/lit/ - Literature

me
kill the mortals because it will minimize suffering

>>16656912
this is not a conundrum at all
eternal suffering for one person does not even come anywhere close to the same magnitude as 1 second of suffering for 5 people

>>16656912
don't touch anything, it's not your problem at the end of the day, let someone else deal with it

>>16656953
it ultimately will become someone's problem though, and often YOU are the person that the problem fell on
If you do nothing while there was no one else, it was due to your decision

>>16656912
I stand with Epicurus on that one and also christian take on this problem would be similar since eternal torment is the highest form of punishment given by God.

>>16656912
The immortal wouldn’t die so run him over

>>16656912
obviously send the train towards the inmortal since he will eventually outlive the very train itself

>>16657008
That begs the question though, will the him that survives be the same him? You'd think psychologically speaking that much trauma would leave you completely ruined and changed

>>16656912
Kill the mortals, the sum total of their pain is infinitely less than that of the immortal's.
>>16657008
The assumption is that if the train runs him over an infinite number of times, the train is indestructible.

Utilitarianism is cancer, and anyone who views this problem through a utilitarian lense is a retard. Life cannot be reduced to numbers, and one side having more numbers than the other side doesn't make them more or less deserving of suffering on its own.
Therefore, the problem is unsolveable as it stands; in order to solve it, you'd need to know who all of the people (both mortal and immortal) on the track are in relation to you.

>>16656926
>>16656970
One must imagine the immortal trolley problem guy happy.

>>16657029
Trauma comes from fear of death. If you're immortal you can't experience trauma.

>>16657037
>The assumption is that if the train runs him over an infinite number of times, the train is indestructible.
NOOOO YOU CAN'T USE LOGIC YOU HAVE TO PLAY BY MY STUPID RULES!!! YOU'RE RUINING MY SMUGNES STOP STOP STOP

>>16657136
False.

>>16657143
Prove it.

>>16657142
Shut up, faggot. It does not say the train or the tracks will ever wear out.
>>16657136
What is Prometheus?

>>16656912
Being immortal, the immortal will have an infinite amount of time to slip through his bonds. Eventually he will be able to free himself.
>inb4 NOOOO THE BONDS ARE INDESTRUCTIBLE AND INESCAPABLE
See this post >>16657142

>>16657151
>Shut up, faggot. It does not say the train or the tracks will ever wear out.
It doesn't say they don't either. Of the two assumptions yours (train and tracks won't wear out) is actually impossible and the least likely.

>>16656926

"What you yourself can suffer is the utmost that can be suffered on earth. If you starve to death you experience all the starvation that ever has been or ever can be. If ten thousand other women starve to death with you, their suffering is not increased by a single pang: their share in your fate does not make you ten thousand times as angry, nor prolong your suffering ten thousand times. Therefore do not be oppressed by “the frightful sum of human suffering”: there is no sum: two lean women are not twice as lean as one nor two fat women twice as fat as one. Poverty and pain are not cumulative: you must not let your spirit be crushed by the fancy that it is. If you can stand the suffering of one person you can fortify yourself with the reflection that the suffering of a million is no worse: nobody has more than one stomach to fill nor one frame to be stretched on the rack."
George Barnard Shaw

>>16657172
Not sure why he used "women" here instead of men, which would be more conventional when referring to a generic person in his day. Still it's an interesting point.

>>16657193
Being autistic here, but that's because it's a paraphrase, here's the real quote, which really informs the trolly dilemma and the question of utilitarian ethics.

What you can suffer is the maximum that can be suffered on earth. If you die of starvation, you will suffer all the starvation there has been or will be. If ten thousand people die with you, their participation in your lot will not make you be ten thousand times more hungry nor multiply the time of your agony ten thousand times. Do not let yourself be overcome by the horrible sum of human sufferings, such a sum does not exist. Neither poverty nor pain are cumulative.

>>16656926
>>16657037
No. Punish the immortal for being immortal in the first place.

>>16657193
Because men suffering equals who cares, but women suffering! Oh god, that's awful! Women suffering, NOOOO HOW DARE YOU! Just take the Titanic as an example.

>>16656912
>Immortal will be infinitely trapped in his own loathsome head after the heat death of the universe. Being run over occasionally by a train would likely be a preferable stimulus. The immortal is already destined for infinite suffering and I’ll be doing him a favour.

>>16656912
This illustrates a problem I've been having with the idea of hell.
At a certain point, Hitler will have suffered worse and for longer than every person he was responsible for hurting.
I don't know what the average age of the person who died in the camps was, let's say 45. And lets just say 17 million people died total.
After 765000000 years in Hell Hitler would have suffered a lot more than all of those.
And do you think the Jews in heaven are going to be chill with Hitler coming to heaven after that length of time? Or would they just kick the can down the road literally forever when it comes to his parole?

But in the context of that particular image, here on earth, I'd say just run over the immortal person. It is my supposition that an immortal person would be incapable of consciousness, at least after a certain amount of time.
I think that you would lose a great deal if you lost death. I think you'd be incapable of understanding time and would lose language and eventually the ability to tell anything apart, including pleasure and pain. I don't really consider anything alive if it can't die, and I believe that the immortal subject would realise this about itself.

>>16657231
>>16657258
Nice

>>16657258
I think most theologians don't conceive of hell or heaven as places per se, rather states of being in the afterlife that aren't dictated per se, but a result of metaphysics. In death you're met with the infinite light of God; a rotten, sinful soul will be agonized to see things as they truly are, while a blessed, pious soul will be comforted. So it isn't about the souls in heaven willing anything or another for the souls in hell, it would just amount to something like a worldly prayer for the souls of the sinful that they accept the good for what it is.

Why minimise suffering?

>>16656912
Train runs over the immortal breaking his bonds. He moves off the tracks and lives. Train runs over mortals killing them. They cease to live. Easy fucking choice OP. This situation is flawed.

>>16656912
I would try to time pulling the lever when the front wheels passed the junction and the back wheels have still to pass. Hopefully it would derail the trolly.

>>16657078
Good job anon, I wheezed laughing.

>>16656912
The whole point of the exercise is that time is of the essence and the people cannot be moved in time. With the immortal you can divert the track onto him and with one pass with sever the ropes and you can move him afterwards just as you are untying and moving the mortals off the track.
Optimal.

>>16656912
>run over immortal
>free him when the train aint close
easy

>>16657258
>implying Hitler would've been in hell
>implying the holocaust happened
>implying joy and loss can be quantified in terms of numbers alone

>>16657008
based and logic pilled

>>16656912
>you are here and you know about switches
Who put me here?
Am I being detained?

To suffer is to live. Shunt to the immortal. His suffering will be a blessing to him.

>>16657407
Your logic doesn't work. If the holocaust never happened then why would he be in heaven?

>>16656912
I think we're against death because we're against suffering. The trauma impacted on on-lookers is worse for infinite torture than 5 deaths. I don't think it helps to torture someone indefinitely (or for any length of time for that matter).

>>16657169
>Of the two assumptions yours (train and tracks won't wear out) is actually impossible and the least likely.
Yes, because immortality is equally likely
>>16657219
>Punish the immortal for being immortal in the first place.
Why would I punish them for something that is simply of their nature? I can't punish a dog for having fur or barking.

>>16657407
Do you deny the Holocaust, anon?

>>16657057
what if they are strangers? what if you find yourself in that situation?

>>16657172
This is a pretty good thought.

>>16657149
I'm not afraid of dying in front of crowds.

>>16656912
Throw the immortal into eternal suffering, make a religion out of it and atone for your sins. Simple as.

>>16658218
Obviously.
>>16658102
For attempting to free his people.

>>16658942
What shape is the Earth, anon?

>>16658972
>if you don't believe in x you must therefore believe in y
Cope.

>>16659004
>six million Jews under German control
Define German control first. Secondly, are you denying the Holocaust as a whole, or denying the popular view of the Holocaust? Third, one stupid belief tends to go hand-in-hand with another.

>>16657057
This. Utilitarianism doesn't account for fallibility.

>>16656912
I fixed it for you.

>>16657218
Schopenhauer btfo

>>16656912
Supposing that the guy in the infinite loop retains memories of his previous experience, he would suffer more. Suffering is the measure of how the past and the hopes it bore are brutalized by the present and the future is mutilated. Those on the linear track simply fear for their deaths and then are dead; it is thereafter over for them, their suffering is gone. The infinite loop guy, is chained to an unending horror of perpetual death. I suspect he would eventually no longer fear it, but he would be driven to the extremes of insanity by it .

>>16656912
If you believe in souls and the immortal is a good guy left choice is the only possible choice even if there were 100 000 mortals on the track. You're not destroying the mortal's immortal souls, but by trapping the immortal in an infinite loop of suffering you sort of are destroying his

>>16657258
>And lets just say 17 million people died total.
Let's say less than a million you fucking kike

>>16657172
*genocides an entire nation*

heh, i should only be charged for a single murder, since i'm no worse than some dude who killed somebody in a botched robbery

>>16656912
Is it better to shock 100 people with 1 volts or one person with a 100 volts, pain seems at least apparently to be better distributed rather then concentrated. This dies not however take into account the worth of the 5 lives being lost as that is also a factor despite just comparing pain.

only vampires are immortal so kill the vampire nigger

>>16660126
There would have been no war without Hitler.

>>16660145
Criminal culpability is not the same. There is a strictly numerical quality to it, a serial killer is more serious than a one time killer. For obvious pragmatic considerations. The question is that there is an upper bandwidth in the subjective experience of suffering lord brainlet.

>>16660244
There would have been no war without war (ww1) ww2 was simply a continuation of it, European imperialism devouring itself. You can't have that many empires so close together without them wanting to destroy each other and to destroy all they have all at once in a suicidal power trip.

>>16656912
Choose the immortal. Odds are, as an immortal, there will eventually come a time when he is freed from that tracks. Thus his suffering while infinitely greater, results in no deaths. And I have defined death as more important than suffering, while it is still generally desirable to reduce both. Why is death worse than suffering? Cause fuck you you reddit tier edgelord atheist, that's why.

>>16657057
Life can be reduced to numbers. People aren't that unique.
While its hard to measure happiness, its not some impossibility. You can through intelligent deduction and logic determine rough values.

>>16657008
More importantly he will outlive the ropes that bind him after a round or two under the train. Choosing the immortal is just the superior answer.

>>16657078
Got me

>>16656912
Fuck over the immortal till he tell me how he got immortal and how i can too.