Thanks, that’s what I thought. They always point to the recorded side effects and I always counter with the fact that the disease is a lot lot worse than the cure, and that it’s a classic trolley problem. If the equation is kill one to save a million, you always kill one.
that’s not a trolley problem. The trolley problem is an ethics debate about whether it’s more ethical to allow multiple people die or take the action of saving that multiple people, condemning another to die instead. Not taking action, however, is itself an action- a choice- that is being made and the problem is entirely disconnected from real life…
The question of “vaccinate or not vaccinate” is an entirely different question. the question is, should you take an exceedingly small probability of manageable risks (allergic reactions, sore arms) to mitigate a rather high probability lethal risk (long term hospitalization, coma, death. death like symptoms.)
in the moderna vaccine, There’s a 10% chance your arm is going to have swelling/redness/soreness. 1.2% chance that the area effective is large enough to even really notice. and for the more severe risk of alergic reactions, that’s 2.5 cases per million doses, and is easily managed simply by maintaining the 15 minute observation after injection. (during which time staff are on hand to deal with the anaphylactic shock, which makes it substantially unlikely to cause permanent harm.)
the pfizer-biontech vaccine has similar mild reactions, that usually clear up in a single day, and a whopping 11 cases per million doses for allergic reactions (and 80% of those cases happened to people with an already diagnosed hypersensitivity to the PEG.)
this is compared to the probability of, you know, dying, from being unvaccinated. Per the CDC… yes, the vaccine is highly effective and extremely safe.
The trolley problem is a bit different because its result depends on what kind of person you are.
People who think logically will always pick the option that kills less people. Some people who are emotionally driven hate the idea that manipulating the lever means you are first hand causing the death of said one person, whereas the 5 people, while who could be saved, didnt die outright 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.
The situation they created was to kill one person, versus the situation that existed was that 5 people would die.
The difference is between action and inaction and the fact that it’s easier to say “you caused something” if you took some action than if you simply didn’t take an action.
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…
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.
… 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?
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.
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?
Thanks, that’s what I thought. They always point to the recorded side effects and I always counter with the fact that the disease is a lot lot worse than the cure, and that it’s a classic trolley problem. If the equation is kill one to save a million, you always kill one.
Or am I missing something?
that’s not a trolley problem. The trolley problem is an ethics debate about whether it’s more ethical to allow multiple people die or take the action of saving that multiple people, condemning another to die instead. Not taking action, however, is itself an action- a choice- that is being made and the problem is entirely disconnected from real life…
The question of “vaccinate or not vaccinate” is an entirely different question. the question is, should you take an exceedingly small probability of manageable risks (allergic reactions, sore arms) to mitigate a rather high probability lethal risk (long term hospitalization, coma, death. death like symptoms.)
in the moderna vaccine, There’s a 10% chance your arm is going to have swelling/redness/soreness. 1.2% chance that the area effective is large enough to even really notice. and for the more severe risk of alergic reactions, that’s 2.5 cases per million doses, and is easily managed simply by maintaining the 15 minute observation after injection. (during which time staff are on hand to deal with the anaphylactic shock, which makes it substantially unlikely to cause permanent harm.)
the pfizer-biontech vaccine has similar mild reactions, that usually clear up in a single day, and a whopping 11 cases per million doses for allergic reactions (and 80% of those cases happened to people with an already diagnosed hypersensitivity to the PEG.)
this is compared to the probability of, you know, dying, from being unvaccinated. Per the CDC… yes, the vaccine is highly effective and extremely safe.
The trolley problem is a bit different because its result depends on what kind of person you are.
People who think logically will always pick the option that kills less people. Some people who are emotionally driven hate the idea that manipulating the lever means you are first hand causing the death of said one person, whereas the 5 people, while who could be saved, didnt die outright because of a situation you as the person created.
It’s not about who created the situation, it just exists for whatever reason. It’s about intervening.
hence
that act on its own is intervening into the situation vs the other which is not.
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.
The situation they created was to kill one person, versus the situation that existed was that 5 people would die.
The difference is between action and inaction and the fact that it’s easier to say “you caused something” if you took some action than if you simply didn’t take an action.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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?
Deaths were not mentioned at all.