever, which puts the responsibility on him, not me. In a way, if he pulled that I would be responsible for 0 deaths total. So my choice is really kill 2 people, with a chance that I might kill 0 bundled with that. That's a lot better than killing 4 people.

>>86869353
lol who cares they ded

Why don't they just roll off the tracks?

>>86871318
I can't do anything because I'm tied.

>>86869353
Though I think the question posed is kind of irrelevant, the panic of waiting for a train to hit you overrides the pain of witnessing death, I'd still pick the same option and kill the 5 people first. Even if the pain is comparable you're giving mercy to more people quicker that way.

>>86868924
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y
Isn't Snowpiercer the closest thing to a movie about a scenario like this? He has to constantly choose about left or right. It even takes place on a train.

>>86868924
Snake eyes

>>86871448
This is too wholesome for this website.

>>86868924
Someone else's problem.

>>86868924
The egalitarian decision would be to save the most amount of people possible, so save C. I will do my best to live with that decision.

>>86871592
shut the fuck up website expert

>>86871225
You are complicit in him pulling the lever, since you could have stoped him from killing more people than you could havr saved.

>>86871663
But if A operates by the same logic you'd be killing more people than necessary since he wouldn't pull his lever.

>>86871742
I don't know if he is going to pull it or not and you can't expect me to waste time debating the merits of "if" when I know there are 10 people I can instantly save on my own.

>>86871737
I'm not responsible for his decision he made with free agency. If my decision makes me technically complicit I don't think that word carries any moral weight.

>>86871883
>if I watch someone commit a murder, that doesn't make me complicit ;)
Yeah, Yeah, "don't tread on me" and all that, right Mr. Fiscal conservative, socially libertarian?

File: Untitled.png (160KB, 716x535px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 716x535px

>>86868924

File: 1459207959640.png (11KB, 191x234px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 191x234px

>>86871448

>>86868924
It's literally none of my business, I have no relationship to any of these people.
I'd let the man at A pull the lever to save his wife and kid.

someone post the goats one

>>86871953
>if I watch someone commit a murder, that doesn't make me complict
In what world does it? You might be expected to report it to the authorities and cooperate in an investigation but that's it. If you witness a robbery you aren't charged with theft. There's no option in the hypothetical to run over and tackle the guy at A preventing him from pulling it so that only his wife and kid die. My only power rests with the lever I'm given in a cruel twist of fate I had no control in beforehand.

>>86872062
>t. sociopath with little regard for human life.
The point is that you can't leave the scenario, retard. You need to choose.

>>86871807
But if he wouldn't have pulled it then you didn't save any of the people at C since they weren't ever in any danger.

>>86871997
I'd pull that lever so fast I'd rip a tendon in my arm.

>>86869231
no

>>86872086
Right, and in the parameters of a thought experiment where it is assumed you either have to pull the lever or don't, leaving the scenario is not one of the options...which makes you complicit if you do nothing.

>>86872105
I did choose you retard, I'd let the man at B pull the lever. Please explain how it's sociopathic to let a man save his wife and kid versus directly killing his wife and kid in front of him.

>>86872124
...again, how do you know he won't pull it to save his wife and child?

>>86872184
Because you are unfeeling about the deaths of 10 people?

>>86868924
I would do nothing. I can't justify making two extra people die based on what someone else 'might' do.

>>86872137
So why the hell wouldn't anybody just pull the lever? I'd kill millions if it meant my family, especially my kid(s), survive, Stupid scenario

>>86872187
He might. But he might not. Yes, you're gambling with the life of more people by pulling, but the best possible scenario as far as least loss of life goes requires you to pull

>>86872257
>I would kill millions to save my kid
I'm sorry that tribalism has fucked your brain up that bad, you would be a poor human being then.

>>86872257
It's not your family you spaz.

>>86872268
*by not pulling that is

>>86871501
>Every Meme a Reddit

>>86872217
Human life isn't a numbers game.
Either way people are dead, I'm not going to kill a wife and kid in front of their husband/dad, or kill a husband/dad in front of a wife and kid.

>>86872268
>but the best possible scenario as far as least loss of life goes requires you to pull
Which is literally what I said.

>>86872288
Tribalism is core to what it means to be human.

>>86872152
I'm not doing nothing though, I acknowledge inaction equates to action in this scenario. If the two people died I said I would be directly responsible. The optional possibility of all those people on C dying though rests with the man at A. The only decisions I have agency in are killing 2 people, or killing 4 so I choose 2.

>>86872279
It's irrelevant if the trolley is the same trolley by the end because either way my actions caused the man to be run over by a trolley

>>86872288
At that point I couldn't possibly care less

>>86872307
You're right, I miss read. In that case, I do nothing

>>86872319
>Human life isn't a numbers game
I don't know where this pseudo-Christian meme comes from. If I have to choose between saving 10 people or 4, I will automatically choose the largest number for minimal loss of life. It is literally the most sensible and logical choice.

>>86872333
>>86872308
I meant not pull. Since the best possible scenario is 2 people dying only, not 4 which would happen guaranteed if you pulled.

>>86872288
im sorry you have been brainwashed so much you cant understand what a family is.

File: flat,800x800,070,f.u5[1].jpg (71KB, 800x562px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x562px

>>86871753

>>86872348
Tribalism is literally an offshoot mess of genes that don't apply to a world filled with billions of people anymore.

>>86872383
So you'd save 10 homeless men over 4 world renowned Doctors?

>>86872319
That's not a decision you have the ability to make in this scenario. The only way the train goes towards C is if the other guy pulls his lever.

>>86869353
If you don't see them die they are neither dead nor alive.

Run away

>>86872423
Then why has every mass migration in history always completely fucked over the native inhabitants?

>>86872425
Ten people don't become less people if they are homeless. The goal of any crisis intervention is "action with minimal loss of life". Every time, I am going to pick 10 over 4.

>>86872426
Well then I'd bank on the idea of self preservation in others, and pull the lever, hoping that the man at A also pulls his lever.

>>86872463
Because your brain is fucked by /pol/ and that isn't really true. I'm sure that rustles your jimmies though.

>>86872423
>tribalism is an offshoot mess of genes
what?

>>86871997
>not pulling
>you or your wife and her son die
>pulling
>kill some random people
no brainer m8

>>86872466
That's dumb. You're supporting people that are a burden on society, over people that can save many lives. Your direct actions have a long term negative effect.

>>86872463
>literally not what he was talking about

>>86871448
lmao

>>86872539
Fuck off you social Darwinist Nazi faggot. I don't have the right to judge a person's long term worth. I can only play a numbers game and pick a decision with the least amount of casualties.

>>86872506
>Because your brain is fucked by /pol/ and that isn't really true.
It'll be easy for you to cite a miss migration that hasn't then.

>>86871753
trying to picture the autistic neckbeard that made this

>>86872530
It's not your family you spaz.

>>86872589
You judge a person's worth every day you look at someone, you absolute faggot.
You just do the numbers game because you want to sleep easy and night and can't handle tough decisions.

>>86872591
>prove a negative to my /pol/ meme
Your entire premise is somewhat autistic and you can't even see why. What are you constituting "mass" migration? You realize that 9 times out of 10, it boosts an economy of that country? Bringing in low paying work that builds up the lower middle classes?

>>86872530
>you or your wife and her son die
Nice try.

>>86872589
You don't need a right to judge that.

>>86872589
You're still judging their worth, you're just arbitrarily judging them to be equally valuable.

>>86872423
Selfishness is what it means to be human. At the end of the day everyone looks out for number one, no one is truly selfless deep down. How would saving a million people I don't know help me as opposed to my own family?

>>86872510
Tribalism is the result of evolutionary traits that were best suited for small community management. Technology

>>86872653
>You realize that 9 times out of 10, it boosts an economy of that country? Bringing in low paying work that builds up the lower middle classes?

This. Get rid of borders. The economy is your god.

>>86872719
Why do we not need to manage small communities anymore?

>>86872555
This

>>86872653
If you think that asking for an example of something you claim to have happened is asking you to prove a negative then you're even more retarded than I thought.

>>86872423
Thats not how genes work, they dont just stop being relevant when you want them to

>>86872653
He's not asking you to prove a negative, just fine one single example.

>>86871448
kek

>>86872641
>you just do the numbers game because you want to sleep easy and night and can't handle tough decisions.
For some reason it autistically bothers you that I will choose 10 over 4 each time because of some goofy social Darwinist meme logic of "personal value" of maybe the 4 are doctors or something and yet you can't seem to see how you are incorporating the same logic you condemn, you are arbitrarily choosing worth based on your feefees.

I'm not, faggot. 10 people are worth more than 4 if it is between a loss of 4 people or a loss of 10.

File: Kierkegaard problem.png (98KB, 1042x804px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1042x804px

What was the answer to this anyway?

>>86872759
Because nobody in the first world actually functions in small communities.

>>86872824
>For some reason it autistically bothers you that I will choose 10 over 4
This part of the post would make a lot of sense if you weren't the one that started this whole debate in the first place

>>86872824
>10 people are worth more than 4 if it is between a loss of 4 people or a loss of 10.
Only once you pre-judge them to all have equal worth, which is ideological, not logical.

>>86872774
Because I'm not making the initial claim you fucking retard, you did. Mine was a counter claim, you first have to prove your /pol/-tier premise on mass migration. All I said was, no.
>>86872805
He literally is...

>>86872879
I don't think you know what ideological means.

>>86872903
>He literally is...
He literally isn't, you are the one doing this.
You're trying to force him to prove that every single mass migration was terrible instead of just providing a single example when it was not.
You dense fuck

>>86872855
But that's not true. Most of the first world still lives with a family, has a friend group at school, gets a few select roommates, works as part of a smaller team at work, etc. I can't think of a single significant thing people accomplish alone besides a few outlier geniuses or in a huge groups without subdivisions. Those genes developed in the first place because they were useful and effective for humanity, we got the genes then started living in them. We weren't living in them then got the genes.

>>86872866
I'm not.

>>86871448
W H O L E S O M E

File: Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg (29KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x240px

>>86872929

>>86872950
>You're trying to force him to prove that every single mass migration was terrible instead of just providing a single example when it was not.
Which is proving a negative, kid.

>>86872224
lmfao

>>86868924

The answer to this is, as always, multi-track drifting.

>>86872824
Well it wouldn't be based off feefees at all, would it? It'd be a logic based decision with the central goal of making the most net positive outcome to society. Granted people can have flawed logic, but that's different than operating based off emotion.

>>86872854
Why does it say that orphans will die if you go right, even though you save 30? Also is this crafted for this website only as it's using the term "leftie" as this board is more right leaning to dissuade them from going left which is logically a far better choice?

>>86872965
so you're just an idiot that took over after the last idiot decided to take an issue with the first person
you're still as autistic as the person you're claiming to be autistic

>>86872110
deserves a jej

>>86872224
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMb7IBKSdtM

>>86872824
How do doctors fall under "Personal value"?
By choosing to save these 10 homeless men, the 4 doctors will die, every patient they would have saved now won't be saved by them. (Resulting in more people dying)

Ergo you have caused a negative effect by not saving them.
People aren't worth the same at all.
I'll give you a scenario, poofter.

There's a Red button and a Blue button, a Red chair and a Blue chair. A timer will countdown from 10 to 0, if it hits 0 a bomb located underneath your chair goes off, resulting in your death. Pressing the Red button results in the Red chair blowing up, which has a doctor sitting on it. (You know this information.) Pressing the Blue button results in the Blue chair blowing up, which has a homeless man sitting on it. (Again, you know he's homeless)

What do you do? Do you kill yourself by doing nothing? Kill the doctor by pressing the red button, or kill the homeless man by pressing the blue button?

>>86872929
>I don't think you know what ideological means.
Why not? The notion that all lives are equal pertains to a particular political ideology. It's ideological.

>>86872992
What you are doing is asking him to prove a negative because you're unable to provide a single example.

>>86872964
I don't think you understand the issue. Small knit relationships in microcosms, now exist in a technologically interconnected global world of communication, where you and your roommate live in an ocean of millions of other roommates you don't even know about.

Globalization of markets and technological advances have literally changed the game.

File: dark10.jpg (37KB, 1024x427px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1024x427px

>>86868924
This thread is full of idjits.

The trolley problem is already part of many films in more or less analogous ways.

For example, in "The Dark Knight" it’s literally the Joker who ties his victims (people on the boats) down to the main track, and then ties himself down to the side track in order to give Batman the fatal choice, and wait for his reaction, because he perfectly knows about Bruce’s inner conflict; it’s just a game to him.

>>86873060
I'm not the one who made an initial claim, my slow newfriend.

>>86872977
R E D D I T

>>86873051
Not that guy but kill the homeless, next question

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-25 at 6.20.52 PM.png (89KB, 644x359px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 644x359px

What should a self-driving car do in this case?

>>86873055
>The notion that all lives are equal pertains to a particular political ideology
Let me guess, I'm a liberal cuck because I think all human life has equal value under the law?

>>86873147
Self-destruct

>>86872903
>Because I'm not making the initial claim you fucking retard, you did. Mine was a counter claim, you first have to prove your /pol/-tier premise on mass migration. All I said was, no.
In which case you're asking ME to prove a negative. Do you even know what that means?

>>86873055
>he doesn't understand how logically speaking, it only makes sense to judge all human life as equal value. Specifically for problems like this.

>>86873183
I feel like you are legitimately retarded, your claim was that masd migrations fuck up native countries all the time. Prove it faggot. Telling me to disprove it, is a negative.

Jesus fuck, is nu-/pol/ really this dunb now?

>>86873198
It is illogical to think that all human life has equal value.

>>86873064
But the small relationships do still exist and are effective. The only thing communication technology has done is changed how different tribes communicate with each other and how some of us form them

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
Have fun

>>86872378
I think the burden is shifted onto the people actively creating a trolley on the path to murder someone
unless it's automated by robots, then you're back to square one

>>86873248
No it isn't, /pol/.

>>86873147
What?

>>86872805
thee first immigration to germany when the italians greeks and turks came

prove me wrong with actual arguments

>>86873198
>logically speaking, it only makes sense to judge all human life as equal value
A 105 year old man with no relatives laying on his death bed is worth the same as a pregnant woman single mother of 5 kids who is nearing a breakthrough in cancer research that will save the life of millions. logically only makes sense to judge them as equal value.

>>86868924

A has to die, I'd pull that shit so fast. The husband can even get out of the way, so only 3 total deaths.

>>86873291
Logically support your claim that a man who murders babies for fun has equal worth to you.

>>86873324
There is legitimately some people that think this, disgusting.

>>86873254
They aren't as effective, look I'm not going to go on a rant about evolutionary biology in human social structures. Just read a fucking book on tribalism in the modern world.

>>86873110
Proving a negative isn't about who made the first claim.
It's about forcing your opponent to disprove every single possible scenario to your argument instead of proving any proof of it in the first place.
You are asking him to provide evidence of how every single mass migration event resulted in something awful instead of providing evidence of a single one that hasn't.

>>86873154
Are the life of 10 ISIS terrorists more worth than the life of four 8-year-old girls just because they are more in number?

>>86868924
I'd greenlight killing a million people if it meant saving my wife, tbqh.

>>86873370
Aren't as effective as compared to what?

>>86873154
Well a) we're not talking about the law and b) you can call your ideology whatever you like, but it's still an ideology.

>>86873312
Ok, now direct that post to the actual person you were talking to this time. Since I was merely calling you out on your inability to understand what proving a negative is.

>>86873324
So what is the goofy as shit alternative? To set up a "moral committee" to judge the post-worth of every person who may or may not die like some sort of Nazi SS purity board?

>>86873456
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.

>>86873417
>every decision I don't like, has to be ideological.

>>86873110
What does that have to do with proving a negative?

>>86872288
>t. doesn't have a kid

>>86873371
>Proving a negative isn't about who made the first claim
Are you larping as an idiot?

>>86873456
Or you could just leave it to the same processes which all of our other ideas about morals and worth come from. Or just take some agency for yourself.

>>86873312
You're going to have to be more specific.

>>86873505
He's right though, if you think every life is the same, that's ideological. A mass murderer is not equal to a teacher.

>>86873543
Look, I'm completely separate from this one, but if one person says something is bad literally every single time and you say nuh-uh, you should probably be able to come up with an example since you only need the one to prove him incorrect.

>>86873517
>What does an initial claim have to do with me wanting you to prove its negative?
Reddit really did ruin this place.

File: 1488485923663.png (234KB, 545x530px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 545x530px

>>86873103
movies often have choices like these, but they always find a way to avoid having to make them

>spiderman, will you save mary jane or this bus full of people, you can't save both
>I'll just save both, lol
it would actually be refreshing to see a protagonist unapologetically saving his love interest over a bunch of random people

>>86871018
unironically this

>>86873591
I'm not saying "nuh uh". I am saying prove it.

>>86873612
Batman did this in Dark Knight since he went to save Rachel. The Joker just switched them around.

>>86873571
What if you have to choose between
A) a cute girl or
B) three people who aren't criminals, but they're all kinda dicks

>>86873505
Who said I didn't like the decision? Assigning worth based on how productive someone is is just as ideological. I don't take issue with your principles so much as I take issue with the idea that it's purely logic based.

>>86873628
To prove that though he would need to address literally every single mass migration in history. In reality it's just an argument over a general principle/ rule of thumb but to deescalate to that all it takes is one counter example.

>>86873571
>He's right though, if you think every life is the same, that's ideological
No it isn't. You just want this to be true because your brain is warped to think the extreme opposite is true. Get off of /pol/ and realize that you have no concept of what Darwin even meant.

>>86873639
I'd pick my future wife.

>>86873669
Be nice if he could back up the general principle. It's almost like the premise is stupid..

>>86873383

This is why you can't be trusted and I'm pulling the lever.

No offense senpai I'm going going to bear a terrible burden for this.

>>86873543
So let me get this straight, you genuinely think that proving a negative is about who made the claim first and you're calling other people idiots in defence of that belief?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA AHA H

>>86873671
Why the fuck do you keep bringing up Darwin?
I haven't been on Pol in like 2 years since I visited it that one time.

Stop saying "Darwin" over and over again, he was wrong about a lot of shit.

Your argument is basically "Nu uh, you wrong, stop being Polman."

>>86873051
Blue button ezpz

>>86873713
ok but this has been like some kind of weird semantics argument for 20 posts

>>86873640
Saying I want to save 10 people over 4 based on numbers is as logical as you can get. Sorry you aren't mentally developed enough to understand how that isn't an ideological decision.

>>86873682
What if you know she won't reward you with sex and you will never receive any tangible benefits

>>86873683
To properly demonstrate this I'll need 97 more levers

>>86873727
I am convinced you literally don't know what proving a negative is or means.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

>>86873784
kek

>>86873612
Infamous. There's part of the game where you have to either save your girlfriend or 10 doctors.
If you save the girlfriend she never stops hating you
the good ending for that game is ending up completely alone, alienated from the society you saved

>>86873775
I'd inquire for more information, are the other three male, females, or a mix?

File: c7714a494c.jpg (67KB, 598x543px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 598x543px

Don't do it. Consequences will never be the same.

>>86873722
That's fine, since I'd be dead too. Otherwise, I'd find you and chop your limbs, toung, and eyes out. No offense.

>>86873747
Not my fault.

>>86873809
I played it recently, you actually get memed.

If you try and save your girlfriend, it tons out she was on the other roof.

>>86873815
Let's say that you don't know the gender of the other three people. You just know that a lot of people consider them to be a little unpleasant to be around.

>>86873671
Is a man in a coma equal to a man who isn't?
If one has to die which one should it be?

>>86873857
Neither.

I fucking love these threads.

>>86873545
What are you even on about?

>>86873823
Assuming there's any serious possibility of me getting sentenced because of my actions in the original problem where I clearly was not at fault for anything, I'd kill the jurors out of spite

>>86873848
wow I completely forgot about that. Explains why I don't remember her in the rest of the game.

File: 201607221946411006167005.png (5KB, 238x212px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 238x212px

>>86873837

>>86873823
>Kill a lawyer
>Don't have to pay him
>Jurors choose to acquit me for saving their lives
Pretty clear choice there.

>>86873837

I'll adopt a street in your honor and kill your wife if she ever dates a black guy.

You have my word.

>>86873853
Hmm, I'd save the 3 then. I only know the cute girl is cute, for all I know they're all unpleasant.
If I had more information about the people my answer might change.

>>86873382
>>86873345
>MUH SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND PLEADING!
>CHECKMATE!

>>86873874
One HAS to die, which one do you choose?

>>86873964
You said all lives were equal.

>>86873922
Yeah, the reason why she hates you if you end up saving her, is because she knows you basically tried to save the other people and not her.

>>86873051
>People aren't worth the same at all.
>due to these special circumstances
>((((tips)))

File: 1482869287105.png (2MB, 2439x2475px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2439x2475px

>>86873891

>>86873051
Killing myself saves 2 people, so I do nothing.

>>86873964
>my philosophy doesn't have to hold up against the most obvious counter arguments possible!

>>86873891
Me too. I love the images that blend the trolley problem with other well-known problems like >>86873683

>>86874006
That doesn't change how your argument is nothing but pleading.

>>86873802
You should really read that and/or re-read that. Where the burden of proof lies and what the nature of a claim is are two completely different things. You can argue that the burden of proof lies with me, but that doesn't mean you can argue that you're not asking me to prove a negative. They're not mutually exclusive.

>>86874019
Hey man I gave him fair options, kill yourself, kill a homeless man or kill a doctor.
Either it inspires morality or causes him to realise his thinking is odd.

>>86873935
>students hating on trolley problems

That's, like, the best part of taking ethics.

>>86874063
Yes, that egalitarian humanism is just a fad. I'm sure I'll get over that phase any day now.

>>86874045
Noble decision, in reality I don't think 99% of people would make this choice. Would you honestly do this or is this grandstanding?

>>86874086
>my argument cannot hold up under the weight of simple scrutiny

>>86869353
He's pretty close to that solo guy. I'd send it over the five and untie him

>>86874130
I honestly would because of the morals I choose to live by. I'd hate it, but I couldn't allow myself to let two people die.

>>86873912
You're acting like the only way societies or even individuals can come up with ideas and general principles about worth, morals, or anything else are by groups of official committees that are present whenever someone has to make a decision. Do you need a moral committee to instruct you every time you enter a store to determine whether you want to rob it or not? No. You as an individual and even whole societies don't need moral committees to make a judgement about the worth of peoples to function.

>>86873110
Do you make the claim that mass migration has worked out well for native populations, or do you now remain agnostic about the matter?

>>86874130
I'm suicidally depressed, so there's not much stopping me from killing myself anyway other than how devastated my mother would be. If I can spin my death as some sort of heroic choice, she won't feel nearly as bad.

>>86874045
X: Doubt

Who else would kill the most people in order to lower the population, just to further their own goals?

>>86874088
>but that doesn't mean you can argue that you're not asking me to prove a negative.
I'm not, you retarded fucking cunt. Eat shit.

>>86874125
What does the amount of dedication you have to your retardation have to do with anything you just said or that I just said?

>>86873754
I've explained to you why it's ideological, a claim you've been unable to refute.

>>86874177
watch yourself on that edge

>>86874138
Pleading isn't an argument, friendo.

>pull levers at the same time
>train explodes and conductor dies

>>86874205
>He cares about faceless whos

>>86874204
No you didn't. You just said it was true and then screeched a bit.

>>86874219
Its not pleading. You said all lives are equal, was Hitler equal to Martin Luther King Jr.?

>>86874086
It's a condition your philosophy has to be able to address. It's the whole fucking point of it. You say all people are of equal worth. I say here's a situation where that would obviously be questionable to most people. Do you say the same and why?

>>86874245
One was a mediocre artist, and the other was a plagiarizer, both shit desu.

/tv/ - armchair & philosophists

>>86874245
inb4 edgy /pol/-tier responses

>>86874245
>>86874262
>if I repeat special pleading enough times, I'm make him think egalitarianism is silly.
>dudebro! Hitler isn't nice like MLK! Checkmate! You dumby!

>>86874295
>Philosophists

>>86874315
Greentexting does not make you win an argument, you're losing. You won't even engage because there is no response, because you know that your ideology is retarded.

>>86874201
>calling egalitarianism
>retarded
Don't cut yourself on that edge.

>>86871753
the left can't meme

>>86874356
I'm calling you retarded. I think an intelligent egalitarian could defend his beliefs much better.

>>86874354
>he really thinks egalitarianism is retarded
>because anons won't engage him in trap plead arguments

>>86868924
As long as i have no connection to group c, id let the other dude decide

>>86874410
>Try more greentext next time faggot.

>>86874391
Maybe I just don't want to indulge you?

>>86873307
underrated

>>86874244
If you can point toward a reason to assign equal worth to every human that's not ideological then feel free.

>>86874136
This one's easy.
If you chose to switch at first from wherever it was going originally, then yes, switch again.
If not, then obviously you wouldn't switch the second time, either.

>>86874449
I'm becoming more indulged in smugness that you can't address the most obvious counterpoint to your position than I am by being robbed of your delightful insights.

>>86874465
Saying some lives have worth over others is literally ideological.

>>86874440
>okay, keep saying retarded /pol/shit you edgy teenaged cunt.

>>86871997
I pull the lever and jump out of the way of the trolley.

>>86874562
Why is saying a chef has more worth to society than an ISIS member ideological?

>>86874465
How would you differentiate between, say, a wealthy hedge fund manager who donates generously to charity and a hardworking, intelligent inner-city schoolteacher? Who has more "value"?

>>86874614
Because you are assigning personal subjective worth onto other people based on a scale that you already agree with. It is literally all ideologically based.

>>86869353
AS the single person is killed, the other 5 are viewing from an outside perspective, it can add to the illusion of watching a movie and will remove some of their empathy. One singled out vs 5 will instinctively pull a pack mentality into the back of their minds. It wouold help to cope during the wait for the train to make that sharp turn.
Is that a trolly car?

Can I derail the trolley?

>>86871225

Inaction is an action, you are already part of the scenario. You could have stopped nine death, by not pulling the lever you allowed him to murder them.

File: battler strikes again.png (13KB, 233x22px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 233x22px

>>86868924
I don't get it.

File: 1465401721108.gif (2MB, 320x228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x228px

>>86868924
>If you pull the lever first
>Implying the other guy didn't pull it while you were reading the rules

>>86874542
Tell me how you differentiate worth? Tell me why you have that authority to judge subjective worth? Tell me why no matter how hard you believe in your own set of standards, how it isn't arbitrary.

This is like, baby's first philosophy class. No adult actually thinks this.

>>86874621
Based on that I would request more details be found out. I'd have to debate myself about the worth of charity and its effects, look into the teacher's accomplishments as a teacher, how many she teaches, all that. It's a difficult process but it could be done based on my logical framework. I don't see many scenarios where I'd have to choose, culling helpful people on a whim because one is less so than the other helps nobody, but I could decide who has more worth, sure. Why not?

File: tom-baker-4th.jpg (33KB, 570x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 570x400px

>>86868924

C is the white race.
B are Muslims and blacks.
A is the Democratic party.

>>86874664
I come up with the shit on the fly, I don't have an ideology, so I can't see how it's ideologically based.

>>86874163
My claim was a counter, the initial claim needs to be substantially proven first.

>>86874737
Well given the scenario of the trolley what gives me the authority is being the one with my hand on the lever and the lives on the line. Even if my standards were arbitrary if you boiled it down enough I don't see why it would be wrong to follow them provided I do so consistently and with good intent. It could backfire on occasion and lead to negative consequences, but those would be arbitrarily assigned too, wouldn't they? And assigning equal worth to everybody is not a consequence free action either.

>>86874760
>I'd have to debate myself about the worth of charity and its effects
Lol do you?
>but it could be done based on my logical framework
It only works if you incorporate arbitrary qualifiers into your decision in order for your own "logic" to work.

>>86869353
>>86868924
Clearly the only moral choice here is to throw yourself in front of the train in solidarity with the other victims

#refugeeswelcome

Anyone else find it interesting these moral dilemma threads took off right around the time Whites are being asked to burden themselves and their way of life with "refugees" because of some made up moral ideal?

Almond status: Activated

>>86874847
Alright, so you admit it is arbitrary and based on your own personal ideological decisions? Got it.

>>86874883
>>>/pol/

File: chibita1.png (60KB, 500x125px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x125px

>>86873103
>idjits

>>86871448
>forcing a train full of commuters to add extra time to their traveling just for your own entertainment

>>86874686
I agree with you about inaction vs action, by not pulling the lever I'm making myself potentially responsible for 2 deaths. But I "allowed him to murder them" is wrong. By not pulling the lever I've allowed him to make the decision to murder the 9 or not.

Based on what you said I am equally responsible if 2 people die, if 4 people die, or if 9 people die. Why would I be wrong in choosing the scenario where only the 2 might?

>>86873307
lmao

>>86874963
>A piano falls on one of these people due to the extra time you took to wave at them, you killed a person.

>>86874562
I know. I've literally made that assertion myself. What's your point?

>>86874903
I could see how you might come away thinking you proved something if you ignored every other part of my posts except the bits you wanted to see.

You have two options:
1) You pull the lever and 5 people die. After that, the trolley continues on unimpeded and nobody else dies.

2) You pull the lever and 1 person dies. HOWEVER, further on down that path there is another fork. A person who you know to be a sociopath is manning another lever. If he pulls it, 25 people will die. If he doesn't, nobody else will die. You are reasonably sure that he is willing to pull the lever.

Do you send the trolley on track 1, knowingly condemning exactly 5 people to die or track 2 where 1 person will definitely die and perhaps many more depending on what the sociopath does?

>>86873935
tldr

>>86875033
That one of us isn't doing that...

>>86874621
Dunno.

>>86872224
>the feminist's dilemma

>>86874955
>>>/reddit/

>>86875034
I did prove something, maybe you just aren't as smart as you think you are?

>>86875061
Isn't doing what?

>>86875083
Woah, good one! Only reddit and /pol/ exist in your vaccuum of autism!

File: humanaccomp.png (81KB, 1237x1017px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1237x1017px

>>86874883
>Anyone else find it interesting these moral dilemma threads took off right around the time Whites are being asked to burden themselves and their way of life with "refugees" because of some made up moral ideal?

I'm anti-refugee and anti-immigration, but trolley problems started getting into popular discourse about fifteen years ago (they have been discussed in academia since the 60's) and only really started to get mainstream popular being referenced in movies in the last 5 years or so.

It's not because of refugees, besides I would argue that whites would be the more important ones to save if they were on the track even if it killed more refugees on the other track because whites have literally given us 99% of scientific achievement and having more white people living safely in thieir own nations not getting run over with trucks, raped, or suicide bombed by Muslims means they have opportunties to create more wonders which in the end they use to benefit the entire human race.

Source for pic: Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 (2003)

>>86868924
idris elba as the lever

>>86874760
Let's say you have 1 minute to decide. All you know is what I've been told. And you must chose. There is no "default" option". If you don't choose, 1 million innocent people (including your family, friends, and everyone else you know) will die instead.

>>86875153
but muh islamic golden age

>>86875153
>I'm anti-immigration
Then you are stupid and don't like successful economies?

>>86875000

Because seven less people die you don't pull the lever and he pulls his. Which means you would have saved seven if he does pull it, additionally since his wife is on the track you can reasonably guess he will probably will pull the lever.

>>86875117
>saying some lives have worth over others is literally ideological

>>86874686
inaction is inaction. Fucking retard

>>86872555
Underrated post, also check'd

>>86875191

Let me clarify; I'm anti-Muslim/anti-Black immigration. Without immigration from MENA areas multiculturalism would have worked. Bring in all the Japanese and British and Sihks and Buddhists possible, etc.

File: 1454436905261.jpg (46KB, 337x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 337x500px

>>86875034
You two are having a discussion, it's not about proving one thing or another. You can't win at 4chan.

>>86875162
I would chose based on what thoughts I could muster at the time. What would be the egalitarian (as defined by one single anon) approach to that scenario? Flipping a coin?

>>86875092
What did you prove? I never argued against the existence of some arbitrary lines within the scope of what we're saying is arbitrary. All I'm saying is that my system for judging worth would follow the same path every single human idea about any moral or principle did, including the very idea that human life is worth preserving at all, something your ideology hinges on saying yes to, even though you could find arbitrary stances if looked into that deeply enough too.

>>86875320
Ah, so just your classical racist teenager phase, based on loose facts and /pol/ image macros? Gotcha.

>>86875309

So if I'm looking out my balcony and I see you walking on the street about to be hit by a truck from behind you don't see or hear and the after you are run over and lay dying under my balcony and I calmly say down to you "I could have warned you, but inaction is inaction I can't be blamed" you would respond "Yes my friend, I agree".

>>86875371
>What would be the egalitarian (as defined by one single anon) approach to that scenario? Flipping a coin?
Yeah, probably.

>>86875371
>All I'm saying is that my system for judging worth would follow the same path every single human idea about any moral or principle did
Lol, this fucking pretension...

>>86875375
Idk how you can argue with what he said without sounding delusional
Im completely anti immigration though

>>86875083
Don't copy his post.

>>86875424
Find one part of how I described the idea behind my process that's in conflict with that.

If you pull the lever, 5 people will die but your waifu will sit on your face
If you don't, 1 person will die but you will die a virgin

Wat do?

>>86875435
Yes, I'm clearly the delusional one here. Fucking niggers, amirite shadilay??

>>86872589
Why are communists so retarded?

>>86875375

Those are hard facts from a book published in 2003 using peer reviewed statistics and historical data. I'm sorry they triggered you.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

Generally this kind of data falls into the subcatagory your ilk describe as "extremely problematic", "hate-facts", "probably should be banned"

>>86875452
The,fact that you assume it is true of all human moral development, just because you personally like it to be.

>>86875152
you forgot about /tv/ you small guy

>>86875237
But you're also saying that if he doesn't pull his lever that I'm directly responsible for killing 2 more people than potentially necessary. If the morality of my decision hinges on what another person does, how is it really a moral judgement on me outside of my original intent - killing two people as opposed to four?

>>86875458
i bet you're half black
doesnt matter though, when you see enough live leaks you'll come around despite your race. i too was once like you

>>86875476
Progressive liberal who believe in free market capitalism, get fucked cunt.

>>86873683
Yes because you have 2/3 chance of being right on a switch, versus a 1/3 chance on staying with the original pick.

Basic discrete probability is a very good thing for a gambling addict to know.

>>86875533
>I've seen enough live leaks to make me racist
Kek ok.

>>86871753

If the invisible hand of Adam smith pushes the train intop of a few dozen people, it must be because of overpopulation. The free market is ALWAYS right stupid commie

>>86875502
Not because I personally like it to be, because I think it is. You also didn't do what I asked. Find one part of what I said that's in conflict with the idea behind the creation of a moral. It's the same idea I said up here >>86874162

>>86875477
>your ilk
I actually can't tell whether you're roleplaying or not.

>>86875533
>when you see enough live leaks you'll come around despite your race
Cringe.

>>86875458

If you want more facts on the genetic difference in intelligence, which is long since accepted fact in statistical science, then listen to the first nine minutes of this podcast earlier this year by Sam Harris. He sums it up quite nicely.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1lEPQYQk8s

He's a liberal and a neuroscientist.

>>86875554
Mom??

>>86875566
>>86875604
No really. You will come around eventually. You cant ignore niggers forever

>>86875604
t. tyrone

>>86875477
>one guy wrote a book once that has ended up hotly debated and criticzed over the last decade due do overreach of his claims.
>this is somehow a sacred text and reaffirms all of my other retarded /pol/ bullshit he didn't even argue in the text.

>>86875678
This.
And It's silly to quantify human achievement in a point scale in the first place.

>>86875575
>Not because I personally like it to be, because I think it is
Are...are you larping?

>>86875458
You really are

>>86875710
You know there's a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to the nature of philosophy, the creation of morals, ideals, etc? If you think it's somehow outside of the purview of a philosopher (if we're going to call ourselves that) to address it and have thoughts about it, I don't see how you could argue anything at all. It's pretty essential, actually.

Also, still waiting for you to do what I asked.

>>86875607
>there being some genetic patterns in IQ tests
>somehow reaffirms my completely unsubstantiated claims about race and intelligence
>look at this podcast I didn't listen to where Sam Harris calls him out on some bullshit!

>>86875637
I'll be sure to tell my black wife that.

>>86875838
Lmao

>>86875799
Are you the same guy who was arguing for an hour about the burden of proof? Have you really still gone so far without citing anything, even after this guy has?

>>86875788
>all this word vomit.

>>86875838
Ask her how our son is doing.

>>86872854
The leftie must die to bring about second Hitler and the cure for cancer, but if the brain is being deceived it does not matter either way since it cannot know how far the deception goes.

>>86875888
>I'll just act like I was pretending to be retarded the whole time, that'll make me look better

>>86875878
Are you the same guy who went full retard on burden of proof? You the same teenager crying how watching live leaks made you a racist?

>>86873051
both buttons at the last second, hopefully all of us die at once

>>86875955
No

>>86875905
Woah, what a fresh meme! I better divorce her and csll her a nigger while I shit myself about white genocide! Thanks anon!

>>86874963

So what it's fun weeeeeee
Also
> implying their lives aren't improved by this rare occurrence

>>86875940
Dunning Kruger really is quite amazing.

>>86873147
drive straight? Its only priority is to minimize human causalities, and only kill if it's a lesser amount of people/people doing the "wrong" thing. It should only kill if the choice is between two groups of people, either going for lesser deaths or more justified deaths.

>>86876042
that's 4 posts in a row without an argument

>>86875519

Because you are not working blind. Because in the conditions of this scenario you know that his wife is on track B. From this you can surmise (unless he happens to be the strictest utilitarian that has ever lived) that he will almost certainly pull the lever to save his wife. Thus it comes down to you pulling the level to save nine people, or letting him murder them to save his wife.

If you didn't know any of this you would have something of an argument. But even then once you are part of the scenario and no longer a bystander you are still responsible if he pulls his lever, even if you didn't know these facts. It's just a matter of degrees of responsibility at that point.

>>86875678

I'm not talking about the bell curve, and no one is disputing the data in human accomplishment.

>>86876097
Whatever you need to tell yourself, friendo.

>>86874125
Hopefully, since your ideology is garbage.

>>86876110
But then am I absolved from killing the two extra people on track A as opposed to track B if he IS a strict enough to let his kid and wife die?

>>86876187
>and no one is disputing the data in human accomplishment
Except there literally is a debate on that, faggot. None of Murray's overreaching concepts are even remotely settled.

File: laughing girls.png (391KB, 435x393px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 435x393px

>>86874590
>/pol/shit
there we go

>>86876193
>egalitarianism us garbage
Lol sure it is, kiddo. Why can't we all just be good bootlicking authoritarians like you?

>>86876189
5

>>86876267
*is

File: ghost story.jpg (33KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 390x310px

>>86876267
>bootlicking authoritarians
Sorry buddy but you don't have to be a statist cuck to think "everyone is worth the exact same."
Mind defending your shitty ideology or are you just going to pretend to yourself that it's great? Explain why I should value 4 doctors LESS than 10 hobos right now.

>>86876256
It was /pol/ shit

>>86876235

Christ. I even linked you the wikipedia page. He's not making those arguments in HA and noting in HA is in dispute. It's based on historical record.

I'm sorry it's inconvenient that white European males basically built the entirety of science and the modern world. But we did.

Even if it were true that "white" people have objectively contributed more to society than any other group of people, that doesn't somehow make you any less of a loser.

>>86876325
>Explain why I should value 4 doctors LESS than 10 hobos right now.
Because it is an arbitrary set standards you are subjectively constructing to appeal to your own ideological bets.

>>86876353
>and noting in HA is in dispute
This is literally untrue, the entire book is in dispute. I am sorry you live in a sheltered bubble of race baiting memes.

>>86873837
*teleports behind you*
Heh, not so fast, kiddo.

>>86876353
>I'm sorry it's inconvenient that white European males basically built the entirety of science and the modern world
You mean, after Rome molded Europe from a band of shit smelling nomads and both Rome, Byzantine and the East practically jumpstarted your continent by 100 years?

>>86876375
>if it were true

It is true. It's not in dispute. And it's not just true that they "objectively contributed more to society than any other group of people" it's that they contributed more to society than EVERY OTHER GROUP put together. Times ten.

>make a fun trolley thread
>people turn it into /pol/ discussion
Fucking hell you autists. Can't we have some fun anymore?