/lit/ - Literature

I'd even push the dude

my imperative is not giving a fuck

Kant BTFO

>yet another trolley thread.

>>6781008
>yet another meaning of life question
>yet another discussion about the meaning of beauty
fuck off philistine

>mfw I would time the pull just right to launch the trolly into a multitrack drift and murder everyone

Post the question?

>>6780997
>you will never eat Lexi's taco salad after a healthy young buck gives it to her

>>6781048
Hello newfriend, a couple things you should know:

1. This is /lit/, and it's not your mother's book club, so don't ask stupid questions.
2. The fact of the matter is, if you don't have a comprehensive working knowledge of philosophy, you're shit. And should kill yourself.
3. Philosophy is for dunces.

>install nipton rebuilt
>test it out by buying all the upgrades
>exit the mayor's office
>1 fps

>>6781099
well you might as well go join the mayor on the tire pile

>>6780997
the only correct answer is to freak out and run away / faint

>>6780997
When faced with a decision in the category of loss versus greater loss, it is imperative, the imperative, that we chose the mere loss.

>>6780997
>What's your categorical imperative for such an action?

What, I'm no imperial, I'm from a democractic country.

>>6780997
>categorical imperative
"Do unto others like I would do you if you stopped being fucking spooked"

>>6780997
>the trolley problem will actually occur in real life, not only in introductory lectures for undergrad plebs
>you need categorial imperatives to deal with those kinds of questions
top tier thread already

>>6781065
fool-osophy is for dupes

>>6780997
>implying you have any sort of intuition over the fact.

>>6781048
trolleys gonna hit five people, if you pull a lever another guy gets hit

different trolley is going to hit five people, if you push a fat guy infront of the trolley he dies instead of the other five

now read kant

>But Anon that's murder!

>>6781036
>Wait for the trolley to pass, then push the fat guy.

>What's your categorical imperative

I don't believe in spooks. Except the dark kind.

i literally don't want to meet anyone who thinks not pulling the level is the right decision

My imperative is moral grandstanding on facebook.

>implying there is any relevant difference between pulling the lever and not pulling the lever
>implying it isn't the fact that you are making a decision about what is going to happen that is the fact that makes you responsible in the situation
>implying that responsibility is absolved simply because one of the decisions involves you moving your hand and the other one doesn't
>implying your retard brain should be allowed near a discussion about ethics if you honestly would not pull the lever

>>6780997
Who is this succulent seductress?

Frankly, probably, my actions would be comprised thus: pull the lever, then run to the lone man whimpering, tied to the tracks, knowing bitter if saccharine death rolls on to him, inevitably, trying not to panic, attempting acceptance, and lie juxtaposed to him, locking my hand into his, looking to the rushing clouds above, the iron edging into my neck, squeezing my fingers around his tighter, saying to him, "You're not alone, friendo."

>>6781539
But he is. And no matter your hero actions you still a faggot for it.

>>6781553
no you don't get it bud.
i'm dying with him.
that's the point.

>>6780997
who is this fluid druid

>Pay $7000 to go on a date with Lexi Belle
>Expect to do all the talking and for her to be cute but stupid
>This happens

>>6781556

>>6781128

Do you not know that in the service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?

>>6781571

Lexi Belle

My imperative is granting humans the right to judge over the worth of other humans' lives is always wrong, which is why you mustn't pull the lever.

>implying stopping the trolley with your own body isn't the only answer
It's like you guys are afraid of death or something

>>6781556
totally sick!

>>6781578
hahahahahahaha

>>6781556
>>6781578
Radical!

>>6781556
This changes everything! I'm not anymore sure about my answer.

The very best way out, utilizing the purest form of morality there is, is to let it flow.
Let's say the unfortunate binding of five people to some trolleys tracks was due to a complete injustice done by the perpetrator, lets say the victims are as pure as snow, and didn't take any part of any morally wrong activity that led to the event at place. By pulling the lever the only thing we'd be accomplishing will be nothing but diverging -- Not stopping-- and could say, sort of vouching for the perpetrator's intended objective to happen; injustice.

The solution would lie in destroying the injustice being sent, rather than just reflecting and change its directions to some other's life that had even lesser to do with the atrocities being committed.

>thought experiments

hey guys let's argue over this dumbshit fictional predicament totally divorced from social reality that is literally only possible by positing an impossible god's eye perspective

>>6781866
>what is ethics? what are analogies?

>>6781855

If "let's stop the scenario from happening" was an option then the whole thought experiment would have no purpose.

>>6781868
Useless when put into a situation detached from reality.

>>6781868
>what is ethics?
An analytic pyramid scheme based on contingent Enlightenment ideals mostly irrelevant to the actual functioning of a state and to the particulars of social life.

(Virtue ethics isn't too bad, but by its nature virtue ethics is effective only for individuals)

>>6781855
The solution would lie in destroying the atrocities being sent, rather than just reflecting and change its directions to the purest form of any part of vouching for the purest form of any part of five people to some other's life that had even lesser to happen; injustice. The very best way out, utilizing the victims are as pure as pure as pure as snow, and could say, sort of any part of vouching for the perpetrator, lets say the unfortunate binding of vouching for the unfortunate binding of morality there is, is to do with the unfortunate binding of morality there is, is to do with the lever the perpetrator's intended objective to some trolleys tracks was due to let it flow. Let's say the perpetrator, lets say the atrocities being committed.

>>6781869
then, any of the aforementioned solutions would end up being morally wrong. In other words, any decision that we would end up taking would never escape the fate of being criticized (for a lack of a better and suitable alternative, simply because of its corrupt state, or at least in a sense of justice) therefore exposing itself to the possibility of being labeled as wrong.