Vegetarian Discussion: Idiot's Guide To The Trolley Problem

Idiot's Guide To The Trolley Problem
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

E*@hotmail.com
2009-05-18 21:22:05 EST
“A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
flip the switch?”

--------------------------

If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
and severe will happen.

On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
causalities to their existing team.

Does inaction make someone culpable for the resulting tragedy when
they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
“flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
responsible for the new lesser misfortune?

Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
“flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?

Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
outsourcing.

Don Stockbauer
2009-05-18 22:42:48 EST
On May 18, 8:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> flip the switch?”
>
> --------------------------
>
> If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> and severe will happen.
>
> On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> causalities to their existing team.
>
> Does inaction make someone culpable for the resulting tragedy when
> they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> outsourcing.

It depends whether the planet this takes place on is overpopulated or
underpopulated.

Don Stockbauer
2009-05-19 08:12:29 EST
On May 18, 9:42 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> > people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> > switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> > Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> > flip the switch?”
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> > grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> > and severe will happen.
>
> > On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> > to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> > causalities to their existing team.
>
> > Does inaction make someone culpable for the resulting tragedy when
> > they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> > responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> > tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> > “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> > responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> > Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> > influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> > “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> > Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> > more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> > come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> > outsourcing.
>
> It depends whether the planet this takes place on is overpopulated or
> underpopulated.

Guy has a tremendously long penis, and is standing on a streetcorner.
He tells the guy next to him "I can have sexual intercourse with that
woman 3 blocks over and not move from here."

"No! You're on!"

So the guy reels it out, and sure enough pops it right into the
desired location, and has sexual intercourse with her from 3 blocks
away!

Then he stars reeling it back in just as fast as he can.

"What's the hurry?"

"TROLLYCAR'S COMING!!!!!!!!"

Robert Cohen
2009-05-19 08:30:32 EST
On May 18, 10:42 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> > people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> > switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> > Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> > flip the switch?”
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> > grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> > and severe will happen.
>
> > On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> > to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> > causalities to their existing team.
>
> > Does inaction make someone culpable for the resulting tragedy when
> > they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> > responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> > tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> > “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> > responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> > Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> > influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> > “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> > Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> > more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> > come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> > outsourcing.
>
> It depends whether the planet this takes place on is overpopulated or
> underpopulated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

an hypothetical is not reality, but fun enough

what are the decider's motivating interests ?

kinship, friend <your mama all alone is tied to track>

bidne$$, least damage liability <aren't "biz decisions" such cold
calculations?>

fear of punishment <if switching switch is certain serious prison time
felony, then...>

ethics professor ethic <well, damneit that clear cut moral relativism,
killing the 1 for the 6 surviving blah, blah>

question is hypothetical, though it does sort out of what
existentialist (?) mind a person is, if i got "existential" explained
passably enough for that pompous ethics monger

T*@earthlink.net
2009-05-19 08:32:06 EST
On May 18, 9:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> flip the switch?”
>
> --------------------------
>
> If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> and severe will happen.
>
> On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> causalities to their existing team.
>
> Does inaction make someone culpable

WTF does 'culpable' mean? WTF does even 'should' mean?

Answer those questions first.

-tg




>for the resulting tragedy when
> they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> outsourcing.


Marshall
2009-05-19 09:12:28 EST
On May 19, 5:32 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> WTF does 'culpable' mean?  WTF does even 'should' mean?

You *really* need to buy a dictionary.


Marshall

Errol
2009-05-19 09:56:09 EST
On May 19, 3:22 am, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>

What do the Rolling Stones say about it?

Pick me up
Baby I'm ready to go
Take me up
Baby I'm ready to blow
Take me up
Baby if you're ready to go
Baby I got nowhere to go
Baby I'm ready to go
(Chill me, freeze me, to my bones)
Flip the switch

I guess if you (and baby) are ready to go/blow but have nowhere to go,
then flip the switch already




Don Stockbauer
2009-05-19 12:05:37 EST
On May 19, 8:56 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 3:22 am, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> > influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> > “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> What do the Rolling Stones say about it?
>
> Pick me up
> Baby I'm ready to go
> Take me up
> Baby I'm ready to blow
> Take me up
> Baby if you're ready to go
> Baby I got nowhere to go
> Baby I'm ready to go
> (Chill me, freeze me, to my bones)
> Flip the switch
>
> I guess if you (and baby) are ready to go/blow but have nowhere to go,
> then flip the switch already

We're all to work on problems, not puzzles, yes?

BOfL
2009-05-20 12:04:33 EST
On May 19, 10:32 pm, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On May 18, 9:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> > people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> > switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> > Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> > flip the switch?”
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> > grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> > and severe will happen.
>
> > On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> > to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> > causalities to their existing team.
>
> > Does inaction make someone culpable
>
> WTF does 'culpable' mean?  WTF does even 'should' mean?
>
> Answer those questions first.
>
> -tg
>
>
>
> >for the resulting tragedy when
> > they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> > responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> > tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> > “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> > responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> > Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> > influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> > “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> > Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> > more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> > come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> > outsourcing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What does what does mean?

BOfL

George Dance
2009-05-20 12:25:49 EST
On May 18, 9:22 pm, extro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> “A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5
> people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a
> switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
> Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
> flip the switch?”
>

Your last question assumes that you can either (1) flip the switch or
(2) not. But, if determinism is true, that's not the case. It may be
that whatever you had for breakfast causes you to flip switches all
day whenever you encounter one; or conversely prevents you from
flipping switches all day. Or, if not what you had for breakfast,
then some other event (or combination of events) that does the same
thing.








> --------------------------
>
> If they do nothing with talent acquisition, then surely, as discontent
> grows with escalating costs and diminishing ROI, something unfortunate
> and severe will happen.
>
> On the other hand, if talent leadership “pulls the switch” and decides
> to outsource recruiting, then certainly there will be some human
> causalities to their existing team.
>
> Does inaction make someone culpable for the resulting tragedy when
> they know the potential outcome and choose to do nothing? They are not
> responsible for the train nor did they tie any of the people to the
> tracks. Therefore, since the situation is already in place, does
> “flipping the switch” constitute a participation making one
> responsible for the new lesser misfortune?
>
> Or, does simply being present in this situation and being able to
> influence its outcome constitute an obligation to participate? Is
> “flipping the switch” not only permissible, but the better option?
>
> Some might find this an easy decision. For others the decision is much
> more difficult. Everyone is different but, in the end, we all need to
> come to grips with the effect of not outsourcing and the impact of
> outsourcing.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron