NP Wednesday September 25, 2019

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

https://egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-012

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

[mlooney 3,594]

57 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

https://egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-012

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

More or less.

[hkmaly 490]

7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

Where?

Regarding the commentary:
1) Maybe the bandit knew the game will protect him ... I mean, the game is protecting him, right? Or what saves him from being killed before he finishes talking?

2) It's start of game. Players at this point might not realize they will get filthy rich later.

3) I don't think there's anything evil at looting the bodies. And considering in lot of games it's either necessary, or so easy it happens automatically ...

4) Yeah, totally. Although I suspect no game actually allows such option. Damn railroading. ... thinking about it, maybe the optimal evil solution would be to sell the villagers AND the bandit into slavery. Wait. The ultimate evil solution is likely to torture them personally. The ultimate neutral solution is to sell them all to slavery.

[ijuin 594]

6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

3) I don't think there's anything evil at looting the bodies. And considering in lot of games it's either necessary, or so easy it happens automatically ...

Well, it's not like any of the dead bandits' possessions are ever going to find their way back to the bandits' legitimate heirs, and if any government-employed people (soldiers, etc.) happen upon the corpses, it will all become government property. Also, from an ethical perspective, you've already committed a far greater sin by killing them than you would by stealing their stuff, so saying that you should feel guilty for stealing from guys you have killed is kind of closing the door after the horse is gone. I say it's spoils of war--they would have robbed YOUR corpse of everything if they had won the battle, after all.

[The Old Hack 2,489]

18 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

I hate that test so much. It is so utterly contrived. Also, the version I heard specifically states that it is a fat person you can shove in the way of the trolley, because they are more disposable as human beings. Fat people are fat because they are BAD, after all. They eat too much and are stupid and gluttonous. They are not at all fat due to issues of metabolism or due to medication they have to take or the like.

Too, I found a way to break the test. There is nothing in it to prevent you from throwing yourself in the way of the trolley. You will have saved six lives, killed no-one (except yourself), and done no moral wrong. Besides, I qualify, too. The BMI proclaims me to be fat and thus a Bad Person.

(Gotta love the BMI. I met a guy from Team Danmark when I enlisted in the Army. Back then I wasn't fat, I had not yet started to take the medication that caused me to massively gain weight. Team Danmark consists of athletes working on qualifying for the Olympics and this guy had just won the under-18 Danish 1500 meter swimming championship the year before. He was PACKED with muscle and if there was a gram of fat on him I sure as all out couldn't see it. But then he saw a new doctor who informed him he had to lose weight because he weighed too much according to the BMI. Well DUH -- muscle mass weighs more than fat and the BMI does not take that into account, the idiotic thing.)

[Darth Fluffy 338]

3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I hate that test so much. It is so utterly contrived. Also, the version I heard specifically states that it is a fat person you can shove in the way of the trolley, because they are more disposable as human beings. Fat people are fat because they are BAD, after all. They eat too much and are stupid and gluttonous. They are not at all fat due to issues of metabolism or due to medication they have to take or the like.

Too, I found a way to break the test. There is nothing in it to prevent you from throwing yourself in the way of the trolley. You will have saved six lives, killed no-one (except yourself), and done no moral wrong. Besides, I qualify, too. The BMI proclaims me to be fat and thus a Bad Person.

(Gotta love the BMI. I met a guy from Team Danmark when I enlisted in the Army. Back then I wasn't fat, I had not yet started to take the medication that caused me to massively gain weight. Team Danmark consists of athletes working on qualifying for the Olympics and this guy had just won the under-18 Danish 1500 meter swimming championship the year before. He was PACKED with muscle and if there was a gram of fat on him I sure as all out couldn't see it. But then he saw a new doctor who informed him he had to lose weight because he weighed too much according to the BMI. Well DUH -- muscle mass weighs more than fat and the BMI does not take that into account, the idiotic thing.)

I can attest that this was a real thing that happened, back in the day. An Air Force sergeant that I knew who was massively fit kept getting nailed for the fat boy program. He didn't look like he had enough fat on him to make a pat of butter. Much later, they started pinching or dunking to test the obvious.

 

 

[ChronosCat 158]

22 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

https://egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-012

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

How so?

The way I've always heart it Runaway Trolly test is about whether it's better to kill one person or allow multiple people to die.* The scenarios in the comic and in the commentary are about whether the person is willing to allow bad things to happen for some cash.

* The version The Old Hack mentions ruins that question, as it instead becomes at least partially about what you think of fat people. I wonder, are there versions where the race or gender of the person to be tossed on the tracks are mentioned, too? I know this scenario (as a hypothetical question) has been used in sociological studies; I hope the people doing the studies realized how important the phrasing is to what question you actually get the answer for...

[The Old Hack 2,489]

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

The way I've always heart it Runaway Trolly test is about whether it's better to kill one person or allow multiple people to die.

Then it is still stupidly phrased. It is set up to simulate an ethical situation that as stated is highly unlikely to happen in real life. If this was some sort of more logical and naturally occurring situation, such as the man you may be forced to kill is a hostage taker and may do the killing if you do not stop him, it would be a much better dilemma. For one thing, what do you do afterwards? Justify it with the argument that you possibly saved several lives by killing him? You might have done that through talking him down, too. Or possibly you could have restrained him in a nonlethal way up to and including bodily harm but falling short of lethal.

But in this it is set up in a mathematically exact way as stupid as that old sci fi story The Cold Equations. The whole setup is contrived and unconvincing. I prefer my ethical dilemmas to involve the humanities rather than some sort of mathematical proof. Maybe I could be convinced otherwise if someone would answer this question: is E equals M times C squared good or evil? Pick one or the other, please, and justify why this is so.

[Don Edwards 561]

8 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(Gotta love the BMI. I met a guy from Team Danmark when I enlisted in the Army. Back then I wasn't fat, I had not yet started to take the medication that caused me to massively gain weight. Team Danmark consists of athletes working on qualifying for the Olympics and this guy had just won the under-18 Danish 1500 meter swimming championship the year before. He was PACKED with muscle and if there was a gram of fat on him I sure as all out couldn't see it. But then he saw a new doctor who informed him he had to lose weight because he weighed too much according to the BMI. Well DUH -- muscle mass weighs more than fat and the BMI does not take that into account, the idiotic thing.)

"Too many people are figuring out that the height-weight chart, reducing fitness to just two numbers, is over-simplified. What shall we do?"

"Hey, how about if we divide one of those numbers by the other and call it some sort of index? That sounds all scientific and stuff."

"Brilliant! Let's see... we want big numbers to be bad, and not have to deal with fractions, so let's divide weight by height. Does 'Body Mass Index' work?"

"All agreed?... okay, that's settled. Next issue..."

[Don Edwards 561]

By the way, the rational response (imho) to the trolley test is as follows: "I am not qualified and authorized to manipulate the controls and I have no knowledge of what safety systems are in place. That switch certainly ought to have security devices on it such that unauthorized persons, such as myself, can't mess with it. If I attempt to intervene, the best that can happen is that I am incapable of actually taking any action; the worst is that I interfere with safety systems I am unaware of that would have saved everyone."

[hkmaly 490]

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

On 9/26/2019 at 5:43 PM, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So the classic Runaway Trolly ethics test dressed up as a fantasy adventure?

I hate that test so much. It is so utterly contrived. Also, the version I heard specifically states that it is a fat person you can shove in the way of the trolley, because they are more disposable as human beings. Fat people are fat because they are BAD, after all. They eat too much and are stupid and gluttonous. They are not at all fat due to issues of metabolism or due to medication they have to take or the like.

I'm pretty sure the motivation of the test to state it's fat person is "the person is fat enough to derail the trolley".

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But in this it is set up in a mathematically exact way as stupid as that old sci fi story The Cold Equations. The whole setup is contrived and unconvincing. I prefer my ethical dilemmas to involve the humanities rather than some sort of mathematical proof. Maybe I could be convinced otherwise if someone would answer this question: is E equals M times C squared good or evil? Pick one or the other, please, and justify why this is so.

The difference is that in space, it IS actually possible to meet problems having just single solution, due to much smaller number of variables. On Earth, there are basically two kinds of problems: the ones which require reacting fast, meaning you don't have time to think, and ones where you have time, but also plenty of options.

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

By the way, the rational response (imho) to the trolley test is as follows: "I am not qualified and authorized to manipulate the controls and I have no knowledge of what safety systems are in place. That switch certainly ought to have security devices on it such that unauthorized persons, such as myself, can't mess with it. If I attempt to intervene, the best that can happen is that I am incapable of actually taking any action; the worst is that I interfere with safety systems I am unaware of that would have saved everyone."

I have other rational response: I'm pretty sure that I would attempt to find solution not involving killing someone ; it might take me so long it would be too late to do anything, but it would be rational, as in real life, it's unlikely other solution wouldn't exists.

However, note that I watched documentary about testing people in real-life reenactment of trolley problem (without anyone being killed, of course). The idea was that the person authorized to operate the controls asked them to watch it while they go on toilet or something. Not sure if it proves anything else than that people are going to do anything to get on TV.

[The Old Hack 2,489]

22 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The difference is that in space, it IS actually possible to meet problems having just single solution, due to much smaller number of variables.

I am afraid this needs some context to properly explain. The original idea of the story was that a space pilot found a stowaway young girl aboard his craft which was headed on a vital rescue mission carrying emergency medical supplies to a distant colony. The writer intended to show how clever use of available resources would make it possible for the pilot to boost life support sufficiently for both of them to survive until they arrived. However, the editor liked it better that the pilot couldn't solve the problem and wouldn't take the story until it had been rewritten in a form so the pilot was forced to space the girl in order to complete the mission.

Of course, in order to make the story fit to the editor's demands, the writer had to basically eliminate all the extra safeties and emergency supplies from the craft's stores, creating the absurdity of a deep space craft with only exactly the supplies necessary to see one person safe to the end of the journey. This caused the story to appear incredibly contrived and also gave those responsible for outfitting the craft the appearance of being idiots. You are of course right that the mathematics would be readily worked out in a spacecraft -- but for exactly that reason the people in charge of safety margins should have made those exact darn calculations in order to make sure unexpected circumstances would be covered.

31 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I'm pretty sure the motivation of the test to state it's fat person is "the person is fat enough to derail the trolley".

Unfortunately, intention and result are two very different quantities. The prejudices of the recipient may so readily distort the intended message and thus also affect the result of the test.

[hkmaly 490]

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

59 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The difference is that in space, it IS actually possible to meet problems having just single solution, due to much smaller number of variables.

I am afraid this needs some context to properly explain. The original idea of the story was that a space pilot found a stowaway young girl aboard his craft which was headed on a vital rescue mission carrying emergency medical supplies to a distant colony. The writer intended to show how clever use of available resources would make it possible for the pilot to boost life support sufficiently for both of them to survive until they arrived. However, the editor liked it better that the pilot couldn't solve the problem and wouldn't take the story until it had been rewritten in a form so the pilot was forced to space the girl in order to complete the mission.

Hmmm ... wasn't aware of this.

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Of course, in order to make the story fit to the editor's demands, the writer had to basically eliminate all the extra safeties and emergency supplies from the craft's stores, creating the absurdity of a deep space craft with only exactly the supplies necessary to see one person safe to the end of the journey. This caused the story to appear incredibly contrived and also gave those responsible for outfitting the craft the appearance of being idiots. You are of course right that the mathematics would be readily worked out in a spacecraft -- but for exactly that reason the people in charge of safety margins should have made those exact darn calculations in order to make sure unexpected circumstances would be covered.

I'm not sure how much safety margins are on real spacecrafts, but note that the longer the journey is, the more costly even little bit of extra supplies is - even to the point that the mission might become IMPOSSIBLE with adding some safeties. I actually find quite believable that the craft which is supposed to have just single pilot wouldn't have enough resources for two people. Sure, it's not best engineering, but if it was already supposed to be emergency ship, basically something which was only used because something else failed before ...

(Not having enough fuel and nothing they can remove except the girl, less likely. Not having enough oxygen or water because additional oxygen and water would raise fuel requirements too much, more likely.)

I find less believable that the girl would be actually able to get on board without anyone noticing. Although ... on one hand, this being emergency and sort of "last option" should mean more checking - on other, this being emergency might mean not enough time for proper procedures.

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

59 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I'm pretty sure the motivation of the test to state it's fat person is "the person is fat enough to derail the trolley".

Unfortunately, intention and result are two very different quantities. The prejudices of the recipient may so readily distort the intended message and thus also affect the result of the test.

That's valid point.

[The Old Hack 2,489]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm not sure how much safety margins are on real spacecrafts, but note that the longer the journey is, the more costly even little bit of extra supplies is - even to the point that the mission might become IMPOSSIBLE with adding some safeties.

Agreed, but remember -- this is fiction. We are not just talking realism here. We are talking a fictional spaceship where cost efficiency somehow creates a situation where it is exactly impossible to create an environment where only one person could hope to survive the planned journey and where existing resources could in no possible way be jury-rigged into letting two survive. This is the sort of story where the environment available has been adjusted to fit the situation by the writer (or in this case, editor) -- and that is why it seems contrived to me.

And as you point out, there is also the bit where someone is able to sneak aboard unnoticed. This postulates a situation where it is a death sentence for at least one and possibly both people aboard if there is a stowaway. That seems to call for a bit more careful scrutiny of who boards and who leaves.

[ijuin 594]

Yes, was there NO mass that could be thrown overboard besides the stowaway? Food and water supplies for the pilot? Could the pilot land without the cushions on his seat? Throw that handgun of his overboard too--it's dead weight unless you plan to use the recoil from shooting it as a tiny bit of extra thrust, and then it's still dead weight once you've fired all of its ammo. Toss out all of their clothes, and possibly the EVA suit too if there's any way of getting it out the airlock without a human inside the airlock.

I think that the movie Destination Moon did it better, where the crew had to lighten their spacecraft by removing everything possible, and the last few pounds of mass reduction was achieved by finding a way to jettison the last EVA suit.

[hkmaly 490]

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

11 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm not sure how much safety margins are on real spacecrafts, but note that the longer the journey is, the more costly even little bit of extra supplies is - even to the point that the mission might become IMPOSSIBLE with adding some safeties.

Agreed, but remember -- this is fiction. We are not just talking realism here. We are talking a fictional spaceship where cost efficiency somehow creates a situation where it is exactly impossible to create an environment where only one person could hope to survive the planned journey and where existing resources could in no possible way be jury-rigged into letting two survive. This is the sort of story where the environment available has been adjusted to fit the situation by the writer (or in this case, editor) -- and that is why it seems contrived to me.

As long as it's possible in reality, why shouldn't it be possible in fiction?

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

And as you point out, there is also the bit where someone is able to sneak aboard unnoticed. This postulates a situation where it is a death sentence for at least one and possibly both people aboard if there is a stowaway. That seems to call for a bit more careful scrutiny of who boards and who leaves.

Yes. Also note that "By law, all EDS stowaways are to be jettisoned because EDS vessels carry no more fuel than is absolutely necessary to land safely at their destination." ... so, it seems to happen often enough to create law about it, but not often enough to do anything else with it? Also, like, the girl didn't hear about the previous cases? Is that a secret law?

... did some criminal already tried to kidnap some celebrity and put it on EDS? The trial would be SO much publicity ... and the people who did that law wouldn't be elected ever again.

5 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yes, was there NO mass that could be thrown overboard besides the stowaway? Food and water supplies for the pilot?

There is likely no food and just enough water for him to be conscious when landing. Optimization, remember?

5 hours ago, ijuin said:

Could the pilot land without the cushions on his seat?

In high-G maneuvers, cushions are NOT luxury.

5 hours ago, ijuin said:

Throw that handgun of his overboard too--it's dead weight unless you plan to use the recoil from shooting it as a tiny bit of extra thrust, and then it's still dead weight once you've fired all of its ammo.

That's standard procedure after making sure there are no stowaways.

5 hours ago, ijuin said:

Toss out all of their clothes, and possibly the EVA suit too if there's any way of getting it out the airlock without a human inside the airlock.

IF there would be EVA suit on board, better action would be to put the girl inside and let some other rocket fetch her.

(Wait: I only looked at wiki page, it's long time since I actually read that ... IS there EVA suit on board?)

2 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I meant that the game was presenting "moral" or "ethical" choices that had no "right" answer

It actually seems the game was presenting "moral choice" where the "right" answer is obvious and "wrong" just plain stupid.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

20 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

How so?

The way I've always heard it Runaway Trolly test...

I meant that the game was presenting "moral" or "ethical" choices that had no "right" answer
That is to say, whatever option you might chose could be shown to be wrong

Is it the Trolly Test specifically?  No

But it has a very similar flavour

[hkmaly 490]

3 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I meant that the game was presenting "moral" or "ethical" choices that had no "right" answer

It actually seems the game was presenting "moral choice" where the "right" answer is obvious and "wrong" just plain stupid.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

Beware the "Obvious" answer

That "Stupid" answer may be there for a reason

[The Old Hack 2,489]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

As long as it's possible in reality, why shouldn't it be possible in fiction?

We are not just talking 'realism' -- and it is very difficult to precisely define 'realistic' in stories. We are talking about a hypothetical situation, to wit, the trolley problem or as here a fictional short story. Perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: I personally find both scenarios contrived to a painful degree and set up in an attempt to justify an act of murder. There is little of ethics in this for me.

Obviously your mileage may vary -- or as Dan put it, for us using Metric, our kilometerosity. If either or both of these scenarios work for you, that is a fair cop. They merely do not satisfy me as being good exercises in ethics.

[ChronosCat 158]

8 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I meant that the game was presenting "moral" or "ethical" choices that had no "right" answer
That is to say, whatever option you might chose could be shown to be wrong

Is it the Trolly Test specifically?  No

But it has a very similar flavour

It only has a similar flavor if you assume that there are likely to be bad consequences for freeing the villagers, and Dan didn't give any indication that was the case. In fact, it sounds to me like Dan's complaining about the opposite to what you're suggesting: that the morality of Fable is too simplistic, giving you the only "completely good" and "completely evil" choices with no shades in between.

8 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It actually seems the game was presenting "moral choice" where the "right" answer is obvious and "wrong" just plain stupid.

While the inability to kill the slaver and take his money rather than selling the villagers to them is an oversight on the game creator's  part, I wouldn't say that selling the villagers into slavery is stupid (unless there's a significant chance of the Player Character facing consequences for it), just highly immoral.

[hkmaly 490]

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

11 hours ago, hkmaly said:

As long as it's possible in reality, why shouldn't it be possible in fiction?

We are not just talking 'realism' -- and it is very difficult to precisely define 'realistic' in stories. We are talking about a hypothetical situation, to wit, the trolley problem or as here a fictional short story. Perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: I personally find both scenarios contrived to a painful degree and set up in an attempt to justify an act of murder. There is little of ethics in this for me.

Obviously your mileage may vary -- or as Dan put it, for us using Metric, our kilometerosity. If either or both of these scenarios work for you, that is a fair cop. They merely do not satisfy me as being good exercises in ethics.

Discoveries always happen at boundaries. Therefore it's necessary to explore the boundaries - including the boundaries of when is murder justifiable. You may found it justifiable, you may find it unjustifiable, you may find it too hard to resolve ... but it will tell you something about ethics. More pleasant and fun stories won't tell you anything new.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

11 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I meant that the game was presenting "moral" or "ethical" choices that had no "right" answer
That is to say, whatever option you might chose could be shown to be wrong

Is it the Trolly Test specifically?  No

But it has a very similar flavour

It only has a similar flavor if you assume that there are likely to be bad consequences for freeing the villagers, and Dan didn't give any indication that was the case. In fact, it sounds to me like Dan's complaining about the opposite to what you're suggesting: that the morality of Fable is too simplistic, giving you the only "completely good" and "completely evil" choices with no shades in between.

Yes, the morality being too simplistic is ONE of complains Dan has. He has four more and numbered them.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

11 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It actually seems the game was presenting "moral choice" where the "right" answer is obvious and "wrong" just plain stupid.

While the inability to kill the slaver and take his money

Hey, that's very good idea. I mean, instead of just killing the bandit, what about killing whoever he wants to sell them to? Presumably, some slavers, although he may want to sell them, I don't know, to some plantation or something.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

rather than selling the villagers to them is an oversight on the game creator's  part, I wouldn't say that selling the villagers into slavery is stupid (unless there's a significant chance of the Player Character facing consequences for it), just highly immoral.

Selling the villagers into slavery is just immoral. The "stupid" part is how the game does it - starting with the four points Dan complained about. You are not just selling them - you are selling them cheap to someone you should rather kill and take his money.

It's like ... being evil doesn't mean just not being nice to villagers. It also means not being nice to anyone else.

In fact, killing the bandit and taking his money is still not enough evil. You should sell the villagers to the bandit, follow him until he sells them, THEN ambush him, take the money he got for the villagers and if he survives, sell him to the same people he sold the villagers to - unless they looked like they are his friends, in which case you can simply kill him THEN kill them. And wait, do you get XP for killing the villagers?

[The Old Hack 2,489]

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

More pleasant and fun stories won't tell you anything new.

Nor will deliberately distorted stories. All they will do is serve as justifications for whatever ambition the writer contrived them for. Take that wonderful old claim, that the end justifies the means. How often has it been spouted even when the means employed were stupid, wasteful and headed nowhere even near the end they claim to be for?