News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Morality Changes in a Foreign Language by mrob on Saturday September 17, 2016 @06:46PM (#12522922)
The trolley problem is hard to think about, because like the prisoner's dilemma, it deliberately ignores the implied context. Both problems should really go something like this:

"You are suddenly transported into a magical portal. You arrive in the home of a powerful magical creature. It explains to you what has happened, and that you are not crazy. It gives you as long as you like to investigate this and convince yourself that it's right. It tells you that it has a one time chance to transport you to a parallel universe for a few minutes. It has never happened before, and it will never happen again, and you will never be able to prove it happened. Nobody in the parallel universe except those directly involved will believe it either. You are then transported to the parallel universe, and the trolley problem/prisoners dilemma happens. Then you are immediately returned home and the magical creature vanishes, never to interact with our universe again."

Under those conditions, I would take the utilitarian solution. In the real word we have unintended consequences, and utilitarian solutions are uncomputable. Deontology is at least fair and predictable.

Re:How Morality Changes in a Foreign Language by pessimizer on Saturday September 17, 2016 @07:13PM (#12523024)
Under those conditions, everyone would pick the utilitarian solution. There lies the problem IMO: psychologists carrying out experiments about "morality" when they have absolutely no theory of morality. Lacking this, they're left with "two of the same bad thing is worse than one of that exact same bad thing," and limit themselves to problems of relative morality, ignoring the fact that you can't do the same bad thing twice.

Ignoring is a mild way to put it, actually, because all of their experiments involve doing multiple additions and subtractions and substitutions. For them, morality is definitely a real number.

I think the complexity of these hypotheticals is entirely a result of a need for varied responses. The real answer is that there's not enough information given to make a determination. In the case of your hypothetical, there's clearly enough information (because one of the premises is that you have all possible information.) The question for the subject becomes easier, and the tough question becomes "Why is this horrible magical creature doing this, and how can we make it stop?"