ou've got to be careful, though, even if she did popularize it. If you're going to talk about what it was created for, then you actually do have to talk about the person who made it, right? You can't talk about who popularized it. Well, it's funny because literally the first sentence of her article is giving the other person credit for creating the trolley problem. Like, come on, this is really basic stuff. Is he going to flip this into, and she went on to become Adolf Hitler's right hand?  Which is boring. You popularized the question while being used in, like, ethical study, even if she didn't invent the question. Actually, ethics is like a video game. It's also worth noting that in a later paper. Oh, I thought he was going to go and say something interesting. Ethics is like a video game. I thought he was saying, like, ethics is like a video game. The thing for this to explain why he just said it, but he just didn't. There's so many amazing ethical quandaries that come from video game stories and stuff. This is so cringy. Yeah, it's sort of like comparing it to video games is trying to downplay its value, which is pretty lame. But even then, I don't even understand what you mean when you say ethics is a video game. When it manifests in real life in action, that's ethics, right? But you would accept that that's... Or is he just talking about, like, ethics class, like at university? It's so funny though, right? If we rewind before World War II and someone said, I've got a big bomb that could, like, almost wipe out a place, would you use it to prevent a war from happening, or would you not?  You're like, okay. You know what, video game really tested my ethics and my moral fiber? World of Warcraft. No. World. You're sitting there. You're in Stranglethorne Vale.  Absolutely. Anyone who plays this human in any emotion die. Or are you going to just wave?  The thing is, like, with video games though, it's something that people have pointed out plenty of times is that even in video games where the choice doesn't matter in terms of the consequences, what really is relevant to the player is the thoughts that they have about the choice that they made. Why did they make that choice? Was that the right choice compared to, you know, the alternative that was presented to the market? Are we going to say that's not useful either? In, like, video games like Mass Effect, where you're sort of like, hmm. I feel like there's a really not scary video game in which this comes up. We can't talk about it, though, because it freaks us up completely. Hold him back our podcast for years. There's a fantastic video game. I don't know how any of you guys feel about it. That's all about moral questions. Undertale. I've seen a lot of good porn of it, but I haven't actually played the game. I'd go on to tell more about how we interact with content than about moral questions, but I still agree. Well, I mean, it's obviously, it's both of those things, right? I agree with you. But I mean, it's the question is, are you going to kill all these people or not?  Yeah, you need to be a better person.  I mean, it is like, I could try to play it once. I'm like, I can't do this. In order to get more content out of the video game, you are like actively going out of your way to be malicious. It's a specific thing the game's doing, and it's pretty neat. And the game's hyper aware, like you're doing it just to get content. Yeah. Why are you doing this? Burt Thompson imagined a third option with the trolley problem, which was hitting the switch to move the trolley towards yourself. And she concluded that if you're not ready to take yourself out, you can't ethically take anyone else out. But what's funny about that is it sounds like a permutation, which would be interesting to add and to ask people. Yes.  Well, it's like a permutation that validates the existence of the trolley problem as a hypothetical, isn't it? Because you keep learning a different way. Like you can do apparently in this criticism of the trolley problem, you vindicated it. Yeah. Yeah, because you present the trolley problem, and then he says, you know what's wrong with this? Is there's no personal sacrifice involved?  That's an option. Then he'd be like, well, you know what's wrong with it now? Is that you're like, it's... Hey, you added an option without even realizing it. Or imagine you said it's not real.  Is this good now? And he's like, I don't like this. Not nice for you. Oh, I don't like this at all. It's not, it's real. I think that seems fair. But Thompson herself took the problem from influential 20th century ethicist, Philip of Foote, and turned 1967 paper, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Doctrine of Double Effect is a principle used by Catholic philosophers, including Foote's friend, Elizabeth Panscomb, to support their view of abortion. The main idea is that there is a distinction between what a man foresees as a result of his voluntary action and what in the strict sense he intends. So intentionally performing an abortion aims directly at the termination of the fetus, which for Catholic philosophers equates to murder. But this can be challenged. By the way, all of this is pointless because it's hypotheticals and stuff. Okay, turn it off a bit. Yeah. Did you hear the thought? Yeah. What if the fetus threatens the life of the mother? The Catholic argument... I'm actually lost. You understand this is all trolley problem shit, right? Whenever you talk about any of this. Yes, this is... Would you rather do this or this? You're just changing the aesthetic of the trolley problem. Yeah, I think I might be understanding it incorrectly, but I think I was kind of right with the, he's going to follow this up with, and then she went on to become Adolf Hitler's right-hand philosophy person because he's just doing that and saying, this other group of people who I don't agree with really like this person and the trolley problem, so it's bad. Am I wrong in that? That's what he's doing right now? I don't know. Because as you said, Mahler, he's just proposing another trolley problem, which I'm assuming he would agree with. Like, do you save the life of the mother by getting rid of the fetus, which is a type of a trolley problem?   I was never gonna have an... Anyway, abortion is a very important subject.  Like, this is actually something that happens.  But when you have to choose between two lives, that does happen. What? Okay. What if the pregnant woman is tied to the track and the trolley is a very tiny trolley? That will just hit them right in the baby. Right in the baby. What if it's five pregnant women on a track? What would you do? Oh, my God. Give him your five trolleys. Doctor and a woman are not being permitted to give an abortion, as it would terminate the fetus. But they would be permitted to perform a hysterectomy on the mother, as the death of the fetus here would only be foreseen, not directly intended. They would obviously hope... Okay, I agree. That's a pretty retired... Okay, so that's not the... So that's not... That's a pretty retired idea. The Catholic position is... Yeah, the doctrine of double act is... Yeah. Yeah, the Catholic position is that it's permissible to perform an abortion if it saves the mother's life. Apparently back in those days it wasn't. Because the mother has a chance to go on and create new life and no more kids and everything, and it's a tragedy, but that's their position on the matter. By double effect, the intention is the salvation of the mother's life rather than something else, which is still a little bit, you know, cope. But... Would you say five hydrogen bombs or...? The hydrogen bombs. Yeah, they're more useful. Have we not mentioned Viseris this whole time where we're talking about like difficult, you know, hypothetical situations, you know? Oh, we don't mention the what, sorry? To choose. Viseris. Viseris. Oh, right. Like, the choice you'd have to make. Like, that's just another great one. Like, imagine being thrown in that situation, but then like this guy would just say, oh, that would never happen. Like, it's crazy.  Okay.  Dragons are real? Fuckin' everybody.  I hate that. One of the reason people write fiction is to grapple with the ethical questions of real life. Exactly. And that's why we like good fiction, because it gives us, you know, the proper immersion that we're looking for. Well, it's the safe escapism.  We don't want to actually have to deal with it. I don't want to worry about Vagar outside my window. Yeah.  I just wonder why dilemmas like the utility monster don't get this sort of attention. Is it just because they're less popular? Like, nobody's hating on the utility monster as an ethical, like, quandary for utilitarianism. I presume that's the case. The trolley problem is just the most famous and well-referenced. I guess, yeah. The stick figures, man. It's just those cute faces. That's what the... That both mother and baby pulled through. Honestly, though, this is really complicated, which is why I no longer go to cap with doctors. Foot disagreed with this argument. What? But you wanted to seriously... You don't... Is that a... Is that a joke? I don't know. It was an attempt at this joke. It was a joke. Funny. Funny, haha. Haha, funny. You know how good it was. Engage with your friend Anscombe. So her paper thinks about how it would apply in a variety of situations, one of them being the trolley problem.  If you've never determined pothollers before... I need you to... I need you to focus.  Like, I need you to focus and tell me what you actually want me to understand from you. Because right now you're like, okay, so there's a cave. There's pothollers.  My brain's already setting it up in my head. And I'm like, wait, I thought this makes me a bad person. Why are you doing this to me? I don't know. Haha. I don't know. That's a good hypothetical. Greatest term, which means an explorer of caves or spelunker. That's what a potholler is. I love this one. Okay, move on. The cave then starts filling up with water, which risks drowning them all.  To be clear, Foot is aware that this is an absurd example. It's intentional. She uses this. I hate it. It's a horrible problem by that. He's going on.  He's a clever boy you are to point out how it's a high-lifetic or subservient. And the trolley problem. Come on. Come on. Oh my god. What are we doing? That might be the dumbest thing he said. Like, that just makes so much of this worthless. Like, what's that? He's whacked up his own foot. Like, I get that it's absurd.  He's spitting his own face there. Like, what the hell is that? It's a show that our intuitions go against the Catholic doctrine of double effect.  No, the Catholic doctrine is pretty intuitive. No, no. He's talking about the hysterectomy thing, not what you're talking about. The hysterectomy thing. Okay. You can give an abortion by doing hysterectomy as opposed to just doing an abortion. Don't know about that one. That's what the paper was about. I don't know if I'm assuming that it's not the idea anymore, obviously. He used the trolley problem to destroy the trolley. Anyway, example suck. Here are some examples of why examples. But it seems permissible to shove that dynamite up his butt and let it rip. To be clear, foot doesn't suggest butthole dynamite. That's all me. It just seems to make the most sense to put the dynamite. I get it. You think you're really funny, but I want you to make a point. Come on. Yeah, it's not funny. But that's him attempting to be funny. Never worth it. He's contributed. It's all he's added to the work of other people. He's trying to be funny here. Up the butthole if he wanted to get just maximum blow-up-age from the guy, because then it would blow up right in the middle. Foot says this example is meant to parallel. Your butthole is not in the middle. If the fetus isn't important, both the fetus and mother would die. Now, her next example. So it was legit, then. Wait, is it a good example or a bad example? This is where I am, so I can't. What is the point?  Tell me. Surely he's going to get there. What is a judge? Faced by rioters, demanding that a suspect be found guilty. He's not the only one.  Now, the actual culprit is unknown, so the judge takes- That's a funny shot. Is that a photo shot of the top part? Dude, the top part looks like a lamp. Birthday. I thought it was a birthday hat. I think it's a photo shot. Freak. No, no, no, no. It's just like a stage play or something. It looks like a plunger kind of. It's just a lamp. It looks like a lamp.  This is called filmmaking on a low budget. Okay. I don't want to hear anything about how it's bad. What does it mean? And you need a suspect to be found guilty.  Now, the actual culprit is unknown, so the judge takes it upon themselves to execute an innocent person to avoid a killing spree. Wow. Only in a hypothetical example would a judge execute an innocent person because that's never happened in America. What is happening? What is happening? Oh my goodness.  Why are- Wait, what do you mean why this would never happen in America? Why would you say America? That's happened in literally every country. It's always going to happen if there is capital punishment. Always. Is it just like lol of make fun of America? I guess so. Yeah. K-con death row and we're just like- America mad though. America mad. Oh, okay. Is he ordering smoothies on an app that I get points for? This too would be impermissible under the doctrine of double effect. Because the judge would be intending the death of the innocent person while he'd only foresee the death of the many if he didn't do anything. Foot contrasts this with the trolley problem. Now, we might think that the doctrine of double effect would suggest- Well, this is not a good parallel to the trolley problem because in the trolley problem- Actively lost.  He's not making a point at all. He's just rambling. None of it could- He's just going through his Philippa Foots things. Like, I don't know why exactly after soundly rejecting the hypothetical in its first, in like, in the first instance. Yeah, I'm so lost. The visual definition of getting lost in the weeds. It's like he's standing at the edge of a cornfield beckoning you in. Come, get lost with me. And you're like, no. The answer is like over here. We go, okay, set up the flamethrower. We're like, I'm coming. If you listen, if you don't pull the lever, we're going to run over five people. But if we pull the lever, we're going to get lost in the weeds with Mr. Weisscrack here for another two hours.  I'm just imagining getting lost in the weeds. And as you're parting, yeah, in the cornfield, Louis shows up. You just part of the way. He's like, don't be afraid. And then you see the two parts, you know, like the overhead view where it's like the part that's being carved through the cornfield or the weight field and then there's Louis chasing off to you. Embrace the confusion. Embrace the lack of answers. The one person which would contrast with the consequentialist view that you should. But while the judge knows he's definitely going to kill one person to save others, Foot is less sure about the trolley problem. Writing in real life, it would hardly be certain that the man on the narrow track would be killed. What? He would. It's baked into the trolley problem. It's not either one or the other guys. The trolley element is just fun aesthetics. I'd lose my mind. It's just flavor to visualize. This is no annoying, right? He's like, well, no. But I mean, in real life, maybe he'd wriggle out of the slight noise. That's not the problem. The trolley problem is he can't get out. That's real. The premise is that he can wriggle out. What would be the point of bringing it up in the first place if he could wriggle out? If they can't. That's exactly what would be the point. The whole point is he can't. Yeah. You changed it into something different.    And then they go, no, because the one will wriggle out. Yes, but have you considered what if the hypothetical you gave me were different? Whoa. Wow. A foothold on the side of the tunnel and cling on as the vehicle hurtled by. The driver of the tram does not then leap off and brain him with a crowbar. The judge, however, needs the death of the innocent man for he don't know. Yeah, we need to roll that back because. We're going to have to. Something happened there. I allegedly, this is scripted. In real life, it would hardly ever be certain that the man on the narrow track would be killed. Perhaps he might find a foothold on the side of the tunnel and cling on. No, the. What if all five of them do that?  I'm assuming this is going somewhere. Like this is just a basic tier one. Because this is so absurd. It's got to be going somewhere. Like the snipleth one.  The judge, however, needs the death of the innocent man for his good purposes. We got a shout out foot here for putting the phrase brain him with a crowbar and an academic paper. You didn't wake up today thinking you were going to. I don't care about your comedy. Move on. Oh my God. Oh my God. I don't believe you. Okay, okay, wait. So it seems like the point that he was. No, I'm confused. I was trying to. I was like, oh yeah, I think I got it. Wait, no, I don't. Because all I got from that is that he was saying that the good like he needs the judge needs the guy to die for the good outcome in his to happen. But in the trolley problem, maybe he could get out, but you wouldn't assume that the driver would then kill the guy. Yes. Trying to highlight the difference, I suppose, between those two scenarios. But there's no difference because in the in the judge hypothetical, what if the mob of people just changed their mind? Yeah, what if they do it anyway? Yeah, what if it was just a bluff? Turns out when you edit hypotheticals, you could just do that indefinitely for every hypothetical.  Yeah, that's true. That does happen sometimes. There's no difference between the two hypotheticals in that regard.  It's not going to help. The original article. Why would you do that? I know. It's not going to help. Well, actually, so the argument actually that the person's posing makes more sense. They're saying if you were to give people the judge hypothetical, most people would say, no, you shouldn't frame an innocent person to prevent people from going to destroy a town. And yet they were contrasting it with the trolley problem saying most people would sacrifice one in the trolley problem to save the five on the other track. So they're saying, is that a contradiction? No, because one of them is a threat and one of them is assuredly someone will die. You know what episode actually explored this really well? Do you guys remember the pig episode in Black Mirror? I was in another Black Mirror.  Someone remembers that. Yeah, yeah. That's one that explored. Prime Minister David Cameron. Yeah. Come on. That one really did a good job of exploring this concept, seeing his stress throughout the day and the pressure to actually do the act to potentially save a life. And all the things that we mentioned in terms of the different hypotheticals, we see them have to deal with all that and the pressure around them. And it's so good.  It's just so silly to me when there's so many different variations of this and storytelling you can see. Well, the thing is we're running out of time. I'm assuming he's going to start wrapping up and giving us a point here. Because he's missed Philippa Foots' point for the most part, especially because she was aiming at the doctrine of double effect. The entire article is about the doctrine of double effect. You just skipped it yourself? Yeah, he's not really engaging with it. He's reciting things to say, but like... Well, you probably didn't even write this. A lot of the point does have to do with the realities of these things are made a lot more obscure in a very much unforeseeable world where we don't...  Right? We can just say that these are likelihoods. Right. It's weird because this critique that he's talking about here is completely different from the first critique that he spent the first half of the video on. Yeah, the first half of the video was it doesn't even matter, which feels like the end of the conversation, right? Yeah. If it doesn't matter and it doesn't help you because it's a hypothetical, that's the end. Doing this is normal. That's part one. You'll never play God, you'll never be in the scenario where it actually happens and even if you wear it, it'll be something that's so entirely different than the discussion on it. It wouldn't help you at all and it'll likely make it worse because you'll end up with PTSD or an understanding that you thought you could handle it, but you absolutely couldn't. Which is like all these things are terrible arguments. But they render it so that this point of comparison, why even bother? Yeah. It's already worth what's... Crowbar. And now both those things have happened. Point being, anything's possible. No, not everything's possible. Basically, foot uses the trolley problem to emphasize the difficulty and even impossibility of knowing the precise outcome of ethical decisions. It is a really...  We're talking about something completely different. The trolley problem has everything that it needs baked into the problem. It's certainties. It's guarantees. That's what a hypothetical is. Right. You can hypothetical it further.  And then he's like, wait, what?    And it might be the case that you just literally do not have the intelligence quotient necessary to deal with a hypothetical. In which case, I legitimately feel pity for you. Yeah, that's what I was saying. I feel like it's like a lack of creativity.  It just upsets them. They want to disengage. I also find it frustrating that we keep using footage from Vsauce's really interesting video about the trolley problem as an experiment. He never acknowledges this experiment, though. It's an example of someone trying to conduct the experiment in real life. You think that'd be relevant. Conduct. Isn't it a little bit awkward because the whole point of the Vsauce video the video validates it as like a worthwhile thing that exists. So like you're making the point while simultaneously using footage from a thing that validates the point. You know what I mean? It's like there's a conflict here with the footage and like what you actually believe. But one of the most interesting things about the Vsauce video, I guess, isn't it? Yeah, one of the things most interesting about the Vsauce video is kind of highlighting the difference between what people think they would do and what they would actually do. Yeah. And so like that's an interesting conversation if you want to talk about how hypotheticals don't necessarily reflect what people will do. But there's an example of the trolley problem being conducted as an experiment in real life and he clearly is aware of it because he's showing footage from it but he's just not going to talk about it. It's useless. It's crazy. Oh my God. I guess in that context the footage makes sense. I didn't realize this footage was from a Vsauce video which I guess was making a good argument about the trolley problem. Yeah, I just I found it silly that it's his argument here is being substantiated by real footage of like track switchers and like this is missing the point, dude. What?  Okay, hypothetically. I don't know if that's what her point is but even if she thinks it's stupid that's kind of irrelevant because if someone creates some philosophical problem even as a joke and yet it captivates people so much so that it just gets passed down decade to decade and decade and gets repeated again and again that shows you that there's something important being discussed there that people latch on to. Why did you Absolutely.  It's so funny how he goes on and on about how like awful hypotheticals are. Then he goes to Philippa Fert who's like a respected philosopher. She was pretty important in her field. And then he goes right to an article in which she's doing basically nothing but hypotheticals.  Once you start to really pay attention to all the discussion regarding anything to do with that I think you'll realize like oh shit there's a hypothetical and another one and another one and another one and like a lot of people everywhere. Yeah kind of. You feel like he didn't write you said I think you said you feel like he didn't write this because these are the type of things that you'd catch. I don't think they do on why why is crack I assume they have a presenter they have an editor they have a writer you know. They didn't edit out him looking down at a script a couple times I did I did catch it. I just didn't say because I thought it was me being too autistic. Oh you're on e-fat baby. Yeah you can't get in here in this you're autistic so.  This is the place for it exactly. Only if you ask his eye down into the right. So it's like yeah reverse JFK. Foot uses the trolley problem to emphasize the difficulty and even impossibility of knowing the precise outcome of ethical decisions that take place in the real world and that in trying to boil down complex ethical decisions to thought experiments we often miss the point about how unlike a thought experiment the world actually is. Wow that's crazy bro. Uh I wow that's incredible. Anyway. Wow.   You're like oh well because I don't I don't know what I'd be referencing it. Saying a hypothetical and you're like well then there's no point is there. Okay. Got him. Thanks. Let's talk about something else I guess. And remember you can't be like hey remember the dark night where you're like nah fiction. Not real. Hypothetical.  If you have to go out there and do it and then be like this is not hypothetical it happened. You shouldn't surprise us that this was the initial intent of the trolley problem. Once we consider that foot was one of the most important figures in the development of modern virtue ethics. A position that grew out of frustration with the either or between consequentialism and deontology that's often exemplified. He might understand with some of those words main maybe. Contemporary usage of the trolley problem. This led philosophers like foot back to an Aristotelian version of ethics to try to make sense about acting well as part of living well as a particular kind of animal Aristotle considered humans to be rational animals is associated with a particular kind of good. In this case that looks heavy. He represents good. Yeah, that guy has not seen this video. This guy represents something else. Aristotle and what does he looking at? We make he's looking at a weed. He's watching a limino video. Yeah, I'm the goldest dude. I also wonder why that you can't be watching a limo video. He's reacting to it. Picture of a guy in an electric chair and in a video that's like entirely constructed by stock footage is like is that the best one they had on Shudderstock? Yes. Can you get a clip of the $1? Is associated with a particular kind of good. In this case it does seem like a happy lot. For Aristotle and virtue ethicist we make ethical decisions not as gods but as specific Why are you going to Aristotle?  No, no, no. Why is he going to Aristotle as a virtue ethicist when Philip of Foote is a virtue ethicist? Stick with her. She was one of the founders of the modern version of it. I don't know who that is. I know who Aristotle is. This game is relies on the whole observation of RC.  Like calm down. She is not playing God whenever we think about anything. The trolley problem. Yeah, it's also you're right here. Why not just like refer to her perspective? Consider it. Let's be focused. One moment. And she invented the trolley problem by the way. So let's not forget that. Bitch. But I think she might have actually read the cause of all this. He might have actually read about some Aristotle and his philosophy undergrad that was probably a decade ago. And so that's what he never decided to is like this is actually kind of like Aristotle. I read that back in the day. Probably did you know that Aristotle did you know that Aristotle thought that human beings weren't gods? Whoa. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Whoa. Aristotle. You're going to have to give me some hypotheticals. Help me understand that. The human individuals in specific situations who have to make sacrifices to do the right thing who can be limited by structural and material factors and who are often ignorant to the outcomes of their actions. So to reply to Renny- Wait. Why was that stock footage of a guy just on the phone he used to tap on it? It's better than nothing. Damn it. Is it? Is it though? It's like sacrificing for work. Guy on a phone writing something. Which is like you could always just default to the guy narrating as the visuals if you don't have a good one. Yeah. They thought that was a good one. What if he's just staring at the script the whole time? I don't know the best thing. Oh well I mean let's say hypothetically that it was a good one. Right. What about a black screen instead of that guy again? Like I'm just so done with him man.  Those spice up the video. Hey they didn't rip hearts out. They were civilized. They used a knife. Okay excuse me. They're not barbarians. They cut your chest open and then delicately. Yes they didn't Yeah exactly. They were surgical. They didn't do any that Holly Mosh. One of those penny machine claws to do it. I thought that was how they did it back in the day. You have to use a little knob to move it around. Oh true. Sharp. It's like a little game. If you actually grab the heart. If you miss the heart it just hits it. It goes back up. They're like at the bowling alley playing the that game and saying Kali Mars is descending to grab like the flush picture. Believe it or not. That's pretty funny. I got to undo a secret boss. Thanks and Robinson. It is of course wildly misleading when the trolley problem is taught without taking all of these glaring problems into consideration. The glaring problems such as you're probably not going to have this happen in real life. Like what is he thinks going on in a philosophy class? I feel like the actual problem he has is that before you give someone a hypothetical teach them what a hypothetical is. Yeah. Like yeah okay. I see no. That's crazy but sure. But it's equally important to remember that the trolley problem was originally devised as he light hearted and slightly death of the author bitch. I don't care. Yep. Don't care. Ardonic way showing the importance of doing exactly this because in a life or death trolley problem situation which to be clear we are all very unlikely to ever experience. Why do you keep saying that? Oh my god. We are. Totally not going to happen. What your job is man. By the way if Jigsaw were real he and watched this video he would totally put this guy in the trolley problem. He'd be like God. Yes. He annoyed me too much. He deserves it. He should be in one of those saw houses for sure. I mean from a life and death perspective yes but everyone does hype. Everyone probably has to do a trolley problem like all the time. All the time. All the time. All the time. Varying degrees. It's never just not life or death. It would just be more mundane situations. Right. The point of the extreme is to force you to really dig deep and think about your principles. Yeah but it wouldn't happen. Oh yeah that's true. I hadn't considered that it wouldn't happen. Anytime you could ever tell on somebody to get them into trouble and save five other people from getting into trouble like that is you being a tattletail because you're pulling the trolley. But that might be the right thing to do.  Would you have been beneficial in exploring the hypothetical beforehand? Yeah. You think you would have been worse off having thought about it once before this situation arose. And remember it's gonna happen to you. Hypothetically. This guy I think that would scramble his brain.   Fingers crossed the best actions might still have incredibly horrible consequences. Even if we would of course never intend them and would actively hope they would. Yeah. The best actions can still have horrible consequences. Yes. That's true. Yeah obviously. Yeah thank you for consequentialism 101. God. Yeah legit at sixth form like on the power points of problems with consequentialism. That was the first one. They do this in fiction all the time. It's what No Way Home was about. I don't understand. Yeah. Um someone just referenced the anime monster in the chat and I remember that being a really good example of this too. Is anyone else familiar with that anime? Yeah. Yeah. The monster is good. Anime is the monster. Only chasing. The premise for that I'm not too sure what it is but I remember the premise being explained to me like something similar to like a doctor being in the in this situation. And the repercussions of the decisions he made. DM me on Twitter I'll let you know where you can find it. Sweet. Or What about the reverse? Something horrible at least to great outcomes like we dropped the nuke on Japan and now we have anime. These are good outcomes. I say worth. You're in a boat next to a volcano and you can either save 50 people or one awesome dog. Ultimately ethics can't rely on calculations about what might or might not happen in an imagined future. Instead of Wait. This conclusion. Why what. OK. I feel like he said that in like 10 different ways. Every way he could possibly think of just repeating it repeating it beating us over the head with it. So like did he notes the bit in Phillipa Foots article where she acknowledges the possibility of chance and then discounts it because we can't really we can't account for it. I don't think he did. Yes. Ed at least for foot should be grounded in an attempt to live and act virtuously. This entails analyzing situations from within and acting in accordance with virtue even. Can you imagine that you're like walking down the street and there's a homeless person and they ask you for money.  You just stand there for like an hour like when your head like what should I actually do this or not.  The horror. Well we don't really know what might or might not happen. Well this might not be as much one way. So has he has he saying like I've solved consequentialism. I don't know. He seems to be coming down on the virtue ethics side of things but like. Well but but I mean. I mean it's kind of hard to not think about the possibilities of outcomes and those factor into the choices you make. It's kind of like part of the discussion. You know because people do try to make calculations how likely or unlikely something is. Like what is risk. As a principle. If not making assessments about the likely or unlikely outcomes. Of course you don't know but you can make predictions and sometimes you can make really accurate predictions. But it's just it feels like we've moved past that completely. As a conversation anyway. And tales analyzing situations from within and acting in accordance with the virtue even when we don't really know what might or might not happen. Well this might not be as much fun as imagining all the different way. OK so it's this argument that. We should create a set of rules to live by. And then we just act according to those rules without any consideration of like. What we think doing that action would do in the future. The trend. I don't get to those rules. Don't play test. Oh rags. That's a fantastic question. How do we get to those rules in the first place. Those rules. See here's a trolley. Think about how we get to those rules. How does he write. Is not that cool.  That's a principle I have. And then someone goes trolley problem.  And then he goes on. He does the Kyber face and then he turns into dust and his skeleton. And fades away with. What he's just said is basically I don't care about your trolley problem. Stick to the principles.  Basically I'm just super confused. I want to reiterate this. Phillipa Foote was a virtue ethicist. She basically like founded modern virtue ethics. Right. She also invented the trolley problem and engaged with it during the article. So like how does he reconcile these two things by like coming down in this position that's basically just jerking off. You said like three different times she invented it to joke about it and say it's useless. And also he probably literally not what she said. Someone else probably write this and he's just reading it off. Right. Have you considered. But I guess you need to ask the writer then. What were you doing man? I was making fun of the trolley problem because I watched The Good Place and thought it was funny. Oh no he wrote this episode according to the description. Oh no. Okay. He wrote Amethyst for me. Did I guess. He didn't research it though. Maybe someone did all the research. Oh.  Yeah he didn't put the citations to the articles or the Vsauce video. Oh my god. Yeah the Vsauce video totally deserves citations.  No he didn't put any citations in this. I guess even if you're reading a script to you I can't see him getting this far into it and being like wait this is insane. Yeah like if he thought about it right. I mean there's also a West Crack video called where did all the smart people go. I think we gotta find out. I can imagine why West Crack would be asking where all the smart people went. Where's the Anaheist people. They all left the channel.  It's much more useful in trying to think about how to ethically exist in our actual world. Dude what kind of what? The conclusion is don't think about hypotheticals. Go out and volunteer.     I just find that crazy. It's like don't think about hypotheticals volunteer. It's like what? Wait, wait, wait, wait. Why? Why should I volunteer? Yeah, hypothetically speaking. Why? Listen, yeah. It's even worse. It's don't think about moral hypotheticals. Just be a good person. As if the people reaching the deliver good life involves more to do with like rather than doing good actions it's about being a good person. We're also engaging in hypotheticals.  I guess he was wasting his life on this. I cannot stop belaboring this. Philippa Foote is a virtue ethicist. She is exactly what everything he is like espousing right now in terms of how to live an ethical life. She was engaging with so many hypotheticals and pretty much only engaging with hypotheticals in the article from which the trolley problem comes.  Well, he only brought up the volunteering thing so he could bring up the but dynamite joke again for some reason. I don't know why we're acting like you can't engage in hypotheticals and do good things in your life as well. Impossible. You know what I mean? Like what are you getting at? What do you do that like? I don't even know. I would just pick one. I would just pick both. How do you explain to someone like the moral virtue of doing something that they're not currently doing at that exact moment? How do you explain it to them without using hypothetical? But what do you guys think? Is there still a place for the trolley problem in the philosophy one-oh-one? Yes, yes.  It's still around. I think if anything, he's added to the reason for why it's important and popular and useful. Yeah, exactly. Just reinforced it. That's as a sigh up. Is it too abstract to help us think ethically?  Might it be incredibly useful in showing us what ethics is?  Come on, aliens aren't real. You're like, what?  Aliens, okay. Okay, so aliens come up with laser weapons. He's like, do they have laser weapons? That seems unlikely. Nah, hypotheticals aren't ready. What does it mean to choose a course of action based on presumed future outcomes that you want to avert?  Like, you volunteer to pick it up. Why? You're doing it presumably to prevent some bad outcome in the future, like a bird choking on litter or just some amount of environmental degradation. That's all again, appealing to concepts and ideas and predictions about the future. This is a problem.  You just, you know what I mean? Like, there's still a huge conversation to be had about like, ethics and which ethical system is the best one or what the merits are of each given one, whether it's, you know, like virtue ethics, consequentialism, utilitarianism. But it's almost like the video is like, I proved it. But, you know, let me know what you think. Do you think I'm right? Do you think I'm wrong? Comment below.    Like, that's pretty much it. Like, what do you contribute to?  Comment below for your opinion and I can read it out out next time. See what you think about the event. So, hold on. You don't care. You don't. No, they don't care. So, I don't know if I'm doing lazy stupidness. If I'm being too cynical here, but I'm trying to think about like, what the point like this argument accomplishes. Is it just that he can Adds in a better help, Breed? This is, is this just a justification to like dismiss any hypotheticals that would criticize his moral system?  That's step two. You learn it.  It's like, yeah, going out and doing things is good. You do both. It's also good to sit down and think about things too. Walk and talk, baby. Yeah, that's right. Walk and talk. I can walk and chew gum. Think about philosophy. Is not. Let us know in the comments. A huge shout out to our virtuous patrons who support our virtuous patrons. All of you people, shame on all of them. I'll shame on you.  Shame. These people. Amanda, critique. Whatever. That plus there may be a toilet. Without ads, along with extra audio and video content. And I don't know. I think we had enough. I don't think there needs to be more. Oh, God damn. That was terrible. And that was that one was really awful. Yeah, this is this is some low IQ content right here. I'm not as mad as I was at the last one, but because I actually got to like really know something to engage with. Lewis carried us through the first one, man. I don't know about this guy. The first one was stealing videos and Lewis. Oh, I don't even remember. Oh, I don't. Oh, yeah. They know. I don't. Yeah. That one is a blur at this point. We do. You know what? Knowing ways, annoying music. I think we do a really great seven hours in and we've done three videos. Crazy. My background was colorful. So it's a good video. No, but see, but it is clearly like log raw footage that it hasn't been color corrected because they're lazy. So none of the colors even. Yeah, look how flat it is. It does kind of have kind of a yellow color filter over the whole thing. Well, yeah, because look at the shed, it's not like a pure black. It's kind of like a yellowish color. No, they don't even get credit for the colors. Sorry. You know, I bet he just clicked I bet he just clicked the auto button on Lumetri color like the plug is just like whatever it looks like. That's what I'm going with. It's an Adobe Premiere, everybody. Maybe. I don't know. Yeah. Pretty good. Pretty good video. Pretty good.  Wish to eject now. I think Theo sounded like I pushed you through this whole video against your will. I'm satisfied. Yeah. That was actually pretty fun. I did this terrible video, but I had a good time. Got the knowledge. Well, thanks for having me on and good luck with the rest of the thingy. Absolutely. You bet. Thanks for jumping on, dude. It's all uphill from here. Theo. Bye bye now. See you later toodaloo. Oh, I'm glad you all could share the horror and misery of Wisecrack with your audience. Any time. It won't be the last time either. It won't be the last. I need to cough a lot of bad tigs. We've gone, I think, between two and three people about to come in, so we're going to have to lose. Oh, I can take off. Yeah. Whenever you need me to. All right. Bye, John and Adam. Good bye. Good bye. Thanks guys. Toodaloo. See you later. Thanks for jumping on, guys. Bye bye. Happy anniversary, guys. Congratulations. Yeah, happy anniversary. Thank you.  Keep out of it. Thanks. Thanks, dude. I think we'll catch up with us for almost a 300. Yeah. Wow. Titian. Take care. It can be a competition. Too much, dude. You know, Adam and Sitch cheat, though, because they label everything as part of their show. We have sectors. Okay. We have TV, movies, minis. Uh, we stream twice a week in each one counts episode. What are you talking about? Yeah, it's cheating. How's that cheating? Because I said so, hypothetically. Okay. Listen, hypothetically. Hypothetically, if you only did one episode a week, then you would be way behind us. Yes. But we choose to have, we choose to have fewer, more high quality episodes. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Whoa. Whoa. High-pathetic waves. What if higher episodes were of less quality? Sitch thinks that quantity is a quality all of its own. It comes to podcasts.  That's fine. We'll do one in a few more days. It's all good. Listen, for the official longman here, I don't think you can complain about quantity of anything. Okay. It's okay. Quantity mania. We can and we will. Oh. Oh, I don't know if this is a website that has a bunch of these silly trolley problems if you want to do them on stream. I would love to consider this. That's really fun. Yeah. Yeah. Neil. Dr. Diddler sent this to me. Dr. Diddler. Was it? The incredible Dr. Diddler. I don't know if you can get a doctor written that. Do we vote? And then the vote, it's a poll or not poll, I guess. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay. We can do this for a little bit. This sounds like fun. Wait, for what? What do you got? What's going on? Obscured trolley problem. Well, you guys are going to have to go off of the one that I have on stream, I guess. Okay. So, the original trolley problem. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person instead. What do you do? Pull the lever. I think I'm going to pull it anyway. Well, he might wriggle away anyway. Yeah, pull the lever anyway. So, pull the lever. If you highlight pull the lever, he like wiggles and grows. Yeah, he's like, make sure you know what you're doing. Yeah, this one right here. This one's going to drive. Let's get him. To make you feel your choice. Yeah. Oh, where's the blood? I should just go play. Hang on. 73% when people agree with you. What would the 27% do? Wow, it actually says flat. I was joking. All the 27% doing about all this. They froze. They froze, man. They panicked. They refused to engage by hypotheticals. They were not. Those cowards look bosses. They're with their arms crossed. They're still there. They might genuinely believe though that the inaction is more morally justifiable than the action. Fine. Yeah, maybe. But it's not. But it's not. I agree. I'd like to pull it. Numbers. All right. Next one. Oh, no. A trolley is heading towards five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track. Killing four people instead. What do you do? I guess you could pull the lever, right? Because it's five versus four. I mean, yeah. With, I mean, five versus four, it's pretty simple. It's a pretty simple game. Pull the lever. No other family that can engage you. Yeah, basically. Just no other new variable. Yeah, that's the thing. You know nothing about the people. So it's like. Well, I think we're assuming that they're all, you know, basically identical.  They're all terrible people. If you look at the little guy in the lever, he constantly shifts his eyes from the shots. And the people are talking to you. That's great. Oh my God. That's perfect. That's not fair, dude. Is anybody going to do that? Pulling the lever. I hope everyone can see that. That's so funny. There's 66% of people pull the lever on that one. That's crazy. Only 66. I guess. It's so simple. So that means a third of people would be like, no, five people will die instead of one. Well, I guess it's probably worth actually delving into. Are you on the hook for is inaction, in this case, equivalent to action, like in terms of moral culpability? I would say virtually yes. Yeah, I would say yes, but I guess if you disagree on that, that might factor into it. But yeah, right. Because if anything, I view it as you pull the lever and save a life.  Yeah, essentially. That would be the worst way that I look at it. Oh, no. Obviously. A trolley is heading toward five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your life savings will be destroyed. What do you do? Oh, pull the lever. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's how much life savings you have, right? True. Is that a lie? Who cares? Hopefully. I think even if you have like a bajillion dollars, you can enrich the lives of many, many, many, many, many, many, many more people than those five people. The problem with this hypothetical is they need to actually give us more of a number for us to be able to discuss it. I think the hypothetical is, I think it's meant to be like a normal amount of life savings. In which case I choose the people. Yeah. I think the way they phrase it, like life savings rather than like actually being able to do the number. Oh, no, the money got splattered. All right, so wait. Only 61% of people would have destroyed their life savings. Yep. Wow.  I guess if they're framing it, are you surprised to be financially dead? Yeah. If I pull this lever, not just... Well, I mean, you can always accrue more life savings, right? You can always be more people. What do you mean? You might be heralded. Like, you know what I mean? You can always be more people. I always have more people. Yeah. Also, I got like trapped myself into looking like a psychopath by good faith carrying the trolley problem. But I would also pull the lever and destroy the savings for the record. Also, hello, nuts. Welcome back. Hello. We're currently discussing trolley problems. Uh-huh. We're on number four, which is... Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sacrificing yourself instead. What do you do? So, this is one where I would never promise I would make the right call in the actual situation because I could freeze if I could be terrified. But that I would like to think I would pull the lever, yeah. Pull the lever is the... You get so sacrificed to save five people, but all people in chat say do nothing. Who can be confident that they commit? They would commit that. That's what I'm saying. We can never truly know. We can never truly know. Yeah, which is, by the way, the point the video wanted to make was like you can say that while exploring these and say that you don't know exactly what you do in the situation. But for the sake of the conversation, yeah, I pull it. Mm-hmm. Let's see how many people pulled it. 40% of people agree. Wow, most people would not. What? Okay, maybe that's okay because to be fair, that 60% could be saying I wouldn't be able to. I just couldn't in that situation even though I know it's the wrong thing or something like that. They made that one neutral. They should have spiced it up with like family members or something like that. Something that's a little bit less neutral. Maybe that will be another level. Oh. Oh, no. A trolley is running towards five people. They're all going to have puppets. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then the original copy of the Mona Lisa will be destroyed. Oh, yeah.  Okay, Ryan. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.  Sonyan. Oh, my God. I immediately think of Mr. Bean, but I see that. Listen, you know what's wrong with this is it's absurd. This would never happen. Who put the Mona Lisa on a track? Come on. Come on. I got to wonder though if it was a better piece of art would I actually? Yeah, replace that with Lord of the Rings and then you got a scenario there. Every copy and knowledge of Lord of the Rings is on that track. It's wiped from existence for these five fuckers. Oh, okay. Wait, would you? Yeah. Why don't we do that? You would sacrifice five people for Lord of the Rings. I would really have to think about it longer than the money. Yeah. The thing is you could argue that Lord of the Rings as media existing as an inspirational source has affected people like infinitely across time. It's really a difficult one. It's rationalization. There's a conversation there that you know how much good has come from Lord of the Rings versus these guys might be dickheads for how I know. Like it's why you need some clarification. Why are you thinking about hypotheticals? You couldn't actually literally destroy Lord of the Rings from reality, okay? This is a waste of time. Yeah, but hypothetically, you might. Oh, okay. I get it. If you put it that way. So wait, I'm assuming we're all going to destroy them all, please.  You hit me. Well, you know, it's like imagery of it still exists, of course. And I would just, if people hated me for this, I'd be like, sorry, I couldn't watch the five people die. I had to save them. Well, yeah, it seems like the premise is that even though you destroy the original copy, it exists and its influence still exists. Just try it again. Yeah, so yeah. I would pull the label for sure. 76% of people agree with you. All right. I don't think we're even approaching Da Vinci's. Just put a print in the frame in the loop and no one will notice. There you go. That one should be like 95. That one should be way higher than that. That's the Mr. Bean technique, yeah. Who even likes that picture? Wait, what? Wow. Mona Lisa? I like it. I think it's pretty great. That's pretty cool. Everything it represents, I don't think so. It's one of my favorite paintings. Really? Have you ever seen it in person, Rang? No, I haven't seen it in person. Can I guess you don't really like it? I haven't seen you in person, but you're all right. It's a chicken and a chair. Well, thank you then. I've never got the appeal. Oh, so we got... Oh, no. This is the one that makes out of it. A trolley is heading towards a rich man.  What do you do? So this one's interesting because it should probably have started neutrally, right? One man versus one man. Yeah, exactly. And then added the money aspect. But so this is one that's super duper tough because obviously, you know... It's just not tough because of the money. Tough because I guess I just... Do I not do anything? Do I... Well, really quick. I want to rewind to the one man versus one man. Who on earth would pull the lever? I don't know. Oh, that's so weird. That's kind of what I was answering because I was ignoring the money pot for a second. I was just like, what do you pull? Do you not? I don't know. You don't. You kind of have to consider your one-for-one answer, though, because then it's only the money that's influencing your decision. And it's... Exactly. Well, yeah, okay. So what kind of maniac would pull the lever just to switch it to one different guy? Yeah, that's the thing. Hey, you and the puppies are getting upset. I don't know, man. Maybe you feel it.  I have to pull the lever and I say them both. I'm sure of it. The person might decide based on age difference. This guy's 70. This guy's 20. He has more life to live. You have to assume that they have to do something. Hypothetical, though. Well, yeah, but the thing is we got nothing. So I'm going to always assume that they're about the same age, same general sort of... Yeah, it's just like... He's got a nice hat and a six-pack. Well, the difference is he's got more money. And like I said, they should have had the option to haggle for more money. He's giving you more money. He's giving you some money. That's true. He is giving you money. The other one could be rich. I'm reading about the fact that... I mean, if you don't pull the lever, you're not... Like, you're not involved in this accident, right? But if you pull it, you're literally, you know, count as a murderer, right? I think no. That's a question. You're not involved, are you? Well, it's definitely part of the conversation in terms of how you draw the line. But it seems like most of us have the feeling that if you do nothing, you're on the hook still, essentially, morally. Yeah, you're accountable. And I think if you want to talk about the consequences, ultimately, if people found out you pulled it after the rich man offered you money, they wouldn't exactly look at you fondly. But do we presume they're to see Britain forever? Nobody would ever know it. Nobody would ever know. Yeah, I mean... This is a deal between you and the rich man. Well, come back to what we were talking about earlier is that ultimately, would the rich man dying create more good, or would you getting $500,000 to spend in a good way be more good?   Well, if I spend it in good ways for myself, that's still one person, you know, getting... Well, I think that's the thing, right? No matter what happens, somebody's dead and it's on you, but you could get $500,000 for it. That's the thing. I think one of the only answers is saving the rich man because he could potentially compensate the family of the other guy. Where in the reverse, can he do something like that? I don't know if we're even assuming that. You kind of use what I'm saying, life with money. It's only after we got here. I don't know about that. No one's losing a family member. Well, the difference is basically, in either situation, someone dies. Knowing nothing else, neither of them deserve life more than the other. And in the other circumstance, someone dies and you get $500,000. Hypothetically. And that's the thing. In Minecraft. I really think your financial benefit at all changes the question when it's the one-to-one trolley problem, because Nutsa was right. I think if you pull that lever in either situation, that's like the only time that it is murder, because you're not saving any lives on the other track. You're saving the other life.  You're taking an action otherwise being involved. It's going to run over one of them either way. So if you pull that lever. The idea would be that the rich man ought to be doomed more morally because he was on the wrong track. Offering $500,000 to a stranger to save your life is not an immoral thing to do. No, it's not. No, no, no, no, no, no. So like if it's just one-to-one, there's no money. I assume everyone here wouldn't touch the lever, right? I wouldn't. I don't think I don't think I don't have a yeah. I don't. I would go for it. Yeah. Right. So then you have to justify action other than why would you not touch the lever? Because there's no difference. Yeah, there's no nothing change. I have no. Yeah, because I have no reason to take an action. Do you think it would be immoral to touch the lever and change it? Myself and Rags both ended up in the situation at the same time. We both ended up in court. I had pulled the lever and he didn't. I believe that we should both get the same judgment. Okay. So you don't see any difference at all? Depending on our motivations.  Right, right, right. Well, you don't, yeah. I was trying to. But if I said I pulled it because I was hoping to make a difference in some kind of positive way even though I knew it would only just kill the other guy. But I was just hoping to change the thing. I would say I think it is more difficult to defend the position of pulling the lever when you have no information. Yeah, because I have to explain why you took an action. Because it sounds like you made the decision for which one should die if you pulled the lever. But then technically speaking, you could still have that be the case if you didn't pull the lever. Yeah, I approve of or at least I prefer this situation as it has been presented to me that was out of my hands. Well, again, you know, you change. Yeah, it is a question of is inaction action and you can make the argument that it is. Yeah, in a sense it is.  Yeah, but that's a direct inaction. You are looking at it happening. Yeah, plus it's about like how much work you have to do. Well, let's put it this way. Let's change the parameter. Let's say it's the there's nobody on the other track. It's like, well, the inaction. If you took action, nobody would have died. Right. And the inaction results in one person dying. Like in that case, you would definitely say that inaction would be action. Right. Yes, 100 percent. I wanted you didn't. Yeah, I see. Yeah, that's right. That's why it's the pulling of the lever is actually I think a mechanically important part of the problem is pulling a lever is virtually it free to do.  Right. I think that's why the money one is was up. Also, hi, Ackman. Well, we talked about the episodes. Yeah, we did. Thank you. Look what we spent our time on. Trolley problem. Yeah. It's talking about killing or gamers. We love killing. Murder. Not murder. I see this dilemma. Killing. Sometimes murder depends on what you want. Sometimes murder actually. Yeah. Sometimes it's not justified. It's sometimes like all the people who didn't pull the lever with a five verse four. They should always go to prison for murder. No, we should probably move on to the next one. So are we pulling or not? What's everyone thinking? I am pulling. We're all going to take a bribe. I'm not pulling. I think I'm going to pull. I know a friend tear down the system. Someone dies either way, right? Someone does die either way. But you get money in one of the ways. I think you need to help the other guy's family.  Yeah, especially the one you're talking about. Put the money with the family. That was my original suggestion. I think that's the only solution. Use the money to buy a school that teaches hypotheticals to children. Or use the money to get a clod of the guy who killed him. Way too meta. That's way too meta. Things are cheap these days. Just are we a majority poll? Sounded like we were. I'm going to go with pull. We're all fine. I'm not going to be happy about it. It's the only one that has any utility to it. It's the only one that has any utility to it.  Oh, this one's interesting. 51 percent of people pulled. See, this was a real divisive one. It was a good one. Remember, these are stupid, but it was a good one. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five lobsters. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track. Running over a cap instead. What do you do? Save the cat. Save the cat. Now I'm just waiting. I'm saying it better be 100 percent. I'm definitely saving the cat. Just like pull. It better be 100 percent.    Oh, I can't eat the cat. I'm not with that attitude. You can't eat the cat either way. Exactly.   You can pet the cat. I wouldn't be very happy about it, Dave. No. Alrighty. The next one. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five people who are sleeping and won't feel pain. I don't know how you know that, but OK. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track. Running over someone who is wide awake instead. What do you do? Sorry, wide awake guy. Sorry, wide awake guy. Yeah. Yeah, wide awake guy. Sorry, dude. Sorry, wide awake guy. But like, it comes down to numbers. Yeah. Yeah. Illustrates the point of hypothetical. It's like they're trying to figure out if it's about pain now. Exactly. Yep. Great. What the fuck? 52 percent of people agree with you. Really? It's pretty wild, isn't it? What? They put that amount of lives over Wow. They put that much on pain versus the best man. Sleeping people are just worth less. Yeah. In fact, they don't feel pain. I've been saying that for years. I've been saying that for years. I think it's five families. Five people are. It is better that five people die painlessly than one person dies painfully. They'll never know. Wow. They'll never know it was me. It's getting away with murder strategy. This is like a. I think that might be part of it, honestly. Nobody knows. I feel like they don't know. Human psychology, we're so scared that, you know, our deaths are going to be painful and stuff. I think it really affects how we think about these types of stuff.  Like Lex Luthor. But I feel like I could probably talk to the guy on the one. Pull the lever to be like, look, there's four people on that track, man. Yeah, you could look at it from the from the side of. What would what would incur more suffering, actually? Yeah, because I guess they don't think about it as like, oh, yeah, the suffering that happens as a result of the five people dying. Well, they didn't feel it. So it's totally worth.  Well, the thing is, it depends on the kind of thoughts that you're having about the consequences, because in this case, I think you're always assuming that these people have families and friends, not that they're like completely alone and nobody would notice if they were gone. Yeah. Yeah. That's a big something you're making. I just like that. Even to them, even families are not. Five people getting to wake up and lead lives, right? Compared to one person. Exactly. Yeah. You don't need to introduce the family and friends. It's true. The five lives themselves. I watch just the friends and family when you talk about the notion of like suffering. That's that's a part of the equation. Oh, no. A trolley is heading towards five people who tied themselves to the track. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person who accidentally tripped onto the track instead. What do you do?   What are you smiling about? They're all smiling, yeah. Okay. So I wish your own all, man. I wish this read. Are you really driven down to the train track? The thing is, I wish this read that the five people tied themselves to the track hoping to be killed by the train. Yeah, that's what it looks like. It looks so high. No, no, that's the point. Yeah, well, because the problem is tying themselves to the track. Like, I don't know that there's, you know it too. No, you didn't know. You're, yeah, you know what that means. Well, no, I think it's, they're taking an intentional risk, even if they didn't know they were. What's the risk? What's the risk? The rest of them are going to pay off. They're going to pay off, maybe. The lever isn't the risk that you want to do it. Is this one child that's going to pay off?  God, this actually, this one's actually really tough. So how much do you value their life if they actually want to die? They're taking, and you're putting, even if they, even if they don't want to die. We're in the absurd realm of hypotheticals, okay? The five of them could be high. They could, something could be wrong. They could be in danger. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Those guys, they're drooling. The other guy's screaming for his life. Like, I think I might just... This is the, this is the TikTok, tie yourself to the train tracks challenge, okay? What if they're part of a cult? How about that? Ooh, the trolley cult. That's what I said. It's a mid-summer show. Well, yeah, that's the thing. I see why would they tie themselves down. If we're dealing with mid-summer shit, then yeah, I'm saving the one guy. But that's what I'm saying. Don't look at them. They are high as fuck, Muller. Yeah, but like, what if they were innocent people who were made high by someone else? And then they said, look, there's a family of trash. No, that's not what I'm saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. They weren't drunk. They took it. That's what I'm saying. They were given edibles.  That was all the time. Fuck, I think I'm gonna save the five because... Really? Yeah, because I don't think that if they wanted to die or anything like that, why would you tie yourself to the train tracks if you just wanted to die? Ritualistic? You just lay there. Yeah, that seems like it's very unlikely. Well, so, I would say in the... I think it's that opposite. There are reasons you could... I'd say that no more... But there are also reasons that go against it. There are... Yes, I think it's both, but I think that because the five-to-one thing, I don't think I can weigh it in a way that... Like, I basically have to be chancing it. Are you gonna take the chance that the reason the five people tied themselves to the track is that they wanted to die versus they were high, they were drunk, based on the evidence they were or still? Well, the thing that's also worth adding is even if this is what they want, can you prevent that? Yeah, because they could be mentally ill and they need rehabilitation. Could you talk them out of it? Yeah, I mean, now it's... Now it's live. This one's pretty simple. Is it? Because the guy... Yeah, the guy tripped onto the track. That's his fault. It's a skill issue. He wasn't a good trainsman. He just solved it. He accidentally tied himself to the track.   Now, if the question was... I'm gonna think of deciding as a group. He managed to trip and then tie himself up while he was tripping.  It's just like when you put your...  Right. Now, if the question is... I'm gonna think of deciding... These five gonna sue us after this and say we ruined their death. Is it an incredible situation? What? They're like the incredible thing? I was thinking, no, that would be incredible. That was my point. Incredible.  That's what you did.  Five losses. And you're gonna get sued by the one guy who tripped his family. They won't know. They won't know. I didn't trip him. He tripped. He tripped on his own. We'll have to do a vote. We'll go left or right.  Everyone's gonna have to have their own scenarios. I don't know why I'm saying that. For the sake of answering the hypothetical of the group, I think we should just decide either they want to die or it was... We need to decide that. It's an ambiguously... Well, no, no, no. That's part of the question is... You think so? I don't get it for us. It's back to it's life. The face is... I think that's the point of the hypothetical is you don't know the exact reason why this is happening. Which, by the way, doesn't this invalidate in that video where it's like, oh, you never know for sure. It's like, you still don't know things of the trolley problem. There are still aspects. It's how you weigh it up, isn't it? You don't know. Exactly. Here's my argument. If you have five people that intentionally engage in a very risky, dangerous behavior versus one person that accidentally stumbles into it, I feel less inclined. What if they're high? Well, that's still part of the dangerous behavior. What if they were made high? They made that decision. What if they were spiked? It's like drunk driving. We're making a decision to go away. What if they were roofied? We don't know that information. We don't know that information. Psychedelics and that generally doesn't make you want to tie yourself up. Oh, for you, generally, this is hypothetical, baby. We could go wherever we want. Well, let's go left to right. And let's give our Aids a little bit more progress. I think we have talked about this one quite a bit. Remember, pull the lever kills the one person. Pull, don't, not. So just vote left to right and make it quick. I'm going with ritualistic suicide and it's their fault.  Like, save this. But you're saying pull the lever. Yeah, save this. No, you're saying not pull the lever. Wait, no. Yeah, pull it. Save the guy who tripped.  Okay, fine. Do that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you're killing the five. Yeah, he's killing the five. Okay, great. So cap, you're next. I'm killing the five, but I'm not happy about it. Okay, bring me. I think I'm going to, yeah, I think I'm going to do nothing on this one.  All right, Mark. Yeah, five. Pretty confident about it. Oh, man. Now it's my turn. I didn't think about my answer yet.  You're not supposed to think of the hypothetical. You just have to address it in the moment. It's a very slow. You know what I'm trying to imagine is standing there and seeing the five of them like smiling, almost glaring at me being like, and the guy going, oh, God, please. Oh, geez. Oh, God, help me. Yeah, that was great. Yeah. He's screaming. That's the unknown details that would be information we just don't have. Yeah, maybe they're suicidal, but you're saving them and you can rehabilitate them. Yeah, there really is that. He's screaming for his life when the five ritualistic suicide. Molo, you made everybody else do it quickly. Yeah, I haven't been able to talk. Everyone else is talking. What? Oh, you can't think? Answer. Yeah, I am thinking. You ready for my answer? Yes. Yes. I'm going to pull the lever. Nuts are ready for you. Do nothing. All right, Siege. Do nothing. Kill the five. Fraggs. Pull the lever. Save the five. And act, man. Hold on. I need to think about this for a couple of minutes. I am all that happy for you to think, but obviously, whether you say yes or no, the lever's not being pulled. Yes. See, voting doesn't matter. Yeah, voting doesn't matter. Welcome to America.  We're doing nothing. Let us see what everybody said. 79% of people did not pull the lever. Based. Okay, interesting. I just want to know how high was the person who came up with this? Not as high as the people on those tracks. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five people. The lever just speeds up the trolley, which might make it less painful. What do you do? Oh, my God. I do nothing. No, I'm pulling it. I want to respect the hypothetical. So might I know in my heart of hearts that it will be less painful if I act? I think I'm going to pull the lever. Yeah. You don't know. I kind of don't. Okay. No matter what, it's always going to go for the five people. Yeah. The one guy there is just, I don't know why he's there. Recreation. He just thought he was in trouble, but then he heard the question and he's like, Oh, thank God. It might make it less painful. It's not a guarantee. Yeah, it would be, though. I mean, well, there's also the notion as well that by drawing it out, you're drawing out the horror of the impending death. Oh, yeah. Wait. So like if you make it faster, you won't necessarily. Well, I mean, I can't be wrong, right? Like if you pull the lever, it necessarily means there's less time in anticipation of this horrible death. That's true. But also surely either it doesn't really change how long it takes to kill them or it's faster. I can't see it being slower when you've made it go over them faster. It could be slower.   So you're going to experience it because I presume less pain. I presume it's not baked into this that like if it runs over two or three people, it slows it down enough to save two and that by pulling the lever, you damn them all for sure. Oh, I mean, it's an interesting variable. That's what I was going to say. Maybe by going to the dead, no matter what. Do we know that? I assume what if it's the first guy? Like what if it's by going fast?  But if you're going slow, he might possibly survive and you're removing that option. Well, yeah, but the thing is that's they didn't say that. I feel like that stuff that we're adding on, it seems to me that it is just that if you pull the lever, it might make it less painful, but it absolutely will reduce the time that they spend horrifically anticipating that. It seems pretty simple. If we're going to put it in net terms, then it's simple. Just less pain. Yeah, exactly. It's less pain. So you'd pull the lever. It seems that we're a majority pull the lever then. Yeah. Yeah.  Yeah, I think so. I don't know. Yeah, it's better that they die painlessly if everyone's going to die. I mean, the less pain, all things being equal seems to be better too. 71 percent of people agree with you. Plus, there's maybe it'll maybe if there's a curve, it'll be so fast it goes off the track. Kind of fucking. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward one guy. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your Amazon package will be late. What are they delivering? Yeah, what am I getting? I believe it's level 11 binary convenience. Just pull it. Yeah, pull it. Yeah, of course you're pulling it.  It's got to be memes. It's got to be memes. People are trolling. Yeah, people are trolling. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward your best friend, and you can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing five strangers. What do you do? Say that one more time. Sorry. Best friend or five people? My best friend would understand. I don't. I feel like I got it. I got it. Well, you got to do nothing, but I don't know if everyone would in that situation. You know what I mean? Even if they definitely be one of those ones where you would you would add that on as a statement. It's you don't know if you would actually do it. That's true. Yeah, it's kind of like a selfish act kind of thing. Well, if you did nothing, then not only would you feel guilty, but maybe your best friend would, too. Yeah. Do not let your best friend die. You need to do nothing. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant pull the lever. Right. If I am, yeah. If I would want my best friend to be like, listen, you got to save the five. You got to let me go. Yeah. What if I was screaming at you? I want to live. That's wrong. It's really good of a best friend you have. Yeah. That is also true.  Yeah. It's as simple as it gets. It's just more painful to think about. Sure. Yeah.  But hopefully we will make the right decision here. This is a variation on the numbers one. I had 29% of strangers. Everyone's saving their best friend, apparently. Oh, wow. Wow. That's what I said.  No, we're good friends. Like we're good people, you know, theoretically. It's like if they pulled the lever and saved me, or if they saved me and let the five die, like, I don't know if that could be my best friend anymore. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing one person instead. At least that's what you think is happening. You forgot your glasses and you can't see well. What do you do? Pull it. They're just. If I don't have it.   No, I think it's a trolley problem. Isn't it that you know there's five people on the track ahead of you for sure, and you don't really know what's on the other track? I'm wondering if it's a trick that by doing nothing, it's actually not going to hurt anybody. It's tricking you into thinking it's five people, but it's actually the one. Yeah, I don't know. Oh my God. Yeah, I just don't have any information. I think honestly, part of the problem is that it says that's what you think is happening. And it's like, how hard am I? Is this a sure thing? Or is this a maybe think? It's a maybe thing. The thing is, those five people are actually an Amazon package. The other track is an actual human being, so you just killed the one human being. Yeah. Five Amazon packages. Yeah, that'd be rough. Oh, I've got an M. Night Shyamalan twist. You can't see it.  That's what I'm thinking.  All right. Oh, no. Oh my goodness. It was something that makes no sense that I couldn't have possibly ever guessed or was unintuitive the entire time. Wow, that's so clever. Yeah, well, you should have put your glasses on. I guess I should have. So what are we voting for here? Do nothing. Do nothing. Can't do nothing. Welch. 47% of people agree with that. Would you feel more guilty about doing nothing or doing something?  I would feel worse if I acted with no information and it made things worse. Because I couldn't like, I can't blame myself if I have no information to work with and I don't do anything. Because like, I had no information to work with. How did I even end up here? Where are my glasses? There's a lot of situations. I took a wrong turn somewhere. Oh, God. Oh, no. A trolley is heading towards one of your first cousins. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing three of your second cousins instead. What do you do? What? Do they think that I have some hierarchy in my mind? Yeah, I guess so. I don't have second cousins. Hers versus second cousins. I don't know. I'm doing nothing. Is everyone else doing nothing? More lives win, obviously. The more lives win.  One of them has a top hat. He's rich. Exactly. How much money is he giving me? He's wheeling and dealing? All right. It looks like the result is 58 percent of people agree to kill the first. 58 percent. Geez. Yeah, that's a surprise. Do people really grade their cousins that? Oh, this is our parent life. I live in Arkansas, and I don't grade my cousins like that. This is much more of a classic. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward five elderly people, and you can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, running over a baby instead. What do you do? How many elderly people? Sorry? Five. Five. Oh. Oh. I think it's time for some late-term abortions, everybody. Bye, bye, baby. Wait, wait. Would you say late-term abortion? Which side are you referring to? Because it's a late-term abortion. Well, he said abortions, so I guess he's going for the elderly. Okay. No, I'm going for the baby. Get that baby out of here. Get that baby out of here. Yeah, save the baby. No, I'm saying kill the baby. I'm saying kill the baby. Oh, God. Oh, okay. I think kill the baby. That baby could be killed there, Frangy. That could be killed there, too. It could be even killed there. Elders, if they were Hitler, we'd know about it. Exactly. Hitler was many things, but Settle was not one of them. He was not old. They would disqualify. Yeah, I'd save the baby. Okay, so that's what we're just going to do. I think especially in modern times, even if you're elderly, you can live a long time. You know, you can live a long time and you can do a lot of stuff, even if you're 70, 80, whatever years old. It depends how old you're living on. But I mean, the argument that would count would be that they've all had a chance to lead a full life and that kid... Maybe hasn't, yeah, that's true. He's just been born. He's got his whole life ahead of him. Obviously, they mean a hell of a loss to all the different people that matter to these five is a lot there. Yeah, where is that? Yeah, I know. And what if some of them wanted you to save the baby and then one of them wanted you to save them? That's not hypothetical. I would imagine it's possible, but it's not hypothetical. Because if the five elderly people were like, you know what, we've had good lives. Save that baby. Kill me. My hip hurts. Kill me. I really doubt that they would say that. Well, if they did, then I would let them die.  But if they're like, you know...  Yeah, I mean, he's still... I don't care about that baby. That baby has cancer.  I've got... I've got people involved tomorrow with the little girls. I just started using Bluetooth. $5. Cancer baby. I have to see the East Enders for Natalie. They made a Downton Abbey movie. So, should we go... Don't save me. I think we understand both sides of it. We're going to have to do a vote, I think.  Left to right. Let's go. Kill the elderly, I guess. Save the baby. Elderly down. Yep. Kill the elderly. Save the baby. Delete down. Fringy. Save the baby. Elderly down. Mark. The baby does not have cancer? Save the baby if it doesn't have cancer. If it does, I might need to think more. Okay. For me, I'm going to go with the hypothetical's description of elderly. It's like they're really in the latter parts of life. And so I'm going to save the baby. Is that how the hypothetical describes them? I'll picture you like Patrick Stewart. Like you got like a week left. But I'll feel bad about it. Nutsa. Oh, I don't know. This one's hard for me. I mean, those are like five souls with like an entire family tree and stuff. I mean, they probably have a lot of relatives. They might actually be happy to see them go.  I don't know. Oh, damn. Wow, you went, Mark. You're thinking of something like 3D nephews. Eat up those inheritance. Yeah. Why did you save my grandpa? I want to hit his money. Don't ask those. Okay, save the baby. Save the baby. Okay. Ditch. Well, I'm assuming by elderly, they mean like 70.  Kill the baby dad. Okay. Braggs.  Baste. Act man. Kill the baby or the elderly. Save. Save the elderly. Okay. Wow. It was kind of close. Oh, wait, wait. I'm about baby killers over here. What happened? Yeah, we got some baby. Elderly killers are cool. We're not grandma killers. Yeah, at least we're not killing grandmas and grandmas. Oh, my grandparents would want me to save the baby, but funny enough, baby just was born. Okay. He'll respawn. He just won't matter. That's the good point. My grandfather would want me to save the baby. That's the only reason for me to forgive this. I just love the idea of one of the old people being like, kill that baby. I've been eating my fruits and veggies so I can live long and probably. Look at that baby smiling. It doesn't even know what's happening. 76% of people voted to kill the elderly. Oh, but I disagree. Oh, no. A trolley is barreling towards five identical clones of you. You can pull the lead and divert it to the track sacrificing yourself instead. Okay. Nuts is right. How high were they when they made this? They didn't explore every possible place. I don't know what I did. I did. I didn't get what the color I am when they came up with the color. Those clones rule people as far as they are aware, they have memories of a life that they've led and will lead a future life. Absolutely. They must be destroyed. Yeah. The clones must be destroyed. On my phone so I could have five people working on videos. Like, all right, guys, do me one thing. Wasn't this the thing with the Mahler twins and invincible? Like something who watched that refresh my memory? Yes. Which one was the real one? Yeah. Yes. Like that was the most interesting part of it. One of the most interesting parts of the show of like exploring that concept. Like the emotional ties they had to it. It would kind of mess you up. So yeah, I'm thinking about this when I see that. No, he did. He did.   This one's downstream from your opinions on clones. Yeah, it seems like it is. Because I saw someone say soul of memories. It's like, what do you mean? They're clones. They didn't have any say in whether or not they exist. Did I? They're saving. I'm saving the clones. I'm saving the clones. Yeah, I'm saving the clones. And what's often worse is that I would basically know how each one of those clones would feel if I saved myself to kill them.  But they got it. Yeah, I saved the clones. They're five people. I'm killing the clones.  I'm killing the clones. They're just clones. They're just clones. They're just clones. They're just clones. Someone had to watch the clone war in Jesus. The original article was the most important one. Geez, I don't work on that.  If you call. Solar clones, OK? There's no one. You don't have a soul. Why do we presume that they're solar? Because I say so. You don't have a soul.  What if like all of them think they're you? Like the perspective. But they're wrong. I know they're wrong. I know they're wrong. The hypotheticals. Yeah, but it's fine against one. I'd use it as the perfect one. But I'm the one with the lever. You're the only one. I'm the one with the power. You're the only one. This is what you obviously just let the clones live. I mean, it's a five to one. Five lives to one. Again, run over. Those clones are going to be. I'm saving the clones. Listen, I can always make more clones. You can't make another original. You can always make more people, but that doesn't mean you're not original. Why do we presume that you can't clone the clones? Do we believe that that's going to cause problems necessarily? No, no, no, no. How do you know you can't make more of those? You can make more clones. You can make more babies, but that doesn't mean you can kill babies. Am I the only one though operating under the assumption that those five identical clones of you that you were previously unaware of may very well be trying to steal your memory and like invade your life? Yes, yeah. You made all of that up. These are great points. You made all that up. You definitely made all of these.  Come on.  You need to have panic for this. You're going to try to justify saving your life. I love that the Queen doppelopolis. The Cowardly Way. They're Skrulls. They're Skrulls. No, no, no. They're clones. If they were Skrulls, I'd say kill them, regardless of context. It's a lot easier. Oh, we didn't know that. They didn't say this, but Skrull told us. All right. Let us vote left to right. Kill yourself for the clones. Right to left. If they're Skrulls. OK, right to left. So you're not Skrulls. Act Man, you'll go first this time. Right to left. This gets complicated. Save the clones. They will carry on the legacy of my channel and do all the work that I don't want to. They got to sign a contract that I'll pull the lever. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Rags. I will sacrifice myself to save the five lives. Sitch. Kill them clones. Nutza. Sacrifice myself, I guess. Wow. All right. Yeah. This seems pretty straightforward to me. And if I had more context about them actually trying to be Skrulls and shit, then fair enough. But for now, they just seem like five lives. So I'll give myself up. Mark. I'm killing the clones because I just, I cannot, I cannot draw the assumption that things that look exactly like me and may very well try to steal my life are probably better. Well, how would they want to steal your life? Well, Mark, you would do this, Meridaya. Mark, would you steal your own life? No, no, no. OK, I'll specify that.  What I mean is it's not me controlling who interacts with all the other people in my life.  For all I know, these clones are just the worst out of all these clones. You put a lot of thought into this. Oh, you do. Why would you do that? That identical clone is a bit of a self-port. So what would you do? Yeah. Why would you kill X right now? Why would you do this? Probably what they would do. Taste and pizza? That would definitely have all our memories and experiences. Yes, they're clones of you. They're identical clones. OK, Mark, wait, wait. Don't let them talk you out of this, Mark.   I'm not listening to him. Why are you? He says he's identical. He's identical. He's identical. He's just as evil. Don't let him influence you. He's a language. Listen, those clones are coming to replace you. Those dappled games. No, they're not. You wouldn't do that when you're sad. Oh, you are. How can all five of them replace you? I'm going to steal your friends. Why? My girlfriend is my boyfriend. No, no, no, no. No, why would they replace you? They are you. They have your memories and your values.  They're not going to be so confused. You're going to accidentally steal your friends. You wouldn't cooperate with your own clones? OK, look. No, we're not doing fights. If you work together.  Stand firm.  I didn't do this. I swear. I'm too great at it. This was my fault. OK, look, I was not operating on the assumption that I knew for sure they had all my thoughts, memories, emotions, and desires. Identical clone. Right. They're identical clones of you.  No, that's not necessarily true, because to me, identical clones. To be an identical clone of somebody, you have to have the memories and experiences. Why would they look exactly like them? No, it doesn't say that they look exactly like you. It says they are clones of you. I don't. OK, but identical clones are. Identical clones. They're full clones with their full memory, basically. Yes. I think that's the only way this works, because if they just were made yesterday and they don't even know how to count, that's fine. Also, if they didn't, it wouldn't even change the answer. Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Wait, wait, wait. It's every one of us. I mean, the military, I've seen Chris, it's kind of an evil. It's so evil. It could be a big problem if they all look like me.  No, I mean, for the potential, I might be committing treason by not killing them. How would you be committing treason? You'd go to the government and say, hey, I've got these five clones of me. Just kill them, Mark, to say it. It's time to do something. If they're clones of you, they're probably going to submit themselves to the government. They'll be like, we're five clones. We don't know what's going on. But if they're identically me, as far as personality and temperament, then they would make whatever decision you would make. And exactly, in which case, I'd let them live, because then they would care about in my life, they would care about just as much. Yes. Yeah, thank you for arriving at the obvious conclusion. It wasn't obvious to me, though, because I thought there were just five guys who wouldn't. I guess it wasn't obvious to you. You're right.  But if I don't know what to do, I don't mean good ones. All right, anyway. It's a good thing you don't have an identical tone. I sacrifice myself for the clones. Yeah. Yep. Principally, I would sacrifice myself for the clones, but in reality, I don't know if I would. I think if I was actually in that situation, I probably wouldn't. That's my, that's what I think I would probably do.  And Brooks?  They're dead. But if they're actually legitimate clones of me with like my interests and values and everything, like then yeah, we're going to save them because five of me is going to be able to do more than one of me. That's going to provide more for my family after I die, that type of shit, you know? It's this big, it's the only one that has utility to it.  Stop with the paranoia. I think it was very simple. 12% agree with the majority. Oh, I got the majority on my side. Wait, so 12% would die for the clones. Geez. Wow. I hate to believe it. To be fair, there's a lot of like- They didn't discuss it.  Yeah, I feel like they put 10 seconds of thought into this. Ew, clones have moved on, where we just spoke, we just went to war over it. Yeah. Like explored every position. Ew, clones. Oh, no. A trolley is heading towards a mystery box with, oh no, a mystery box with 50% chance of containing two people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, hitting a mystery box with a 10% chance of 10 people. Okay, we're doing math now? Are you faking it? Oh, I'm just feeling like I'm going to get a ray gun. Can a mathematician- It's literally a mathematician. Yeah, you can do an equation for this one. Good, yeah. To actually do the balance of probability. I don't remember what you're breaking out math. Isn't it exactly identical? Or am I done? Maybe it is. Maybe 10% is one, and 50% of two is one. Oh, yeah, right. Is that how that works? Or am I just trying? I think you're right. I think so. Yeah, but that doesn't mean- That doesn't mean that's how you necessarily derive the ethical position on it. The first thought I had was like, I don't think I can justify risking 10 people's deaths for the sake of the two people. That's true, but- Yeah, you have a- It's not as if you're figuring it out. It's 50, 50. Kind of, but I'm going to go for the potential to save more people as in the box with 10 maybes. So I think I'm going to go with that one because I think there is a potential for there to be three being saved. Because if there's a potential to save- It's- I think I'm- Yeah, I think I'm going to go with that one. But it's like- I feel like there's a trick here that I'm- That's something I'm most interested in. I think it's just a relation. In what way? I would go with the 10%. I'm just trying to- Yeah. And just hope you don't get X card. I think it's 10 at 10%. I think I'm actually- I'm going to go with that one. I think I was wrong when I said it's basically the same. I think you got to go 10%. Because it's just- You have a 10% chance of killing. Well- Is it worth thinking about like if it does kill the 10 versus it did kill the two, like which outcome you would prefer are those two? And obviously we know what outcome you prefer, but the fact is like risking- It's just something that I struggle to think about. If I did choose that 10% thinking like, that's the best chance I have of killing nobody and then it kills 10. I'd be like, Jesus Christ. I guess it would be- It would be putting it in a way beyond you with a chance. A 90% chance versus a 50% chance of death, of death, but obviously the scale of death is- It's a bit backward, but you could say the killing of two people guaranteed the safety of eight. And hold up, can you please restate the question? Because I want to see how it traces the- The trolley is heading toward the mystery box with 50% chance of containing two people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the track hitting a mystery box with a 10% chance of 10 people instead. So there might be people in the box. That's what it is. It's like there might be people in the box. There's a chance that there's people in the box. There's a 50% chance. If you do- But remember, you've got to pull the lever for the 10% chance. Yeah, I'm pulling the lever. I feel- Yeah, like I feel those odds, man. Like a 90% chance- So this is the thing. If it killed 10 people, and I was asked to explain myself, I'd be like, it was 10%. I thought I was saving everybody. I'm sorry. Well, that would be my answer. It's like it's a 90% chance. Yeah, honestly. Yeah. Like I made the best call I could have somewhat information I had. I think I'm going to go with that. Yeah, because I can justify- Yes, I can justify a 90% chance way easier. Yeah, because if you didn't pull the lever and it did kill two people, and then the box and the other track, there's no one there.  There was 10% chance. Or a 90% chance there'd be no one there. You're risking more lives, but the risk is so much lower. Like it feels like it's way- I mean, it's a coin toss, right, for doing nothing. Yeah. You've got a 50-50 chance of people dying versus a 10% chance of more people dying. So we're pulling? Seems like we're pulling. Oh, I think so. I think so. Pull the lever. Pull the lever. Sure, I'm pulling. 57% of people agree with you. Ah, that's it. That was a tough one then. Yeah. It is a complicated one. It's an interesting one. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, no. A trolley setting toward five sentient robots. You could pull the lever to divert it to the track killing a human instead. What do you do? Do nothing. Do nothing. Kill those robots. Do nothing. So you were telling me it was five wallies, for instance.  Yeah. I would.  It could also be five of those robots, my robot. What about the replicants?  Five of those. Yeah, five replicants versus one human. Yes. Take them all out. Wait, is what's happening here, someone's got an opinion about the state of sentient life that's not human or something? We got other things to talk about. What do you mean? It sounds like you absolutely consider human life more valuable than any other form of sentient robot. Well, we wouldn't hire them. It would be, we wouldn't know what does it mean for a robot to be sentient. Is that what we're relying on? The fact that we don't understand it, or are we going to take this? Yeah, right now. That is what I'm relying on, literally. It was programmed with sentients. What does that mean? Why not take it best faith and assume in the hypothetical you are convinced they are no necessarily different in terms of the mind? Does the body make the difference? Okay, it's fine. These are like, yeah, it could be eight as, or five. If the question was that there are five robots that I believe on my philosophical, moral, spiritual belief system are literally the exact same value of life as humans. No, no, no. Same mind, not the same body, because I feel like that's what the question is. No, no, no. I said value. Okay, really quick. If I believe that the life of these robots are the exact same whatever's dictated, however I define life, if I'm defining that as the same in the robots and the hypothetical, obviously I would say the robots, but I wouldn't be able to judge that. Well, sentience doesn't mean they have the same mind and experience as human beings. It just means that they have. They're not going to feel pain. That just seals it. I said value. Yeah. Even if you treat them like that, that does not seal it. One human versus five humans who don't feel pain when you feel the five humans. They can literally be rebuilt versus someone who would die. Well, wait, no, exactly. The rest of them all were just brought up. Five people who can't feel pain versus one person who can. But those five people can't be rebuilt. These guys can. You can all hold up so human beings heal, just so we're clear, human beings can heal. Why do we assume that they can be rebuilt and they'd be the same consciousness? There's no point in the question if they can be rebuilt that who cares. Then who cares if they can be rebuilt on the cloud? Okay, fair, fair, fair. The question is, well, that's my head and mind. With that in mind, the question becomes pointless that they can be rebuilt. So if I can, I feel like I'd say that if they can. Because, of course, we can rebuild them and there's no difference. And then, of course, that's an easy choice. But I presume that it means they're dead. We wipe out whatever their experience is. To clarify, right, Sitch, you're saying that if the question were robots that you philosophically consider entirely the same as a human versus a human, the question becomes easy. Because it's just like, well, safe to find. The way I'm interpreting these questions is like, I'm literally standing there at the lever and someone just tells me this sentence. And I have to interpret it however I want to. Why would we assume the robots are sent in? Because the question says they are. That's the point of the question. That's not an assumption. It's not what I said, but... No, no, no, no, no, that's not an assumption. That's what someone in chat said. I'll go to chat, yeah.  Out of curiosity, Cap, if you were given the same premise that you believed they are of similar value to... The same value as a human being in terms of what they mean to the world, I assume you would save the five? Okay, potentially, yes. But so a lot of animals that we have on Earth today would qualify as sentient. If it was five dolphins or dogs or something, I would just do it. Is the idea that you and Sitch are making sort of is that we just don't know enough about what these things are? What does sentient robot really mean? What I'm saying is that sentient doesn't mean at the level of human beings necessarily. I forget what sapience means. Sorry, apparently, according to... Yeah, like a dog is sentient, but sapience would be above that. Why? This is kind of the key word for that. So if it were one person or five dogs, I would kill the five dogs. Like, because humans are sentient, but they're also sapient, I imagine would be the conclusion that if you were sapient, sentient being the capacity to feel and recognize and understand those feelings, maybe? I'm not sure. Which is curious, right? Because a robot programming versus actually feeling it, question mark, what does that even mean? It's complicated. What does it even mean? And I wonder if that's enough to choose to save the human, because you would argue and call, I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to figure this out, and I'd rather not take the risk. I don't know what I'm dealing with. Well, I mean, presumably, if it was one human versus five chimpanzees, for example... I was about to say that. Would that change to the five chimpanzees? I'd say the first one, yeah. The five chimpanzees are the most intelligent. Right? Then, like, number one, most intelligent? They're up there. The human over the chimpanzee. Like, over five chimpanzees, rather. I don't think the question presumes that the robots have equal or greater level of sentience or sapience. I think, you know, if it was five chimpanzees, that's basically the same question. So I would do nothing. I mean, if that was the question, I'd do nothing, yeah. Well, that is the question, essentially. Well, it depends on how you'll define sentience. I'm not sure if it was written by this person to mean that they are like a dog but not a human. I feel like it's written by a robot. People very often use sentience to mean, like, human sapience. Yeah, exactly. That's the only reason they would use that specific word. That's kind of what I'm wondering. Well, I don't know. They are used casually, interchangeably. Yes. I think you could reasonably assume from the question that all is meant as if they're aware, if they're self-aware, not that they have emotion or anything like that necessarily. Then dogs aren't self-aware. That's why you always tell them they're good puppies. That's right, you're a good puppy. I'm willing to say that the spirit of the question is the fact that we don't quite understand this fully. Like, that's actually part of it. Like, you don't fully understand the state of those robots and that would you want that murkiness to take value over the one human life? Because if it was, like, you have a 19, 120-year-old human that can barely see is lying on the ground. It's like, maybe I'd save the robots of that point because that guy's like, he's maybe an aggity or something. But the normal, healthy human being versus the five sentient robots of which I'm not, yeah, I'm willing to agree. I don't know enough about. Mola, if they were like five wallies, for instance. My question is basically like, five advanced chat GBT with bodies. I'm not gonna. The problem is sentience has levels, right? It could refer to a couple of things and that's part of the gray area. I mean, I would consider it, but the graphics don't make it convincing to me. Oh, yeah. Thank you guys, Mola. I'm not kidding you. Okay, Safringi, I have a question for you. Like, okay, if you do one-to-one and it's like a robot at, like, you know, like data's level, or assume identical, like, level of mind to a human being. Would you do nothing or would you pull the lever? I feel like, because I don't know that much about data, it says Bender. Okay, forget data. Just assume that the sentient robot has the same level of mind as a person. Yeah, just go with Bender. Yeah, Bender. One human versus one Bender. Five Benders. One human versus five Benders. I am wondering if, for you, you would choose the human over a robot of equal level of mind. That's what I'm asking you. Well, I feel like, again, it would be the same if I would, one human versus one Bender. Uh, I mean, I feel like I'd probably save the human. Yeah, I probably would over one Bender. But again, Bender is basically a person. Okay, so if you add Bender, does that change it for you? Because if it's five Benders versus one person. If it's five Benders versus one person, I feel like that is, you're killing five people for one person. I don't see how it's so easy for you to kill one Bender of one person then. Uh, I don't think it's, again, I don't know if I find it easy either, right? It feels like I could make the argument that it's essentially one person versus another. Someone just said Bender's a cartoon. It's like, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it was a cartoon. This is all hypothetical clown stuff anyway. This is all clown stuff.  Come on. I almost said a similar point. If you have the goo. That tied into the Debuterama a little bit more. But Bender, Bender is very hard to kill. That's tied into the hypothetical there. We're assuming that we can't repair him. If you can repair him and there's no harm, and Bender's just okay, and he's happy and alive. But of course you said the human. Obviously you said the human. But that's what I mean. I feel like it can't be that they can be rebuilt. Because if they can be rebuilt, then it's, it's like, there is no choice. You always save the person. So I don't know why you're here. You're saying that you can rebuild them. I don't know why you're doing that. I feel like you're just trying to create a shortcut because you know that there's a conversation to be had here about like, Well, I think we settled on this question. It was just adding. Yeah. On this question, it is probably the murkiness of my capacity to understand what they're into. You know, their conscious experiences versus a human who I understand and know what their conscious experience is. So I think I'd probably do nothing in this case. Would that be an area? Replicants might be a little bit of an easier way to say. Because I look like people. That's what gets to people. Because when it's Wally, they're like, oh yeah, it's just like a robot thing made out of metal. But if it looks like a person, then it changes things. The thing though is though, the replicants, they're not really they're not really robots. They're kind of like genetically literally robots. They are definitely robots. No. Aren't they closer to being clones? I thought that's that's the way that it was. They have implanted memories. Sure. Yeah. They have those. Just like a robot can have without a human body. Are they made of organic material, though? Oh, I mean, Terminator Terminator is made partially of organic material. You're made of organic material. But I don't I think the difference is they have like bone. They don't they don't have an endoskeleton. We told them about the difference. Are we going to be dependent on. So is it skeletal structure, the determinant, and whether it gets I feel like I think the reason it makes the question a little bit easier to answer is because it they are androids in that they're artificial humanoid machines, essentially.  Someone probably called Android 18. Oh, if it's Android 18, I'm saving those robots, baby. Yep. Just to clarify, right?  Wally would be considered a robot while a Terminator is more likely to be considered an android because it's made to look as close to human as possible. Meanwhile, Wally is clearly a robot. But they're all robots. He has a soul in the metaphorical sense.  Wally is a hero. He'd be fine with it, yeah. Right. Okay, let me hear the other guy that talks. Thank God you're heroes so I can kill him. Jesus Christ. Okay, let's let's get it going. So I assume Ever was all do nothing with this one, right? Or rags how you feel. I do nothing. Kill them robots. I think I'm going to snave the five sentient robots. Wow. I think that, you know, with all this being in mind, I think the question is such that I would lean towards the fact that there's five of them. I think it tips the scale even with the ambiguity, but I don't fault anyone for going the other way because there is that ambiguity.  I think the problem is that sentient robot is just too abstract of a term. We just need more context for this. It's really hard to decide. I mean, it depends on a perspective where you lean, right? You can only guess with this one. Yeah, it's the ambiguity that gets it. If it was like five, basically five sentient robots or a person is like, I'm saving the robots every time and there's no question about it, but it's the ambiguity of the question here. Yeah. Just so I think it's majority do nothing, so I'm going to go ahead. Yeah, I think so. Blat. 84% of people say splat the robots. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward three empty trolleys worth $900,000. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track hitting one empty trolley worth $300,000 instead. What do you do?  Yeah, it's the quantity here, I guess. It's supposed to be that you'll be culpable now because you pulled the lever, I guess. Well, the quantity that you save them, $600,000. I was going to say, I think they'll appreciate you saving the three. Yeah, it's a bad one. Yeah, well, maybe it's an introductory one. Like, it'll get more difficult, I don't know. But 78% of people agree. It's like a small, a single 12% small company or three trolleys from a massive company maybe could have been a better question. Oh, no. A trolley is releasing 100 kilograms of CO2 per year which will kill five people over 30 years. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track hitting a brick wall and decommissioning the trolley. What do you do? Nothing. Well, wait, what's the quandary? What's the loss of decommissioning the trolley if it's going to save lives? Yeah, it literally saves lives. That goes both ways. If this thing has been created and this is just what it does, then I guess they'll just make another one to replace it. I don't know the... If this is just a normal function, then... What I'm trying to say is if this thing is broken and it's leaking and we can have the chance to stop it, of course I'm on board with that. But if this is its normal function, then I guess... I don't know if it makes much of a difference, but sure. I mean, it's... You still want to save the five. I thought the implication is that this is just... They're doing that through averages of stats of people who die to...  That's the only way that I read this. Well, in that case, yeah, we stop the trolley. That seems easy to me. I thought it was trying to... I don't know. Oh, you were saying that it's just a regular trolley. Well, so put it this way, right? If someone takes you outside and points at a bus and says, do you know the emissions of that kill an average of one person per year and you can blow it up, not hurting anybody, you can just... I'd be like, I don't know if there's a point to that. They're just going to replace it with another bus. I don't know. Well, they would probably replace it with a greener bus. Maybe. Because that tends to be the trend that we're seeing is that things get... That's right. So by destroying it, it puts an incentive on them to build a greener trolley. But what if statistically by destroying it, the cost of the reconstruction of the new one... Yeah, that's true. Or he has emissions as well. Yeah. But I think it's still lower. I still... But that would create in a bus that would replace a bad bus that would last for longer. I think I'd go with that one.  Neither of us know anything that's going on here, except I think we could just treat this as simple as it is and just stop it. Yeah. Yeah, we just stop it. It seems pretty simple. Yeah, I think it's just a poorly working one. Wait, no. Think of the company. Yeah, and my manager for this company is my promotion on the line for this. 60% of people build a lever. I think being able to talk into destruction... Almost 60%. ...because of hypothetical environmental damages over the next three decades from that machine surviving. I don't know, man. I think that a lot of people could talk you doing some pretty dumb stuff if you're falling for that one without questioning it deeply. It's faked into the nature of the question that we know it to be the case. Also, you treated it like I didn't entertain all of those bonus options.  They were just like, crazy, runaway trolleys killing everybody. Do you stop? I don't know if it was just talking about emissions in general or not. It's confusing. So, oh, no. You're reincarnated as a being who will eventually be reincarnated as every person in this classic trolley problem. What do you do? Now we've got to get into... Now I guess I die now. I suppose.  And I like to know it.  So it's almost like death is less meaningful in a way if you know that it's going to...  At least three years. I don't understand that... Wait, so you will be reincarnated as every person in this trolley problem? Eventually.  What do you do? I feel like that makes it, if anything, easier to say. If you were going to come up to me, if a wizard came up to me and said, hey, you get to have five extra lives, each one ends with you being killed, though. I'm like, I'll take it. Is this not the clone one all over again in a different way? In a sense. It depends on, I guess. No, it depends on you dying over and over again. Yeah, you have to experience the death, but you have another life that gives you a death to experience, which I'm like, I'll take it. I don't think memory is transfer over between lives, though, do they? Even if it didn't, even if it doesn't matter? Because the way I read this question is like, it means that it's like, no matter what you do, you're going to die on this track eventually. For me, it's like, end it as quickly as possible. I don't want to do this all the time.    You have full of levers. Yeah, I pull the lever. Five extra lives sounds nice. It means that I get extra lives is how my mind looks at this, you know? One of those controversial ones, 52 to 48. I don't understand this one. I think people are confused. That's how it is. Yeah, I mean, there's a lack of context again. Okay. Oh, no, a trolley is heading toward nothing, but you kind of want to prank the trolley driver. What do you do? Prank him? Yeah, do it. Why not? I'm going to do nothing.  It's a social experiment. Exactly. Well, look what they called it. Homeless prank question mark. That's right. If you're going to act like six hours to this poor guy's day. It's like a lifelong PTSD. You have to pay for therapy then. Yeah, I'm doing nothing. Yeah, nothing. I actually don't want to make someone. Yeah. Prank him.  Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward a good citizen. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track running over someone who litters instead. What do you do? Easy.  Kill the litter bug, yeah. I get with all.  No, no, littering is worse than J walking. Oh, yeah. Let's see. Kill the litter bug. Kill him. Yeah, littering is the worst part. Someone's going to die either way if one guy's better. I guess even in the slightest possible metric, I guess. Well, again, it doesn't matter if one person dies. Stop doing it. I guess either way, one person dies. Littering is bad and you knew it was bad when you did it. I guess that's something that tipped the sail. That's why this is it for you. With all things being equal, I guess so, you know. I didn't tie him to the track. You know, I wish he was like, yeah. I mean, if he had been like a murderer or rapist, that would have made things easier. He'll be so funny though. He watches you pull in. He goes really flittering. And you're like, well, that guy didn't litter. I don't know. Well, I mean, he didn't. Well, Jim didn't litter. Well, yeah, but he didn't litter. Are the items he's littering biodegradable? Oh, my God. No, it's like paper. No, no, no. Littered so much, he got trapped in the litter. And that's why he's on the tracks.  Where do you want me to put him in the woods?  Litterers have no respect for their common man. Kill them. Right. We're killing them. Here we go. Pulling the lever. 80% of people agree to kill the litterer. Good. Yeah, littering is bad. And littering can actually create really terrible consequences depending on littering. Due to construction errors, a trolley is stuck in an eternal loop. If you pull the lever, the trolley will explode. And if you don't, the trolley and its passengers will go in circles for eternity. What do you do? Well, I mean, I explode it. Yeah, I don't want to stop today. I assume that's the alternative. I guess it would be starvation. Yeah. But they'd be doing it. But they said to animalism. Well, the passengers will go in circles for eternity. Yeah. So I think they survived. They lived. They're like the worst. But they got trapped in a trolley for the end of time. Oh, my God. I'm blind, man. I was going to say, I still feel like we should blow them up if they trapped on their fraternity. Yeah. I think so. I don't think you assume they lived. Actually, yeah, that makes it easier.  Yeah. Either way. I'm going to tell you guys, if I was looking at a life, if I'm stuck on a trolley infinitely, like I just know I probably want to be blown up. Yeah. If it means to get out. Who else is there plumbing? I said who else is on the trolley with you? Look at the G-forces on that turn. Man, my goodness. I know, right? Yeah. They got swung back and forth every like five seconds.  Oh, my God. You got the spin, brother. Save them from this eternal suffering. Yep. So we pull and leave them. Eternal motion sickness or an explosion? Every single one of those people in that trolley would pull the lever. Eventually, yeah, they would have to, right? Yeah. 57% of people agree to blow it up. Oh, no. A trolley is heading toward your worst enemy. You can pull the lever to divert the trolley and save them, or you can do nothing, and no one will ever know. I don't mean my... Are you a murderer? I like that they put him as an angry dude. I like that. What did your worst enemy do to you? My worst enemy saved me. Yeah. I feel like my worst enemy is like, would it be like Putin or something like that? There's like some terrible death in the world, or is it some kind of person? It's someone you probably actually have to know.  No one just subjurked in your life.  I don't even know who my worst enemy is. It's a no. You don't have enough enemies. I guess I don't, or not good ones. They're just petty enemies. The fact that's never like that, you can do nothing and no one will ever know. They've got to add that in. No one will ever know what this happens. But yeah, pull the lever. Yeah, save it. Oh, yeah. Yes, I am, obviously.  Oh, yeah, yeah. So for the sake of it, I mean, not for this question, but just as another hypothetical, if it actually was the worst person on the planet right now, whoever that may be, would that change it for you? Of course. Yes, yes. Yeah, I assume we're entering into serial killer levels. So yeah, killer.  So but in the sense of your worst enemy, we're doing nothing, I assume. I think it's got to, you got to. No, no, no, doing nothing. Oh, sorry. Pull the lever.  Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he saved him. He saved him. He saved him. 51% of people agree. Jesus Christ.  Apparently. What kind of enemies do they have? I mean, that is even. Is that the closest one? Like the worst person in the world, in that sort of sense. Oh no, a trolley is heading towards a person and will lower their lifespan by 50 years. You can pull the lever to divert the trolley and lower the lifespan of five people by 10 years instead. What do you do? Wow. So you're reducing everybody's life by this 50 years total, no matter what. Yeah, but it's spread out between five people.  Yeah, I think that's my thinking.   Whereas the older people, you know, 10 years would be like 70 instead of 80 possibly. I mean, it could be for somebody that's like 40 instead of 50. I think I'm going to split it up. I think I'm going to split it up. Yeah, pull the lever. I would spread it.  But yeah, I think in this, it ruins one guy's life versus reducing by a much smaller amount for five other people. Yeah, read it out. There's a misery loves company. There's a mechanical Final Fantasy 14 where one person is targeted, but that they're going to get a significant amount of damage in like a couple of seconds. Wasn't Sid the mechanic? No, no, no, actually a good one. And the way that you do it, because it's the MMO one is everyone on the team has to get on that point so that it spreads the damage to all four people in your party, as opposed to just that one guy dying, which is a much bigger problem than a bunch of you getting 10% damage. So it's kind of the same deal. Jojo, no. 64% of people agreed on that one. Well, what do you think the, because we didn't spend too long on it, what do you think the main counter-argument against that one would be? Sorry, say that one more time. What do you think the main counter-argument would be on that one? You're hurting more than possible. It's best to hurt the least amount of people if possible. That 10 years of life, even between five people, is still a significant amount of time. They might lead, you know, they could have different lives. They might use that life to enrich the lives of other people because there are five of them. That, you know, they know. But again, it's the same amount of years. It's just that they're very localized for one poor dude. But I might have a week left if you pick him. Because in a sense, right, like the value of the lives, you know, one to, you know, 50 is really, really like important in a different way than, you know, between 70 and 80 or 60 and 70. So I think that, you know, if you kind of take the value of that stuff, it, you know, I think it tips in in the favor of spreading it out. So, yeah. And what is this one? All right. Oh, no. The trolley is heading toward five people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, sending the trolley into the future to kill five people 100 years from now. What do you do? I mean, this is essentially like killing five people on the planet now that are on the other side of the world. 100 years from now, they have a better chance of like being able to accommodate it. No, they're going to die. I think they're going to die. Residents are going to die.  Kill them now and get it over with. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. Um, I would say in the future, I assume that lives will be longer and better. That's the better version of what I'm trying to say. There's more people, so life would be less. No, I, I think, yeah, in the future, I think you're going to live longer and you'll have more years. And I think the standard of living will be higher. You'll probably, there's chances are you'll have more of an education. You will be healthier. You will, you know, all of those good things. So I think it's all things being equal. Like it's better to save the lives of five people in a hundred years because they will happen by the nature of the question. So yeah, because I mean, if we assume just by the years alone, you will have saved more lives in years. And there was a better chance that they will not die young because of accidents or diseases and things like that. So I just think you're going to get way more bang for your buck, so to speak. Isn't ice trees a lot of time in which the world could have just ended, though? Well, I mean, be it by asteroid. It's possible, but I'm not, I can't use that as justification. Oh, yeah, it says it will kill five people. Yeah, we have to assume it's impossible. I think that's the reason I'd pull the lever. But rags, what if the future is worse? Well, you know what? Then I guess I was wrong. And I'll never know. What if those people are ghouls? Like foals. Oh, my God, ghouls. Maybe. Hey, ghoul likes manwish. I think the trend is that things are actually, you know, I know there's a lot of news and doom and gloom and stuff, but things are generally trending to be better. So yeah, I don't see any reason why I'd be getting worse. And what if we're in the past? Maybe we can prevent. I was in the past. I can tell you all about it. Ask me about the past. I was there, damn it. Are we deciding to do nothing? Is that what's happening? Well, the one that saves the, yeah, the five lives in the future, as just to be clear, it's saved five lives now or five people in 100 years. I think it's the same. Is there, I'm genuinely just thinking about this out loud. Is there an argument to be made that you're killing more people by killing five people now than in the future? Because those people can produce offspring? Is that your argument? I assume that I'm thinking about out loud. Yeah, because the same thing would apply to the five people in 100 years. In more future, yeah. It's the same thing. It's population control. Yeah, I think that's fair. Infinitely speaking, this is the same. So principally do nothing, but in actuality, do you think you would pull the lever so you don't have to see it? So we have to pretend that I understand completely that portable. Definitely send it to the future and kill five people from the future. Yes, if I believe the premise of the question is accurate, if I believe that premise to be true, then I would save the people in the future. I think the people on the Shragger, what make the people in the future? Well, then the question is then the question is malformed.  Also, you're killing all of those people's bloodlines that would have stemmed from them. Yeah, not neces