I have a friend who is anti mRNA vaccines as they are so new.

Are they?

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    The trolley problem is a bit different because its result depends on what kind of person you are.

    People who think logically will always pick the option that kills less people. Some people who are emotionally driven hate the idea that manipulating the lever means you are first hand causing the death of said one person, whereas the 5 people, while who could be saved, didnt die outright because of a situation you as the person created.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not about who created the situation, it just exists for whatever reason. It’s about intervening.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        hence

        hate the idea that manipulating the lever means you are first hand causing the death of said one person

        that act on its own is intervening into the situation vs the other which is not.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          because of a situation you as the person created

          Maybe I misinterpreted your comment here; the situation exists not because of anything, it’s just there. The binary choice (or is it truly binary if there are supposedly three?) is the conundrum.

          • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The situation they created was to kill one person, versus the situation that existed was that 5 people would die.

            The difference is between action and inaction and the fact that it’s easier to say “you caused something” if you took some action than if you simply didn’t take an action.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I love pointing out to your “emotional” people … that they are choosing to not act, and therefore responsible for those five people dying.

      the proper answer is to flip the switch, and then do everything else you can to save that one person- like running to stop the train, or getting the person off the tracks, or maybe getting one of the five off the tracks and sending them to run and stop the train (buying you more time?) while you go and get the next guy off the tracks…

      Alternatively, if you wanna be misanthropic,

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        im using the term emotional as its usually what’s tied with pathos when talking about pathos/logos/egos. Hence some (as not all people who run on emotional decision making) will make a conscious decision to not pull the lever due to the above situation.

        some people will convince theirself that the feigned ignorance of the switch is their way out of the situation because they absolutely despise the fact that they had anything to do with the direct death of someone. Originally I never thought of this mindset (as im very logic oriented) till I met someone who answered the question that way in person and broke down their reasoning. It’s never an all emotional person thing, but some will willingly choose to not act in self preservation of their sanity.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          … but some will willingly choose to not act in self preservation of their sanity.

          That’s where the trolly problem is problematic. It’s fundamentally designed to force a choice where one or more people will die.

          In real life there really are not any choices typical of that binary choice- and more importantly, choosing to not do something will haunt you even more than the opposite.

          How often do we stew over lost opportunities? Roads not taken?

          • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            its a question with a binary choice, choosing to change the situation defeats the purpose of the choice regardless of the situation. it’s possible to modify the choice in such a way that the question of binary choice became a situation, e.g seeing a camera feed and a button at some remote location.

          • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Philosophical questions are often impractical.

            Guilt and emotions are also often illogical. We can rationalize all sorts of things. In this case, it’s easy enough to rationalize that we had no hand in creating the situation; we played no part in the results and bear no responsibility. We can wash ourselves of any guilt.

            We already do this constantly- there is surely some suffering in your city and your life. Homeless people, starving children, whatever else. I’m betting that you, personally, could do something (or something more) to help them. Whether it’s picking up a hammer with Habitat for Humanity, or choosing to spend a little extra to get the “Slavery-free” chocolate instead of the regular kind. But you don’t. None of us do, at least not all that we reasonably can. Why is that? I’m making a choice to do nothing on these, how is it any different?