#trolly problem

[rhymeswithchronic]

Okay listen so we’ve all heard about how ParkCiv is a really good analogy for late stage capitalism that has been simplified into an easy to understand in an easily digestible format for younger audiences to learn and understand, but CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE INTENSE MORAL QUESTION THAT PVPCIV PRESENTS?

What is the value of a human life? Is the suffering of one person acceptable if it means a life of peace for the rest of the world?

Evbo originally tried to get out of his first 1v1 by claiming that he has a wife and kids, which implies these family units DO exist in some way.

While the people we see that are eager for “The Chosen One” to appear so they can gain everlasting life are all fighters, not everyone who lives in this world is on their own. There are likely mothers, fathers, children, natural leaders, amazing people that are clinging onto life by only a few swings of the sword. It’s not just violent fighters, it’s likely normal people trying to simply get by day to day life.

Is it selfish of them to want to be there for their families, friends, etc.? To fear death? Is it selfish of Evbo to try to escape his fate of being essentially a pig for the slaughter forever?

Is world peace worth the suffering of a single person?

If one person has to suffer for an eternity to bring peace to his civilization, someone with no friends, no family, no ties to the world, is that okay?

Is it okay to torture someone in any circumstance?

I don’t have any clue whether this kind of thought was intentional, but this is SUCH a vivid and interesting moral dilemma. It’s the trolly problem made physical. Of course everyone wants to say that it’s never okay to facilitate the suffering of another individual, but in a world where your continued death spreads life and allows families and friends to remain together for the entire natural lives, would you even be able to continue saying that? Or would you be willing to accept that this is the price, and an innocent person has to pay it.

Would you partake? Observe? Fight back?

It’s SO FASCINATING and I am IN LOVE

And it’s once again presented in such a simple and easily understandable format that it is available for everyone to consider.

GOD my brain has melted into a gooey puddle on the floor please send help

[kiwiweewee]

Steph is interning at Wayne Industries. She is tasked with taking notes while sitting in on a meeting that Bruce is supposed to lead. Suddenly, Bruce receives an urgent work-related message.

Bruce: *looks at his phone*

Bruce: goddammit…

Bruce: Stephanie, there’s something I have to attend to. Go ahead and start the meeting, I’ll be back in a minute.

Steph: What? Me? I don’t know how to start a meeting, I’m just supposed to take notes!

Bruce: I don’t have time for this, just do an icebreaker question or something, you’ll be fine.

Steph: An icebreaker? Like what? What do I say?

Bruce: It doesn’t matter, just get them to talk for a bit. I’ll be right back, don’t keep the board members waiting.

Steph: wait-

Bruce: *exits*

Steph: …

Board members: …

Steph: Hi, uh…

Steph: have you guys ever heard of the trolly problem?

[unknownlighthousekeeper]

I am unsure if someone has already said this, but I thought it just before bed and thought it would be worth sharing.

Luigi Mangione (if he is the shooter) is the modern equivalent of the trolly problem.

Do you sit back and let the trolly ( Healthcare CEO) roll over and kill thousands of people, or do you pull the lever, derailing the trolly and killing the driver.

Luigi simply chose to pull the lever

[sapphiresaphics]

Tumblr’s inability to engage with the trolly problem really is the cause of a lot of Arcane Puritan bullshit.

Cuz like… ONE of these two outcomes was gonna happen. NO MATTER WHAT.

And you’re too busy arguing if the fantasy gas causes cancer to engage with the fact that ALL OF ZAUN WAS GOING TO BE VIOLENTLY INVADED.

[batcavescolony]

Left: Jason making Bruce chose between killing him or the joker in UTRH.

Right: the trolley problem

[dark-dragon-8]

You live in a world where people can get a "Serial killing license" for various reasons and jobs, one of which being a doctor.

Doctors can have a license to kill people who they deem healthy enough to be donors and even broke to the point where they cannot pay for their help.

Killing a minor is illegal and those who are born with physical disabilities are automatically spared from this rule due to their bodies not being good enough to "harvest" from.

Killing those who have jobs involving education, healing and entertainment — giving people a reason to live in such a world (this has been added recently) — and therefore can also get a killing license is also illegal due to the world needing them alive to continue the cycle.

Among the jobs who can allow people to get this kind of license are: Doctors, Authors, Directors, Anatomy educators, and any other person who may need and have a — in world — "justified" reason to commit such acts.

What job do you take in this world?

What kind of role would you have?

Are you at risk or not?

Are you becoming a serial killer?

Will you start a resistance?

I really wonder what opinions other people have about this concept.

[beardedmrbean]

[whydidisavethistomyphone]

[lichen-thr0pe]

[here-i-remain]

Ethics (oversimplified):

There are, broadly speaking, three ways of answering the question “did I do the right thing?”

Deontology (oversimplified):

An action is right if it is accordance with certain moral duties or commands. Actions are good only insofar as they follow rules, and how we feel when we follow the rules, and the consequences of following the rules, are of a secondary concern. You have duties. Perform them. It is a rule-following ethic.

Consequentialism (oversimplified):

An action is right if it brings about good consequences and avoids bad consequences. How we feel when we maximize consequences may be important, because pleasure and pain are consequences of actions. Rules can be broken if they produce too much pain or harm. If you break a rule, that’s okay, as long as it’s done to bring about a good or better state of affairs. Every action is justified or criticized on whether or not it produces good consequences.

Virtue Ethics (oversimplified):

An action is right if it the person does it in the right way— if their feelings, intentions, and beliefs are all lined up so that they can perform the action in a certain way. Rules and consequences are important, but what is most important is that the person genuinely believes that what they’re doing is right, and is actually doing the right thing, and does not struggle to do so. There is a right belief, right feeling, and right intention, and actions are judged according to these requirements.

[patheticprogrammingperson]

On one track is a large pile of money, on the other is Mr. Douglas Wreden, hurtling towards them is the city of Kyoto, will you pull the leaver to guess "Netherlands"?

[sergeant-macho-nacho]

[voidingintotheshout]

OK, on last nights episode of Saturday Night Live, Jane Wickline turned the trolley problem into a romantic sex jam, and I really feel like everyone owes it to themselves, paying their duties to Tumblr, to see this thing. It is so good.