I honestly can’t imagine a non-at-least-slightly-problematic reason you’d bring this up… but putting that aside for a moment, in general I agree with you that overanalysing these can be tiresome. The problem with this one in particular is it’s such a contrived variation that it really brings it upon itself. In fact, it’s precisely because it’s particularly context dependent, that I have more of an issue with it.

It’s more that it doesn’t meet the bar of an abstract thought experiment that can be discussed without context in the first place that it’s the issue, and most thought experiments do, including the original one.

Basically I’m saying “this one would require contextualizing and overanalysis in order to get anywhere at all, and that’s tiresome, therefore that’s why it’s bad”. Do you see?

P.S. There’s also no part where we’re taking this “literally” per se.

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.

Well again that’s a very different scenario again, and context matters hugely. There are simply far too many important variables to reasonably analyze it on its face.

lol I love it

nice

I could go a wendy’s tbh

I’m not angry, I’m just like sigh this again

cheers mate

Well I’d definitely rather have that, will you sell me one for 25k?

that’s not a “but” - that’s just straight agreement

Well, you’ve wandered straight into the problem that is unavoidable if you study trolley problems for long enough. Context matters HUGELY and is an infinite fractal. Take for example your airplane/parachute situation - there is no single answer and therefore it’s unanswerable because it’s so dependent on the situation, the people involved, where are you, how much time do you have, how heavy are the two of you, do you have time to tie yourselves together and attempt to both use the parachute, etc etc etc. But the worst bit is so many people will then try and make a trolley problem equivalent, which you also can’t do without changing the context further.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with academic conversations about trolley problems, but low quality, unanswerable variants posted in meme subreddits might not be the best place.

Doesn’t sound like I’d pay a lot more, it sounds like they don’t exist. But my point still stands really, I’d still rather take the RV even if it’s smaller

You can’t really. Either they’re forced into this situation, in which my logic stands, or they’re not, in which case the correct answer is to walk away which wasn’t an option in the question as stated, so you’d be asking a different question.

I think the main thing is to just move on from these contrived scenarios as they’re not actually particularly useful vehicles for studying morality, or to be honest even game theory when they’re this off base.

I’d rather buy a used RV, probably the same kind of experience too

Please don’t go down the rabbit hole with these silly trolley problem variations.

As always, the answer is the person who forced you into this setup should be charged for many crimes for setting up such a thing.

There is such a thing as an invalid premise, this question is posed in an invalid way because it states “since you had to kill the other person” - you did no killing, you were not in control of the situation. You were being forced into a sick torture game by a diabolical criminal, end of.

The question as stated doesn’t deserve an answer because it is a question incorrectly put.