I think people who are unable to engage in a thought experiment in good faith, but choose to engage anyways, are the most tedious people on the internet.
Appealing against the validity of the scenario isn’t engaging in good faith. Dragging additional moral agents into the scenario isn’t engaging in good faith.
It’s the same as if someone says “what ice cream flavor do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla” and you answer “strawberry”… and then start saying the question was stupid. And then say that, actually, pie is better than ice cream.
Everything you’ve said might be correct, but since you’ve completely bailed on the original question, you’re just monologuing at that point.
The point of any thought experiment is to reduce complexity to provide conceptual focus. Insisting on re-expanding that complexity is the antithesis of the entire exercise.
You can have a preference. You can dislike these types of thought experiments. Many people dislike them, I don’t begrudge you on that. But I enjoy hearing someone boldly explaining why the premise is dumb as much as a soccer fan would enjoy me saying the players are stupid for not just picking up the ball. The rules provide a structure that makes the exercise compelling, exactly like a sport. You don’t have to like soccer either, but weigh the value of your commentary.
Edit:
And please don’t take any of this personally. I think it ultimately comes down to my eyes roll back into my head when I hear people say what you say exactly in the same way that yours do when you see a trolly problem. We’re both out here just exasperated. This is a meme community. You wanna say “I hate these dumbass memes” then I’m totally cool with that. It’s the “actually the solution is simple IF you disregard the constraints of the question” that gets my goat.
I think people who are unable to engage in a thought experiment in good faith, but choose to engage anyways, are the most tedious people on the internet.
I engaged with it in good faith, it’s just I politely stated my opinion about these in general, even if that’s negative. No need to be like that.
Appealing against the validity of the scenario isn’t engaging in good faith. Dragging additional moral agents into the scenario isn’t engaging in good faith.
It’s the same as if someone says “what ice cream flavor do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla” and you answer “strawberry”… and then start saying the question was stupid. And then say that, actually, pie is better than ice cream.
Everything you’ve said might be correct, but since you’ve completely bailed on the original question, you’re just monologuing at that point.
The point of any thought experiment is to reduce complexity to provide conceptual focus. Insisting on re-expanding that complexity is the antithesis of the entire exercise.
You can have a preference. You can dislike these types of thought experiments. Many people dislike them, I don’t begrudge you on that. But I enjoy hearing someone boldly explaining why the premise is dumb as much as a soccer fan would enjoy me saying the players are stupid for not just picking up the ball. The rules provide a structure that makes the exercise compelling, exactly like a sport. You don’t have to like soccer either, but weigh the value of your commentary.
Edit:
And please don’t take any of this personally. I think it ultimately comes down to my eyes roll back into my head when I hear people say what you say exactly in the same way that yours do when you see a trolly problem. We’re both out here just exasperated. This is a meme community. You wanna say “I hate these dumbass memes” then I’m totally cool with that. It’s the “actually the solution is simple IF you disregard the constraints of the question” that gets my goat.