We've all heard of the Trolly Problem. What fascinates me is what leads a person to chose the course of action that he does. In order to make a choice, we must apply some type of system, a grading-scale, if you will. These are the systems I could think of off the top of my head (in no certain order).

1. Legality. "Doing" vs. "watching" are two different things under the law.
2. Joke. Just a joke answer "for the lulz".
3. Religion. A person's religion might make him choose one choice or another.
4. Ethics. Following from 3 above.
5. Some sort of utilitarianism, or assigning different values to importance of human life. One vs five lives is simple and easy, but what if the one is a loved one? What about two righteous people vs five evil?

Of these, system five intrigues me the most. Can we reduce human life-value to a basic mathematical value? And, if so, is it wrong?

[bold: this] is the real trolley "problem" we face in our day-to-day lives

Does this relate to the clotshot?

P92233
> Can we reduce human life-value to a basic mathematical value?
No.
/thread

P92246
Are you sure? Why not? If you leave out #3 (Religion) I think you can.

No matter what choices you make in the many trolley problems, you are always assigning a mathematical value to human life. It just sounds bad to admit it.

Suppose you are a doctor with two patients who will die soon and you only have time to save one. Maybe you value their lives equally so you'll save either one. Maybe you value them differently like if your patients were an old man and a child and you saved the child. If you refuse to assign a mathematical value to life, do you have to let them both die?

We face choices like these all the time. You could buy a new car, or you could donate it to buy mosquito nets and save a few lives in Africa. Givewell has studied this in depth. The most effective charities can save one life per $4000-5000 https://www.givewell.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-save-a-life.

All discussion of ethics consists of nothing but virtue signaling.
This is why law and morality have only declined as more and more "scholarship" has been invested into ethics. It's counterproductive.
The trolley problem is just one of many cues to virtue signal.

One's ethical convictions should not be explored by discussing ethics, but by putting them to action.
This is how the people who really matter establish ethics.
If you discuss ethics, you have already made yourself irrelevant.

P92252
Because you are comparing infinites.

The sandwich tried to fuck the furniture, however it was unsuccessful, because it didn't have any legs or hands to engage in the act. The sandwich's confusion ultimately led to its disintegration, spilling its contents everywhere for the unfortunate household item acting as its intended partner in this strange and bizarre encounter. The hapless furniture, caught off guard by the chaotic scene, found itself surrounded by a heap of mercilessly scattered sandwich ingredients, enticing but overwhelming in their chaotic amalgamation. With the scent of mayonnaise, mustard, and remnants of smashed pickles wafting through the air, the beleaguered object hesitated momentarily, wondering if it was, in fact, the sandwich's intended companion. Despite its initial misgivings, curiosity and hunger eventually got the best of its naturally cautious disposition, and it hesitantly ventured forward, eager to explore, taste, and, perhaps, claim as its own, this new and enticing creation.

P92258
>No matter what choices you make in the many trolley problems, you are always assigning a mathematical value to human life. It just sounds bad to admit it.
Any sequence of actions can be construed as doing this. This does not mean utilitarianism is the only way decisions can be made.
>You could buy a new car, or you could donate it to buy mosquito nets and save a few lives in Africa.
Niglets are just utility monsters for democratic ideology.

P92259
>All discussion of ethics consists of nothing but virtue signaling.
>One's ethical convictions should not be explored by discussing ethics, but by putting them to action.
Yes. "Might makes right" truly means ethics is always bound to action. But ideologically separating the two and mediating the interaction with social organization is an effective strategy.

P92267
Where are these infinities?

Why are midwits so obsessed over this so called problem? Does it make them feel smart and intellectual?

P92269
It seems like most utilitarians use it as a distillation of their intuitions and modify their framework every time they find an edgecase. So you might be right that every framework we write down eventually runs into issues. For instance there's the repugnant conclusion where an extremely large population of sad people outweigh a normal population of happy people, and utility monsters who gain incredible happiness from eating other people.

P92259
I'm sure a lot of ethics discussions are just virtue signalling. Even in Ancient Greece people complained about philosophers living in unrealistic theory land, and I think many current day philosophers still live there. However, there are a few practical uses like how much should we value the long term future over current people, and it's hard to talk about those if we don't use some way of valuing peoples' lives.

P92233
>Can we reduce human life-value to a basic mathematical value?
We do it every day in a flawed way because we have to make complex moral decisions as a part of living, and we have to live with the consequences. I don't find the trolley problem particularly challenging, I think most of the time it comes down to minimizing the total number of lost years of life, and you could make an algorithm for that pretty easily. If the problem is too even or complicated to work out, then just flip a damn coin and learn to live with the outcome, because really there's no other choice.

P92252
>Because you are comparing infinites.
We don't live forever or experience infinite life, so I don't think life has infinite value personally

P92280
Indeed probably so.

P92267
what infinites? the value of human life is zero.

P92283
The soul is immortal, so you kind of do, but also don't.
You will eventually be released from the mortal coil.

P92252
All human conflict is at root theological.
You have a religion, and this religion is the primary driver of your actions, even if you don't care to admit it.

P92259
You should read Bonhoeffer.

P92286
You can't compare zeroes better than infinites, so that checks out

>Can we reduce human life-value to a basic mathematical value?
we can do anything unless we cant
duh
will it be logically consistent? i dont think so
each human experience, no matter how retarded and worthless to society it is, is unique
they are literally not interchangeable, so no, you cant exchange value of life for money or other quantifier while still being consistent or perhaps claiming that you do the "right" thing

so, if you like to murder or enslave humans, just do it, the best reason to do anything is wanting to do something
dont pretend to be righteous because you are not, and embrace the dark side (:

>each human experience, no matter how retarded and worthless to society it is, is unique
based and redpilled
in the end, utilitarianism is just a judgement call on what the dictator think is the best for the world based on his narrow experiences in life

P92401
Cringe, weak, idealistic western zoomer. You never had to make a tough decision in your life and think that for every situation there's a single "good" choice that makes everyone happy. You think you always know better, and you dismiss the attempts to understand the human morality in a consistent way.

P92623
> to understand the human morality in a consistent way.
WDYM?