Why Any Forums media like to play with "trolley problem"?

Attached: ztuzgihojp.jpg (611x611, 56.71K)

i'm saying that there is trolley problem on lot of Any Forums - anime & manga media.
for example, in fate/zero.
the stupidity of utilitarian way is shown on the main characters.
as the corrupted holy grail keep asking him about holy grail until he will sacrifice the whole world to save 2 people.

asking him about trolley problem until*
fuck i need to stop drinking...

Attached: 414124214.jpg (1080x779, 102.47K)

Attached: DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17[1].png (1353x976, 327.6K)

the utilitarian thing to do is kill the guy who keeps tying people to the tracks before he can strike again

Attached: cowboy-bebop-knockin-on-heavens-door-train-fight[1].jpg (1772x952, 198.25K)

>Killing one person to save many
hmm...

The only winning move is to play the player.

Kek

dude, it's a hypothetical scenario.
The important thing is to recognize it's not something that you're likely to face irl like it is. I know there's larpers from LW or the likes who like to pretend a situation like this it's gonna happen ANY TIME.
But if that's all you take from it that's academically sad. Like, you're studying physics and all you take from the thought experiments and you focus on space elevators or you hear Schrodinger's Cat and you worry about the cat. It's missing the point that it's just about the study of physics.

>r you hear Schrodinger's Cat and you worry about the cat. It's missing the point that it's just about the study of physics.
Technically it was an example to highlight the absurdity of quantum physics as a mockery but it really do be like that.

>dude, it's a hypothetical scenario.
Yes. A hypothetical scenario which you are meant to react to as a moral being. Moron.
The way you answer this question indicates what kind of morals you apply in everyday situations.

But this time the person is guilty, so there is nothing wrong.

In no everyday situation you're going to literally find a train where you have to pull a lever that decides some or no one will die. It's unrealistic to think so or act thinking it's going to happen.

>it really do be like that.
Kek, no. Physics have nothing to do with "reality". Or rather, ontology, is what you wanted to say.
Physics are just reductive methematical models that work well enough to predict events. They do not describe "reality" in any way, shape or form other than conforming to empirical data.
Quantum physics in particular use pretty dirty tricks to avoid falsification, by the way: The whole model is probabilistic, which means it doesn't even always need to get the predictions right anymore, just sufficiently often. That probabilistic nature is why it even got to the point where it claimed that particles have contradictory states simultaneously.

Behold

Attached: Trloli.jpg (767x535, 41.83K)

Not really because most people's morality is fairly undefined and situational. Like the 'dilemma' in the trolley problem only comes from some strange academic discussion that by diverting the train you are choosing to kill the one person yourself and therefore fully responsible for the death while if you let the train go as it was you have less responsibility. But the average person doesn't think like that and wouldn't think like that in such a situation either, they would consider their inaction an action no matter how much some random academic tells them there's a super important distinction. And so for the trolley problem it just becomes simple math for 99% of people with no real moral quandary. Utilitarianism works if you actually have perfect knowledge of the scenario and outcomes, it's flaw is the messiness of real life and your imperfect knowledge.

>They do not describe "reality" in any way,
They literally do, that's their whole purpose. We don't shoot shit into space and harpoon comets because physics doesn't describe anything about reality.

>In no everyday situation you're going to literally find a train where you have to pull a lever that decides some or no one will die.
Are you this retarded or are you pretending to be?
Morals aren't that situative. Just because the thought experiment is an extreme case, that doesn't mean you use a completely different approach than when you actually face a less extreme moral question. In other words, you might not actually get in a situation where you'd kill in everyday live, but you are still a deranged individual being who belives that hurting one person to please two others is totally alright.

>most people's morality is fairly undefined and situational.
No. It's not. Which is why utilitarians answer the problem in one way and everyone else answers it differently.
>And so for the trolley problem it just becomes simple math for 99% of people with no real moral quandary.
No. Only for utilitarians. Again, there is a difference in how different people answer the problem. IIRC it's mostly Americans and Brits who reduce it to "simple maths".

wrong, the correct solution is to jump in front of the trolley and stop it with your own blood and bones.
The second best is to do nothing, because you are a coward but at least not a killer.

The worst is the utilitarian route, in this case you are a snivelling coward who cannot do what is right but who wants to pretend he's doing what's right. This route leads to hell.

>but you are still a deranged individual being who belives that hurting one person to please two others is totally alright.
No, because it's entirely situational you moron. You are told in the trolley problem there is no alternative than to flip or not to flip. By the constraints of the problem you are disallowed the infinite freedom of actual life. And the stakes are death. Someone who easily flips the trolley problem given it's retarded contraints on behavior doesn't sit around thinking that mob rule is the only valid rule and think about how they can gangrape people because it makes more people happy or any other dumb shit you're trying to force on them.

Dang, can't fight fate.

>They literally do, that's their whole purpose.
No, they do not. And their purpose is to SIMPLIFY things down to calculations. That's always been what physics were about. If you don't like that and think they should do something they cannot do, sorry, but you're demanding the impossible.

Attached: kagetsu trolley problem.png (645x430, 100.81K)

>it's entirely situational
Morals are not situational.
>the infinite freedom of actual life.
Kek. There is no "infinite freedom". Ever. Stop pretending to be retarded.

Literally the vast majority of the people in the world easily come to the conclusion of saving the most amount of people and you're the retarded psychopath thinking otherwise to spare your own conscious because you perform retarded mental gymnastics that your inaction removes all guilt and accountability. It is a utilitarian outcome but not rationalized under utilitarian thought and only forced by the retarded constraints of the problem.
So you're the real moron who thinks if you select one of two answers allowed that you must therefore describe to a completely extreme set of principles and live your entire life that way when people don't because people don't think that hard.

>the correct solution is to jump in front of the trolley and stop it with your own blood and bones.
Imagine being fat enough to stop a train.

ikr imagine being American.