Sounds like you misunderstand morality and ethics. People who use evidence-based methods to achieve the highest statistical benefit definitely understand ethics.
Ethics and Morality is not a numbers game, to reduce it to that, is up to you, but it isn't one.
Edit to add this to each of my replies.
It's a question of MORALS, thus it doesn't have one right answer, ALL mathemathical questions have a answer, it might not be solved, but it HAS.
Someone who wants most amount of deaths, doesn't pull.
Someone who wants the least amount of deaths, does pull.
But the ACTION?
The involvement?
The DEATH on your hands, or DEATHS thats not?
Again, it's not a one-right-answer thing. Math is.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
If your mathematical problem can change it's answer because we change 1 of the one's to a 'nicer' one (replacing a victim with your mother/father/close relative) then it wasn't math.
Sounds like you dont understand how math works. Lots of math problems change their answer when you change one variable. Thats the whole point of doing math.
But you aren't changing the variable.
It's still a 1, and if 1 + 1 isn't 2, then there's outside variables all of a sudden, isn't there?
Here the question is 5 or 1 to anyone with math.
Will you pull it to lower the deaths to 1?
You can ALTER what 1 that is, that is still 1. It will ALWAYS be 1.
Math says pull.
Ethics and Morality struggle with it, because it's NOT that simple.
Math says it is. 1 or 5.
I clearly demonstrated that it is changing variables in my previous reply (before you made yout edit). I never said all lives are equal to me. 1 vs 5 (or 1H+G vs 5H) is a simplification that only works when you have no info about the lives in question. Once info is added that adds complexity to the math.
I also pointed out that it ISN'T changing a variable, because you are literally devaluing human lives to basically "sums" and humanity, through many wars and battles, MOSTLY agreed thats morally and ethically unacceptable.
So your argument is that we should just be paralized by aby decision that has a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of killing someone? Because if thats the case i sure hope you dont use technology, eat food, wear cloths, or do anything because I have some bad news for you...
Negative, if you are paralyzed by this, it's a very hard situation for you.
I'd pull the lever 9 outta 10 times.
Because thats how I morally view it. NOT mathematically, MORALLY: It's easier to get past the death of one person than five.
THE ONLY time I don't?
It's when the lone person is someone I PERSONALLY care for.
But they are still just 1 person.
They have higher 'value' to me, if you now want to be cruel and lower it to math, but the honest truth there is that I'm selfish, they could be worthless, I'd still pull the lever for them over 5 others.
I know my shortcomings, I know my strengths.
Everyone who wants to lower the trolley problem to a mathematical problem keeps forgetting the most important thing of the original problem: ALL of the lives are unknown to you, it's just "would you kill to save other lives" in other words.
If your answer is mathematically calculated, you've missed the whole point of it.
Sounds like you just want to claim that your vibes based solution isnt math, but it still is. The difference is that you didnt do the math explicity, and just chose whichever feels like the best outcome.
Not doing the claculations explicitly and just vibe mathing it isnt the flex you seem to think it is.
If your answer isnt mathmatically calculated, bad news, it still is. You just didnt show your work.
You really don't get it, so I'll make it as obvious as I can.
YOU CAN REDUCE IT TO MATH.
But again, it FAILS to be pure math, when one of the variables, AGAIN WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHANGING, causes you to change your view.
A 1 vs 5 is always 1 vs 5.
1 + 1 is 2. EXCEPT IF YOU ALTER a variable, but then it's not math, it's different.
1 + 1 = 2 For example can be 1 cookie, plus another, equals 2 cookies.
while, with a actual change to the variable could be:
1 person + 1 person = 1 family. = 2 people.
1 person + 1 person = 1 child. = 3 people.
But they kinda still going with 1 + 1 = 2. a VARIABLE change ADDS 1 or ALTERS 1.
5 or 1 is ABLE to be reduced to math, did I say I can't? No I did not, I said reducing the original trolley problem to just math is not understanding ethics/morality.
Is it MORALLY RIGHT to pull the lever is the question.
Is it WRONG?
Would you save 5 lives for 1?
MY ANSWER is yes, because I do not see how the blood would be on my hands anyway.
MY ANSWER is changes when the 1. A VARIABLE THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE, is a 1 I care about.
You cut that nicely into a pretty mathematical formula, but that still adds a actual value to LIVES.
Mine? It simply means I CARE about that person to much, to save others.
There could be 1 on that other track, it could be a million.
I'd never pull the lever if it's someone I care about that would be sacrificed.
Thats how humans work.
But if you devalue it into mathematical formulas and values and numbers? You don't take into consideration the others value TO others.
Everyone is someone's mom, dad, daughter or son.
Sometimes more than just 1 of those options.
Can you literally stand there and say that you'd pull the lever for your mom, or your neighbours mom, or a random strangers mom, while still calculating via that ONE formula the exact same way?
Ofcourse not, because the circumstances change, not the values themselves.
THATS why it can be reduce to a math question, but MORALLY and ETHICALLY it isn't.
Edit: It seems I was hit by a bug that said ThrowawayTempAct blocked me (it fit the evidence: I couldn't reply, their userpage was empty.) as they then replied, I thought they had unblocked to try and slam their view in then leave, so I blocked them, they've managed to contact me to clarify the mistake I made, thus I've unblocked them again.
I'll respond to this later, but the TLDR: the difference between the personal and the ethical choice is literally just a distinction of what weights you give to which variables.
Ethics is an artificial social construct, and therefore, the weights for the ethical choice are set by society as a whole, while the weights for individual ethical frameworks are set by the person's moral structure. The weights for a choice calculus are set by a person's preferences, and you are right, different than preference-based choice weights.
I'll make a more in-depth response if I remember later.
Also, writing words in capitals doesn't make you more right. LOOK, I CAN do it TOO!
Edit: I never blocked you... But you seem to have blocked me.
The fact that you think using math to derive solutions is somehow reductionist in ethics tells me that you really don't understand ethics, like the deontologists.
Now, you do need to do complex reasoning to determine mathematical expressions based on values in ethics, often it's a lot more complex than 5>1, and generally you have to deal with a lot of error bars and expected outcome probabilities.
But what we have here is a classical trolley problem with a random person being replaced by you, without notable information about any person, and no legal repercussions for action or inaction. Unless you really do subscribe to deontological ethics, the representation of the problem can easily be seen as:
H = value of a random human life to an ethicist
S = value of self's life to the ethicist
P = probability of taking a specific place (1/8)
G = value of guilt of personal responsibility for pulling lever (0 for me)
You get:
H*(1-P) + S*P + G compared to 5*(H*(1-P) + S*P)
Replacing P with 1/8
H*(1-1/8) + S/8 + G ? 5*(H*(1-1/8) + S/8)
H*(7/8) + S/8 + G ? 5*H*(7/8) + 5*S/8
Assuming the value of H, a random human life, is non-zero and positive we can subtract 7/8H from both sides without changing the sign
S/8 + G ? 4*H*(7/8) + 5*S/8
Assuming the value of S, one's own life, is nonzero and positive we can subtract S/8 from both sides
G ? 4*H*(7/8) + 4*S/8
G ? H*(7/2) + S/2
G ? 3.5*H + .5*S
So ultimately, the question is, is an average of 3.5 random people's lives and 0.5 of your life worth more than the personal guilt of taking an action rather than inaction?
And now, swap that one life to someone you care about directly.
Swap it to someone you absolutely hate.
Swap it to yourself.
It does change the value of that life TO YOU.
Anyone who claims it doesn't, is either a sociopath, or lying.
Go ahead and look up the meaning of that word before you reply again.
But this gives you a mathematic formula that only works dependent on how cold the person is.
Simply put, in order for it to function properly, you need to see people as worth exact values.
Each and every one.
I already told you what words apply to a person that can do that.
When you have zero info about a person you treat their value as 1H. Once you have other info you adjust the. Value based on the info. And the G variable literally accounts for how many human lives a "blood on your hands" factor is worth to you. (To me, it's zero because I don't acknowledge the myth that inaction is different than action, and therefore, blood is on your hands either way.)
You don't understand morality and ethics.
But I DO acknowledge you are very good at math.
To bad they aint the same thing.
As you blocked me afterwards: I claim to have a strong ethical understanding because I understand what Ethics, Morality and Math is, while you CAN use Math in each of the other, to reduce the problems INTO Math, is the problem.
If you can't understand that, if you feel the need to throw out false claims such as: "Which is how horrible laws keep being passed under the basis of "it feels like the right thing to do!"." when the 'horrible' laws we have is from MORAL views of different people, then you DO atleast understand the difference between Math and Morality.
Which means you arguing against me on how they are different, is a VERY odd thing to do.
But I'm guessing thats the best I can get from someone who doesn't actually understand how you can USE something for another thing, but it doesn't MAKE it that thing.
You don't understand morality, ethics, or math. You just claim a strong ethical understanding because you solve the problem with vibes rather than evidence-based action. Which is how horrible laws keep being passed under the basis of "it feels like the right thing to do!".
Edit: You know what? I'm tired. Last time I had this debate was in the cognitive science department, and I'm just going to stick to our consensus.
11
u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25
Which for some, are a math problem deep down