Schrödinger’s cat was written as a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation. He wasnt being serious.
wiki- Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics,[1] and thus he was employing reductio ad absurdum.
Sure, but that is other, real life stuff.
As you said
Does this make the problem easier?
It’s a thought experiment. It’s not meant to be a “real life” scenario.
Sure, and what happens is that people say virtue signalling solutions, instead of IRL solutions. So, what is the point?
Well the point is not this thing that you claim “people say”.
Who has ever used the trolley problem for virtue signalling? What’s even the supposed virtue signalling answer for the fat man on a bridge variant?
I have never seen a thread fight the hypothetical so hard that it actually died.
But ironically, we seem to have killed one hypothetical to save many others, so that’s an answer in the form of revealed preferences.
Bravo Good Sir. You win the (dead) thread!
It’s beyond tiresome.
Easy peasy: just flip the switch in the middle of the trolley so it derails, flips, and rolls sideways merrily along the tracks until it wipes out the people standing on both branches and a few bystanders for good measure!
In fine Hollywood style even if the trolley is only going 5mph, it’ll tumble for 30+ seconds and cover a quarter mile of trackage before the mayhem stops.
If you’re lucky there’ll be stack of gasoline barrels right by the track that explode in a huge fireball. I don’t know if railroad maintenance crews take care of that the way road crews do on all treacherous sections of highway.
A runaway trolley is on course to kill two men carrying a plane of glass. Do you flip the switch so it only kills one guy operating a fruit stand?
First rob the fruit stand, then flip the swift as the proprietor chases after you. Only if the proprietor is armed and showing lethal intent should you then push them in front of the trolley as an act of self-defense.
Here’s the thing: Einstein didn’t then just proceed to carry forward with his assumptions, evidence be damned. He developed a mathematical theory which could then be compared against empirical reality, with that being the ultimate test of his ideas.
The trolley problem, on the other hand, never seems to get beyond mere abstraction. It seems to be designed for sociopaths and shut-ins to congratulate themselves on being willing to throw the switch when so many lesser sheeple would be too “afraid” to do so. It reeks of the sort of self-congratulatory intellectual “exercise” that alt-right and incel’s like to engage in, completely missing the point that maybe—just maybe—they are not nearly as smart or nearly in tune with real-world conditions as they like to imagine themselves to be. Never quite grasping that they might not, after all, be the perfect arbiters of what is “necessary” or “good” for the rest of us.
Or maybe I’m just projecting. Because there was a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when I’d have been all too happy to explain why “throwing the switch” was unquestionably the right decision, and anything less would be moral cowardice. But then, you know, life happened and I gradually came to appreciate how uncertain and messy real-world moral problems can be.
Maybe a bit of both. Yeah, I am not fond of the trolly problem. Certainly we do get a lot of your first paragraph, but I think many do think it through.
This makes me think that the context(s) in which you have previously encountered it, and the discussions you have been exposed to, have been different from my own experience.
Seconded. I’ve only ever heard this in a context of stimulating discussion and self-reflection, not anyone showing off about doing the “right” thing.
And, as I asked earlier: if flipping the switch is supposed to be the obvious, virtuous “answer” to the problem, what’s the virtuous answer for the fat man on a bridge variant?
sigh, nevermind.
Christ, I hope not!
