Why do games always have trouble depicting .oral dilemmas...

heh

what about the moral consequences though?

Not quite as bad as the worst type
>you got railroaded into doing a thing? Wtf how could you?!?!

That’s something the individual has to deal with.

Attached: 1547967635760.png (506x789, 123K)

That doesn't guarantee your safety. And even if the courts did decide to let you off the hook you're still getting drained of time and money to go to all those court hearings. You probably also got arrested since you technically murdered someone and had to pay bail or spend a few months in jail with hardcore inmates.

Now is all that bullshit really worth saving a bunch of strangers that won't even suck your penis?

trolleys run on electricity, retard
power plants produce a fixed amount of electricity at any given moment
if anything he makes the trolley take longer to reach its destination and pisses off its users

If gaming has proved one thing, it's that morals don't extend beyond the scope of people you have to see again at work tomorrow.

>Good game:
>You did thing? Here's what happened, deal with the consequences.
>You did other thing? Here's what happened, deal with the consequences.

Literally the Witcher 3

Stop sucking CDPR's mutilated dick tranny

because morality is fundamentally illogical and if you have to try and analyze it you come to this conclusion.
Most people in the west are idealists, and are plagued by liberal values and ideas which depend on a metaphysical origin.
The human mind, however, is hard wired to analyze and experement with reality around it. The cave man hitting a rock noticed the patterns and tried to replicate them. With out the disconected idealist philosophers influincing public though the human is fundamentally materialist. And so when the writer, developer, or what have you tries to think for themselves, they encounter contradictions in their world view and their own assessment of it.
Instead of exploring this and having to risk their entire ontological underpinning of reality they recoil and simply shit out standard tropes of good and evil and leave it at that.

Of course the realization would conclude there is no such thing as an absolute morality to start with, and the choices would become analyzing the costs and outcomes of action in a pragmatic fashion, which is not a path to feeling good about the story or the world.

Fucking Skyrim is atrocious for this shit.

NIT doing anything is actually more dangerous since that shit IS illegal under good Samaritan laws. And you're not risking much since this isn't america and court hearing aren't elongated as long as possible to milk the defendants, most of the small stuff like this is handled in one court sitting.
Would you rather potentially have to go to court once or save 4 people?

>oh wow thanks! here's 20 pounds
doesn't sound unbelievable

morality is just another Darwinist mechanism within culture that's all, it exist as a value system to optimize the preservation of life within a population

The problem is that morality is structured either religiously with a foundational axiom like "All human lives have value" which doesn't have any empirical or scientific evidence to back it up, or it's otherwise pragmatic and values something like "wellbeing" or "productivity" where it may be worth comitting an evil deed if the end result is a positive growth in the collective. Because people value different things and adhere to different moral codes there can be no agreement, it's entirely subjective. In OPs image, Sargon is basing his action on the deontological stance that killing is worse than allowing people to die, the numbers don't matter. A utilitarian would flip the switch and justify his evil with the results.

logic doesn't have any evidence to back it up either but you don't seem to mind when we apply the same criteria to your god

yes, and as time, the conditions, and society changes the correct morality changes with it
the problem with idealists is they reject that morality is drived by society, and instead say it is a cosmic truth or divine mandate, and so when time and society changes, they insist morality does not change, that right is always right and wrong is always wrong

Thus you see the ancient struggle between the materialist and the idealist. It is the fundamental conflict within humanity

Babby's first nihilist.

Realizing all morality is relative is not an end product, you don't just stop there and feel smugly superior to everyone for knowing that.

>logic doesn't have any evidence to back it up either
Arguing epistemology will get you nowhere. For pragmatic reasons we can safely assume logic exists and works.
Also I am not an atheist.

I can't fucking stand that shit. Especially when it's so blatantly contrived, such as the white phosphorous event in Spec Ops or the nuclear launch halfway through Lonesome Road for FO:NV

Amorality > REST

Humans can fuck off

Prove me wrong faggot.

Kek

>For pragmatic reasons we can safely assume logic exists and works.
And yet when we do that with God sjw pieces of shit get in our way.
>not an atheist
oh right you're """ pagan""" right... special snowflake larp" religion"

Good samaritan laws are not duty to rescue laws. There is no duty to rescue anywhere in the united states
>this isn't america
Actually I am an american and I do have to go through all that bullshit to save 4 people. So no, I'm not going to risk life in jail for 4 strangers that won't suckle my penis afterwords.

Also I really doubt that you would have everything settled in one court sitting since you did just murder someone and I doubt any civilized country takes that subject lightly.

All logic is built off of foundational premises. Disagreeing with the premises does not make something illogical.

fuck off robot

you can come to come conclusions with out having to depend on just making things up though.
We can say, for example, that humans are best suited to live within groups and form societies.
Evolution has proven this, the humans who tended to do this survived and the ones who did not died out. We can say then that humans own self interest is best served by functioning as a member of a group rather than being alone.

Accepting this then you need only to extrapolate things that help the group = good and things that hurt it = bad.

We can further notice, historically, that the optimal size and cohesiveness of the group tends to fluctuate based on conditions. When resources are scarce smaller groups tend to do better, when they are abundant larger ones form.
You can start to look at this and try to work out what is optimal for survival, and what is optimal for survival can be considered good.

We can see the kind of survival in question here is the group survival over the individual survival because again historically groups that broke up every man for themselves at the first sign of trouble got wiped out.

From this we can say then, that the idea of the individuals survival being more valuable than the groups is even more harmful to the individuals survival. The most successful selfish strategy in the long run is to be a collectivist, an individualist might enjoy brief spikes of extra success, but will ultimately the practice results in them getting wiped out.

We can therefore say that good is what helps society flourish and bad is what hurts it, because thees things also help the individual members in the long run.

>actually I am american
good thing we were discussing first world countries not your shithole, yes where you live it's best to avoid the justice system as much as possible because they will fuck you over more than the criminals they ought to protect you from unless you're rich, your point?

>Sargon
Isn't he too busy ruining UKIP?

>things that hurt it = bad.
Not really that simple, you can't assess the morality of something like environmentalism with such a crude view. Is it okay to raise the price of energy to increase sustainablility and reduce emissions if that means more people will suffer in poverty and die as a result of increased prices? Do you kill people today to save people tomorrow?

Iji did this well imo
If you killed Tor then you deserve the ending you got

*smug laughter*

>ruining UKIP
>implying there was anything to ruin
They were always shit and you're just delusional.

That doom mod is the only good thing that came out of this.

And it's because when you make the choices more complex, it instantly becomes way harder to write and execute. Let's say there's two quests: A and B. The outcome of a is that your evil. In B the quest acknowledges your evil but you can still be evil or good. So you come out of the quest as "very evil" or "neutral" again. In Good route, it would be "very good" or neutral again, but there would also be a part in the beginning of quest B where they acknowledge the fact that they are good.

So, what if there would 5 different approaches to A? Anarchy, communist, nazi, democratic or retarded? So now in B there would be 5 x 5 = 25 different outcomes.

So of course B could have limited approaches or A could have limited approaches, but how about C, D and E quests? Yep, the writers have to go trough some actual work, how terrible. So it's easier to just write "good" and "bad", Walking dead made millions with very simple approaches. I blame them. We will also have to remember that we aren't probably talking about a text game, so there's a ridiculous amount of work.

Also OP image is obviously made by a salty faggot who could have instead called Sargon out of something legitimate as it's not very hard.

Attached: 1553283733706.gif (398x200, 2.3M)

Look at the voting figures for UKIP during and after Farage left. It's night and day. Sargon is damaging the party to the point where it will never become anything again

>Spec ops the line

In first world countries that IS what good Samaritan laws mean, if you are capable of saving someone you are obligated to do so. I don't care what your third world anglonigger common law bullshit has to offer.

Yea american has it's bad points, but it's not so bad. At least I can legally shot home invaders to protect myself, unlike some other places.

>All logic is built off of foundational premises.
"Is" premises whereas morality is built of "ought" premises.
Logic stems from axioms like "We exist, we percieve and we think."
Morality stems from axioms like "We have value, we are worth preserving, it is better if more of us do well and cooperate".
The latter are far more complicated axioms that would be more sound if they had empirical evidence backing them up, which likely could be found if you searched for it, but most people don't and would rather just do as they are told.

Underrated post

>Also I really doubt that you would have everything settled in one court sitting since you did just murder someone and I doubt any civilized country takes that subject lightly.
There is no evidence against you and at least 5 witnesses.
Yes it would go that quickly because unlike america the courts aren't paid to elongate the process forever to drain everyone involved out of money in fees.

>Yea Forums having civilized discussion on morals in video games

I love you.

Sarg'n, you're not as smart as you think you are

>There is no duty to rescue anywhere in the united states
nobody was talking about your shithole
now shut the fuck up you favela monkey, don't you have a hurricane to bitch about?

out of curiosity what country are you from? Cause I kinda want to look up some law stuff to confirm.

>if you are capable of saving someone you are obligated to do so

Not if doing so results in another innocent persons death, and not if by doing so you run the realistic risk of dying yourself.

Sargon's basically irrelevant. Everyone followed Farage to his new party.

>implying
Yeah no if Sargon didn’t bring the party to its knees then Ukip would have a larger turn out

It reflects the mental development level of the people "writing" for games.

Black people are dumb and therefore its okay to shoot them

Poland
it was always shit and moving towards a dictatorship but it's STILL better than your shitheap due to using Napoleonic law instead of common law
now's a bad time because the ruling party just got done taking over the high court but for everyday shit like traffic violations I can confirm from experience it only takes one hearing unless the defendant tries to make it take more.

Who has the money to pay the (((lawyer))) for that shit when you are under no obligation to save anyone?

Neat, thanks

yes that's what "are capable of" means

>Sargon's basically irrelevant.
N-n-no user, he's going to save the west! He has a suit user! All we have to do is get Donald Trump to tweet out gamergate

>celebrating being a slave to the country's expectations
lol

cope if I ever saw one
ukip was a meme party from the start, they wanted to ride the outrage Ben Shapiro muh sjw le based sceptics train without doing any work and just raking in the money, this is evident because once they were given any sort of lower with their meme referendum passing their leader resigneD

this, it's safer to not do anything but I think you could bring up a necessity defense
even then it's not 100% safe

I guess I take that back, he's at least able to make one user seethe.

I'm not seething, I'm laughing at him

the problem there is it assumes you need to use prices to lower consumption

duress is when someone's threatening you to do something

as much as I'd like to laugh at sargon, he did nothing to ruin UKIP. it was always the nigel farage party and when he left the votes left with him
sargon's the icing on the cake though

>country expects basic descency to save someone's life if it doesn't endanger yours
>WOAH YOURE A SLAVE DUDE WAKE UP FUCK OTHER PEOPLE IF I FALL OVER CRACK MY HEAD JUST LEAVE ME THERE BRO ILL BE FINE
I bet you think universal healthcare is bad too, dumb amerimutt

You couldn’t be more more wrong

The only game that did that well was OFF because it left some room for moral amiguity. In the end you did not know if the thing you did was truly right or wrong.

>it's best to let 4 people die because there's less of a risk of me appearing in court
This is your mind on individualism, america and their cancerous "culture" is raising sociopaths like this and they're the ones who are allowed to vote.

Currency is an abstraction.
You can't eliminate an economy, it's always there.
If you make energy harder to produce in order to preserve the environment, you make energy more scarce, which makes it cost more, which means the bar at which people will die from being unable to afford to heat there homes in winter will raise to include more people. All these are linked. The tradeoff is simply "How many poor people am I willing to kill to save the environment?", what's the moral number here?
Hard to pinpoint if you ask me.
I just know that it's easy for people to advocate for environmentalism when they aren't the people dying as a result of those policies and decisions.

Farage leaving basically made the party irrelevant but sargon and all the other "epic anti-sjw" youtubers" pretty much ensure it will never be taken seriously by the party. Youtubers think they're a huge deal irl but nearly all of them are just obscure nobodys when they go outside

leld

oh, did Nigel NOT leave ukip when they were given a parcel of power? I'd love to hear more about this.

>calling it decency makes it okay to exert arbitrary domination of people
lol

look you're not strictly wrong but you can say ration it, only allow and individual to use x per day
that wouldn't make it more expensive if you also make storage illegal
Not him btw

100% wrong.
Enjoy going to jail for fucking killing somebody to """save""" somebody else, you lunatic.

I like how you so casually exclude the fact that in order to save those four people you have MURDER one.

And I capitalized murder so you can see and understand an important fact you're missing.

Yet, ironically, we most often see people being left to die in communist countries like China where the collective is pushed above all else.
Really jogs the noggin.

>nanny state apologist

Beyond help.

>Do you feel like a hero yet?
I don't give a shit about sand faggots desu. They're not my people.

>performing first aid
>arbitrary
It's rooted in reason as it serves to preserve the society but of course a dumb nigger like you only thinks of themselves.

>electricity rationing
I haven't thought about this much, but the initial idea sounds absurd.
Is it actually something anyone has considered?

>the world's twisted moral system makes it in individuals' best interest to do bad things
>but instead of correcting the twisted system that rewards evil and punishes good, I will instead blame free individuals
This is your mind on collectivism. In a sane system there would be a reward for saving 4 people that outweighs the subtracted cost of killing 1, therefore making it not just safe but optimally profitable to save the 4 but instead people think
>HURRR DURR IT'S WRONG TO EXPECT A REWARD FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THOSE IN DURESS DURRRR GOOD PEOPLE SHOULD RECEIVE NOTHING BUT STILL BEAR CONSEQUENCES

Your healthcare isn't free. You pay for it, and you're only able to afford it because we pay for your military.

OP status: destroyed

>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO SAVE ME THE LAW SAYS SO

Attached: 1566698664948.jpg (785x1000, 113K)

Anyone that criticizes others of thinking of themselves instead of "others" is a hypocrite, because in doing so you're telling "others" to serve a group that includes yourself at the expense of themselves (who is "other" to you).

>in a sane system killing would be rewarded if it's for a """greater good"""

Hello communist scum.

I fail to see the importance
You kill one person to save 5, this nets us 4 saved and thus you did a good thing.
The judge is also human and sees this, letting you go. Again, in anglonigger common law bullshit land we'd be forced to have a legal battle where lawyers cite court cases from 1869 but here that wouldn't be the case and I'd be let go, maybe even granted a medal.
But even if I were go prison it'd STILL be the moral thing to do because one person dead and one going to prison < 5 people not dead

It could work if there were state funding towards solar panels for home owners to help offset the costs and make use of the potential energy surplas during the summer months. Same can be done water conservation by the use of rain water tanks. It won't happen though because people are too used things as they are now.

>It's a Yea Forums debates ethics thread
These never get old

Attached: Max Payne ruins a steak.gif (174x200, 2.99M)

Who are you quoting?

Right? We should have another smash thread.

if that pic represented spec ops the line the trolley should had been red right from the start. if you think the wp scene is some kind of turning point in the narrative youre playing the game eyes shut because to get to that point youve done nothing but kill refugees armed by CIA and american soldiers. first you kill refugees to rescue american soldiers and few chapters later you kill american soldiers to rescue refugees. in the wp scene you merely kill both factions at the same time which is a reality check if anything, that youve done nothing but commited few war crimes so far.

Moral dilemmas are a spook. What I do with my property is my own choice.

>It would be let go
Can you prove that? Can you show me a case where something similar happened and the person in question was let go?

>communist countries like China
I'd say bait but I'm talking with an amerimutt so of course you are actually this retarded
go shoot up a school
I don't think so, it's an overall shit idea unless you live in some shithole that isn't connected to the grid and generates its own power, just an example of reducing energy consumption without lowering the price

I'm not being sarcastic I legitimately enjoy these threads

I too like watching apes fling shit in a zoo

Your reward is that you aren't going to prison for breaking good Samaritan laws
USA doesn't have those and thus they are fucked up, civilised nations are fine

Who else here /deontology/?
Thou shalt not do evil that good may come of it.

Morals might be a spook, but laws are for real and have for real consequences when you break them.

>WORDS WORDS WORDS
I came to this thread for trolleys, and you have all disappointed me.
Starting with vidya related ones.

Attached: xcom.jpg (891x658, 127K)

imagine going to prison to save some retards who managed to get caught lmao

This is wrong as I would (and have) perform first aid on a stranger if need be and I expect the same from others. You're just an autist that can't think from the perspective of someone other than yours.

Post the loop da loop one

Attached: Fire emblem trolley.png (724x960, 281K)

>your reward is that you get to go through the day without being whipped and/or hanged against your will
Nice "civilization" lmao

Well shit, can i have more trains?

>Can you prove that?
that's the law

later, first comes vidya

Attached: Bioware trolley.png (659x770, 515K)

Based

If we're talking XCOM, 75% chance is guaranteed to fail, so may as well just go for the 15% chance and minimize losses.

You post it now or I will flood this thread with steves

Attached: 1560240049513.png (720x540, 264K)

Attached: Hello games trolley.jpg (851x315, 150K)

Attached: It's true that I pulled the lever, and yet I did not kill anyone .jpg (743x306, 41K)

Attached: 1541695108333.jpg (595x313, 31K)

Jesus christ
Don't do it man

Attached: Hedonist trolley.png (959x573, 111K)

Attached: 1551254070003.jpg (955x531, 159K)

Law and consequence is a spook, something happens whichever choice you make. You simply choose the result that you'd prefer to experience.

Good luck actually enforcing good samaritan on anyone lamo

You are you, and you are not others. You can serve others, that's well and good, but telling others to serve you is still the opposite of serving others. If you truly want to be selfless then serve others while asking them to serve themselves.

Witcher is pretty good in this regard. The cat witcher quest where he killed the village comes to mind as an example.

Attached: Bae trolley.png (600x620, 212K)

The way electrical energy is produced makes it hard to throttle down the production of energy during off peak times. In addition we have no decent means of storing electricity that isn't highly wasteful or prone to leakage of power.

Well, Yea Forums?

Attached: 1.jpg (680x610, 60K)

Its wrong to "expect" a reward for doing good, as not only does it imply you are only doing the good for the sake of that reward, but also implies that your average person is a nothing but a nihilistic resource-acquirer-consumer that needs to explicitly be told what's moral through positive reinforcement
If you see someone getting murdered, do you only step in to save them if you're certain you'll get rewarded for it?

Because liberals are actually terrible at moral dilemmas.

status
[x] got 'em
[ ] didn't get 'em

Attached: Spook trolley.png (773x960, 492K)

Those consequences are happening by the actions of other people though. They're the ones that decided that they would grab you and throw you in jail if you did or didn't do X. Are people a spook too?
>Good luck actually enforcing good samaritan on anyone lamo
Lol I'm american

>In addition we have no decent means of storing electricity that isn't highly wasteful or prone to leakage of power.
Large scale back up batteries aren't a thing?

Attached: Trolley conductor.png (960x540, 237K)

>no obligation to save anyone

incorrect. denial of assistance is against the law, if you're not in danger yourself.

I was bluffing

>spec ops the line
Is this a game that should be played?
I see it referenced all the time here

I tell the healer to adjust and then get greedy casting Fire IV too many times that enochian drops off.

run between the lever and the first guy and try to untie him bit by bit

Why would you ever remotely fucking risk anything like a lawsuit when you can walk away.

Attached: Titanfall trolley.jpg (506x447, 98K)

All I can say about this one is that if I was one of the men on the tracks I would want the guy to keep pulling the lever.
So if I was the lever man, I'd probably keep pulling it.

>missing the mark this badly

Attached: Freud trolley.png (500x274, 114K)

>dude just stop caring about your own wellbeing man
>anyone that actually worries about their personal consequences is a sociopath
t. middle or upper class millenial utterly disconnected with real world problems

Congrats choosing to literally incentivize murderous negligence over fundamental survival because of disney morals. I'm sure those third world children will starve to death very spiritually fulfilled thanks to you.

Attached: Camus trolley.png (500x377, 50K)

I'd probably have to keep pulling it but I would fuck it up eventually because I would forget why I was doing it.

Attached: bazinga trolley.png (506x267, 67K)

Fucking kek, took me forever to understand but it was worth it

What difference does deciding make? If you're thrown in prison by "decision", or not thrown in prison also by "decision", the decision is a spook either way. The only thing that matters is if you want to go to prison or not, or if realistically speaking you'd even go to prison at all (to which the answer is universally "no" because stupid frivolous laws like those are always for show).

we wildcard now

To kind of expand on this, you can look at WWII era Japanese ethics to see how destructive altruism can be. You have people willing to kamikaze themselves into boats because they value their country and fellows and pride far above their individual lives. It's an incredibly dangerous ideology.

I just wanted more train dilemma pictures.

Attached: portal trolley.jpg (1000x545, 145K)

PULL IT fuck slows and tone fags

Attached: All Star trolley.jpg (953x923, 154K)

Logic is just logic. Moral axioms are still axioms and you can still derive principles logically. The main issue is that people rarely think logically about morality.
>>far more complicated axioms that would be more sound if they had empirical evidence backing them up
Basically the kind of evidence we can find are psychological features and tendencies embedded in our DNA. The trick is that while there are probably no absolute universal moral intuitions that can't be undone if necessary under the right conditions, there are definitely things that seem to be moral tendencies. But there are also moral principles that seem to be embedded during development and are thus more culturally determined (but again individuals do not think about most of this logically they just pick up the behavioral norms from the people around them)
Only until the thread gets deleted to make room for more smash dlc speculation threads.

Who is going to implicate me? The dead people or the guy who knows I saved him over 5 people? Lol

inb4 -1/12

Attached: Divergent series trolley.png (1465x546, 216K)

Attached: Professor trolley.jpg (625x357, 22K)

>Logic is just logic.
It's not, it's nested within the assumptions that you exist and the world is rational and you can make logical assumptions about the world because your perceptions are accurate representations of substance around you.
There is no empirical evidence to support logic that does not employ logic in its presentation, it's circular, much like when theist state that God is real because The Bible says so and God wrote The Bible.
It's unfortunate, but true.
For pragmatic reasons, most sane human beings ignore what I just explained.

They are but aren't practical for regular use to store power as every discharge and subsequent recharging will degrade the battery and diminish it's efficiency until at best it is unusable. At worst in the case of Lith-ion batteries repeated cause can cause structure changes in the battery that can lead to short circuits potentially causing fires and explosions.

Duress of circumstance is a different thing, user. It means a situation forced you into action.
It’s a very broad and nebulous defence designed to almost never be used except in cases where it would be retarded to prosecute someone, for example a preventing a pilot being prosecuted for saving lives by an emergency landing in somewhere inconvenient.

Attached: suicide trolley.jpg (496x369, 38K)

The whole point of this experiment is morality. Yet autists on this board lack the ability to consider an abstract problem and debate nothing but circumstantial bullshit completely irrelevant to the ethical question.

I'm in danger.

Attached: Crusading trolley.jpg (800x494, 73K)

I pull the lever:
youtube.com/watch?v=c1CBGH_yySg

Attached: Bike trolley.png (680x649, 269K)

Always and forever B

That doesn't answer my question. Are people a spook?

>dude just stop caring about your fellow man's wellbeing
>anybody that actually worries about other people is an overly idealistic millennial
t. underage or objectivist (same thing)

Congrats choosing to incentivize personal profit over the genuine morality of an action because of Atlus Shrugged morals.

>WWII era Japanese ethics to see how destructive altruism can be. You have people willing to kamikaze themselves into boats because they value their country and fellows and pride far above their individual lives
And you also had American soldiers trained to jump on grenades to save their comrades, and yet all of society treats them as heroes and morally upstanding people. Funny how the highest military honors are given posthumously. Im sure they were really thinking about getting that Medal of Honour on their gravestone when they were sacrificing their lives

This one is easy.
Changing the track gives a 85% chance of killing someone
Not changing gives 77% chance of AT LEAST killing 1 person. Even 38% of killing 2 or more.

Attached: Bystander trolley.jpg (650x947, 263K)

>Game which is obviously an action shooter about mowing down thousands of faceless enemy soldiers in a foreign land goes out of it's way to make sure you know your character who will be doing this is just a normal guy who doesn't want to hurt anyone.
>Game gives you a gun
>Game puts bad guy in front of you and has him start shooting at you
>Your literal only option is to shoot back until he's dead.
>NPC Friend: "Oh my god you KILLED him! You're a monster!"

Fuck you, every Farcry game ever.

I don't actually know Stirner I'm just funposting. Probably not because they have actual physical relevance.

>And you also had American soldiers trained to jump on grenades to save their comrades, and yet all of society treats them as heroes and morally upstanding people. Funny how the highest military honors are given posthumously. Im sure they were really thinking about getting that Medal of Honour on their gravestone when they were sacrificing their lives
It's more "Funny how a system rewards individuals who serve the system"
Yes, America is also highly jingoistic but not nearly to the degree that Imperial Japan was. Some Americans also surrendered. Almost no Japanese did until two cities were nuked.

Attached: finn trolley.png (1000x528, 234K)

depends, do i get (you)s after posting?

If anything, at least we can agree to disagree on moral values and vidya based on personal taste
Your’e waifu a shit

No. Because it's overrated trash that thinks it's SO DEEP for forcing you to do something in a scene to continue to play that you then are "GOTCHA! I'M VERY SMART!!!!"d through the rest of the game.

Attached: Pleb trolley.jpg (1914x828, 251K)

youtube.com/watch?v=pqmYP0OmHcw

Attached: touching-the-void-poster-big.jpg (733x1100, 512K)

>personal profit over genuine morality
God forbid good deeds be systematically rewarded. We should instead just seethe all day at other people for not being martyrs instead. That will be a much more functional society.

You do. Here's an advance.

Attached: Happy trolley.jpg (678x383, 27K)

Yeah, go ahead, prove you're smarter than

I have no idea what to do with my life.

I really can't stand people or their beliefs and values but I want to.

Systems that are fundamentally multicultural are absolutely illogical. Many axioms of truth are subjective and end up being asserted by cultures that then implicitly all accept these values and follow this logical pattern. The modern world is fucking insane in that everyone's values are different. Everyone's fundamental assertions about what is true or good are distinct. This is so insane. It's absolutely insane to think this will work. The only way a system such as that could work is if every person was kept satiated with bread and circus. Dement people into hedonistic creatures that are terrified of opposing a morality of consumption and complacency. These people despise the cynic or those who are critical and reward the most delusional.

If two people have separate beliefs about how to determine ehat is true, then war is inevitable. war is perfectly logical in this regard in order to secure the fundamental assertions of values/morals/truth.

It's absolutely insane. We're experiencing the largest clash of belief systems in human history. It's truly unprecedented to have so many different peoples living so close to each other. It's a miracle more people don't snap.

I can't comprehend how any sentient thing could be tricked into this. I can't comprehend how people don't care about this. I'm about to throw myself off a rooftop because this shit is so mental.

Take away bread and circus and people would be genociding each other in a week. The instant anything gets tough, you're going to see the absolute collapse and split of these groups. It's the only logical thing.

I overall agree with this but can’t think of any games that actually do the bottom well.

Moral dilemmas are fucking stupid because the people posing them do so with the implication that there's a such thing as objective morality and ethics, and that it's not an inherently subjective, case-by-case basis.

I'm not talking about the trolly-problem pictures, those are just dumb jokes, but actual moral dilemmas intentionally dreamed up to identify people's ethical stances are dumb.

What is good and what is rewarded are not necessarily the same thing, and therefore you should always do what is good with no regard for rewards.

What about the rest of the world? You know, like the other 95%?

It's Schroedinger's trolley.
The lever is both pulled and not pulled at the same time.

most based version, only way to win this game is not to play. at least that's what I tell myself.

That's only if they say there's a right and a wrong answer.

Ah yes, clearly its purely 'the system' rewarding people, no one in their right mind would ever genuinely sacrifice themselves for someone else. That's never happened before, and never will happen
Youre using a lack of a systematic reward to justify not engaging in moral actions, which intrinsically means youre saying that personal gain outweighs morality

Who gives a fuck?

Pathologic. The whole game is about choosing what you think is the lesser evil in an increasingly hopeless situation.

Attached: 1567000952924.png (830x974, 181K)

>no one in their right mind would ever genuinely sacrifice themselves for someone else.
I didn't say they weren't doing it.
I said they were doing it.
And it was really bad, they killed a lot of people because of their nationalism.
Nobody was happy with their behaviour.

who was in the wrong here

Attached: Cannibal trolley.png (441x261, 30K)

i think that's an english law thing

i think in your case what americans would call duress would be coercion and what you would call duress of circumstances americans would call necessity

A disconnect between the two is obviously a bad thing. A rewarded action is an encouraged one, and good deeds should be encouraged thus rewarded. We both agree that saving 4 people is a good thing, yet you seem to think that everyone should just be metaphysically willed into doing good instead of encouraged through tangible reward. I believe in pursuing good through tangible means, thus incentive structure is critical.

Better than being a goddless jap who thinks its a hoot to set up a competition to see who could behead the most POWs in a single day desu. The amount of shit they caused its lucky they only got two bombs as opposed to the Soviet style conquest of Berlin.

Attached: Marx trolley.png (506x632, 295K)

This isn't the first main point?
Kill one but feel responsible, or let a bunch die and blame it on fate?

>No
Alpha response

Attached: simple trolley.png (506x267, 36K)

>"there is no way of leaving" (line 4)
>no mention of help not arriving, even though there's no one "near by"
You can't go anywhere so you might as well keep flipping the switch - statistically help will stumble upon you eventually, given an infinite amount of time.

wait have i been following this thread right? the reward is not being thrown in prison?

this is called Duty to Act, not Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan stops you from being sued by the person you save as long as you act within your reasonable level of expertise. Duty to Act only applies to police men, medical personnel, etc. in certain states

In other words, you're completely wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about and yet here you are trying to argue you dumb retard

But that's not actual morality, that's more like a morality workaround.

Beach because sunshine and the sea.

Attached: Gorilla trolley.jpg (900x578, 60K)

>fixed amount
wrong

Attached: 1566825414393.gif (202x227, 365K)

You should be able to solve this.

Attached: Cheryl trolley.jpg (960x842, 166K)

Fucking kek'd

>I can't comprehend how people don't care about this. I'm about to throw myself off a rooftop because this shit is so mental.
Maybe embrace determinism then you would just shrug it off
Like you wouldn't feel the need to beat the shit up of some raging delusional trannies because you know that they were made this way by the world thus they are mere fools

You're really hung up on nationalism as this be-all-end-all reasoning for why someone would ever want to sacrifice themselves for another person, when you can literally look at any point in human history regardless of culture and find examples of self-sacrifice being considered 'good'

If you think that altruism is something that was created and conditioned by society you're a fucking idiot

>Youre using a lack of a systematic reward to justify not engaging in moral actions, which intrinsically means youre saying that personal gain outweighs morality
If you believe in punishing immorality with personal loss/suffering, how can you not believe in rewarding good with personal gain? What possible reason could you have for reversing the situation? There is no objective moral, if society rewards one action over the other people will interpret it as the rewarded action being the moral one.

The trolley is either being manned by someone in which case they should be able to slow it down themselves, or it's a runaway and should slow itself down given enough time. Either way I just keep pulling it until it does

tldr
A &4
lets go

based self-inserting autist

My favorite choice is from Witcher 3 where I'm given an option to throw a baby in the oven, with a very short timer ticking away.

Attached: Union trolley.png (676x529, 69K)

it's not really easy if you put it that way, what's your answer?

>we pay for your military
delusional

Attached: util.png (645x429, 101K)

Show me one historical instance where self-sacrifice worked out for the person acting it out.
Jesus excluded for obvious reasons.

No, it’s perfectly logical from an evolutionary standpoint. Uncooperative people who either do nothing for the group or are an active detriment to it have a significantly lower chance of survival once the group excludes them. Fast forward tens of thousands of years of uncooperative genes dying off and most people are going to instinctively avoid doing things that society deems immoral. It’s taken for granted how amazing it is that millions of strangers can coexist in the same places without most of them constantly trying to kill everyone else and steal from them.

Save plebs punch union faggot in the face. Watch him go cry to his boss after because hes a pussy that needs his boys with him before he does anything.

A is discounted by the very first step, silly dum dum

fallout 3 had the best moral choices
>nuke the whole town killing dozens of people for 200 caps
>don't nuke it

Don't pull the lever. If person two lives a long life, he'll be able to have a greater positive impact on a greater number of people than person one with a short life.

A choice between service and punishment is not a moral system, it's just slavery.

Humans are not actually moral so what good would this "actual morality" accomplish? Where is the "good" in a moral that causes net negative? You'd just be your own flavor of the guy in 's image.

for person one to have achieved extreme utility in such a short time span means he does something major and it might affect me, so it makes more sense to allow him to do what he's here to do at the expense of the unremarkable yet still admittedly tragic person 2

You need some kind of reason to perform an altruistic act. Genetically we seem predisposed to perform it to our close family, a father giving his life to save his daughter, but nobody else. Naturally, we have a really hard time caring about second or third cousins. If you want to expand that altruistic behaviour then you certainly need to rely on societal pressure to promote it, which in it's worst form is violent nationalism with suicide attacks on your enemies. How do you get people to be altruistic without something like nationalism?

A4 isn't a blue pad though...

I haven't read what you've said and I don't know who you're responding to, but I want you to know I think you're a dumbass

Attached: Bertstrip_halo.png (250x275, 54K)

>total time suffering is irrelevant
why? that's a shit problem
if their suffering is also the same in another unit then we pick the person that lives longer because this will reduce the suffering of others when he dies of old age (to be expected) as opposed to the presumably sudden death, also he contribues to society longer
but that suffering shit is just incomplete information

ah yes, the amount of brown coal burned under the boiler of the power plant will increase for the 4 extra seconds the trolley spends in motion

I pull the lever, because nothing implies the lady's cancer research is going to be better than the combined cancer research of all the lesser cancer researchers she kills, because I want to save Hitler.

I don't get it

Also no the reward would be as described in , a quantified profit for saving the larger group that after deducting the killing of the other would mean a net benefit for the savior.

>choose between this great man or some fucking nobody
What a choice

Have they thought about not living around nuclear bomb? They will blow up sooner or later, difference is if you get 200 caps

>oral dilemmas
Because you cant show explicit sex in vidya, so they have to get creative and imply the blowjob through camera work and weird angles, sometimes through dialogue as well.

Fucking idiot.

So which is it, and how do you figure it out?

No because we a whacky relgion to milk the shit out of for future DLCs.

You know the game isn't talking to YOU during the loading screens and cutscenes right? You are not Walker, and its presented in a way that very clearly puts you on the outside of Walker's thought process, even though you're the one in physical control. It's not some deep commentary about the state of war games in the 2000's, people that think that are way off base. The player is supposed to fill the role of a horrified bystander as they watch Walker sprint down the path to his own personal Heart of Darkness.

They could get attacked by a shark and then it's on your head.

Themepark but only if I get to jump on the back an go with them. I want to ride a roller coaster and eat funnel cake.

Attached: 1565747454239.gif (1372x1024, 800K)

C3 get fucked niggers

if anything the punishment isn't sufficient but of course a retard like you would oppsoe punishment for manslaughter if it doesn't meet his arbitrary criteria dumb cunt

Maybe.on your gay beaches they have sharks bruh

I should clarify, by “uncooperative” I mean not conforming to the ideology of the group. While morality maybe be “subjective”, it’s a fact that some moral systems are objectively more effective at ensuring group survival and increasing group reproductive success. For example, a tribe that does not see a moral problem with killing children is going to be a whole hell of a lot less reproductively successful than a tribe who is disgusted by the idea. It should not be a surprise as to why most people are instinctively repulsed by violence against children today.

this is your mind on individualism

>You know the game isn't talking to YOU during the loading screens and cutscenes right?
Absolute nonsense. There's no one else it could be talking to. Loading screens are extradiegetic.

Im not saying you can't reward moral behavior. You are arguing that before one even thinks to perform a moral action they ought to make sure they're rewarded for it. And last I checked, society doesn't (intentionally) reward people for immoral behavior

I literally repeated his post back to him verbatim, dumbass

Read Plato's Republic

You can't use the absence of something as a reward. That's not how positive reinforcement works.
What you're talking about is a lack of punishment. They did what you wanted so now they are not getting punished, which in case is jail time.

Now do a pic where the people and trolleys places have changed.

>coal burning alone makes the electricity appear

Attached: 1538611281017.jpg (638x1000, 92K)

>goes to a themepark
>gets decapitated because lol safety regulations

There's a 50/50 chance that not pulling the lever will result in nothing happening.

who are you quoting?

>Your reward is that you aren't going to prison for breaking good Samaritan laws
You break a good samaritan law by doing some crazy shit like trying to field cricothyrotomy or needle decompression or some crazy shit you blatantly have no actual training on how to do and end up making the situation worse and killing them. You don't break it if you don't act at all. This really isn't that difficult a complex concept to grasp you fucking mouth breather

The next words out of your mouth will be "i-i was just pretending to be retarded"

Can we have c*nada instead of binland?

The way it works is each time either Albert or Bernard open their mouths, they accidentally reveal a piece of information, allowing you to eliminate certain options. The trick is that Albert and Bernard are using the same process, so you can deduce what they know by looking at what they deduce.

>his beach didn't have based dolphinsbros looking out for the locals
Feels good man

Statement 1: bernard can't be in 5 or 6 (he'd know what the correct pad is since there's only 1 option) so that means Albert can't be in A or B (5 and 6 occupy B and A respectively)

Statement 2: Bernard cant be 1 since they go through both C and D so he wouldn't know the correct pad

Statement 3: since it's not 1 and albert knows, the correct pan can only be C3 since albert wouldn't know the correct pad if he had D (2 options)

I narrowed it down to 1C, 1D, 2A, 2D, 3A, 3C and 4D but fucking hell man that's as far as I can get

>his beach is filled with rapist
I'm sorry user

Attached: 3f7.gif (500x375, 306K)

Yeah but did you see the air I got on that last hill? Pretty fuckin sick dude!

Attached: 68a3df16278343c774394a00d980da83.png (650x487, 121K)

>Your reward is that you aren't going to prison for breaking good Samaritan laws
>USA doesn't have those and thus they are fucked up, civilised nations are fine
But we literally do have a law called "The Good Samaritan Law," you fucking slathering monkey.

>manslaughter
>by simply being alive near a trolley accident
I swear it's like people like these people can only communicate in sensationalism. Why would you blame the lever guy instead of examining whatever created the scenario? Someone put those people on the tracks, even if nobody else either the people on the tracks or god.

>so that means Albert can't be in A or B (5 and 6 occupy B and A respectively)
How does that make any sense? A still has 3 and 3 intersecting it.

had to do the math and you kill an average of 1.25 people if you don't pull the lever
you kill an average of 0.85 people if you do

Morals aren't tangible, innate, universal, or absolute in any way. Rewards are. So yes, if you want people to do a thing then you reward them for it.

2 and 3 *

>can save people with minimal effort
>choose not to
>WTF I DINDU NUFFIN!!!

c3 baby!

If Albert had either A or B then there would be a possibility of Bernard having 5 or 6, and in those cases, Bernard would automatically know the right letter, too, because there's only one option. The fact that Albert confidently states that he knows Bernard doesn't know the right pad means he cannot have A or B.

It's worth considering the worst case scenarios too.

Its only rape if you resist esl-kun

>minimal effort
>killing someone else
lol

How is not killing someone manslaughter?

>no effort
>kill 5 people
how is that any better?
you're killing the people you didn't save

>you're killing the people you didn't save
But I didn't tie them to the train tracks in the first place. So why am I now responsible?

Dick move

>you're killing the people you didn't save
Wrong.
You're too dumb morality.

Attached: Batman trolley problem.jpg (609x323, 19K)

>trolley hits Finland
>people are too far apart and nobody is hit

>pull lever
>the 5 people were attempting illegal committing group suicide, making them both responsible for their own deaths and criminals
>the other you killed just tripped and fell on the tracks
Oops. Shouldn't have played god I guess.

The Joker has to be saved no matter what, because if he is not saved Batman will be just as bad as him.

you're responsible because you could have saved them yet you chose not to, it's that simple
not my fault you're a sociopath who doesn't understand this shit, yet I'm still trying to explain this to you
>wrong
wrong
they're both tied to the tracks retard

Batman would just cut the joker free with his batarang. Then the joker would run up and spray joker gas in the faces of the other 5 victims, killing them instantly.

Batman is a faggot that shouldn't be larping as a hero.

So being tied to the tracks somehow erases the possibility of one side being responsible for their own deaths and the other not?

you don't know any of that, odds are they're not there by choice
it's simple probability

But to save them means sacrificing an innocent man, which violates the law.

he can stop the trolley with out the lever
he can save both groups with out the lever
what's the point?

UK law has it as both duress of circumstance and necessity.
The judges essentially couldn’t be bothered to differentiate them

Not the guy you were arguing with but holy shit you're retarded. You should honestly kill yourself. That way you might save some starving kids in Africa or something since most of civilization is built upon exploiting people like them for resources.
Doing nothing is not the same as killing people and it it was, almost everyone would be a murder in this would at some point.

1) law isn't mortality
2) it doesn't unless you live in an anglonigger common law shithole or some other corrupt shitstain of a nation, we've discussed this before. in civilized nations you're obligated to pull the lever

You're missing the point entirely. Yes not saving the group should generally be a systematic loss compared to saving them. However the systematic loss being punishment vs unrewarded servitude is slavery- a net negative for the good samaritan either way, thus causing the decay of society in 1) making people want to avoid possible good samaritan situations and 2) making the system and enemy of the people by enslaving them.

Saving the group should be better, but in terms of positive incentive versus punishment incentive.

yes we are all commiting immoral acts by perpetuating the system we currently live in instead of revolting
never said I was a paragon of virtue, what I am doing right now is indeed immoral

>vs unrewarded servitude is slavery-
lost you there

>pull the lever one way, save 1 person, kill 4, go to jail for murdering them
>pull the lever the other, save 4 persons, kill 1, go to jail for killing them
>Leave the lever so you're not directly responsible for any death, go to jail anyway for "refusing" to help 5 persons in danger

You always go to jail. This test is supposed to test your morals, but the justice system doesn't care about objectivity, only that someone died, which society subjectively decides to classify as "bad" without caring about the amount of people you saved.

The truth is, the game was rigged from the start.

Finish reading then.
>a net negative for the good samaritan either way

yeah it's just a semantic thing
i don't get why bruce wayne doesn't just lobby with his fortune to instate the death penalty or something

So you won't go to jail if you pull the lever in your country? Fine, prove it. Show me a case where something similar has happened and the person wasn't charged. It doesn't have to be an exact replica of the trolley dilemma, just something similar where an innocent person died at someones hands to save others.

saving someone's life should be its own reward, the punishment is just for the occasional sociopath to keep them in line and to mitigate bystander effect
besides if there was a reward people would stage accidents to claim the benefits

>You always go to jail
But that’s wrong.
Duress of circumstance is a defence for murder provided a sober and reasonable man in the same position would have judged the evil caused was not greater than the evil prevented. Act or omission is not relevant to the defence.

>but like why do we need to make people want to do good things
>we should just use violence to make everyone be good
>that's good right?

That's funny, cause in america if you leave the lever then you won't got to jail for murder. So america is the only country that you won't face a murder sentence for being stuck in a trolley dilemma.

The only country with a way out.

If saving someone is it's own reward then there's no need to punish someone for not saving them, as their punishment is losing the reward of saving people. :^)

Even if you think you're not bullshitting, people can tell it's bullshit.

>besides if there was a reward people would stage accidents to claim the benefits
But there is a reward, you just said so. :^)

Bongland and the commonwealth have that precise defence too.