(no subject)
Trolley problems:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/the-trolley-problem-would-you…
After reading about these for a while, it has dawned on me that most political debates are framed as "trolley problems". Take, for instance, waterboarding: Would you torture 1 person to get information that could save hundreds? Republicans are consequential on this, democrats deontological. Or healthcare, where the positions are reversed.
Both of those positions are reasonable as far as they go, and both sides spend a lot of time trying to convince people that theirs is the "1 dead instead of 5" version, or that the "wrong thing" that pulling the lever implies is very very wrong.
But here's where the problems start. What if the 5 workers on the track *aren't* unsuspecting? What if they've agreed to a suicide mission to prevent the deaths of the 75 people on the trolley, and sending it to kill the 1 person results in their certain death? You just got on the scene, how do you KNOW what the situation is from your on-the-spot assessment?
The consequentialist decision in the trolley problem implies that you imagine yourself having perfect knowledge. Which, in the case of political situations, you rarely if ever have. When Obama was doing the "bad thing" of lying to the american public "If you like your plan, you can keep it", it was on the theory that Obamacare, when it inevitably deathspiralled and Hilary instituted single payer, would "Justify the means" of lying to the american people and destroying our prior healthcare system. He chose the lever... But then Trump got elected, partly because of Obamas lies and destructiveness. Ultimately, his use of the lever caused a great deal of misery, and didn't even result in the "good thing" happening, because he lacked perfect knowledge. Is his use of that lever still justified? If so, how? By what?
On most issues, I find that Republicans bias deontological, and democrats bias consequentialist. Which actually fits in with some other cognitive differences I have observed. The second is "the seen and the unseen", Democrats are more interested in the seen, whereas republicans pay more attention to the unseen (D: We should raise the minimum wage R: Raising the minimum wage will cause some to get a raise, but will cause others to lose their jobs, ultimately making the poor poorer). The third cognitive difference is that republicans think more long-term, versus democrats short term thinking. How many times have you heard "D: We have to do something about X, people are hurting R: But your proposal will pass a burden down to our children and grandchildren"
Consequentialist versus deontological, seen versus unseen, short term versus long. Watch most of the debates on is
sues you see coming up, and see if my observations hold up.
https://www.theguardian.com/…/the-trolley-problem-would-you…
After reading about these for a while, it has dawned on me that most political debates are framed as "trolley problems". Take, for instance, waterboarding: Would you torture 1 person to get information that could save hundreds? Republicans are consequential on this, democrats deontological. Or healthcare, where the positions are reversed.
Both of those positions are reasonable as far as they go, and both sides spend a lot of time trying to convince people that theirs is the "1 dead instead of 5" version, or that the "wrong thing" that pulling the lever implies is very very wrong.
But here's where the problems start. What if the 5 workers on the track *aren't* unsuspecting? What if they've agreed to a suicide mission to prevent the deaths of the 75 people on the trolley, and sending it to kill the 1 person results in their certain death? You just got on the scene, how do you KNOW what the situation is from your on-the-spot assessment?
The consequentialist decision in the trolley problem implies that you imagine yourself having perfect knowledge. Which, in the case of political situations, you rarely if ever have. When Obama was doing the "bad thing" of lying to the american public "If you like your plan, you can keep it", it was on the theory that Obamacare, when it inevitably deathspiralled and Hilary instituted single payer, would "Justify the means" of lying to the american people and destroying our prior healthcare system. He chose the lever... But then Trump got elected, partly because of Obamas lies and destructiveness. Ultimately, his use of the lever caused a great deal of misery, and didn't even result in the "good thing" happening, because he lacked perfect knowledge. Is his use of that lever still justified? If so, how? By what?
On most issues, I find that Republicans bias deontological, and democrats bias consequentialist. Which actually fits in with some other cognitive differences I have observed. The second is "the seen and the unseen", Democrats are more interested in the seen, whereas republicans pay more attention to the unseen (D: We should raise the minimum wage R: Raising the minimum wage will cause some to get a raise, but will cause others to lose their jobs, ultimately making the poor poorer). The third cognitive difference is that republicans think more long-term, versus democrats short term thinking. How many times have you heard "D: We have to do something about X, people are hurting R: But your proposal will pass a burden down to our children and grandchildren"
Consequentialist versus deontological, seen versus unseen, short term versus long. Watch most of the debates on is
sues you see coming up, and see if my observations hold up.