• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good thing that most people tend to judge you for killing a given finite number of people, rather than based on the percentage of the population. That is to say, If you kill one random person in China, you’re generally considered just as much a murderer as if you kill one random person in Luxembourg

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      And if you kill 30% of the population of the world you get hailed as a great conqueror.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure if that’s necessarily true. For one thing, thanks to ✨racism✨, who you kill will influence how you’re viewed. And if you kill enough people, I think it often causes people to view the event less personally (“one person is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”). Of course, that also depends on how you kill them. Killing one innocent looking civilian with a trolley will go over a lot worse than sending a million soldiers to die in a war (no matter how pointless or wrong the war was).

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, if there’s an infinite amount of people on the tracks and you have infinite time, you could kill a (countably) infinite number of people. If killing one person is a bit frowned on, klling tens makes you a monster and killing millions makes you whatever Hitler, Stalin and Mao were, not sure what they’d call someone who killed ℵ0 people

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And killing a Chinese isn’t as bad as killing someone from Beijing

  • Beefalo@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also the trolley is how you get to work, so if you stop it you can’t get to work and pay your rent so

  • kemsat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I pause to wonder the manufacture of the trolley, seeing as it should have derailed by now, causing an end to the death. Yet, it continues its eternal murderous journey.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The whole 0% thing works best if you aren’t aware of how far the train has already gone.

    So you can’t weigh any past quantity dead on any theoretical 0% future

  • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    As long as the lever is pulled before I die, then it will be about 0%. But if I die before I pull the lever, and no one else pulls the lever, then it will go on for an infinite amount of time and kill all of them

  • BraBraBra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The obvious response is to stop the trolley. Regardless of the percentage, people will continue to die if you don’t. The perspective doesn’t matter, the fact is there are people ahead who are alive.

  • This right here is what it boils down to when someone responds to a wrongful killing by police with a questionable statistic about how it’s only a tiny fraction of interactions that end that way.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    what if the number of people on the tracks is “infinite in both directions”? eg the trolley “starts at” -∞?

    • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s still the same size of infinity. Infinities are strange. But you can rearrange -∞ to ∞ to be the same size as 0 to ∞. You can do this by moving the negative numbers alongside their positive counterpart, like so:

      0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, etc.

      This infinity is still a countable infinity, same as

      0, 1, 2, 3, etc.

      So it makes no difference whether you start at 0 or -∞

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        very true that infinities are strange. while starting at -∞ would not affect the cardinality, it would change the scenario.

        we can think about starting at -∞ as counting the trolleys position using the integers, and we can think about starting at 0 as using the natural number to count the trolleys position. for example, the integer n would correspond to the trolley being on top of the n-th person. here we assume the trolley is moving to the right so the position increases as time passes. (if we change the setup so the trolley moves to the left, then it is possible that the trolley kills everyone in the second original setup but not the modified version.)

        in the original setup, regardless of the trolleys position, the trolley would have killed finitely many people. (for any integer n, there are only finitely many nonnegative integers less than n). in the modified setup however, at any position, the trolley would have killed infinitely many people. (for any integer n, there are infinitely many integers less than n.) it’s a subtle difference but it does impact the scenario.

      • snake_baitman@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah, but if it starts at -inf and I start at 0 then I don’t have to look at the horrible things I’m allowing to happen

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah that may cause a few problems. there would also need to be an infinite amount of trolley track which may pose some infrastructure challenges

  • Speiser0@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did anyone else misread this as the rail being densely filled with humans (for every a,b in R, a < b, there are infinitely many humans in (a,b))?