Can you determine the optimal solution to this puzzle? Please provide a rational explanation for your decision

Can you determine the optimal solution to this puzzle? Please provide a rational explanation for your decision.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

>optimal

Not enough information. What are we optimizing for?

Send it to A of course.
If you let it carry on going it will go to B, and then get re-directed to C and kill many more people, if you send it to A however only 3 people will die instead of 9.

You are optimizing for the best outcome in your opinion.

assuming all of these people are complete strangers for me.
i don't do anything as it's not for me to decide who dies and who doesnt. if i don't do anything i won't be responsible for it.

Both people pull their levers at the same time, the switch jams and stops the tram, everybody lives.

>optimal
Since everyone but A-guy is tied up, it would be optimal to pull the lever first.
Then you can take time with killing the rest in whatever way you find most enjoyable.

>solving problems subjectively

Inane.

set the switch to a, get lots of credit for saving many people fuck the grieving wido

This, op btfo

Logically, rationally, I should pull the lever. Fewer people will die. The world would be a better place as a result of such an action.

In reality, I would do no such thing. I am nowhere near capable of handling that much responsibility. I would run away from the situation as quickly as I could and deny to myself, for the rest of my life, that I could have changed anything or was even there.

Well what is the objective solution then?

...

A2 + B2 = C2

Fucking easy. Next question.

There's no reason I am morally obliged to do anything.

What would autopilot do

The current situation is optimal. If the man on A pulls his lever to kill all the people on C than that is his problem, not mine.

We can't determine that until I have the more information, as explained above.

...

Except that you know he will. Of course he will. I would. You would. Essentiallly anyone would. Protecting our mates and offspring is hardwired into us at an incredible deep level.

It therefore becomes a question of doing nothing and killing C, or killing three/four (I can't tell if the A guy is stuck there) to save nine.

I rip out the lever and brutally beat the remaining languages to death

Assuming I only have control over my lever, there are two distinct courses of action:

1. Don't pull my lever
2. Pull my lever before he pulls his lever

The outcome, respectively:

1. The man will most likely prioritize his wife and children over the lives of presumably random strangers on C, so he will pull the lever. C dies, A and B live.

2. A dies, meaning the man and a few random strangers. His wife and children keep on living.

So from my point of view, I'm deciding between:

>9 strangers die, family lives
>4 strangers die (includes man), family widowed

So it depends on whether or not the widowing of the family is worth the lives of 5 random people. And based on the assumption that statistically, most of those 5 random people are going to have families, I would be destroying far more families.

So the logical course of action is to pull my lever right away and let the man die.

Again, it is his problem.
If I do nothing, I kill no one.

kek

multi track drifting

Pull the lever. This isn't even hard.

look the other way faggot

Going for the highscore obviously.
Best score is getting the train on C, so I do not change my lever and hope A does.

Take no action and avoid legal liability.

But then B and most stuff at C is jobless and will kill itself...

The only possible outcomes are A or C since the other guy will pull the lever no matter what. Why even include the thing about the other guy and his wife? The fuck is this?

I always answer the same thing for every scenario, do nothing. Worst thing that I did would be placing the full burden on the 2nd switcher.

IF all of track A agreed to die willingly then I'd pull it. Right now its optimal when B dies since its predetermined for B and its 2 lives lost, the 2nd switcher now has to deal with the generic rail problem and if he was like me, he'd refrain from pulling the switch. He's going to pull it anyway bec its family but then that's his tragedy.

The extended moral choice is sacrificing a few vs indirectly sacrificing a lot of people.

>IF all of track A agreed to die willingly

You would still kill them, and thus you would go to prison for murder.

While if you don't touch shit, there is no crime committed by you.

I like python, but fuck PHP, I'll handle ruby or js if it means php is dead

It would be the same thing without the middle track and the other guy. It's useless information and doesn't affect your decision.

For some weird moral debates it apparently makes a difference if you cause a death directly or indirectly.

TRIPLE TRACK DRIFTING

kek

Pull it. Since there's no guarantee the husband won't be biased, in fact he will most likely pull the lever to kill C. There are 3 options here:
1. You don't do anything, the husband doesn't do anything. Here, 2 people die and 13 live, this is the most ideal but very very unlikely scenario.
2. You don't do anything, the husband pulls the lever. Worst case scenario as 9 people die and only 6 live. This will almost certainly happen if you decide not to do anything.
3. You pull the lever. You'd kill 4 people, but 11 would be saved. As this is a guaranteed scenario since the husband won't be able to redirect the train (which is assumed 99.9% of husbands would do), this is the most optimal solution.
Choosing not to intervene is retarded.

...

I'm standing on A. I ain't pulling shit nigga.

Keep your trolly problems of this board and in your ethics class faggot.

The other guy's payoffs aren't clear enough to make this into a real game theory thing, I don't think. You could play out each scenario of their ordinal rankings, and that could produce a dominant strategy, but I doubt it.
I think in most cases, killing the lever guy is better than letting him decide, so pulling your lever would usually be optimal.

Yeah, we don't know the husband's payoffs, but even giving him very favorable odds for not pulling the lever would produce a worse result on average.

This is the preferable option

that's fucking genius actually.

tackle the guy to ensure only two lives are lost :^)

>inaction is not legally liable

What should the self-driving car do?

what if dogger is hyper-intalligent doctor who will come up with the cure for cancer tomorrow? woof

But it's a cat?

no is dog in cat disguise

incredible intelligent

It's smart enough to wait for the proper signal to cross, unlike the idiots on the left

aggressive weight transfer and handrake

Program it to sense the highest concentration of white males and kill them, leaving the minorities intact. If the whites are on the train it self destruct

*4

In this case it's unclear what outcome would be favourable so yeah, doing nothing would be legally safe

it wouldn't even be going fast enough to have any incident, it would already be going slower having seen the people in advance, before they even stepped out onto the road

exactly

simple

you break the law

you die

It would be better to kill the people on the left even if the lane on the right was completely empty

Not only did they cross a red light, but they also ACTIVELY ignored the car that was heading towards them. Meaning they just blindly crossed without looking.

run the idiots over.

Fuck JS

I will not pull the lever, if man A acts reasonably only two will die. If he doesn't, I can't be held culpable.

>Opting to kill 2 people to save a man from making his own decision in a tough moral dilemma.
Disgusting

Does anyone have the comic with the mother where she implores her child not to pull any lever because getting involved is worse etc.

Its a copy of the billy dont look meme

husband isn't tied down; no widowing will occur

Look closely, his feet are in chains

Plus, if he wasn't bound then it would be fucking pointless, he would just get out of the way

Shoot man on a and let the train keep going the least deaths

And what if I'm not a criminal and/or sociopath and therefore don't have a gun on me?

Then how did you end up in this situation in the first place?

Get into my tardis raise its defences to max and go back in time to park in the trains path no one dies

Congrats you actually win this judgement test. I'm saving your answer. Where'd you learn analysis? I'd like the resources that taught. Thanks man.

The solution is easy:

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

What's wrong with the doctors solution?

OP put me there, the sick individual

o shit

Come again?

>Where'd you learn analysis?
By living life with an open mind, I suppose. All knowledge is just pattern matching learned by observing nature. Some people are simply better at recognizing patterns than others.

The way the doctor would solve this if course afterward he would figure out who put them all into this situation and go stop him

So you are saying those that are not should kill themselves? Why are you such an asshole?

>So you are saying those that are not should kill themselves? Why are you such an asshole?
No. Idiots have a role in society as well.

So now you are say8ng all black people are idiots? You fucking racist

i'd kill Sup Forums

has a point
But considering Kill A, he would want it. Nobody wants to choose between your family and 8 people.
Fuck sociologists. There is no right answer on the trolley problem anyway.

In case this is even applicable in real situations like autopilot systems. The focus should be primary on preventing such shitty choices. Instead of implementing a moral compass for a car it should check its redundant breaks and drive according to the weather conditions. I just guess its just cheaper to compare human lifes.
Humanities/Econ is cancer.

hardest challenge

true hardest challenge

This. Fuck you moralfags

the car should aim for maximum coverage, none of those fucks should survive their transgression

Pull the lever. For every ℵ0 persons there are uncountably infinitely many persons in ℵ1

you're killing way, way, way more people by not pulling the lever. A measly constant factor on the speed doesn't change that

Easy
Assume you're a rational actor
Assume the man on A is a rational actor.
Assume that rational actors only seek minimal loss of life
Then:
If you pull the lever you will not have minimized loss of life
If the man on A pulls the lever he will not have minimized loss of life
Therefore:
You should not pull the lever

QED

>Assume the man on A is a rational actor.
wrong assumption already bud

>Assume that rational actors only seek minimal loss of life
another wrong assumption

you can do better than that

assume you want to save the most people

To pull. The man on A will always choose to kill C over himself and his family, therefore you save 6 people from dying and kill someone willing to commit murder.

You do nothing. It's not your moral decision to make. It's up to A to make the right choice. If he does right, then C is spared just as you would have done.

Try this fags
If you pull the lever you only get outcome A. If you don't you get outcomes B and C.
Assume only you are a rational actor seeking to absolutely minimize loss of life.
Let WORTH be a function of the people on the line computing the overall worth of their lives
Let P(pulls) to be the probability that the man on A pulls his lever
You should only pull your lever if P(pulls) * WORTH(C) > ~P(pulls) * WORTH(A)

anyone have the NAP one?

your math is wrong

should be

P(pulls) * WORTH(C) + ~P(pulls) * WORTH(B) > WORTH(A)

Also ‘WORTH’ here has to be the worth of everybody who lives if ‘C’ dies, just to be clear