The 2023 Random Meme Thread

It depends upon circumstances. Sometimes it’s appropriate, sometimes it’s not.

Can't remember the particular philosopher who first proposed the people on a train track scenario, but, the question wasn't that ... open-ended. In fact, most of the time, I avoid discussions like this because people do not wish to confront a situation in which regardless of how you act, something bad is going to happen. This scenario isn't about whether or not to stop the train, rather it about asking the person to look inside themselves and decide which is a better outcome overall. Sure, letting one die over 5 is easy enough to answer, not so easy when one of the 5 is Hitler and the one will ... cure cancer.

In other words, it's not intended to be answered with a specific outcome. It's about ... knowing your self and what you can and cannot control and ... a whole host of other questions one should constantly be asking themselves

I think the trolley scenario is more along the lines of a bunch of pretentious foo-foo bullshit.

I've been asked about the stupid fucking trolley scenario a few times in my life and my answer has always been the same: "Which switch can I throw that kills everyone?"

They usually leave me alone after that.

Which is why my first question was asking how far he was willing to take the conversation.

Most people think like you do. But, occasionally, I find someone else willing to discuss things philosophically.

Life hack: make the nasty bananas into muffins and bread.

I heartily endorse this product or event.

If the trolley problem, or any similar model, sounds like pretentious foo-foo bullshit, it's probably because a pretentious foo-foo bullshitter is trying to make it sound more profound than it actually is, because PFFB is hoping it'll make them look smarter than they really are.

All it is is a simple example that illustrates an inconstancy with morality. Most people believe that one person dying is less bad that five people dying. Most people also believe that deliberately killing one person to prevent the accidental deaths of five people would be an immoral act. The two ideas are incompatible, and it demonstrates that morality isn't always rational. Then, the IAmVerySmarts come in and are all "there's got to be a way to rationally reconcile the two premises, and I'll figure it out!" and then everything starts getting stupid because they can't get over the "morality is always rational" assumption they've made.

It's kind of like how Schrodinger's Cat is just a simple metaphor showing how the way tiny things work is very different from how bigger stuff works, and is not a philosophical model at all. Then idiots were all "reality is in flux until someone observes it and free will is real!" No! It's a metaphor and has nothing to do with how cats, boxes, and poisons actually work!

Anyway, it's not the models that are the problem, it's the idiots discussing them.

Of course, it doesn't help that Kant (who invented the trolley problem) retreated up his own navel, and kept writing more books as software patches to the last ones.

Nasty bananas is redundant.

Well, that might not have been true before, but it will be now.