this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
237 points (95.1% liked)

196

4744 readers
156 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The guy who might wander onto tracks doesn't even exist in reality. He's a hypothetical in the mind of the guy with his hands on the lever.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Nah, something like 1% of people who transition regret it. Which is stunningly low considering the enormity of the change. 1% of people are going to regret any major life decision.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Heh it's a fun "gotcha" kind of modification. Alas, it misunderstands the thought experiment. They're not changing the emotional valence. They are removing a fundamental aspect of a dilemma: harm. One of the purposes of the trolley problem is to provoke the thinker into questioning what they believe about moral responsibility and (in)action.

[–] Doxin@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's changing the problem from definite harm and potential upside to definite upside and potential harm.

It makes sense people value potential harm different from potential upside.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. What is the potential harm in the comic?

[–] Doxin@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The potential harm in the comic is lack of buff dudes, the potential upside in the classic is more good people being alive.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That does not make sense. What does "harm" mean to you? Less good is not "potential harm". To put it another way, let's assume you and I are completely independent and I have to moral responsibility to give you money. If I chose to not give you any money, you would not be harmed. If I gifted you $100, you would not be harmed. If I gifted you $20 you would not be harmed because I did not gift you $100.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

~~Doesn't really work since having to detransition or whatever isn't as comparable to being unable to transition at all but yeah I get it just eradicate transphobia~~

Okay so I just realized the point went way over my head yeah, the fact it's not comparable is the point, yeah very 🤓 comment earlier 🤦

The hypothetical guy wandering the track is a scapegoat to excuse withholding rights from trans people as a whole. Anyone stating this guy exists and to prevent this from happening does not care about that hypothetical guy, they only want trans people to die.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Insufficient information. Is the random guy trans, or a minority, or a woman? Or a CIS white male?

[–] 97xBang@feddit.online 5 points 1 week ago

He's a bad.

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

It’s almost as if proper access to healthcare and allowing each person to make their own medical decisions with a qualified provider prevents all of this issue. Detransition is also none of the fucking government’s business! (ᐛ)