• Zellith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Technically the 2nd guy could just let it go through and nobody dies. However if it was to double over and over forever until it stopped, then technically the best option is to just double it forever. Nobody would ever die? If someone decided to end “the game” as it were and kill some people, then that’s on them.

    • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Pretty sure there’s a base case when you run out of people to tie to the tracks. A naive log2 of 8 billion is only 33 decisions.

      • FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except, given finite resources, the tracks would run out before having enough space for 8 billion tied-up people.

      • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, say there are 2^33 people for illustrations sake, by 33 decisions you (the first puller) are guaranteed to be dead too. At 32 it’s 50/50, the odds increase as the decisions get made. From a self preservation standpoint the best thing you can do to minimize your personal risk is pull the lever. It also happens to kill the fewest other people.

        The only out is nobody pulls the lever.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s on them, but it affects thousands or millions of others.

      As such if you can prevent that, and don’t, it’s also on you too.

      • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that’s bad logic. The choice everyone has is kill or not kill. I can’t be held responsible for someone deciding to pick kill when they have the ability to pick not kill.

          • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, and what does that actually mean for/to me? It’s not the same as intentionally putting somrone in a situation where both choices knowingly result in death. And even if was in this situation, wouldn’t it ultimately be the fault/responsibility of whoever set up the scenario to being with?

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, since we’re analyzing a hypothetical ethical question I shouldn’t leave any open assumptions. I made the assumption that at some point, at least one person will have to die, as in I see this trolley problem as a situation where at the end there is no choice and the maximum number of people die.