cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/19678732
It depends on who voted for Trump in the scenario
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
256 points (98.1% liked)
General Memes & Private Chuckle
272 readers
373 users here now
Welcome to General Memes
Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cruel
We’re here for laughs, not fights.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults
Rule 2: No Forbidden Formats
Not every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
- NSFW memes must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.
Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
Pull the lever quickly so the other sees you pulled the lever and wond pull his.
Problem solved.
Don't underestimate the amount of harm people are willing to cause themselves purely out of spite and hatred.
The least amount of death occurs by me doing nothing. Don't worry, I got that covered.
There's the added factor here of putting your loved ones in the position of either...
A: Killing one person (let's presume it's someone they also care about)...
B: Killing three people, or...
C: All dying horribly
In no scenario do your loved ones get to control the outcome, and it's presumably a horrible experience for them regardless. I'd say that the math favors not pulling the lever. It has a 100% chance of your loved ones only being forced to passively kill one person, as opposed to whatever the odds are in scenarios B or C of even greater numbers of fatalities being on their consciences.
The beauty of the prisoners dilemma is that it's ALWAYS in your advantage to sell out the other prisoner. In this case it's not in your advantage to pull the lever if the other person might have pulled the lever. This misses the key part of the prisoners dilemma.
Pretty cool remix though.
Always to your advantage? How do you figure?
The setup is usually if you both shut up you both get 1 year. If one of you snitches you walk free and the other guy gets 10 years. If you both snitch you both get 5 years.
So if the other guy snitches you're gonna get 10 years if you don't and 5 if you do so you "should" snitch.
If the other guy says nothing you get 1 year if you say nothing, but if you snitch you walk free. So you "should" snitch.
The prisoners dilemma exists because if you both behave in your "rational" self interest you both get a higher jail sentence than if you both keep your mouth shut.
It's a great counter example to the "rational" consumer in a free market, you also start to see it everywhere. It's the main thing that stops strikes and political activism in real life. If you participate you always take a risk. If you stay home you take no risk and still reap all the rewards of successful activism..... EXCEPT if everyone behaves like that no activism will ever be successful and everyone loses.
In this form I know it under the name "paradox of the voter"
Cross the tracks.
If the other person tries to pull their lever, beat them to death and unpull it if possible.
If there's no time to do anything but pull the lever you simply don't pull it.
Regardless you are on either the path of least harm or justified vengeance. The loved one on the status quo path was killed by the person that put them there, so obviously you're going to need to keep going on the path of murderous vengeance after that.
Philosophy is easy if you use more justified homicide.
I honestly disagree that the best case scenario is to kill three strangers to save a loved one.
I still haven't seen someone on lemmy bring up the trolley problem while understanding the trolley problem.
The loved one is in their Monkeysphere, the strangers are not. People are going to save the family member.
Linked article is old, formatting's hosed. Not sure I've read anything that was as eye opening regarding human behavior. If you internalize the concept, you'll see it in action every day, understand so much of our conduct.
I feel like this way of understanding sociology can explain highly individualistic behavior, but it's a stretch to say that evey human interaction is highly individualistic (or rather "in-group" thinking). I'm sure we can agree that SOME human interactions do not fit this pattern and I even think it's MOST of human interactions.
"Who would be nice or considerate to a person they don't know and never will meet again?" well actually quite a lot.
Nah, I think you're taking my opinion way too far. I'm only saying that much of our behavior is explained here, more so than I've seen in any other single theory. Sure, we're far more complex than a Cracked article can explain, but that's a lotta bang for the buck in a single notion.
No, we're not absolutely ruled by the Monkeysphere, but it sure explains a lot of fuckery.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that lovely article. It was probably the first thing I ever read that really changed my mind about osama bin laden, and it wasn't even the writer's point.
Yeah, that's a scary thing to make a foregone conclusion. "It's best for you that 3 strangers die."
Wasn't there a game show with this, but instead of people it was money? If you split you get half of it, if you steal you get all of it, if both steal you get nothing
It's a form of prisoners dilemma.
But the show was golden balls and here is probably the most famous scene https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8
That said it basically ended the show because he broke the whole premise.
Not wrapping my head around that. I can almost get it. Somebody help me.
Ok, so player 2 states he is going to steal but will share winnings afterwards. Player 1 has 2 options... 1. Choose steal, resulting in 0 money. 2. Choose split and have a 50/50 chance of getting money(depending on if player 2 is honest).
Basically the only clip I've seen lol
Probably Golden Balls.
Edit: originally said deal or no deal but that's not it.
This is exactly why people hate moral philosophers.
The answer is the same as the original trolley problem. The only morally correct things to do is nothing, regardless of the outcome. If I don't pull the lever and my loved one dies it wasn't me who liked them. They were killed by whomever put them on the tracks.
If I don't pull the lever and my loved one dies it wasn't me who liked them.
Freudian autocarrot
Lol
so I should keep the trolley running to kill the 1 billion people, and not divert it to run over my neighbors cousins old and dying cat?
It's crazy how if you change the situation entirely you get a different result and optimal action
The point of the trolley problem isn't really about utilitarianism or whatever, it's to demonstrate that inaction can be an action.
The action/non-action question is one part of the problem, but not the sole or defining one to me. An certainly there is no simple answer as you suggest.
It's a secret they only teach you in Philosophy 102.
dang, I knew it!
This is like the bombs on the boats at the end of The Dark Knight. Philosophers are literally the Joker.
I think the best course of action is for the person who came up with this problemma to seek employment
I run across the tracks and push the other guy onto them, then tie both of the levers together such that when the trolley passes the line something happens to the lever.
Not picking clue what the result would be. WILD CARD BITCHES!!!!!
Love nothing and no-one! Ha! Can't get me, bitch!
Detected a feeling of loneliness disguised as happy contentment. Will recommend for rejuvenation camp!
Spiteful reveling in petty victories, not contentment or happiness. Your sensors need work.
I think the best solution is to hit the people coming up with these idiotic scenarios.