You have been misinformed. The original researchers made multiple forms of the trolley problem to research the effects of different scenarios on people’s moral reasoning. Since then there have been dozens of forms of the trolley problem on surveys and research papers. The entire point is to change the scenario.
Even the “classic” dilemma that you’re used to with the man being on the side of the tracks with a switch is a variation on the original trolley problem which had the person being the trolley operator inside the trolley.
Oh man. The trolley problem is a thought experiment. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking it and changing it into another thought experiment that’s loosely based on the original. Who’s going to stop you? The thought police?
Also don’t forget we’re in a memes channel. You’re taking this way too seriously.
I understand you’re making a point, it’s just that it’s not a good one. Yes, you can create a thought experiment where the trolley can be teleported into another dimension. Is that worthwhile? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean that creating variations of established thought experiments is inherently invalid.
Perhaps we are taking the trolley problem too seriously in the comments. The trolley problem is not meant to be a model for analysis nor a relevant dilemma in all ethical discussions. It was a way to illustrate the objections a philosopher (Philppa Foot) had against certain ethical approaches. It is, at best, a thought experiment with many limitations.
Parenthesis. Just as in physics where you may find people supporting either quantum mechanics or general relativity; in psychology where you may find people more inclined to behaviorist, humanist or psychodynamic therapy models; you have ethicists (moral philosophers) sometimes divided between deontology and utilitarianism. If I remember correctly, Philippa Foot was trying to demonstrate these mainstream approaches loops/problems with this hypothetical scenario, as she supported a different school of thought other than these two (one called virtue ethics). Also worth noting that just as in these disciplines and many others you also find attempts to “reconcile” apparently incompatible ‘theories’ (or whatever the case), you find the same in ethics (moral philosophy).
Back to topic, the trolley problem has become a common meme, so I think it makes sense people modify it to illustrate the moral dilemmas they are encountering in the world. It may feel like the trolley problem is not the right thought experiment for some situations because it was not meant to be universal, as I said. Thought experiments are just tools, efforts to make apparent, in this case, the difficulties of moral decisions and the conflicting priorities in given cases (among other problems). Thought experiments should be adapted and created to serve this purpose, to help us illustrate these problems. To do it the other way around which would be categorizing in which thought experiment (and its alternatives) a given problem clicks is to risk a rigid or incomplete framing of a problem in favor of an unnecessary categorization/boxing.
So, the dilemma U.S. voters are facing regarding the support of the Palestinian cause their two main political parties show is not necessarily going to fit any thought experiment in record. We either create a new one, abstain from using one, or heavily modify a known one. It’s natural some people decided this. Descriptive? I’d imagine a new thought experiment would be more useful capturing the nuances of the problem while also simplifying the hypotheticals. Effective for communication? Well, that’s the strength of this: a well known meme has better chances at being shared* (and virilized) than a whole new thing of a more serious nature.
Edit: *and here I include shared, commented, discussed, etc.
If you hadn’t skipped half your classes you’d know that adding new rules/complexity to the trolley problem is literally half the point of it
No, it really isn’t. The problem is exactly as it’s stated. You don’t get to add new tracks. You just deal with the choices given.
You can’t make up rules about making up rules man. That’s not how any of this works.
You have been misinformed. The original researchers made multiple forms of the trolley problem to research the effects of different scenarios on people’s moral reasoning. Since then there have been dozens of forms of the trolley problem on surveys and research papers. The entire point is to change the scenario.
Even the “classic” dilemma that you’re used to with the man being on the side of the tracks with a switch is a variation on the original trolley problem which had the person being the trolley operator inside the trolley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
You can’t just make up rules about not making up rules man. That’s not how any of this works.
Oh man. The trolley problem is a thought experiment. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking it and changing it into another thought experiment that’s loosely based on the original. Who’s going to stop you? The thought police?
Also don’t forget we’re in a memes channel. You’re taking this way too seriously.
Just making a point. It’s not much of an experiment if you can make it whatever you want. At that point… it’s easily solvable.
“Just teleport the trolly into another dimension.”
Done. Solved. No dilemma.
I understand you’re making a point, it’s just that it’s not a good one. Yes, you can create a thought experiment where the trolley can be teleported into another dimension. Is that worthwhile? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean that creating variations of established thought experiments is inherently invalid.
It’s no more worthwhile than this meme
The response to the dilemma doesn’t get to create the constraints though? Only the dilemma itself gets to set the rules.
Perhaps we are taking the trolley problem too seriously in the comments. The trolley problem is not meant to be a model for analysis nor a relevant dilemma in all ethical discussions. It was a way to illustrate the objections a philosopher (Philppa Foot) had against certain ethical approaches. It is, at best, a thought experiment with many limitations.
Parenthesis. Just as in physics where you may find people supporting either quantum mechanics or general relativity; in psychology where you may find people more inclined to behaviorist, humanist or psychodynamic therapy models; you have ethicists (moral philosophers) sometimes divided between deontology and utilitarianism. If I remember correctly, Philippa Foot was trying to demonstrate these mainstream approaches loops/problems with this hypothetical scenario, as she supported a different school of thought other than these two (one called virtue ethics). Also worth noting that just as in these disciplines and many others you also find attempts to “reconcile” apparently incompatible ‘theories’ (or whatever the case), you find the same in ethics (moral philosophy).
Back to topic, the trolley problem has become a common meme, so I think it makes sense people modify it to illustrate the moral dilemmas they are encountering in the world. It may feel like the trolley problem is not the right thought experiment for some situations because it was not meant to be universal, as I said. Thought experiments are just tools, efforts to make apparent, in this case, the difficulties of moral decisions and the conflicting priorities in given cases (among other problems). Thought experiments should be adapted and created to serve this purpose, to help us illustrate these problems. To do it the other way around which would be categorizing in which thought experiment (and its alternatives) a given problem clicks is to risk a rigid or incomplete framing of a problem in favor of an unnecessary categorization/boxing.
So, the dilemma U.S. voters are facing regarding the support of the Palestinian cause their two main political parties show is not necessarily going to fit any thought experiment in record. We either create a new one, abstain from using one, or heavily modify a known one. It’s natural some people decided this. Descriptive? I’d imagine a new thought experiment would be more useful capturing the nuances of the problem while also simplifying the hypotheticals. Effective for communication? Well, that’s the strength of this: a well known meme has better chances at being shared* (and virilized) than a whole new thing of a more serious nature.
Edit: *and here I include shared, commented, discussed, etc.