this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
-22 points (28.8% liked)
Asklemmy
51191 readers
744 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trolley problem is a bullshit in the first place, just as your "what if" nonsense. Millions of innocent children are dying and being tortured already by the capitalism, which is also main cause of global warming.
Ya it's trolly problem. I just figured that out.
So now I'm reflecting on the trolly problem.
The military gets a lot of trolly problems.
Are you old enough to be online?
Ok, why is the trolley problem bullshit? Seriously.
You can construct a trolley problem to justify anything you want. It's about the constraints that the person who posed the question chose. You don't really get to choose in a trolley problem. The constraints choose for you. In the real world, our options are not so constrained and the outcomes are not so clear. As such it is useless for actually figuring out what to do.
The trolley problem is a useful basic philosophical experiment to get people to think about things and reflect on constraints, assumptions, and values. And often the best response is in fact "fuck these constraints and assumptions!"
So the trolley problem is not bullshit, but it is very very often misapplied in a bullshit or bad faith way, for example last year in the US I saw a lot of liberals uncritically and unironically appeal to "the trolley problem" to rationalize voting for the party that was committing a live-streamed Holocaust. They were using it to absolve themselves of the responsibility to think about and own their moral judgements, and that is the sort of misuse that a lot of people balk at.
Who's justifying?
*people can construct, not you specifically. But maybe you, I don't know.
Are you going to read or think about the comment or are we done here?
Sorry man. Lemmy fatigue. I think I've had it.
Because it implies utilitarianism is the best option by oversimplifying the problem. For example in your example you gave zero details on the situation.
It's what we call an abstraction. This particular abstraction highlights a moral point.
Not bullshit. Useful and interesting.
Typically, an abstraction maintains the essence of the original. Asking "what if , but it costs " isn't an abstraction.
I'm not aware of a proposed solution to climate change that involves mass torture or murder.
The question feels more like one of those terrible parlor games where you have to pick a few cards and then argue some randomly generated point.
Thanks man. You really got to the heart of it there
Okay let me try another abstraction. Should we cure cancer but kill a bunch of people?
That's the same riddle. You get that, right?
And so we find ourselves without an easy answer. And so we are forced to inspect the riddle more closely. To uncover hidden assumptions and such. We might even do that in conversation, on a forum like lemmy.
The core of the riddle is that it is an ultimatum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum
Ultimatums have been debated historically, in great detail. For example, in the old testament of the bible.
https://www.bibleoutlines.com/isaiah-361-377-dont-make-a-deal-with-the-devil/
Even if one is not religious or cares not for reading biblical stuff, it is simplified effectively as such:
If given only 2 choices, it is never fair. Find another choice.
I think that's a different thing.
You are right, it's not the same thing. I had an English teacher who tossed out her vocabulary lesson one day and instead went off on a very energetic rant about critical thinking, ultimatums, game theory, dilemma, paradox and so on. I've always wanted to recreate her lesson but never get it right.
I do think my final line still applies for this scenario. There's always another way. I think War Games does the same idea I was trying to convey but I've never seen it, I've only seen enough references to it, to vagely know what it's about..
Because the narrative can be edited so easily to result in whatever outcome makes your argument for you.
Itβs not empirical, itβs simply an amplifier for whatever agenda is warranted by it.
China isnβt capitalist and is factually the largest contributor by far to global warming across the globe. Sure, the US is second on the list, but after that, itβs quite far down before capitalism appears again.
Capitalism may suck, but it dilutes the water to pin nonsense like this on it when thereβs actual arguments against it that merit real consideration.
China has the most people within its borders. Your logic seems to imply that dividing China into say 10 different states would solve the problem. A much better metric is per capita.
per cApiTa!
lol⦠per capita. Apologia at its finest.
βChina is perfect!β - said the communist.
Wow you managed to make a complete illiterate and bad faith dumbass of yourself in just two sentences. You should repost that to some reddit main, maybe you would get some reward.
Itβs not surprising that a wannabe-communist wouldnβt know what apologia means.
Cant't you even flame on topic? Pathetic
Care to repeat that in English??