Good. The book is incredible and while the schwartzneger movie could have been good schlocky fun on its own it’s a goddamn embarrassment as an adaptation.

All amounts to the same thing.

That’s what I’ve been saying while you’ve been insisting that not choosing is somehow a third option. It’s not. It ends up being effectively “didn’t pull the lever”.

You seem desperate not to make the choice but the responsibility for that lack of choice still lies with you.

I haven’t chosen or refused to choose anything. I’m here to talk about your flawed interpretation of the trolley problem, nothing more.

Just as you were in a position to choose trump or Harris. So trump is as much your fault for failing to vote a viable alternative. As if you had chosen to vote him. Just because do not like either option dose not forgive you the effect of not choosing.

It seems you’re incapable of staying on topic so I am no longer interested in having a discussion with you.

You really seem to be failing to understand. And simple typos are easy to read around. I’m visually impaired so have little patience for that excuse.

It would probably help if the statement made sense to being with.

Pull or don’t pull. If you pull 1 person dies. If you don’t 5 die. There is no don’t kill.

“5 people die” is not the same as “I killed 5 people”. There is no option to kill the 5 people. They’re already dead unless you murder someone to save them.

As the guy in the signal box.

There’s no signal box nor is there verbiage in the trolley problem that implies you work for the railroad. You’re just a guy in a position to pull the lever. There’s no outside obligation to do anything at all.

Not voting leaves you with trump. Because you live in a fptp nation where 3rd parties just reduce the opposing vote.

I understand you want to crowbar the trolley problem into your metaphor about voting but I’m trying to stay on topic and discuss the problem itself.

Because the thought experiment recognises you live in a system where you have to make choices based on facts not your hopes and wishes.

No is not. It’s based on personal morality, whether an individual is willing to murder someone to save 4 others. The whole thing could be boiled down to “do the ends justify the means?”

Where you do not get to dobt murder someone.

I’ve read this like 6 times and I can’t figure out what you’re trying to to say so I can’t respond to it.

By some how inventing the dont murder somone option.

If you don’t pull the lever you haven’t murdered anyone. The person who tied them to the tracks murdered them. You were just standing there.

Just because you dont like it. Dos not mean you get to invent your own interpretations.

I’m interpreting it the way it’s written. There’s only 2 possibilities, murder one person or let 4 die by not murdering that person. “I choose not to decide” is the latter. It’s not a third option. There is no third option.

Hence why the trolly problem is equivalent to a political vote. Not voting has the same effect as not making a choice between one or 5.

There is no “not making a choice” in the trolley problem. You either don’t murder someone, or you murder someone and rationalize it. Those are the only two possible options. Creating a third option out of thin air is exactly what I was describing when I said people often misinterpret it.

I actually hate how the trolley problem is misinterpreted. It’s not a question of “will you kill one person or kill 5?”. If you pull the lever, you are murdering somebody. If you do nothing, you killed no one, whoever put them on the tracks killed them. Whether it’s morally acceptable to murder one person in order to save 5 is an interesting thought experiment but that’s all it is.

Maybe a system that regularly gives us “evil vs lesser evil but still evil” as our only options isn’t worth saving

I really like the way Ubuntu handles it, basing the number on the release date. Your average person would have no idea how old Debian 10 is without googling it, but figuring out that Ubuntu 19.10 released in 2019 is trivial