= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on A variant on the trolley problem and babies as unit of currency - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (63)
Reversal test: If this miracle of people dying and corresponding sums of money magically appearing in charity funds was commonplace, what debate would follow a hypothetical technology that terminates the miracle?
It's possible to buy life insurance and specify a charity as the beneficiary.
Note that it could not be so commonplace as to reduce the marginal value of money in the coffers of these charities.
Or, perhaps, it has been going on long enough that the last batch of people saved have had time to breed. If so the button pushers will struggle to keep up with the exponential growth.
Perhaps goods with innate value, such as difficult to synthesise medicines, are spontaneously generated instead of money.
Note that the Reversal Test is written with the assumption of consequentialism, where there's an ideal value for some trait of the universe, whereas the whole point of the trolley problem is that the only problem is deontological, assuming the hypothetical pure example where there are no unintended consequences.
However, the Reversal Test of things like "prevent people from pulling the lever" is still useful if you want to make deontologists question the action/inaction distinction.