Comment on Are MRNA vaccines any riskier than other vaccines?

• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I love pointing out to your “emotional” people … that they are choosing to not act, and therefore responsible for those five people dying.

  the proper answer is to flip the switch, and then do everything else you can to save that one person- like running to stop the train, or getting the person off the tracks, or maybe getting one of the five off the tracks and sending them to run and stop the train (buying you more time?) while you go and get the next guy off the tracks…

  Alternatively, if you wanna be misanthropic,

  source

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    im using the term emotional as its usually what’s tied with pathos when talking about pathos/logos/egos. Hence some (as not all people who run on emotional decision making) will make a conscious decision to not pull the lever due to the above situation.

    some people will convince theirself that the feigned ignorance of the switch is their way out of the situation because they absolutely despise the fact that they had anything to do with the direct death of someone. Originally I never thought of this mindset (as im very logic oriented) till I met someone who answered the question that way in person and broke down their reasoning. It’s never an all emotional person thing, but some will willingly choose to not act in self preservation of their sanity.

    source

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      … but some will willingly choose to not act in self preservation of their sanity.

      That’s where the trolly problem is problematic. It’s fundamentally designed to force a choice where one or more people will die.

      In real life there really are not any choices typical of that binary choice- and more importantly, choosing to not do something will haunt you even more than the opposite.

      How often do we stew over lost opportunities? Roads not taken?

      source

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        its a question with a binary choice, choosing to change the situation defeats the purpose of the choice regardless of the situation. it’s possible to modify the choice in such a way that the question of binary choice became a situation, e.g seeing a camera feed and a button at some remote location.

        source
      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Philosophical questions are often impractical.

        Guilt and emotions are also often illogical. We can rationalize all sorts of things. In this case, it’s easy enough to rationalize that we had no hand in creating the situation; we played no part in the results and bear no responsibility. We can wash ourselves of any guilt.

        We already do this constantly- there is surely some suffering in your city and your life. Homeless people, starving children, whatever else. I’m betting that you, personally, could do something (or something more) to help them. Whether it’s picking up a hammer with Habitat for Humanity, or choosing to spend a little extra to get the “Slavery-free” chocolate instead of the regular kind. But you don’t. None of us do, at least not all that we reasonably can. Why is that? I’m making a choice to do nothing on these, how is it any different?

        source
• ABCDE@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s not about who created the situation, it just exists for whatever reason. It’s about intervening.

  source

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    hence

    hate the idea that manipulating the lever means you are first hand causing the death of said one person

    that act on its own is intervening into the situation vs the other which is not.

    source

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      because of a situation you as the person created

      Maybe I misinterpreted your comment here; the situation exists not because of anything, it’s just there. The binary choice (or is it truly binary if there are supposedly three?) is the conundrum.

      source