The last two times I tried to post this—using the permaweb—did not work as I wanted. At least the second post does resolve and gives you a file that if you download—and add .html to the end—is readable. This time, I'm just going to put it all directly into the text of one post, using replies to put in the rest of it (presuming HN will let me make this many replies to my own post). Here goes.
1 / 9
Trolley problems do not exist in real life. In real life, you get “almost trolley problems.” And “almost trolley problems” can often be the fault of people who believe–or espouse belief–in trolley problems.
In real life, if you hear a trolley is barreling down the tracks towards either one or five people, the trolley, people, and tracks will not have materialized at the exact moment you too materialized at the tracks junction and your hand happens to be on the switch. And precisely after the amount of time it takes to make the decision, the trolley will not kill exactly one or five people. No, there will be moments when decisions are made to put that trolley and people on the tracks, and moments while the trolley is getting closer and closer to the junction, and moments after the junction and the trolley is getting closer to the people, and moments when decisions are not being made and nothing meaningful is being done. That is an almost trolley problem.
With an almost trolley problem there are likewise almost always ethical solutions that do not require anyone dying. The more “almost,” though, the more difficult they can be to accomplish in time. Such as, when it is most “almost,” activating the switch just part of the way, not enough to make the trolley switch tracks, but hopefully enough to make it derail. But the right questions to ask are… Why is there a trolley barreling down the tracks? Why are there people on the tracks? Why are we in this situation? Why did someone make the decisions that have us in this place?
awbvious•57m ago
So, it turns out the trolley was invented by a Mr. ForgottenToTime. A brilliant inventor who was really good at making locomotive machines, but not so much at convincing people to invest in his ideas. Because he told people honestly that his ideas may not see practical application right away, but with enough funding and coordination, possibly someday. But it might simply just take a lot of time and testing before it can be done safely. Not that many people would listen to him anyway, as he wasn't born rich.
Nonetheless, he preserved and started a modest company making decent trolley designs and rudimentary prototypes. Was coming along nicely, and probably would have gotten to the point of safe, general public use on its own with the help of other like-minded individuals in about twenty years. Not really a long time if you think about it.
Along came Samsamelo Altbankmenusk. Basically, the opposite of him. Really good at convincing people to invest in ideas, not so much at inventing locomotive machines. But so good at convincing, he could even convince you he was a brilliant inventor himself. Obviously, the only way he could do that is with blatant lies.
Now Samsamelo knew, at least conventionally, that lying is “wrong.” At least according to “society” which inconveniently has all the money that he wants. On top of the large amount of money he was born with, of course.
He also knows that society will allow wanting money for a societally-deemed-good purpose, such as feeding oneself and one's family. In extreme situations, like one is destitute and has no other option, it can even forgive/excuse lying or stealing to feed one's family. In other words, if it's for really good, but you need to do slightly bad, and you have no other options–society accepts.
But Samsamelo has plenty of money to feed himself and family. He nonetheless wants more. And he has seen among the many rich people around him that lying and stealing are very effective ways to do it. If he could just think of some way of justifying it, he could lie and steal, get lots of money, and be a “good” man.