= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rune comments on Some reservations about Singer's child-in-the-pond argument - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (120)
Your last example is actually weaker than it could be. Even though it's completely equivalent, a better way to phrase this is the following:
The train is currently rushing to kill the child, and you're not part of this situation. You, sitting in your car far away, see this happening. You now have the choice to drive up to the tracks and leave your car on the tracks. This will save the child but destroy your car.
Now it's clear that you weren't part of the situation to begin with; you're just a distant observer who may choose to intervene.
I don't follow why leaving your car on the tracks prevents the child from being killed.
The same reason fat people can derail trolleys and businesspeople have lifeguard abilities, I'd imagine.
New problem: should you spring for the train-derailing-self-destruct-with-an-ejection-seat option on your new car?
Well, if it costs anything like $2300, then...
Just always make sure you have a fat man as a passenger.