What are some films that deals with moral dilemmas?

What are some films that deals with moral dilemmas?

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1818034922
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

MULTI RAIL

Almost every Villeneuve film deals with the grey area inbetween right and wrong.

Sophie's Choice

Lolita

ooooh i LOVED Birdman

Some of the films in the Dekalog series, I guess

oldboy

...

why the fuck am I laughing so hard at this

Because you're probably like 18 or 19

...

It's a nice subversion of the original problem with its ridiculously harmless premise.

The dramatic zoom helps

The trolley problem is the opposite of a dilemma. Saving 5 persons and killing 1 is always the best choice

>being a utilitarian

t. double-digit iq retard

What if the lone person is a beautiful woman and the other 5 are vile minorities like blacks, arabs and jews?

>vile
>jews
Sup Forums pls go

>pulling the lever
I am pretty sure even being near the lever violates the NAP since you are probably trespassing.
Thus, the only logical course is to let the invisible hand of the free market decide.

...

1.
On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

2

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

...

>whatever is best for the majority is right
Only 13% of the American population were slaves (in 1860). Slavery benefited the greatest number of people, so it was the right thing to do.

Watchmen

MURTI RAIR DORIFTO

Wake up son

Kill leftie obv

Option 2. Fuck the author, I don't care about the rest

You go for the 5 people here, as all 6 are lying on the track untied apparently, and therefore willing to die

Those people are not even tied

higher net suffering though

...

What game?

Cure cancer is the only correct choice, by the way.

If you touch the lever you are responsible for a man dying, if you don't touch it you aren't responsible for any of it. It's a dumb dilemma anyway because why doesn't the trolley just use it's emergency brakes? It is obviously the designers of an unstoppable trolley in the wrong.

Saints row 4

Let Them Eat Cancer

...

switch it back and forth very quick in order to derail the train and save everyone

...

This is what happens instead

It's a nice joke that isn't edgy.

B I PICK B!

...

Have fun, Sup Forums
moralmachine.mit.edu/

Fuck yeah I kill him.

Yes. Who wears red pants?

Depends on what they mean by "no one goes hungry." If that means death by starvation is impossible then absolutely pick that one. Energy problems are solved forever. Entropy isn't a thing. Manned space exploration got so much easier.
However if it means anything else then the cancer option is obviously the best.

...

now what

Cape Fear

>i am slightly older but because i am ridiculously bitter and didn't laugh i feel a sense of superiority
lol

well, Sup Forums?

You have two options:
1) You send the trolley down the first path which will kill 5 people
2) Send the trolley down the second path. If the trolley goes down the second path, one person will die. HOWEVER, further down the track, there is a person you know to be a sociopath. He can either divert the trolley so nobody else dies or allow 15 more people to die.

You are reasonably certain that the sadist is going to kill the 15 people. What do you do?

Help solve the overpopulation problem. If the runner were faster, she would be able to get out of the way in time.

Hit the single mom of course

...

hit the breaks

Nothing because self-driving cars should default to human driver in emergency.

Kill one person. Everything else is up to the sadist so I don't feel responsible.

Well, well, look at the city slicker pulling up in his fancy self-driving car.

Is that a stealth Sneed's reference

>default to someone asleep
yes very good

Who cares?
If he isn't going to kill them I'll try anyways.

NARC

I don't understand other people. Are they retarded? How are you not entirely utilitarian in these tests?

Why don't you just cure everybody's cancer

And then cook the cancer meat so nobody goes hungry?

>Eliminate cancer forever
Does that include the cancer that is killing Sup Forums

this test has been raided by Sup Forums for years

I don't want a self driving car that EVER steers itself into a wall, I don't care if there's a thousand people in front of me.

r8 moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1818034922

because you're a basement dwelling manchild with a terrible sense of humor

>I don't care if there's a thousand people in front of me.
t. achmed

If you picked the cancer option then you are in a state of infinite retardation.

stop?

Brakes are broken.

This. Im not going to pay money to crash into a barricade to save a cat.

>Muh overpopulation

Do a bit of research on just how the population of the world is distributed before spouting that bullshit.

>always the best choice
I'll let 5 niggers die to save one white man

Hit the brakes

People can get out of the way, the AI deliberately crashing the car should be a line that is never crossed.

I've thought about this and I reckon it should always be the driver who the computer puts on the lowest rung of safety because then it would force people who buy this technology to ensure that the car is able to deal with these situations properly

Slavery actually fucked over most of the white population in the south, because no one could compete with slave labor. It's similar to how illegals today undercut wages, but even more extreme.

>Villeneuve
>Birdman

If you were in this situation and the brakes didn't work, why not pull up the e-brake and grind the car against the wall to help slow down to the point where the car is going slow enough that the impact with the barrier won't be fatal?

>ethical dilemma
>race bias
whats your point

I unironically wouldn't pull the lever, because I don't want to deal with the legal headache of getting arrested for murder. I'd just leave the situation alone if this were a real scenario, in all honesty.

That the niggers are likely to go on and either kill people themselves and/or have children that kill people. I'm saving more lives.

>whats his point

>save people who can afford cancer cure
>save shitskins so they can breed even more

Gee, I wonder

not if they are all billionaires since birth

Irrational man
and
"Le Mirage"

how be billionaires be real if our fiat currency isn't real?

What did you put for abiding by the law? I think the car should always uphold the law.

You decided to jaywalk? Fuck you, you're paying the price this time. Next optimal decision is that animals should always die before humans. Then I think it becomes a lot more grey. Personally I saved as many people as possible after that.

Fuck Cake

>muh reality

what about 5 black men for 1 white woman? can't choose both

In the event of an unavoidable accident, the car should take every effort to make sure only people in the car are hurt/killed. Failing that, it should follow a strictly utilitarian prioritization (including profession, criminal record etc).