Talk:Trolley problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

On the Infinite Trolley Problem[edit]

Infinite Trolley Variant[edit]

However, an argument in favor of autonomous cars uses a variant it calls the Infinite Trolley problem – where there is a single person on the tracks who can be easily saved at the cost of inconveniencing your passengers, and the question is no longer "would you stop", but "how many people need to be on the trolley for their inconvenience to trump someone else's life". This variant points out that given the current number of auto fatalities, waiting for autonomous vehicles to be perfectly safe ignores the fact that many of these deaths could be prevented once the fatality rate for autonomous vehicles merely dips below that of manned vehicles, even if that is still a nonzero number.[1]

The text above was cut from the article page and posted here because it is mostly irrelevant. It's is a new variant that has received little attention in philosophy compared to the other variants in the page. It changes the argument into one of comparing values of time and values of life, which was never the intent of the trolley problem which instead discusses the relative values of human life in different contexts. Finally, this question has been investigated much more thoroughly in the field of risk management, which assigns statistical values to human lives and time.[2]

128.143.80.140 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)NoName March 10, 2016

References

  1. ^ Mitch Turck (March 10, 2015). "An Autonomous Car Might Decide You Should Die (But that prospect isn't as scary as it sounds)". 
  2. ^ Peterson, Martin (2007). "On Multi-Attribute Risk Analysis". Risk: Philosophical Perspectives: 68–83. Retrieved 8 March 2016. 

Current article is ambiguous about the one person, is he tied or not?[edit]

Opening paragraph of current article does not actually say that the one person is tied, so I would pull the lever and shout "Look out!!" to the one person --Pasixxxx (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


The Loop[edit]

The depiction of the loop problem in the image is inconsistent with the problem as described in the text; namely the loop problem in the text should be made such that if the five people were not present, the trolley would hit the fat man from the other side. This is what supports the direct symmetry that we have to choose one set of people in order to save the other. Porphyro (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Harambe[edit]

Is the section 'The Harambe Problem' notable enough? I would say no. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It might deserve a sentence or two on the Harambe page if an RS has mentioned the Harambe Trolley Problem meme, but here would be undue weight. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It might be appropriate to mention it in a "Reception"/"In popular culture" section. Especially with the recent popularity[1][2][3][4][5], I would not object to such a section, but I'd like to see other opinions first. Without it, Harambe does not hold up against the variants discussed in the learned literature. Paradoctor (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)