If reminding a bunch of people that trolleys are typically built in places with a lot of stuff that can be thrown on the track is all it takes to “beat” philosophy, then maybe the philosophers didn’t have anything to say worth listening to in the first place.
Especially when they’re trying to ask questions to determine a moral course of action, why does anyone have to die when some property damage would do the trick just as well?
That’s why the question was devised in the first place, to illustrate how ridiculous the two schools of thought represented by either decision were when taken to their logical conclusion.
The original correct answer was to do something more productive than just standing around with your thumb up your ass debating utilitarianism vs not taking a direct action to kill someone.
The quote was a hyperbolic answer to someone sarcastically suggesting I was trying to act smarter than everyone else because the question is an infamous example of self styled philosophers simultaneously over and under thinking questions.
Overly obsessing the meaning they’ve read into what was originally posed as satire, and yet underthinking the details and implications of the scenarios they’re describing.
We are expected to take the question as if we were there in person and yet they are not expected to adhere to a setting in which we could be there in person.
It’s very “rules for thee…” and the fact that self proclaimed philosophers go so out of the way to insist on this supposed deep and foundational question really shoots the credibility of the profession to pieces if such a faulty question is actually as important to the lot as the people trying to insist I’m some uneducated ape for pointing out that “someone will die anyways” scenarios are inherently suspect.
The point of a thought experiment isn’t to creatively invent your way out of answering. It’s to give you a lens to examine your beliefs. The trolley problem can be a train problem or a giant falling safe problem or a two-bombs-with-a-button-to-switch-detonators problem. The specifics aren’t there for you to fantasise they’re there to give context to one of the most entry-level problems in ethics.
You didn’t impress your philosophy buddies by refusing to engage with a hypothetical. You made them groan and then they laughed about you when you left the room.
If such a faulty experiment is the basis of our ethics it’s little wonder why the world has become such a cynical and nihilistic place.
Suggesting an alternative isn’t refusing to engage with the hypothetical, it’s engaging in the hypothetical in a way that someone who thinks they’re so smart for studying philosophy should really fucking know how to entertain.
And again, the whole question was devised to point out that both answers are horrifying, morally bankrupt, and a logical conclusion of a faulty school of ethics, so insisting the question is “basic ethical philosophy” is just damning the entire foundation even more.
You’re not making a case that I should feel embarrassed about a snafu in philosophical thinking, you’re making a case that the real trolley problem is whether I should have gone back and shot the philosophy majors you think were snickering behind my back before they could do any actual damage by indoctrinating someone with actual deciding power into their effective death cult school of ethics where never thinking twice about “someone dies anyways” outcomes is perfectly reasonable.
Your “foundational ethics question” is equally as ridiculous as asking if I’d cheat on my SO if it would cure their cancer and also they wouldn’t forgive me for it. That’s not how anything ever works and insisting there’s some deep meaning in it is a farce, and the author of the question itself intended for it to be a farce, and trying to defend it as anything but a farce just makes you a farce
If reminding a bunch of people that trolleys are typically built in places with a lot of stuff that can be thrown on the track is all it takes to “beat” philosophy, then maybe the philosophers didn’t have anything to say worth listening to in the first place.
Especially when they’re trying to ask questions to determine a moral course of action, why does anyone have to die when some property damage would do the trick just as well?
That’s why the question was devised in the first place, to illustrate how ridiculous the two schools of thought represented by either decision were when taken to their logical conclusion.
The original correct answer was to do something more productive than just standing around with your thumb up your ass debating utilitarianism vs not taking a direct action to kill someone.
deleted by creator
There’s weapon’s grade something in this discussion but if it’s anti-intellectualism I ain’t the one bringing it son.
deleted by creator
The quote was a hyperbolic answer to someone sarcastically suggesting I was trying to act smarter than everyone else because the question is an infamous example of self styled philosophers simultaneously over and under thinking questions.
Overly obsessing the meaning they’ve read into what was originally posed as satire, and yet underthinking the details and implications of the scenarios they’re describing.
We are expected to take the question as if we were there in person and yet they are not expected to adhere to a setting in which we could be there in person.
It’s very “rules for thee…” and the fact that self proclaimed philosophers go so out of the way to insist on this supposed deep and foundational question really shoots the credibility of the profession to pieces if such a faulty question is actually as important to the lot as the people trying to insist I’m some uneducated ape for pointing out that “someone will die anyways” scenarios are inherently suspect.
The point of a thought experiment isn’t to creatively invent your way out of answering. It’s to give you a lens to examine your beliefs. The trolley problem can be a train problem or a giant falling safe problem or a two-bombs-with-a-button-to-switch-detonators problem. The specifics aren’t there for you to fantasise they’re there to give context to one of the most entry-level problems in ethics.
You didn’t impress your philosophy buddies by refusing to engage with a hypothetical. You made them groan and then they laughed about you when you left the room.
If such a faulty experiment is the basis of our ethics it’s little wonder why the world has become such a cynical and nihilistic place.
Suggesting an alternative isn’t refusing to engage with the hypothetical, it’s engaging in the hypothetical in a way that someone who thinks they’re so smart for studying philosophy should really fucking know how to entertain.
And again, the whole question was devised to point out that both answers are horrifying, morally bankrupt, and a logical conclusion of a faulty school of ethics, so insisting the question is “basic ethical philosophy” is just damning the entire foundation even more.
You’re not making a case that I should feel embarrassed about a snafu in philosophical thinking, you’re making a case that the real trolley problem is whether I should have gone back and shot the philosophy majors you think were snickering behind my back before they could do any actual damage by indoctrinating someone with actual deciding power into their effective death cult school of ethics where never thinking twice about “someone dies anyways” outcomes is perfectly reasonable.
Your “foundational ethics question” is equally as ridiculous as asking if I’d cheat on my SO if it would cure their cancer and also they wouldn’t forgive me for it. That’s not how anything ever works and insisting there’s some deep meaning in it is a farce, and the author of the question itself intended for it to be a farce, and trying to defend it as anything but a farce just makes you a farce