EDIT Ok so it’s just the trolly problem.

EDIT2 : AHA War Games 1983. “The only winning move is not to play.” (We might call this the final product of a lot of smart philosophical digestion, because it’s a famous movie). There’s always the perfectly valid option to ditch the riddle. (Because maybe the riddle is dumb, or maybe the riddle is no better than a thousand others, utilitywise )

  • BussyCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because it implies utilitarianism is the best option by oversimplifying the problem. For example in your example you gave zero details on the situation.

    • DominatorX1@thelemmy.clubOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s what we call an abstraction. This particular abstraction highlights a moral point.

      Not bullshit. Useful and interesting.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Typically, an abstraction maintains the essence of the original. Asking “what if <good thing>, but it costs <bad thing>” isn’t an abstraction.

        I’m not aware of a proposed solution to climate change that involves mass torture or murder.

        The question feels more like one of those terrible parlor games where you have to pick a few cards and then argue some randomly generated point.

        • DominatorX1@thelemmy.clubOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s the same riddle. You get that, right?

          And so we find ourselves without an easy answer. And so we are forced to inspect the riddle more closely. To uncover hidden assumptions and such. We might even do that in conversation, on a forum like lemmy.

          • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The core of the riddle is that it is an ultimatum.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum

            Ultimatums have been debated historically, in great detail. For example, in the old testament of the bible.

            https://www.bibleoutlines.com/isaiah-361-377-dont-make-a-deal-with-the-devil/

            Even if one is not religious or cares not for reading biblical stuff, it is simplified effectively as such:

            If given only 2 choices, it is never fair. Find another choice.

              • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 hours ago

                You are right, it’s not the same thing. I had an English teacher who tossed out her vocabulary lesson one day and instead went off on a very energetic rant about critical thinking, ultimatums, game theory, dilemma, paradox and so on. I’ve always wanted to recreate her lesson but never get it right.

                I do think my final line still applies for this scenario. There’s always another way. I think War Games does the same idea I was trying to convey but I’ve never seen it, I’ve only seen enough references to it, to vagely know what it’s about…