Trolley Problem Debate

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So Berto, I've been wanting to present to you the
moral dilemmas of the various versions of the trolley problems.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Oh yeah, fun.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
And I want to see how moral or immoral, or
weird or standard you are. Yay, what do you say?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Let's do it.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
This is the psychology and solid of podcast. I'm your host,
doctor Kirkanda. I'm a therapist and a professor.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
My name is Emberto cass and I put together packs
of sticks and stones.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
By the way, the next deep dive, or one of
the next deep dives we're going to do, is on
Jean John Benet Ramsey. I don't even know. I know
almost nothing about that case. And you also almost know nothing, no.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Very little.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah, and so I I almost nothing. Some listeners patron
suggested it. So I am going to task you again
because you did such a great job with the Menendez
brothers outline.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
And I think someone died, or someone disappeared, or someone
is alive. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, I understand that there are some Benyet's which aren't
those like them New Orleans anyway. Okay, So first off,
there are some clarifying questions that I hear people often
asking when they're presented with the trolley problem, and I

(01:17):
will just get those out of the way. So, first off,
is it certain that they will die given what you
do or don't do? The answer is yes, it's certain.
Do the people know what's happening? And the answer to
that is either know or it doesn't matter, you know,
like can they see?

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Well, can they see and yell at you?

Speaker 1 (01:37):
And in particular yeah, in particular, No, you can't talk
with them and they won't know what you did. This
is just for you to know and no one.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Else and you don't know the people. These are strange right.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Well, unless it's in the trolley problem itself that you
do or don't? Uh, or you do assume you don't
could be another question. And are you legally responsible? The
answer is no. The last question is are there long
term consequences? This is a more nuanced answer and that

(02:10):
you could kind of think of it as no. But
morality kind of depends on like what would happen later on,
So obviously people will be dead or alive depending on
your choice. Yeah, but also a vague, you know, weird
world kind of sense, you know, because it's a weird
world that we're presenting in this scenario kind of a

(02:31):
vague sense of it will be known to you later on,
you know what I mean? Because if we just purely
as a thought experiment, think of you as like a
creature that just pops into existence and then is instantly
annihilated after that, then you know, it's a different kind
of moral scenario. So think of it as you were

(02:51):
wandering by and just happened upon this scene, and you
will go on living your life. You're going to have
to live with this choice. And and there's a slight
possibility that other people might find out about it, because
morality isn't just that we're not in a vacuum. We
exist in a society, and so uh, there wasn't there
isn't going to be legal consequences, but you know, people

(03:14):
might have opinions and it could affect quote unquote the
morality because the morality isn't necessarily just from within. You know,
we're trying to fit in in society.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Okay, a couple of other questions.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
I don't know if these are going to be variants,
But is this being done by a person maliciously?

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Like I am?

Speaker 2 (03:31):
I am?

Speaker 1 (03:32):
I you don't know in someone's game? No, No, No,
you're definitely not a punt. Okay, the I think the
common way of setting it up is you're just an
innocent bystander that happened upon it. You had no plan
in it. You have no idea how this got there.
You know what I mean? Okay? The first one a
large man. Well, well, the we'll do We'll do the classic. Right.

(03:54):
So you you you find yourself looking down on some
train tracks and there's a train a trolley coming down
the tracks, and if you do nothing then it will
run over five people. But there's a lever and they're
tied or something. Yeah, they can't get either of it.
They're gonna die. If you pull a lever, the trolley

(04:16):
will go on another set of tracks and kill one person. Right,
what do you do? Right?

Speaker 3 (04:24):
So the one of the key things is am I
within running distance of the people?

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Are you joking?

Speaker 2 (04:35):
No?

Speaker 1 (04:35):
No, you're not in run business? Well, I mean if
you are or not, it won't affect the outcome.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
But do I know that?

Speaker 1 (04:43):
Like how you do know that? You know that for sure?
There's only one choice you Either you either do nothing
and five people die, or you do something and one
person dies.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
So I would try to find a way to stop
the trolley. You can't, but I don't know that.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
You know that that's okay, communicut right, let's find you
can ask it. You know that there's no other option.
You absolutely know that there's no other way, you know,
because that would be a moral delemss like, well, what
if there's another way? What if I can wave at
the trolley guy and tell them to stop, or what

(05:19):
if I could yell down and say get out? All
those things are you know with a one hundred percent
certainty those are not options?

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, I mean assuming that there is.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
Let me put it this way, assuming all of this
has been communicated to me and I have more than
a few seconds to do something about it.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
And to be clear, it's not communicated. You just know
it's not.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
I would still, against my knowledge, try to stop the
trolley somehow.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
And they would not pull the lever.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
I would not pull the lever.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
That's the key. Yeah, So in your mind, what would
be the justification.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
The justification is that.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
I I don't have the right to pick between the
lives because I I I you know I don't.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
That is not for me to do. And if the right.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
The right according to and this is just a philosophical question. Yeah,
the right. When we talk about rights, we're talking about
decided upon often in society culturally, legally, maybe what rights
people have, like you know, someone has the right to
free speech, or the right to go to work, or

(06:38):
the right to.

Speaker 3 (06:39):
I mean certainly, like if I if I knew a
lot of information about the participants in this horrible situation,
then maybe I would make a different choice.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Like if I'm like, oh my.

Speaker 3 (06:49):
Gosh, this villain has put five babies or their father,
what would I do?

Speaker 2 (06:54):
Then? Yeah, maybe I would switch the track.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
You know, well in this situation, but if I don't
really speaking, you know that these are five five people
average age adult in another and.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
That's why I'm like, I can't make that decision, So
I'm gonna try. It sounds like against hope to see
if I can stop the damn thing.

Speaker 1 (07:13):
And in your mind you're certain or at least ninety
nine point nine percent certain that there is no other way. Yeah,
And well what if you were one hundred percent certain
that there was no other way?

Speaker 2 (07:26):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (07:27):
But it's like, imagine if the way that that that
I have to stop the train in order to not
kill the five people is to push someone into the tracks, right, Well,
I certainly wouldn't do that. So to me, this is
only one lever pull away from the same thing, and
so I I would again, irrationally, perhaps try to stop.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
The thing, even though you were one hundred percent sure
that wouldn't work.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
I mean that. I guess that's the artificial part of it,
which is.

Speaker 1 (07:56):
That it is it's an artificial scenario.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, but it's like, am I really it? Can I be?

Speaker 3 (08:02):
Like, I guess that's the question. Can I be one
hundred percent sure? I maybe not be able to be
one hundred percent sure because maybe hope we'll tryumph in
spite of all the evidence.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Okay, So in this scenario, you know you can't wave
down the trolley driver. You know you can't run down
there and push anyone off the tracks. You know you
can't yell at someone to help. You know, you're not superman.
You know there's not a rock you can push in
front of it.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
And I have no phone and I have no.

Speaker 3 (08:29):
But even if you have a phone, well I would
call the authorities and be like, ah, you got to
stop the train.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Blow but it's coming, it's immit, right.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
But then the flip side is that, depending on how
imminent it is, it's impossible that I would have had
all the information to make the decision in the first place.
So if I had enough time to process all the
data and really make myself aware of how impossible.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
It's not hard to imagine a scenario. It's a little bizarre, right,
but you are walking by yourself and you come across
some train tracks and you see it trolley and then
you look and you see I don't know what's a
reasonable scenario, but you see five people that have I say,
are they tied up? I mean that's usually the scenario

(09:11):
that we're talking about, or.

Speaker 3 (09:15):
The family of the guy that gets killed. It's like,
why do you pull the lever? It's like I thought
it was like, but there was a button.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
I didn't know.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
I don't use these things right in an emergency, I
wouldn't know. But if I had enough time to consider
all the variables, I would have had enough time to
try other things.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
It kind of gets messed up because if we start
to allow for the thought experiment to include these other variables,
it starts to introduce real world consequences of like, well,
I don't want to be sued, so, but that's not
the it's a morality experience. You're trying to basically decide.

(09:54):
You have to strip it down to its basic components
of if you so, forget about the train. Yeah, you're
just an avoid and a scenario has presented itself where
if you do nothing, five people will die. If you
do something, then one person will die and the five
people will live.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
And that's it.

Speaker 3 (10:13):
That's where I say, like, yeah, I mean, it sucks
that I've been roped into this whatever this is, But
I don't have the right to choose.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
You don't have the right describe, right.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
I don't feel like it is my place to pick
one life over the other.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
So okay, let's put it this way.

Speaker 3 (10:33):
Certainly, if it was just two people, I would certainly,
under no circumstances pick one over the other, right unless
I knew And then my emotions get in the way
and I'm like, well, but that's Kirk. I have to
save Kirk, right, even though the other person was actually
like mother Teresa on steroids or something, and I'm like,
I actually hear it's just a horrible person. I know, fine,

(10:53):
but whatever, pick your person. That's not horrible.

Speaker 2 (10:55):
Time.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
I don't know if she's a horrible person. And then
I'm like, but I know Kirk, and I'm biased. I'm
a bias human. Sorry, I have to save Kirk, right, Okay,
But in the case where I don't know these two
people and it's only two of them, absolutely I wouldn't
do it.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
So then I'm like, well, what's the number?

Speaker 3 (11:08):
Is it? Five, ten, fifty one hundred five? And then
there's other things that get in the way. I'm like, well,
wait a minute, you're telling me that the thing will
kill equally five hundred thousand people or one person. It's
clearly some sort of alien device set to test my thing,
and I'm just not playing their game.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Well, so you allow half a million people to die
even though you could save.

Speaker 3 (11:27):
No, the aliens will kill five hundred thousand. So you
could say that, and I'm a pawn in their game.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
Well you don't believe in God, but you could say
the universe or something is conspiring to kill but all
you have to do is reach over and pull that
lever burdo.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
Yeah, but then I'm a participant to their horrible terrorism,
and I don't want to join their terrorism.

Speaker 2 (11:47):
Gag.

Speaker 1 (11:48):
Yeah. Well, okay, Well, I didn't think this would be
the way anyone would answer this question. But it is
very burdo of you to answer in this way. Okay,
going on to the next one. Yeah, a trolley is
speeding towards five people tied to the tracks. Ye. You're
on a footbridge above the track next to a large man, right.

(12:09):
If you push him off the bridge, his body will
stop the trolley, killing him, but saving the five.

Speaker 2 (12:14):
Yeah, certainly not. Yeah, this is the one.

Speaker 3 (12:18):
The example I gave that if it involved me pushing someone,
it's an even clear reason where I can't do.

Speaker 2 (12:24):
That, because that's that's not okay.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
Yeah, and what does this say about you? Particularly because
usually people will at the very least debate the second way,
even though in the term, if you strip it down
to its basics, it is the same thing, but it
requires more of a of, you know, of putting hands
on the person. Yeah, and they weren't at a threat.

(12:49):
You know. Some people will say, well, in the first scenario,
the one guy is on the tracks and he, for
whatever reason, he is kind of in danger, whereas the
guy standing next to me, he's just standing next to me.

Speaker 3 (13:03):
I okay, So here's an example where and maybe this
is inconsistent.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Imagine that there are two.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
Groups of people, maybe it's one person and five, and
they're on two islands that are sinking, and I have
one boat, and the boat can carry five people or
one person. It's fine, right, like it can carry both.
But I don't have enough time to save both. I
could do nothing, or I could row over to save
one of the groups of people, either the individual or

(13:32):
the five, but inevitably the other folks are gonna sink
and die, right, Okay, in that case, I would absolutely
row to the five.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
Yeah, I think most people would.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
But why is that different than the lever right?

Speaker 3 (13:44):
And I think the key difference is that I am
not killing the person drowning. They're drowning because the island
is sinking.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
I'm not kikay change, let's change your boat scenario. Your
boat is heading in. This is actually really good. I
wonder if people have done this. So there's a there's
a plane crash and there are six people in the
ocean and sharks and they're you only have time to

(14:15):
go in one of two directions, right, and you will
you know, you will save whoever is on the in
that direction, and you know the other people will die
if you don't go. It's got a weird scenario. But
and your boat is naturally drifting towards the one person,
do you divert oh?

Speaker 3 (14:33):
I see, Okay, So the boat's naturally drifting towards the
one person. And I'm like, okay, I could keep going
in this direction. I'll save them there.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
And there's no ore in the water, But you have
a way. You have an ore, yeah, in the boat,
and you could I could have the boat toward the
five people. Wait, what do you do?

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (14:50):
I will again, assuming these are all equivalent humans. If
this is a baby and those are adults, I guess
I'll save the baby. But depending how many humans, I mean,
it's hard, Like, yeah, that's going to get really hard.
But if it's equivalent adults, I'm probably going to divert
the boat to the five Yeah.

Speaker 1 (15:07):
Yeah, yeah, you're changing fate. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
But I am not pulling a trigger, right, I'm not
shooting a person in the head. I am making a
choice to go and save some people. And it's so
from one perspective, it's the same thing, right, It's like, well, yeah,
I'm just I'm just using my energy to go save
five people instead of the one. Either one either way,

(15:31):
they're going to die, and by me not going to
save the one, that person died, right.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
So, to you, pulling the lever feels like shooting the
one guy in the head. Yeah, yeah, feels like pushing
the guy onto the tracks.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, and it's probably not right.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
I mean, but diverting the boat towards the five instead
of going towards the one does not feel like pulling
a trigger.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
It feels categorically different.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
What if the one guy can see you coming and divert, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (15:59):
I mean, of course emotionally it's going to be even
harder because they're like.

Speaker 2 (16:02):
But what are you doing?

Speaker 1 (16:04):
But you're still divert.

Speaker 2 (16:05):
I would probably still divert. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
It's interesting.

Speaker 3 (16:07):
Uh, well because if in the train example, the guy,
the single guy, was like, pull the lever. I'm okay,
I'll sacrifice, then I probably would.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
Pull the lever, right yeah. Yeah, what if I'm the
one person don't answer that question.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
No, well no, but that's the problem is if I
know the one person, depending who they are, Unfortunately, because
I'm a human, I'm an a flawed human, I might
actually pull that lever.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
Thank you, I hope. So what if I'm the trolley.
Just joking, Okay, this is a surgeon has five patients
who will die without organ transplants. A surgeon has five
patients who are.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
About to die.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
A healthy person comes in for a routine checkup. The
surgeon could kill the healthy person and distribute their organs
to save all five people. The healthy person does not consent.
Is it morally acceptable?

Speaker 2 (16:59):
No, it's not.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
Yeah, clear. I think that one is used to find
where the line. I think we've found the line. You're
between the boat and the lever Because obviously there are
some people that say, like, yeah, the rights of the
many always out always that way, the rights of the few, yeah.

Speaker 2 (17:15):
And I'm saying like not always, like depends on what
we're talking about.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:20):
And by the way, in scenarios where it's the whole
uh and this is extreme. Uh so the alien the
Twilight's one, the alien race comes down and they're like, hey,
Bardo or Kirk, so listen, we suck.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
We are evil aliens. Just so you know, spoiler alert,
we're evil aliens. The universe sucks. Bad news for you.
But here's the deal.

Speaker 3 (17:41):
We will either destroy your whole planet, including yourself, or
you pick someone, not yourself. You pick someone and we
will destroy them, kill them, and we'll leave.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
And let the rest of the planet.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Would I would write, I would, I would. I would
take that.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Okay, But now here's the problem. Of course I would
take it too, because there's a lot of people that
I would not lament their passing, right. But if they said, now,
if they're the ones picking, and they pick someone that
I don't know, right, then I wouldn't actually do it.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
I would let.

Speaker 3 (18:19):
I wouldn't let the aliens would destroy the world, and
I just.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
Wouldn't have been a participant to their game.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
And this one is like, I don't I think most
people would think I'm genocidal or something.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
Well, you're not genocidal.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
It's just like it's the alienscre genocide. It's just the aliens,
not the way that it is. And here's here's my rationale. Because,
first of all, just from a game theory perspective, how
do I know that they're telling me that? How do
I know that they won't then say, well, now we're
going to pick someone else. How do I know that
they're not going to come every Friday and do the
same stupid game? Number one number two. What if this

(18:56):
is a test? What if this immorality test and I
fail and then we actually all die because I fail?
You know, that's the perfect Twilight Zone episode. So instead
I'm like, no, you guys are intrigalactic terrorists. In the
minutes I have left, I'm gonna see if I can
fight you. I guess I couldn't.

Speaker 2 (19:10):
We all died. Okay, well but that's you.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
That's you killing us. That's on you. Oh but your
species is gone. Well yeah, I mean what.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
Are we supposed to do? These guys can kill us
at a moment's notice.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, well, this is you know, a similar dilemma that
people in power will face when you know terrorists will
you know, kidnap someone and say you gotta do this
or else we're gonna kill these five people. It's just like,
it's not my fault. You're gonna kill five people. You're
you did that.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
But it's really hard because what do you do. You're like,
so we're gonna let people die. We don't want to,
but we're not the ones killing them. And what are
we supposed to do?

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Well, dear listener in the comments, let us know what
you do. But let's take a break, and let's go
over some more. What do you say? Let's do it
all right back from the break. Next trolley question. You
are a bystander near a switch that can divert a
trolley from a track with five people to a track

(20:09):
with one person. So similar scenario. There's a button you
didn't cause a situation. Do you have a moral obligation? Okay,
well that's the same one.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
Uh is the main difference that it's a single button? No?

Speaker 1 (20:24):
I think I just messed up on the progression a trial.
Next one, a trolley is headed towards five elderly people.
You can divert it on a track to kill a
single child.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
Ah, yes, okay, what do you do? So this is
a case where this sucks.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
But really I thought it would be the opposite of
it was five kids versus an elderly.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Well single, No, I'm saying it just this is my
human bias, is I would say? And just so I'm clear,
it's currently headed to kill the five elderly people. Yeah, okay, yeah,
I Well, first of all, if I were going with
my initial thing, i'd say like, well, I'll still not
pull the lever. But in this case, my bias is
going to kick in and be like, I gotta save

(21:09):
the child. Those people live the life and it sucks
that this is how they're going to die.

Speaker 2 (21:13):
But I'm going to save the child.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
So you still wouldn't do anything.

Speaker 3 (21:17):
What sounds like if I pull the lever, it'll oh yeah, right,
I still wouldn't do anything.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Right, right, right? Yeah, you would just be doubly sure.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
I would be doubly sure.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
And but I'm admitting that at this point it is
that this is where people can start poking holes, be like, oh, why,
how do you know those people didn't have kids their own?
Blah blah, Absolutely one hundred percent. I'm just saying, in
the moment, I'm in the moment, my human bias is
probably going to get the best of me, and I'm
going to be like, yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
It's kid, don't do ah? Should I screwed up? And
I pull the lever and the kid is then well.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
The obvious variation that I don't even think is included
in this list is you have five children, say five
five year olds, and you have one ninety year old.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
Then I pull the lever.

Speaker 3 (21:59):
You do yeah, which again it's you know, earlier I
was saying, I don't have the right to choose, right,
But now I am. Now I am being participant to
the horribleness, but with a purpose, which is, ah, these
people haven't had a chance to live a life this
person did, and et cetera. And still aware that I
could have been wrong, meaning that turns out it was

(22:22):
a trick, it was all these other things. But I'm
just kind of saying, you know, I'm just being honest
that in that moment, if I knew that, I'd probably
be like, ah, save the children.

Speaker 1 (22:30):
Okay, Yeah, well let's find where that line is. Yeah,
so you have five fifteen year olds and one fifty
year old? Right, do you pull the lever?

Speaker 3 (22:40):
Then the closer that they start looking like equivalent humans,
the less likely I'm not to do anything.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
And do you have five fifteen and you know that
you're fifteen and you have one fifty year old? Do
you pull the pull the legger? Who ever? Man, that's
hard because you're fifty.

Speaker 3 (22:57):
Yeah, Well sure, but I'm more. But if it were me,
I'd sacrifice myself, so I'd be easy.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
Yeah. But you know, when you're fifteen, you think fifty
year life is basically over. But when you are fifty year, like,
my life isn't over. I've got time ahead of me.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Maybe this is the reason to stick to my original thing.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
It's just that when it's too extreme, I'm I really
not gonna save the babies kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
Wait, so you'd kill five fifteen year olds.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
This is harder because I want to say that it's
harder because my original I still stand by my original
principal position, which was, well, well, I don't have the
right to pull that lever.

Speaker 1 (23:35):
But it was very easy for you when it was
like when it was five, Yeah, five year old.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
Well no easy as a weird one.

Speaker 3 (23:43):
I would probably see traumatize for the rest of my life.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
But you answered very quickly.

Speaker 2 (23:47):
Because I would act on principle.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
But five fifteen year olds and one fifty year old I.

Speaker 3 (23:53):
Would probably I would like to think I would act
on principle.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
And not pull the left, not pull the level. But
when it comes to five five year olds, how you're
okay with?

Speaker 3 (24:02):
Stilln't see myself. I don't see myself realistically not pulling
that lever.

Speaker 1 (24:08):
So you're framing it or you're experiencing as it as
an emotional cause to breaking from principle. Yeah, interesting, but
when it comes to fifteen, what about five ten year
olds and one sixty year old?

Speaker 3 (24:22):
Man, I have a ten I have a nearly ten
year old, So yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
It's hard to know.

Speaker 3 (24:28):
I okay, once again, I'm going to ground myself in
because because like it's already, someone could say, like, what
are you talking about? In all cases, if there are
five to one, you always pull the lever, right, Someone could.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
Say that, well they could, so I think that's not rational,
that's fair, but someone because life is you know, a future.
You know, I'm sure one of the trolley problems is
you know that the guy on the tracks.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
But you're cancer and blah blah blah.

Speaker 1 (24:57):
Yeah right, or you know that the five people on
the tracks for them are gonna are gonna die of
natural cause in the next you know, So so it
doesn't have to do what I'm trying to say, time
is left.

Speaker 3 (25:09):
So what I'm trying to say is like I'm definitely
not on that camp that like you always pull the lever,
of course not. I'm on the kind of maybe the
other extreme, which is like, no, I never pull the
lever if I can help it, because I'm going to
try to like fix this problem without pulling the lever, right,
But the reality of the situation is that in the

(25:30):
heat of the moment, if I am aware of biases,
or if I'm aware of things that make me biased,
then I can't claim that I will not fall for
those biases.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
Are your principles to not pull the lever a protest
against whoever set this scenario up.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
If it was someone maliciously setting it up, then I
definitely don't want to be upond to their game, definitely, right,
Like in a saw situation, I'm not sawing people, right, Like,
I'm like, screw you, I'm not playing a game.

Speaker 2 (25:59):
But even in the case where this is.

Speaker 3 (26:02):
Just total weird people kind of accidentally tied themselves onto
the track and it's just and I just happened to
come across the thing, and it's just mother nature doing
it's horrible worst, even in that case, the principle for
me is still like, no, I'm not gonna divert the
train to kill the one person.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Even if there are half a million people on one
track and one person on the other.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
Well, especially in that case, because I that there's gonna
be a lot more time to stop the train, and
the train actually probably won't be able to get through
a million people, you know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (26:35):
Like, but in the scenario, you know, and we could
probably set up some real lasers are gonna shoot. Yeah,
well no, no, Like I'm like, I don't know, what
would it be, like a nuclear missile or something?

Speaker 2 (26:48):
And yeah, okay, So a nuclear missile is headed.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
Towards the city or it can go to like.

Speaker 3 (26:53):
Or an island with one person, right, right, and it's
currently in a trajectory that can go either way, and
it's currently headed to the city with a million people
in it, right, and I could pull a lever to
divert it to the island, right, Okay.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
That's an interesting one. Yeah, yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
The nuclear is and it's just a mistakes. The nuclear missile,
it's just a one time mistake. No one set it up.
There's no terrorists, there's no malivolent alien.

Speaker 2 (27:19):
Of course I'm gonna have to divert it to the island.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
So there is a there's a limit, there's definitely limits. Yeah, Okay,
what about I don't know, a thousand people.

Speaker 3 (27:28):
I think, you know, I think a lot of it
has got to do with this, because when we go
to these limits, it becomes the particulars of the details
of the thing become a lot less relevant, like you
know how much of nuclear science do I know? Or
do I know who these scientists who constructed the missiles?
Am I aware of? The missile might not explode? Like

(27:49):
that becomes a lot less relevant, like there's a nuclear missile.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
I think what a million people.

Speaker 1 (27:53):
Is, well, I think it illuminates about your personality, is
that you are a thinker and a problem solver and
believe in yourself for good reason. You have been measured
by me as like in the ninety ninth percentile of
intelligence when it comes to human beings. So you value that,

(28:15):
and so you don't want to jump to a decision
without trying something because you figure there's got to be
a way. And when it comes to the scenario with
the new whereas with a trolley, because it seems like handleable,
because it's like a mechanical thing, like you could throw
a rock on the thing. But well, let me ask

(28:36):
you this, would you pull a lever and cause yourself
to be hit by the trolley?

Speaker 2 (28:42):
Yes, definitely, like self sacrifice.

Speaker 3 (28:43):
That would be an well in reality, of course that's
not an easy thing because and many and even me,
I might end up not doing it out of fear
of death and whatever, and then regret at.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
The rest of my life. Like I could say, the people.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
Especially five strangers, right.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
But I'd like to think that if the situation we're like, oh, okay,
I guess this is the end I can save those people,
that I'd like to think that I'd do.

Speaker 1 (29:06):
It, you know, more morally wise, you believe you would
you judge someone else for not doing it that way?

Speaker 2 (29:15):
Man, that it depends on the context.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
If it's.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
And again someone it's like the boat situation, right, It's
just that again the details would really matter because you know.

Speaker 1 (29:27):
Okay, well here's the details. You are shipwrecked, and you're
on a boat and it can only handle five, but
there's there are six of you. Do you jump in
the water? Right?

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Yeah, like the situation.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
You do jump in the water. And what about your
hearing a story about someone that could have jumped in
the water but did not well, and and if they're
and and they someone else pushed another person into the water,
and and the person you're talking to could not save them,
you know what I mean? They it just happened, you know,

(30:00):
but through the delay it caused someone else to be
pushed out of the boat. Do you judge them as
being immoral?

Speaker 3 (30:07):
Not immoral, but to some extent, I'd be like, well,
you know, it's really hard because it I don't think
it's if everyone is a peer.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
I don't think it.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
I don't think anyone's under obligation to sacrifice their life
for a peer if it's a one to one situation.
So I think that's a more personal, very difficult decision.

Speaker 1 (30:29):
But if it's what would make someone not appear as age.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
Age, or or or some other categories, like for example.

Speaker 4 (30:36):
What other category would there be, Like like like if
I'm in if I'm in a boat with Einstein and
you know, he's still alive and he's still creating things,
and I can sacrifice so Einstein might live, I might
do that, right.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
Or yeah, you're you're a genius, so I'm not. People
should be sacrificed a different way to you.

Speaker 3 (30:57):
Let's say someone someone is a mom and she's got
nine kids and you know, providing for them and stuff
like that.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
Okay, so that's that's another ranking that you Yeah, Okay,
so nuclear missile is headed towards five people, or you
can divert it to the one.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
To the one nuclear missile. Five people won, and it
was an accident both. It will never happen again, never
happen again. Yeah, now we're back to Like, now we're
back to what are we back to? We are back
to I'm going to try to stop that nuke.

Speaker 1 (31:32):
Interesting, Yeah, so the trolley is handleable. In your head,
there's gotta be a way.

Speaker 3 (31:41):
No, it's just more like I'm gonna try, Like I'm
I'm not even died trying, but maybe I'm throw myself
in front of the trolley.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Over a nuclear missile. This scenario, the way it feels anyway,
is that there is there is absolutely no way.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
Well, because it's.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Five and one, I might actually be like, all right,
there's gotta be a way to stop it, you know,
stop the trolley to send the nuke in the middle
of the two islands.

Speaker 1 (32:06):
You know. Oh, but if you know in the scenario
the problem was when it was a million people, I'm
not gonna sit there and fuck around with seeing if
I can somehow divert a nuclear missile.

Speaker 2 (32:17):
Right, I'm like, Okay, this sucks. It sucks. I'm involved
in this, but yeah, we're gonna go.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
Wait, maybe I didn't hear you, so with the nuclear
missile with and I might be.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
Back to I'm going to try to stop the nuclear miss.

Speaker 1 (32:30):
I totally misheard you. So I thought you said you
would divert it, but you wouldn't. So the nuclear missile
trolley doesn't matter either one of them. You are believing
there's gotta be away, And I don't want to be
hasty by killing one person when I could save all six. Yeah,
because I'm a narcissistic bastard that thinks I could solve
any problem with my mind. Another one, a trolley is

(32:53):
headed towards five innocent people. You can pull evert to
divert it to a track where a known violent criminal
is tied. Does the moral status or past actions of
the criminal justify sacrificing them to save the other spurto
What do you think?

Speaker 2 (33:07):
Oh, yeah, that's a really good one.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
So I will admit to my like a violent criminal
who enjoyed harming other people, they weren't like doing it
out of circumstances.

Speaker 3 (33:19):
You know, I've talked to you about this before. If
it were Bardo from I don't know, twenty years ago
or something, I'd be like, well, absolutely punished the bastard. Right,
Bardo of now would be like, well, I'm not. I
gain nothing by quote punishing the bastard. However, there is
now this question of like, is it worth me standing
on my little pedestal of inaction so that a violent

(33:44):
criminal that's been convicted that as far as I know,
is convicted and blah blah blah versus other No, I
probably would pull the.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
Lever you would pull. I would pull the lever. Okay,
So the value And I'm not saying this facetiously. This
is the way I think we should be thinking about
things because it is I think reflective of the moral
underpinnings of I think at least most humans, if not all.
In that you have a ranking of human value. The
violent criminal is lower than a non criminal. The mother

(34:15):
of nine is higher than a mother of one or
a mother of nobody. A five year old is more
valuable than a ninety year old.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
Yeah, a valuable or either way, I in my bias,
I will I will likely tend to try to save
those categories over the others.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
And I'm more valuable than all the other humans.

Speaker 3 (34:39):
If you were on the track, I'd pull a lever
every time. Interestingly that that's killing you, Interestingly that you
are at the very bottom. Well, say, would you save
yourself for five violent criminals? Oh? Yeah, no, right, no,
that's a good question. No, of course I wouldn't just
save myself for just anyone.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
Ah.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
So if you knew there were five violent criminals, you
would not save right.

Speaker 3 (35:02):
I would myself if I felt like it was really
worth doing, you.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Know, or you didn't know, yeah, or I didn't. Okay,
another one, Charlie is headed towards five healthy people. You
can divert it to hit one person who was terminally
ill and expected to die soon.

Speaker 3 (35:18):
No, oh, I see, oh jeez, oh my gosh, that's
so hard. And I know this, I know, like well,
the similar age five versus nineties, I know, I know,
I know, right, it's just gosh darn it.

Speaker 2 (35:31):
Again.

Speaker 3 (35:32):
This is where if I were standing on my principle
of like, I am not the person that should pull
that lever, I should try to stop it by all
means necessary, then I would say, yeah, no, I'm not.
It sucks that they're going to die soon. Anyways, I
don't know that they could find a cure tomorrow for
their disease, you know that kind of thing. If I

(35:52):
were being honest about my biases in the moment, and like,
if I knew all the information, I might be very
tempted to pull that lever.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
Yeah, I think most people would pull the lever.

Speaker 2 (36:03):
But it's but it's.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
Like the guy's going to die anyway.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
Well, but it's when that's I mean, I don't.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
Know someone's going to die.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
Yeah, but it's.

Speaker 3 (36:16):
And again, the particulars of this one are especially bad
because it's like I could just see the trial.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
How many years have you operated at Trolley's zero?

Speaker 3 (36:26):
How much do you know about that control room that
you were Well, that's not no, but you see what
I'm saying, right, Like, when I think about the reality
of that.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
But well, but a jury of your peers would undoubtedly
agree with your decision, right, But I wish people say
most people say yes to that pull over.

Speaker 2 (36:42):
I could see the family of the disease.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
And they're not a jury of your peer of course.
Of course, of course they didn't want you to put
because they're good people and they care about their family member. Yeah,
but a jury of your peers, twelve out of twelve
would say you did the right thing.

Speaker 3 (36:55):
I know, but I would just in the moment, I
would still be afraid, even if you've told me, even
if I know, even if I read the manuals, I'm like,
God damn it, because there might be that red button
that I didn't know that if I push the red button,
everything's fine.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
Ye, right, And that's how you think. And you know,
morality isn't just a decision. It involves all of these
factors of what if, because you know, you could consider it,
and you know, and I guess I could try to
nail you down eliminate the clarifications, which I did try

(37:27):
to do ad nauseaum at the beginning of this episode,
and it went nowhere because I think, regardless of that,
your brain still has the scare way.

Speaker 3 (37:36):
The moment, even if I have all the information, I
would still be like, imagine, I go ahead and do this,
but as I'm doing it, or right after I do it,
the ashle engineer runs in.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
Like, what did you do?

Speaker 3 (37:47):
These things have a self stop mechanism in case of
this unless you pull the lever.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
You know, yeah, and then you know, and that's part
of the thing. That's why the scenario isn't an amorphous.
You know, white room that you're in and you.

Speaker 3 (38:01):
Just But that's why my my principled position is I
am not the one that is gonna that should be
in charge of pulling that lever.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Is there a reason why you have that principle? I
mean because because.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
I am not in charge of the train, I didn't
set up the.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
Situation inside of the train like in life. Why are
you like this?

Speaker 2 (38:20):
Well, because you know, why are you like this?

Speaker 3 (38:23):
I don't have any privilege over others in deciding whether
they live or die?

Speaker 1 (38:28):
Right, So therefore, but why did you develop that principle?
Because not everyone has that principle, so people do.

Speaker 3 (38:35):
I just I just feel that it's the golden rule.
I wouldn't want others making that decision either.

Speaker 1 (38:41):
You're going against the golden rule in a lot of
ways because you have five people that are hoping you
do one thing, do unto others.

Speaker 3 (38:46):
Yeah, but if I were the one, I wouldn't want
some random person making that decision without all these considerations.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
Yeah, but you have five do unto others versus one
do unto others.

Speaker 3 (38:58):
Yeah, But I'm saying like the golden rule applies both ways.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
So well, that's not the golden rule. I mean, you know,
like I wouldn't want someone to do there is no God,
there is no golden rule for this. That's why it's
But I wouldn't want someone to do this to me, right,
I wouldn't want somebody people would want you to pull
the lever.

Speaker 3 (39:15):
Sure, but at the same time, I also wouldn't want
someone doing this to me. So therefore I use that
same mode.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
If you're one of the five, wouldn't you want them
to pull the lever?

Speaker 3 (39:27):
Would I want them to save me in spite of
someone else would If I were the someone else, I
wouldn't want them making that decision.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
So you would understand them. Yeah, okay, yeah, but what
if it was your kids? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (39:41):
Well that that's where the biases come in.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
Well it so, you know, do unto others. You know,
for yourself, you're willing to sacrifice yourself, so do unto others.
But if it's certain, I.

Speaker 3 (39:52):
Guess, using the same principle, if I were the one
tied in one side and on the other side is
a row of kids, I would want it sucks for me,
but I would want the person to make the choice
to take me.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
What if it's six of your cousins that all have
masks over their heads so you can't differentiate and rank them,
but you know that they're your six cousins that you love,
but they're not your kids, but you do love your cousins.
And the trolley's headed towards five of your cousins. Or

(40:27):
you could divert it to kill one of your cousins
and say five, what do you do?

Speaker 2 (40:31):
Right? Oh well, okay, I see what you're saying. They're
all my relatives.

Speaker 3 (40:34):
One of my relatives has to die or five yeah.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
Okay, and one fella swoop. Five of your cousins will
be dead and all you have to do and there
are no consequences, And we could even argue that no
one will even know, and you could pull a lever
and kill one of your cousins and keep five. It'll
suck for one, but five out of six will be live.

Speaker 3 (41:00):
Burdo right, Because of my bias in the moment, if
I really do know that they're all my cousins, I
can't guarantee that I wouldn't pull.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
That lever, but I would like to not pull the lever, right.

Speaker 1 (41:15):
But you'd pull the lever. So I tentionally that your
principle almost depends on a dehumanization, not in a bad way.
I'm not saying that as an insult. Your principle depends
on seeing it as a scenario rather than a human thing.
You know, if all six people, well, I guess if

(41:36):
you're looking down at a trolley and all six of
them have like fifteen seconds to like cry and look
you in the eye and go like save me, that
that changes it probably for you, it.

Speaker 3 (41:50):
Does, But it sucks both ways because like the one
that I didn't save, the one that I actually pulled
the lever and killed, that one was also going to
save me, right, and it's also another one of my cousins.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
Yeah, And the key is that I took an.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Action that that person wasn't actually going to die without
me doing something.

Speaker 2 (42:14):
And you know what, that's maybe the difference between the
boat and the trolley.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
Well, let's take a break and then you can tell
us the difference. What you say. It'll be a teaser,
And for you non patrons, you're going to have to
listen to some commercials before you get to hear. Yes,
the revelation of Burdos morality. All right, back from the break,
reveal your revelation.

Speaker 3 (42:41):
Okay, So here's the deal. In the scenario I had
laid out with, there were one person and five people
in two different sinking boats or islands or whatever, and
I have one boat and I can pick to row
to one or the other in that.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
You know the scenario. Well, that's your scenario.

Speaker 3 (42:55):
That was my scenariok So in that scenario, I there
is nothing I can do.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
To like kill the one person.

Speaker 3 (43:10):
It's just about which side do I want to try
to save. And by the way, there's a lot of
things that could go wrong with me trying to say,
but it's one. Whereas in the trolley scenario, my action
definitely diverts the train and definitely kills that person. And
if I hadn't done anything, they would have not died.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
Right. But remember that when I presented to you the
scenario of your boat is naturally drifting towards the one
and you have to lift the ore out of the boat,
put it in the water, and divert it to the five.
You diverted it to the five.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Uh sure, yeah, but the so.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
That's you taking an action. You know, it's similar because well,
a lot of people what happens, yeah, with normal people
unlike you erto just choking is that, And there are
percentages when we do surveys of people, but a vast
majority of people will pull the lever, although it will
be hard, but they'll pull the lever. But when there's
a large man that they can push onto the tracks,

(44:08):
most people say, no, I'm not going to push a
large man on the tracks, even though logically it's kind
of the same thing. Well, but it does illuminate the
humanity involved in our mold. We're not spock, we're not logic,
we're not calculators. So for you, the line is not
between pulling lever versus pushing a man. For you, it

(44:28):
is or in water versus pulling a lever. Pulling a
lever feels, you know, because the difference between pushing a
man on the tracks or pulling a lever for most
people is one is a passive, minor action of one's muscles,
you know, whereas violently pushing a man onto tracks is

(44:51):
a violent, aggressive, affirmative action of killing a man rather
than diverting something. Whereas for you, the difference is between
the violent act of diverting a trolley to run someone over,
versus I'm going to actively divert the boat to save
five people. I'm not violently killing that person. The water

(45:12):
is going to kill that person, you know what I mean, Like,
at least I'm asserting words into you.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
And there's a few aspects to it.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
One In both cases, I know that the boat drifting
in that direction is meant to be the essentially the
fate the fate part, right, but also part of fate
in this case is that they're both sinking. So if
I do nothing, like even if I let the boat drift,
if I do nothing, all six might die.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
All six will die.

Speaker 3 (45:41):
Well, maybe if the boat drifts randomly in the direction,
even if I do nothing, maybe the man can you know, like.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
Oh, well, if you divert.

Speaker 2 (45:49):
But what I'm saying, I'm saying if I literally do nothing,
if I'm.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Just in my scenario, if you do nothing, you'll say
the one person, Well, at least in my scenario, similar
to the trolley, you are ninety nine point nine percent
certain that that's what that's what it happened, But you
know there's a small chance that you don't. Maybe a
current will cause all six people to be in the
same place, and they'll get in the boat.

Speaker 3 (46:10):
But keep in mind that that that person that I'm
gonna save was sinking. Y yes, right, So by me
doing nothing, at least, I'm saving them from sinking. The
one person, the one person in the trolley case, the
person is not going to die if I don't do anything.
There is no scenario in which that person dies. Okay, yeah, yeah,

(46:31):
And so when I pull that lever, that is the
only way in which that person can die.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
Well, uh yeah, original, that's how it feels.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
Original.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
Say so, if that's how it feels to you, that's
how it feels to you. But there's another way to
frame it, which is that if you do nothing, the
man isn't going to sink. He's sinking, but he isn't
going to sink. He's gonna get in the boat. So
he is going to live one hundred percent certainty. If
you do nothing, the boat and the man will meet
and the guy will live, and the five people will die.

(47:04):
So he's not going to die unless you do something.
You could either divert it to the five people, or
you could divert it away from all six of them.
But if you do nothing one hundred percent certainty the
guy will live. Yeah, I guess it's but it is
a little different the difference because he's he is in
threat in the boat scenario, where he is completely not

(47:24):
in threat in the trial.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
And the difference in action is also different because see,
in the saving people scenario, the action I'm taking is
literally trying to go save people. And guess what, I'm
going to try to save all six. I'm probably gonna fail,
just like I was going to fail trying to stop
the trolley.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
But I'm going to try, and in.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
Fact, you know what I might do, because I might
be like, go, go, go, and then push the boat
at the last minute and then go swim over to
try to right like I might do it. But in
the trolley pull scenario, the only action I'm taking is
literally killing someone.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
But what some people will it's there's a there's always
a justification, and you know, philosophy classes will talk all
about this and have language where I don't. But there's
as with all of these, especially smart people who like
to come at things from a various different angles, we'll

(48:15):
always have eventually this thought of just like, well, how
do I view myself after I take or not take
the action, right, because will I be able to live
with myself? And it's a tough situation because people are
going to die either way. Right. If you do nothing,
people die. If you do something, people die. So we

(48:38):
have to be able to live with ourselves and we
have to be able to sleep at night. Yep. And
if we have time to think about before or not
taking the action, we're trying to predict how we're going
to feel later on, and how we feel depends on
how we see this scenario, how we justify it. So
when you think about the boat scenario, you justify your

(49:00):
decision to choose the five over the one because of
the way that you framed it, Whereas another person with
the trolley with the lever would justify it and they
wouldn't be wrong, but they would have a narrative of
I'm saving five people in the same way that you
with the boat. But everyone has a different line. Some

(49:21):
people will literally push the person onto the tracks and
say I'm saving five people, I'm not killing a man.
I'm In fact, what some people will even say is
I'm willing to sacrifice my own soul because I will
know after this happens, that I did something kind of evil,
maybe terribly evil, to actively push a man onto the tracks,

(49:45):
but I'm willing to sacrifice both the man and my
soul for those fighters.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
Right I can't. Yeah, I can't justify that, and I
guess you know what it is. Here's where I come to.
There are two possibilities with the trolley scenario. One possibility
is that I had indefinite amounts of time to fully
analyze and understand all the variables and really know what's

(50:11):
really at stake and what them, who each person had, whatever,
all the details that I want, all the variables, and
at that moment, I'm now going to get to make
the decision.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
That's one option.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
Okay, well, what did you do with the trolley?

Speaker 3 (50:22):
Then I'll answer one second, sorry because I'll answer because
the second option is that it's it's it's in the
moment decision I need to make without all those perfect informations, okay.
And the truth is that in the first case, because
I would have had so much time, I would have
been trying to stop it.

Speaker 1 (50:42):
Well, and in your infinite amount of time you discover
there is no other.

Speaker 2 (50:49):
Way, right, But I tried.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
I tried, you know, and till the last second, idea,
and then you pull the lever. No, No, I tried
till the last second and I failed, you know, And
you still don't pull the lever because I didn't know
that I wasn't going to be able to save them.
I tried till the last second.

Speaker 1 (51:04):
Wait. So in the first scenario where you have infinite
time to just to figure out if there's a way
so you could stop time, you go down to the tracks,
you do all the mathematics, you know. Maybe maybe another
scenario is you have the ability to rewind the clock,
like Groundhog Day. You can press a button and rewind

(51:24):
the clock, and I run down. You can, you can,
you can you know, scream at them that is ok Okay,
I'm gonna scream it that that don't words. Okay. Now
I'm gonna run back over here and see if I
can drive a car onto the tracks. Okay, that didn't work.
Maybe if I throw myself on the tracks. No, that
isn't work. You find at the end of that Groundhog's Day,
it's inevitable you do nothing, five people die. If you

(51:46):
do something, one person does. You still don't pull the lever.

Speaker 3 (51:50):
Okay, So if it's a groundlong day situation, that's different
because essentially nothing has happened every time was frozen. So
I just got to try out all the variables like
in a simulation or something.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
And then now that I know for sure it's.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Not a simulation, you know it's reality. Well sure, no, no, no,
because simulation would still have a zero point one percent chance.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (52:09):
Fine, but the point is that I was without the
What I mean by simulation is I don't have to
pay the consequences of it happening because I'm groundhogging day.

Speaker 1 (52:17):
Yeah, but it's reality.

Speaker 3 (52:18):
It's actually I get to the end of that and
I'm like, okay, I've been here a million days whatever.
All right, Okay, so now what do I do in
that case? Because I did understand who all the people
were and everything, and I tried everything else, then I
guess I would have enough information to make a final decision,

(52:40):
which would be what I would have to tell you
at the end of the ground out day. It's it's
the game of life. You can't you don't even know
it's procedural. You cannot. There's no formula to calculated at
all time.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
A thought experiment you know, there's no other way.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
Right, But in the process, just like evolution, in the process,
I would have learned what I needed to know to
make a decision.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
You're like Jordan Peterson trying to answer the question are
you religious?

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Maybe?

Speaker 3 (53:04):
But in the second case, where I don't have enough time,
I'm definitely not pulling the lever because.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
I don't know what would it mean to answer, and
I'm just just more thought experiment. What would it mean
to answer the question, quote unquote truthfully that you would
pull the lever in that scenario after a million groundhog days?
What would it mean if you actually, well, if you
actually were the sort of person, given your principles, that

(53:31):
would at that point pull the lever? What would that mean?

Speaker 3 (53:34):
That means that I found enough reasons to override my
first instinct, you know, And those reasons could have been
any number of things, like, you know, I found out
who's set this up and why, and who's in the tracks,
and you know, maybe the person that set this up
is the other person, you know.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
Right, like I just like, but if none of those
factors are there, they're just six average people, each with
their own value. You in your mind, you still would
not pull the lever. But the difference in this scenario
with the million groundhogs days is that you just know

(54:12):
there is no other way. There is no other way,
there's no point one even sacrificing yourself. There is no
other way. You're literally just deciding between five and one,
and you're either letting fate occur or you're diverting fate
away and killing one person.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
Well, I guess the point, the meta point I was
trying to make is that even in that scenario, it's
clear that I mean, it's nothing about that experience would
let me know in the end that I'm in control
of what happens. So therefore I'd be like, I guess

(54:50):
this is something I can't control.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
You know, And what does that mean if you.

Speaker 3 (54:54):
Pull the lever in it meaning that I'm not going
to be the one to kill that person.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
How do you not know you're in control? You've literally
experimented it million.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Times and that and nothing I tried had any impact
on the.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
Face except pulling the lever saved five people. You've found
that out. But because you tried that.

Speaker 3 (55:08):
But I'm part of the system. I'm part of the
same system, right, And if being part of the system
means that the only way this person dies is me
killing them. I'm like, no, I guess I'm not going
to be the one that kills them. But you're part
of the system in the boat, yes, And in the boat,
I am actively trying to save people with a boat. Yeah,

(55:29):
and an you know, you know everyone has there and
there is no there is no right answer to this.
But I'm I'm just a little confused as to what
the system exactly is if it applies with the trolley
but not the water.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
I think this is this is why in the end, these.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Kinds of the system, because it's a it's a man
made object.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
No, no, But I think these these kind of paradoxes
in the end where they run into a wall, is
that in practice we couldn't possibly.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
Been in the ideaized situation and there is no groundhog.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
Therefore, the only reality, the only possible situation that could
bring something like this about is one in which I
would not trust myself to know enough to pull that
lever and kill someone.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
Right. So here's what I think. And yeah, you can
refute this, and I will just say, you know what,
I have no idea, but here's my analysis of you
because I know you, and other contexts that are similar
to this, strangely which I didn't think would happen. That

(56:34):
there are certain experiences of the human condition that are
un logicized, or are maybe inherently illogical, are unexplainable. You
can't put into an if then statement. They cannot be
coded if you will. And for some people, all of

(56:58):
us face those kinds of dilemmas, particularly if you're faced
with these kinds of thought experiments, and for some people
they react with God, well it would be against God
to push a man out of the track, you know,
they would say something like that, or they would say, well,
most people would think that was wrong to push a
guy in the tracks, and most people would say so.

(57:22):
But in the end, there's no concrete logic behind this,
and the version of your story that you tell yourself
to explain the feeling that you get as you try
on these scenarios. The boat versus lever is what comes
out of your mouth, which is valuable to me, but

(57:44):
it's there is in my view at the end of
the road, if you will, no ability to explain why
we would make one decision or the other, because if
we just look at the math. Pushing a guy in
the tracks is same as pulling a lever, which is
the same as diverting the boat. But they feel different
to us, And isn't that interesting that for so many

(58:08):
of us? And there is a line, you know, and
we can't really explain it. It's just the human condition.
It's not you know, you could say it's religion if
you want to say that, but I would say, it's
just you know it, it gets at this it's a
it's an elegant way, especially when you ask the various

(58:30):
variations of it. And I'm glad we got to the
boat one because there is a limit to your thing
that it just gets at this core humanity that can't
be touched by if then statements.

Speaker 3 (58:44):
That's that's what I was absolutely so that's what I
was trying to get at by the So most likely
we don't live in a reality that can be precisely
calculated without.

Speaker 2 (59:00):
Running the clock. In other words, you cannot, you cannot
in theory tell me like if if.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
You're still trying to which I value everyone has their
I would argue your meta doing it to the meta.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
Let me explain, just fine, if we had if we
had a perfect computer, like the ultimate perfect infinite computer.
And we fed in the starting conditions of our current universe,
and then we said, now not simulating, just run figure
out the formulas. Uh, tell me what the state of
the universe is at blow time in the future. What

(59:39):
we know from physics so far seems to be that,
like you, you actually couldn't calculate that via just a formula.
You'd have to actually play out, play out the universe
for the amount of time to see what comes out.
If that's true, which seems to be the case. If
that's true, then that credence to what you just said,

(01:00:02):
which is that when you get to a certain level
of complexity, we don't seem capable of reducing our potential
actions and things to a specific set of invaluable rules.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
Instead, you have to play it out and see.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
And for me and the playing it out and see
emerges at it as a sense in our soul that
cannot be put into words, as especially as to how
it got there.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
That's right now.

Speaker 1 (01:00:30):
The decision to marry your wife, the decision to ask
my wife to marry me, Where the fuck did that
come from? I could justify it, but that's just the
magic of humans.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
And here's the thing that I believe, especially when we
see how how AI is being done and how it
mirrors how some of the brain aspects work. Even if
I could show you the matrix of values that were
in your brain at the time that you quote unquote
made the decision or maybe the days leading up to

(01:01:02):
making the decision to marry your wife, even if I
could show you all the matrix of numbers, it wouldn't
mean anything.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
It wouldn't. You wouldn't see that and be like, oh,
that's why.

Speaker 3 (01:01:14):
Okay, So now here's my philosophy, and maybe this is
why it ties into how I've been answering these questions.
I believe in that for no reasons, just based on faith,
I believe that we should try to do things that
tend towards creation and preservation. I'm glad you brought this
over destruction and chaos.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Yes, I'm glad you brought this up because which I
value that principle. It's a good one. And in the past,
on and off the microphone, when I have a drilled
down on it, not as a malicious thing, but just
as a conversation piece or to understand this principle as

(01:01:58):
you would call it or guiding light or morality foundation
or something the meaning the purpose of your life and
the purpose of the universe, as far as you see it. Uh,
in the past, there have been times when we get
to the edge of the earth. If you will and

(01:02:19):
and and I'll hear you continuing to explain in words,
but all I see is just an abyss without explanation,
because but that's the nature of faith, right, yeah, okay, but.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
That's yeah, like you cannot that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
There's no scientific because there's there are scenarios creation versus destruction.
How do you define the two? Sometimes it's easy, sometimes
it's not. Plus, what's beyond creat you know, if if
we are all creating and we're all on the good site,
like to what end? What what?

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
There can be no proof, there can be no reason.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
Okay, it's just that. So you've never said this before,
by the way, you've never said at the at the end,
not to me anyway, but at the edge of the universe,
because this is the well, let me explain. So at
the edge of the universe, you can't you know, it's like, well,
how do you decide between not killing your neighbor versus

(01:03:13):
killing your neighbor. According to you, your guiding principle is, well,
killing is destruction and not killing is creation. To help
other people around the world give to charity, that's creation,
it's not destruction. To it's funny that to uh, you know,
I don't know how it plays in the trolley problem,
but I guess pulling the lever is act active ptistically destructing. Yeah.

(01:03:39):
So when there have been previous times when we've had
this cover, at least in my perception, that I'll say, well, okay,
but what about I'm having a hard time explaining this.
But I will get to this thing, well, how do
you justify that creation? And you'll be like, well, that
that's because creation, and you'll get kind of abstract with it. Well,

(01:03:59):
to be clear, I'm not refuting it, and if I
held up my principle that I follow, you could equally.
But I think it is pointing to which is an
interesting thing when and you know, philosophy students have much
more sophisticated language for this, but with the trolley problem,
it is inevitable that if you actually play it out,

(01:04:19):
you eventually come to that abyss as what I'm calling it,
where principles end and you just have to go on
faith and the faith. And maybe you can tell me
the faith that you have. But the faith that I
have is that I guess again it's impossible to put

(01:04:41):
into words, but that good is better than evil, whatever
and however you define that, but it just is that
there is a design to the universe, a God or
a being or a higher power or a force, or
there is that thing at the edge of all of

(01:05:04):
my ability to languagize the universe. That actually is the
foundation that I try to figure out all my moral decisions,
you know what I mean? And you know it emerges
for different people, the lever pushing the guy, the war,
but the foundation is so we're all trying to interpret
the abyss. We're all trying We have faith, and we're
trying to interpret that in the best way that we can.

(01:05:26):
And the Trilley problem illuminates where that line is in
terms of how we see it. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:05:30):
Absolutely, I mean for me, what happened is that I
came to a point where I was like, and this
is maybe two thousand.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
And eight, when we were doing the band and.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
Stuff like that, I was doing a lot of reading
and thinking and stuff, and I came to a point
where I was like, all right, I obviously don't believe
in the like religions that I believed then before, But
what is my like rezoond at trail, you know, like,
what's the deal?

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
Like why do I do what I do?

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Right? And I had because by that point you had,
you had eschewed religion and God.

Speaker 2 (01:06:08):
Mostly yeah, mostly yes, Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:06:11):
So then the thing that I had always stuck with
me from my limited philosophical study, which was very limited,
was the kart. And so what I what I came
to was like, okay, I really resonate with the thought
of that the only thing we know is what is
currently in our present reality, in our head, because realistically

(01:06:32):
we can't know anything else outside of that. I can
only know that right now, in this moment, I appear
to be talking, and I appear to be conscious. I
don't know if you're real. I don't know if yesterday existed,
I don't know if tomorrow exists. I have no idea,
but I know that right now I happened to be
talking and thinking. And it could be a simulation and
some that and the but as far as I know,

(01:06:53):
this experience that I'm having is what I know. So
starting with that, I was like, all right, well, if
that's all I know, what can I can I go
anywhere further from that? And what I came to was
this idea that I called the woujie, which is the
the idea is that I've decided just through faith. No,

(01:07:14):
there's no I can't prove this, but I've decided that
something is better than nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
And I could be wrong. Maybe it's quote unquote.

Speaker 3 (01:07:26):
Better if there is nothing in the universe or ever,
you know, but just for me, I decided that something
is better than nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:07:33):
I like it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
And based on that, then I started going like, okay,
I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:07:37):
I agree with the guiding principle because in essence it's
something that I stand on too. But I also like
the fact that you can meta reflect on the faith
that you have to go off there is no answer.
Why am I doing this?

Speaker 2 (01:07:54):
Then?

Speaker 3 (01:07:55):
Then what I came to was like, oh, right, I'm
a participant in the simulation, whether I like it or not.
And the fact is that I choose to be on
the side of the simulation because look, you could look
at the universe and most of the most of the
evidence we see around from the visible universe is that
pretty much nothing wins. You know, Destruction as far as

(01:08:19):
we're concerned, is coming and so right, So but I choose, again,
just on faith alone, I choose to be part of
the side, that little ventricle, that little thrust in, the
tiny little thrust in the universe that is trying.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:08:36):
Then you would think you would save five people, because
that's that's keeping more people alive, hold on, that's less destruction.

Speaker 3 (01:08:43):
But but it can't be like that, because the thing
is that I have to make decisions every day of
my life, and I'm not going to be right. Most often,
I'm probably going to be wrong, but I need to
have some guiding principles. And my guiding principles is I
want to try to do things that tend more towards
creation and preservation. And in my mind, and again I
could be wrong about this, but in my mind, pulling

(01:09:03):
a lever to actively destroy a life where I in
that moment have no not enough information, according to me,
is tending towards destruction instead of creation and preservation, even
though by me not pulling the lever technically more lives
might be lost, you know, whereas when I'm rolling the

(01:09:23):
ship I'm tending in my mind towards creation and preservation,
trying to save people in the ship.

Speaker 1 (01:09:30):
Two last ones that I think might be interesting. You know,
a trolley will hit five people unless diverted, just like
the original. But you don't know who is on the sidetrack.
You can't see it. It could be zero, it could
be one person, it could be ten people. You don't

(01:09:51):
have time to figure it out, do or do not?

Speaker 2 (01:09:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:09:54):
Right, man, I will be zero, right.

Speaker 2 (01:09:57):
I wish I could see if it's zero.

Speaker 3 (01:09:59):
Ah No, but I obviously I can't, and even less
so now because now there's a chance that by me
taking that action, I'm killing one hundred people.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
Yeah. The key here is that there's a sense that
there definitely could be people on the truck, because you know,
in a real world scenario, if someone was in a
like a subway or something headed towards five and you
could head it in a different.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Tunnel and you don't see, You're just in your head.

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
You're just like, well, there could be people on that truck. Yeah.
People don't normally hate, right, so it really need so.

Speaker 3 (01:10:34):
Maybe maybe we can by it, but we can modify
it slightly and say there's a fifty to fifty chance
that there's either one or zero people on.

Speaker 1 (01:10:41):
Yeah. I guess for most people they would they would
pull the lever just on the first scenario.

Speaker 3 (01:10:46):
But for you me, I, now I have to decide
if I'm going to take the fifty percent chance that
no one gets killed.

Speaker 2 (01:10:52):
Yeah, that's a good one. Yeah, that's a good one.
That one I might. I might take those odds really well, yes.

Speaker 3 (01:11:01):
Because he now, Now, now I'm taking the odds that
maybe maybe no one has to get hurt.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
It's kind of like trying to stop the trolley.

Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
Yeah, right, because it's a lot better than point one percent.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
Yeah, yeah, that's interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:11:13):
Yeah, that's interesting. But you would still okay, that's interesting
because it is so uh, it'd be.

Speaker 2 (01:11:19):
Like please, oh no, there was someone else.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
What it illuminates is that principle that you're following is that, well,
there's a chance that by pulling the lever, I will
be creating.

Speaker 3 (01:11:34):
By pulling you know what it is. It's the Superman principle.
It's the Superman Imagine this scene in a Superman movie.
What does Superman do? Of course, he doesn't pull the
freaking lever. He tries to tell his last breath with
the Kryptonian son dying.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
But he the people you're talking about. He literally did
that in Superman one.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
Yeah, but that's dumb.

Speaker 1 (01:11:55):
There were two nuclear missiles. One was headed towards Lois
Lane and the other one.

Speaker 2 (01:11:59):
Because he could reverse time. That doesn't count well.

Speaker 1 (01:12:02):
But he decided before he knew he could reverse time. Yeah,
he did. He'd sacrificed Lois Lane, but that was more
like it's more like the boat. Yeah, yeah, but he
had an emotional connection with Lewis Lane and he still
didn't take it, whereas you would save me because I'm

(01:12:22):
not Superman and I like last one because and this
one actually is real world scenario that happens all the time.
There's a self driving car and you are in charge
of programming it to as a robot, make a split
second decision based on inputs that it's uh, you know,

(01:12:43):
and this is literally programmed or simulated, and someone has
to you know, pull the trigger in terms of how
it's going to So the car is it knows or
it calculates in the split second that if it does nothing,
it runs or five people, and if it does something,
it runs over one person and the something means that

(01:13:06):
it goes up on the curb. Let's just say that, like,
it's not on the street, right, So if it stays
on the street, it's gonna have five pedestrians who are jaywalking.
They're not supposed to be there, or it it says, Okay,
I could I can do nothing else. I can't get
out of the way of these five people. I can't
avoid hitting five or one, but I could go up

(01:13:28):
on the curb. And it knows because you know, as
a second to decide I can kill that one person,
and I'm going seventy five miles per hour, it's likely
I'm going to kill five or one. You are the programmer,
what do you do?

Speaker 3 (01:13:41):
Yeah, I mean in that case, it's oddly simpler because
basically the algorithm would be try to minimize damage as
much as possible. So do everything you can to stop
the car or veer in a way where there's no obstacles.
Last case scenario, minimize damage. So it will mean if
it means veering off into a side where it sees

(01:14:01):
one onto the sidewalk, yeah, even if it's five to four,
even if it's five and five.

Speaker 2 (01:14:06):
But this one looks like there's maybe only four.

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
Yeah, so this is a real world scenario where you
can actually do a black box scenario and go line
by line of calculation and see how it did in
a simulation and also how it did in a real scenario.

Speaker 2 (01:14:23):
The reason I feel this is weird.

Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
Imagine being the guy on the sidewalk and the computer said,
the computer decided you're dead because because you are less
than five, but.

Speaker 3 (01:14:35):
That that's still limited by physics, and we are if
we're a human driver, same thing could happen where you're
at the last second you're like, oh, I killed.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
The person, right, Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:14:46):
Would you Well, I mean you would first try to
not write, but in that last minute, like I want
you to.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
You would kill the person.

Speaker 3 (01:14:55):
But you wouldn't have the time to actually rationalize everything, right,
you would just be like, I'm trying to avoid this
because I'm about to kill five people.

Speaker 1 (01:15:03):
So if you came on the trolley and you literally
have half a second to make a choice, pull it
or don't, do you pull it or don't?

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
Like if I'm the trolley driver is different, Yeah for sure?

Speaker 1 (01:15:13):
Okay either way? Yeah, okay, So you're the trolley driver,
the trolley driver, and you're looking at your phone and
you look up. Well, let's say it's not your phone,
it's snowy, and someone is forcing you to go fast
and you look up.

Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
At that, I'm like, yeah, I'll probably pull it, you know, probably.

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
You would, well, because again in that moment, in that moment,
are you saying that you're released from the judgment self judgment?
Maybe of Look, I didn't have time to like go
over principles and bias and thought I just had to
make a quick decision, and who could blame me?

Speaker 3 (01:15:50):
Yeah, I mean I would still probably, you know, I
would still feel blame. I would still probably be blamed,
but it doesn't matter. But less realistically, in that moment,
I would just be trying to minimize damage.

Speaker 1 (01:16:00):
Yeah. Interesting, Yeah, because you don't have time to think.

Speaker 3 (01:16:04):
And it's my responsibility and beccause driver, and because you are.

Speaker 1 (01:16:13):
Releasing yourself from having to follow higher minded.

Speaker 3 (01:16:16):
Stores, and certainly because in this example, doing nothing while
I'm the driver is a.

Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Different level of responsibility, you know, like.

Speaker 3 (01:16:26):
Doing nothing, I'm the one driving, and if I do
nothing and I keep running, I keep going straight where
I'm going to run people over, that's a different level
of responsibility.

Speaker 1 (01:16:35):
Right, right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, of course, right, you're
the one. But yeah, uh well, okay, so you're a
passenger and an uber. Yeah, and you look up from
your phone because it's fine. You're looking at your phone
because you're just a passenger. You're sitting in the front seat,

(01:16:55):
and you notice that the car is barreling at sixty
miles an hour to five people that are innocently crossing
the crosswalk. Right, and in that half a second you
look at the driver. He's asleep. You can grab the wheel,
and you see in that's second there's a there's another guy,
another innocent person on the sidewalk, and you know, let's say,

(01:17:18):
you don't even know if everyone's gonna die or not, right,
but they're seriously maimed. Do you pull and you know
there's no other way, You can't. If you divert it
the other direction, it'll kill ten people, you know what
I mean? So so you can you can divert it
left and kill ten. You can you can do nothing,
it'll it'll kill five. Or you can pull it towards
you go up on the curb and likely kill one person.

(01:17:42):
What do you do?

Speaker 3 (01:17:43):
I mean, the reality of the situation being in the
car barreling towards the people is I'm gonna try my
best to avoid hitting someone, even if that means.

Speaker 1 (01:17:52):
But okay, okay, I'm gonna hit him. I like them.
So let's say that you know, in the recesses of
your mind, there's still a portion of burto that has
the ability to err on the side of one versus five.
You know, like there's a middle lane that you might
be able to sneak past everybody. But if I have
to pull a little or I mean, I guess you're

(01:18:14):
already intervening, So of course you're going to air.

Speaker 3 (01:18:16):
And I think, look, what you're pointing out is very good,
because there is a really good question about in which
case do you become an active participant or not? Right,
it could be argued that the passenger in the car
is not the driver, So now pulling a lever or
pulling a steering wheel or equivalent, it could be argued I,
at the same time have to throw in the the

(01:18:38):
reality of feeling like you're in the moving vehicle and
you're you're part of the object that is about to
careen into these people.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
There's also an aspect of self preservation.

Speaker 3 (01:18:49):
You might do it even just because you think you
might dive in this crash or something on it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:54):
So it's kind of hard, but I.

Speaker 3 (01:18:56):
Have to be honest and imagine that if I'm really
in that situation, I'm going to tug at that wheel
and try to not hit anyone.

Speaker 1 (01:19:03):
Yeah, it's almost like the trolley scenario feels like a
James Bond terrorist setup that you're already skeptical of, whereas
the driving thing, it's like, well that could happen exactly,
So yeah, I killed the one guy, Yeah exactly, Well
that doesn't for that episode of Psychology and Seattle.

Speaker 2 (01:19:19):
Please take care of yourself because you deserve it,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Trolley Problem Debate

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

All Episodes

Trolley Problem Debate

Stuff You Should Know