I’m sorry, but this is the most amazing display of adaptation I have ever seen. Look at those leaf niggas! That fucks me up. I was like “Oh a stick bug and some plants”. Fuckin WHAT!
every building built mainly for children should be fucking weird like this i cant even imagine how much happier my memories of early childhood would be if i could look back on having gone to kindergarten in a big ol cat
This is horribly unsafe. You know how many kids like me could die sliding down that AWESOME cat arm? Cause I totally would have done that the INSTANT I saw this building as a 7 year old.
The trolley problem, Shroedinger’s cat, and other thought experiments are meant to be absurd situations. They’re not really about boxes, cats, trolleys, or levers. Those things are only there to help you visualize the concept being explored, and are ultimately irrelevant. They’re like word problems on a math quiz–the narrative is there only to help you create a mental model for the equation in common language.
They’re simplified and absurd and do not describe real-world situations that you are likely to ever encounter because they’re more palatable that way. You could set the trolley problem in a hospital or in a burning building or on a battlefield and it would still be the same thought experiment even if there were no trolleys involved. The variable being tested is a question of ethical responsibility in a no-win situation, where every choice you have is a bad one.
Obviously you’ll never be trapped in a train yard with sole control over a lever and four people tied to train tracks, but if you end up in the medical field or a leadership position, you might one day be forced to make difficult decisions between unthinkable choices about other people’s well-being.
The relative absurdity of the trolley problem is meant to make it easier to contemplate your personal values and ethical framework in a pure state, rather than complicated by real-world context and distractions.
That’s why Tumblr’s fixation on treating the trolley problem like a riddle with a “Secret Third Option” solution misses the point isn’t actually meaningfully engaging with the question. It’s like answering a word problem on a math test by criticizing Jenny’s plans to bring 450 lemons on a picnic instead of doing the equation.
To completely derail this post over to Star Trek, this is why it’s so important that Captain Kirk’s rebellion against the Kobayashi-Maru test happens in the context of ‘Dagger of the Mind.’
The unwinnable simulation scenario exists to both prepare potential starship commanders for and evaluate how they cope with being in a trolley problem scenario, where none of the outcomes are good or even acceptable and yet the decision is still on them to choose something.
Kirk’s dogged refusal of this scenario isn’t simply rejecting authority or missing the point of the test or feeding his own ego or a simple reflection of control issues, or any of those ways it’s often read. It’s not about needing to win.
One of his formative life experiences was front-row seats to someone trapped in a situation that looked like this, who said very well and buckled down and started choosing who would die, forcefully, with a view toward the end number of people being as small as possible.
Trying to make the best choice he could with his authority in a no-win scenario.
And then it turned out that there had been a third option all along, out of his sight and out of his power when he made the decision but there, and coming, and nobody had had to die.
So the way Kirk engages with the test is saying, I understand what you’re doing here, but I don’t need to be placed in this emotional or philosophical position. I’ve inhabited it before. I have thought about this question a whole damn lot, and it’s never going to be really theoretical for me again. This is what I know about this kind of moment in reality.
I tend to think that the sheer number of times he was permitted to retake the test shows that the Starfleet Academy people were accommodating his trauma, though I expect they thought he was using it to try to process his feelings about Kodos’ decision in the sense of ‘using a controlled repetition to come to terms with what had happened,’ not by changing the script.
And that he didn’t wind up getting major demerits to his ‘fitness to captain a starship’ for this demonstration of lunatic bullheadedness because the people grading it understood that he wasn’t incapable of understanding the point of the exercise, it just meant something different to him.
(pssst, I think you mean The Conscience of the King)
I DID THANK YOU THE OTHER ONE HAS A BETTER NAME IS ALL
Precisely what I’ve always thought about the KM test: it’s doable - but only if you’re life experiences include something the programmers didn’t initially account for.
Nog beat the KM (at least in books) in one of two ways, but the version I’ve heard of was by being absolutely 100% Ferengi at the simulation, in a way that probably would have made his Uncle Quark proud, in such a way that the computer couldn’t handle it.
Would that have worked in real life? You came expecting Starfleet and what you got was the son of the Grand Nagus of the Ferengi, a man who has a good memory for the Rules of Acquisition and who lost his leg during the Dominion War. You place him in a situation a normal Starfleet Captain from a Federaji world would find impossible to get out of.
And then the Ferengi opens his mouth and speaks.
And offers to buy your ship.
The Ferengi understands economics and he understands how to negotiate and you have a prickly feeling that he understands you-
But suddenly you’re agreeing to sell your ship. You’re agreeing to deal fairly (or risk being blackballed by every other Ferengi in the galaxy by order of the Grand Nagus, furious that someone disrespected his son going about his business, furious that someone dared to question whether the son of the Grand Nagus could afford to purchase whatever he ever wanted - and Quark and his supply chain alone is vast and Quark does love his nephew and that bar is the best…) -
The simulation breaks in the face of a Captain who sees a third option. A live-demonstration of this simulation would break under the same circumstances.
The examiners are considering reprogramming the simulation but the Vulcan marker merely nods. “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination,” they state coolly, and the exam is marked as a pass.
Years later Nog goes through the same thing, a similar situation but different of course, nothing is like a simulation.
He smiles, he stands, he opens his mouth, and the other side is doomed before they began.
And this is precisely why so many people are attracted to the “third option” in the trolley problem. Especially in America, WE ARE FACED WITH IT DAILY.
How many people do you know—either personally or through anecdotes—who’ve had to choose between food for their child and their own medication? Between fixing an unsafe vehicle and having enough gas to drive it? Risking their lives in the army or facing food insecurity? Any number of unwinnable, daily scenarios?
This is why we, like Kirk, just nope out. We know there must be a better way. We are no longer capable of accepting the status quo because the status quo has formed too much of our early years, and we WILL find a better way out or die trying.
Then why engage with it at all? Why keep talking about it like it’s a problem to be solved? It’s not the Kobayashi-Maru, it’s not a test that you pass or fail, it’s not some requirement that you answer it, it’s not about determining Who’s To Blame or Finding A Solution, it’s not a noir mystery–it’s just some dumb thought experiment people keep freaking out even though they’re obviously not actually interested in it. It’s the equivalent of writing essays about Schrödinger’s cat and fixating on animal abuse.
Like, the damn trolley problem isn’t asking “is there a way out?”, it’s asking “which of these two options is preferable?”
If people don’t like thinking about the trolley problem then dear god stop talking about the goddamn trolley problem.
No. Because it’s a lie and it must be exposed as one.
It’s not “a lie” because it’s not saying anything! It’s just a stupid visualization of the question “is it better to prevent a larger total amount of harm if it means directly causing the same harm to fewer people, or to allow a larger amount of harm to happen through inaction but not actively causing harm?”
That’s just a question. You don’t have to try to answer it if you don’t want to, and the answer is subjective. It’s not the KM test because it’s not actually testing how you act in a crisis. It’s a completely voluntary exercise for your brain that asks you to do nothing but think about it if you want to.
You are allowed to not like or be interested in moral philosophy! I promise! It’s okay!
But people want to answer it. Why does this wound you so?
Who said I don’t want people to answer the trolley problem? They can if they want to. But the “Secret Third Option” thing isn’t an answer to the trolley problem–it’s a Choose Your Own Adventure game borrowing the imagery of the trolley problem and purporting to be related to it despite having nothing at all to do with the actual thought exercise. Which is fun! I don’t protest trolley problem fanfic! But people Genuinely Do Not Get The Point Of It and form inCREDIBLY strong opinions about it nonetheless and won’t stop sharing them with me, including and up to “the trolley problem can turn you into a terrorist!!!”.
“Answering the trolley problem” just means debating the relationship between responsibility and action and the relative moral value of each. It’s not very exciting, but it’s also not supposed to be practically applicable to the real world or even represent A Scenario. Like I said–it’s like a word problem on a math test. The trolleys and lemons are irrelevant because it’s just a window-dressing for an abstract equation.
Hate to interfere with an already-long post with plenty of already-hot takes, but I gotta say, I’m with @glumshoe on this one.
The point of these philosophical questions isn’t to answer the question itself, but to find MORE questions.
It’s all well and good to point out that in real life, there is always more than two options, but that’s beyond the point.
The point of the trolley question isn’t, “what would you do in this scenario to procure the most ideal outcome?” Or even, “which outcome is preferable?”-
It’s to make you question, first, if anything makes these choices different, WHY these choices are different, and then, if you can, articulate the value assessed by these questions.
“Allow many to die through inaction, or intentionally kill one?”
What is the difference between one life and five lives?
Are you personally responsible for actions you are in a position to prevent, despite your lack of involvement in the cause?
Is failure to intervene with the circumstance of another an act of murder? If so, are the rich guilty of criminal neglect?
What is the value of a human life?What is justice? WHY is it just?
Are those facing the threat of impending doom in any way more deserving of that doom than an otherwise unrelated bystander?
Is there such a thing as fate, and, if so, do we have any right, obligation, need, or desire to alter its course?
Why?
What does that mean about us as people?
What does it say about the nature of humanity?
In this way, the dilemma is not about what’s possible or correct- it’s about the implications of the question itself.
Trying to find a third angle isn’t wrong, it’s just a different game entirely- like playing dominos with mahjong tiles.
It’s not like you can’t, it’s just that it’ll be confusing for everyone playing mahjong.
@teaboot but would you pull the lever or not, and what’s the reasoning behind your choice?
@dabibliophile
My personal choice would be to pull the lever, dooming one but saving the otherwise doomed several.
This is the answer that I believe best serves my core moral beliefs - that while the circumstances of others are not my responsibility, my responses to those circumstances (within reason) are.
Which choice best benefits society? Which death is most just? Which party is more deserving?
None of these factors are within my knowledge or jurisdiction. My position is not of judge and jury, executioner or savior.
In that moment, and in any moment like it, my sole concern is:
Is it within my ability to minimize casualties?
Because I believe that that is the best that could be expected of any of us.
To act upon the information we have at hand with the intent to prevent as much suffering as possible.
Not to take ownership or guilt, but to acknowledge our power as freely-thinking individuals, even when it’s hard.
To do the best we can with what we have.
No life intrinsically valued over another, no justification for fully cognizant negligence, no excuse for fully informed neglect.
So none of these people know me and nobody will ever respond to this, if they even see it, but I’d like to say some shit.
People’s feelings about the Trolley Problem pretty much sum up why I have lost hope in America ever actually getting any better in a meaningful way. Republicans are represented by the people who chose to pull the lever. Democrats are the “do nothing” crowd. Everyone undecided or “non-political” are the “third option” people. This isn’t universal (as almost nothing is), but for the most part, it fits.
See, Republicans will do what it takes to further their agenda. ALWAYS. Doesn’t matter how horrible their actions are, they’ll live with it comfortably if they think it’s for the greater good. The fact that their idea of what the greater good IS is fucked all the way up, is irrelevant.
Democrats are impotent to their core, so they take solace in the fact that they didn’t take ACTION to make things worse, even though their inaction or failure to take proper action honestly lead to worse outcomes.
Everyone else either doesn’t grasp the concept, or they wish and pray for some unrealistic option and WILL NOT ACCEPT that there isn’t one, this leading to the ACTION TAKERS (read: Republicans) getting their way. This will not change, ever.
What needs to happen is ACTION from the left. Cruel action. Harsh action. Bad guy, low ground, wrong-side-of-history action. The only kind of action that EVER HAS EVER THROUGH ALL OF HUMAN FUCKING HISTORY gotten any lasting results. We need to ARM OURSELVES and start strategically offing key figures on the right. True social equity cannot exist while the only people pulling the levers are capitalists.
POC will keep dying. LGBTQ+ people will keep dying. Poor people will keep dying. Everyone toiling their lives away in this fucked up system will keep dying, BECAUSE YOU WILL FEEL BAD IF SOMEONE GETS HURT BY YOUR ACTIONS.
You “Third option” people need to crawl up out of fiction’s anus, because there isn’t a hero main character with the power of Plot Armor coming to save you. TAKE ACTION OR ACCEPT THAT YOU’RE FUCKED.
I for one, would pull the lever without hesitation. I for one, have prepared for when I have to. Unfortunately, I’m also smart and cynical enough to know that I’ll never get the numbers to do what needs to be done. So I, for one, am prepping for my exit. I understand the Trolley Problem, but I’m not patient enough for everyone else to catch on.
don’t post pictures of unmasked protestors! especially right now! the police don’t need more of a reason to target people who are protesting George Floyd’s death
99% of the protestors ARE masked and y’all are still posting face pics of the ones that aren’t please stop making their images go viral
people are killed for this shit, protests are a unit, not an individual action, stop drawing attention to the individuals
several activists/protesters from Ferguson were murdered. this isn’t a joke people’s lives are really at risk when you do this.
Whether its police retaliation or white supremacists.
Violence always wins. ALWAYS. 100% of the time. Peaceful protestors die at the hands of violent people defending their violent beliefs and the protests usually don’t even lead to meaningful change. “raise your fists and march around, just don’t take what you need.”
George Floyd was murdered by police. Just like Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, and far too many others.
White supremacists storm state capitals armed with AR-15 assault rifles and are unharmed. Unarmed people protesting murder by police get tear-gassed and shot with rubber bullets.
Systemic racism is the disease of this country. It must be eradicated. From the white supremacists in the White House to the terrorist vigilantes who hunted down Ahmaud Arbery to the Central Park (Liberal, Buttigieg supporter) woman in New York, calling police on a man who merely asked her to leash her dog.
Maybe arm yourselves for the next protest. Racism is ultra real and WE ALL KNOW THIS, so let’s learn from our mistakes. White allies need to show up to these protests with assault rifles. I bet you SO MUCH MONEY, that cops won’t be so quick to shoot into a crowd that’s heavily (and legally) armed.
It really freaks me out that people think body hair is unsanitary. Like y'all are just so brainwashed if you believe that body hair is perfectly normal and fine on men, but on women its suddenly dirty? Use your critical thinking skills for a few damn seconds, I’m begging you.
Woah woah woah. Body hair on anyone isn’t great if it’s left untamed and scraggly imo. Just keep it trimmed. You do you, though.
Preach! You ever smell someone’s junk pre shave, vs post shave? Different ball game (lol). I keep everything but my legs and butt cheeks shaved real low. If anyone’s nose/mouth is gonna be near it, you don’t need them to be sniffing all the residual sweat that catches in your hair (which is actually a thing that hair does… OBVIOUSLY). Stop being lazy.
