ITT: Morally ambiguous quests

>Give it the Meat of Champions

have sex

I turned the baby in to slaves for the cure.
The cure is important and will immeasurably help many people. It is a net benefit to mankind and society at large.
Just because someone is a parent does not make them redeemed for their despicable actions. Regardless of the baby, Ashur deserved death.

so now that you made it clear that you're from plebbit, how about you actually go back there and never come back?
ok bye, sweetie

He may know me but I don't know him, so this is no different from the original trolley problem

Anyone who gave the baby to Wernher was a fucking moron. Look around his base, he's ready to butcher that baby at a moment's notice.

>WAIT I KNOW YOU
>so what?
>UUHHHH...
*splrt*

yuuup i reckon around 13-14 years of age. Jannie will you kindly escort these children out of here

It's your friend Michael from high school. He lost a lot of weight, that's why you don't recognize him.

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

seething

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

Eat the baby.

Attached: Glorious carnage.png (246x220, 137K)

Attached: 1483654038273.jpg (751x389, 37K)

*AHEM* nigger

Maybe I'm weird, but I've never quite understood why people place the absolute highest importance on babies. LIke, if I were in a burning house or something, and I could only save either a baby or a ten-year-old, I'd save the ten-year-old. Babies aren't really conscious yet, so the ten-year-old would suffer a lot more. They'd feel the fear, the panic, the hopelessness, and the abandonment on a level that the baby can't, due to its lack of awareness.

Wernher has a shit lab compared to Ashur's wife. The baby would have died and I doubt Wernher would have even gotten a cure from it.

Be honest Yea Forums, what you would do in such situation?

Save one that you have a bond with (a friend, relative, lover, etc)
or
Save strangers

Attached: [SCHLOP INTENSIFIES].png (588x391, 481K)

>Quads
Fuck, i gotta respond...
I'd rather save the one I bonded with. The strangers will only be my friend because I saved them, but my best friend is my best friend.

nigger

Save the one I bonded with nice Quads btw

I agree with this. Babies are like a blank piece of paper, potential to be anything, maybe the best piece of art ever created or the worst. I'd rather lose a piece of paper than a half finished sketch.

isn't there a mod to eat the baby and gain radiation immunity?

I think its more to do with the baby being more vulnerable. Depending on the severity of the fire, your average 10 year should be able to navigate himself to safety.

save loved ones all the way
fuck utilitariancucks

For me, it's about minimizing suffering. Like I said, I think the ten-year-old's death would be more painful.

Well, I suppose, but that wouldn't always be the case. The first time I really thought about this was when one of my classes in school had a thought experiment where you had a baby and an older child (like 5-10 or something) and you could only save one of them from drowning, and you had to decide which one you'd save and why. There were people on both sides, each giving reasons, but what I found interesting was that none of the ones who decided to save the older child had the same logic (i.e. minimizing suffering) that I did.

I think I'd sacrifice a loved one and then feel horrible for the rest of my life.

bros before hos
all strangers are hos until proven otherwise

download the mod instead

Attached: multi-track-drifting-15209810.png (500x633, 155K)

I hope I would be brave enough to save the strangers. And I hope my bro would understand.

all bros are strangers when faced with hos

Depends, who's got the better quest reward?

Pull lever. Guy who knows me will spill the beans about killing five people. I can save the strangers and than peace out.

based

the pitt is genuinely one of my favorite beth game dlcs
I think the pitt is only beaten by dead money in terms of quality

Leave baby with them,kill the societal dregs.

Part 2. What do you do Yea Forums?

Attached: 1557667651320.png (500x442, 113K)

Kill jurors and judge.

I ate the baby

>murder 12 jurors in full view of the judge and your attorney, who is now legally bound to not represent you
Jump away from the bench while screaming YOU FUCKERS SET ME UP

Save the friend. It sucks that more people will die overall, but it's unreasonable to expect someone to sacrifice someone they have a personal connection with. Besides, it's not my fault that those people died; it's whoever put them into that situation to begin with.

It'd still keep me up at night, but not as much as killing one of my bros would.

Attached: 1564645729845.jpg (730x544, 207K)

Attached: 20190908_181021.png (500x615, 229K)

Attached: 6d5.png (550x376, 101K)

Attached: 1550040567410.jpg (855x488, 38K)

Pulling the lever is always murder - not pulling it is an unfortunate accident.

Attached: 1555874070153.png (611x447, 233K)

I don't give a shit about strangers now, why would I in that situation?

this shit is getting out of hand

Attached: the actual knuckels trapped in the real world.png (512x495, 178K)

If you leave the trolly alone a tragic accident occurs. If you pull the lever you become a murderer.

The trolly never existed

They were already dead based on entropy and fate

Attached: 1a7m5c.jpg (396x385, 25K)

Free Will is not real so no matter my "choice" it's already been predetermined due to the deterministic laws of our universe.

Oh god oh fuck it's a monty hall puzzle hidden inside a trolley puzzle.

You ain't seen nothing yet

Attached: Escher Trolley.jpg (710x710, 206K)

so you go random and hope you don't pull the switch and the predictor didn't put anything in the box?

i tried reading up on it but its kinda lost on me

Attached: 20100512.gif (504x2948, 208K)

I'd like the bottom-right panel to explain to me how an ancient Greek ship has a cannon on it.

how do i kill the predictor

Attached: 1483904282331.png (514x312, 9K)

can anyone post the one that ends with
>plebs

this is some cormac mccarthyshit

Attached: 1486007784659.gif (200x200, 222K)

You're thinking of Yea Forums but this is 4channel, an advertiser and family friendly platform

Prove it.

Save the one I have a bond with obviously. This isn't even hard.

Waste of quads btw

Attached: FtwRzun.jpg (848x610, 83K)

No, if you go random it puts people in the box

honestly, i probably wouldn't do shit, because the family of the one person would sue the crap out of me

If you live in a first world country that's not shit you probably have Good Samaritan laws which remove you from liability if you were genuinely trying to help in an emergency. Some places actually have Duty to Rescue laws and will severely punish you if you don't try to intervene.

Life is Strange had this Trolley problem except I fucking hated that blue haired bitch by the end of it so the decision was easy.

Dead Space 3 ending is literally a trolley problem where the entirety of humanity is on one side and your ex-girlfriend is on the alternative track.

And the meat head retard partner of yours makes the chance to not pull the lever and let the fucking Moons tear down the track.

youtu.be/EEGwShgs6ow

Attached: 1463094877082.jpg (600x632, 62K)

This always make me smile.

Headcanon is that the Marker influenced Carver there

Well shit. Every time I think of it I hate Carver more and more for being such a fucking dumb ass, but that just made me like him again.

If I made the choice to pull the lever, then one is revealed as fake, I switch to the other one since its got a 2/3 chance it's got the outcome I desire versus the original choice.

Wonder who is setting up these trolley problems for me to run into
even if I run over my lawyer I'm probably just going to encounter another fucking trolley problem in prison

good choice but wrong reasoning. just look it up, monty hall

some one post the trolly driver one

Attached: 1557627311342.jpg (1344x2218, 432K)

Attached: 1557630147092.jpg (600x317, 65K)

Attached: 1557628244449.png (600x620, 212K)

Attached: 1557653371390.png (1034x760, 278K)

hee hee
thanks

Is that Ted Danson?

yup

Attached: 1557629811479.png (480x361, 45K)

wtf happened to the image i posted?

Ideally I'd save the group. If I saved the individual simply because I knew him than I would have let several people die for selfish reasons and while I would have to bear the weight of letting a friend die I would not feel the shame of letting a group of innocents die for personal reasons.

If I don't love my "loved" ones, then bye bitches, otherwise yeah them c'mon son.

Attached: 1557627893829.jpg (791x394, 33K)

Aloha

It's not like it's historically unprecedented, a lot of the Founding Fathers pulled that stunt either later in their lives or on their deathbed.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 97K)

Run over the people on the right then shoot the guy on the left. Boom problem solved.

so stupid. comparing such a clear cut scenario with the abstract responsibility for the well-being of everyone in the world. the only pleb is the author.

Attached: 1557630674099.jpg (500x425, 68K)

Attached: 1557651039470.jpg (595x313, 31K)

Attached: 1557630304161.jpg (506x449, 52K)

>Quads
If it was a family member/lover, i'd save them. If it was a friend, I would save the lot of strangers.
I'd feel shitty either way that I couldn't save them all.

>Fallout 3
>Morally ambiguous choices
Good joke

would you Yea Forums? No one will ever know.

Attached: 1557644229709.png (611x353, 133K)

The one with the ghouls at tenpenny tower was pretty ambiguous, but I don't think it was on purpose.

Babies still feel emotions and pain dude. They can't entirely perceive it the way a 10 year old could but they can still grasp it on some level. And physically they're more fragile and prone to pain than an older child would be. There are actually cases of infants who were sexually abused as babies who remember the abuse and trauma to some degree later in life. I don't want to look for the source because I'm afraid what I'd find.

I think jumping over 5 dudes is more impressive but high jumping will be less expected.

>When you'er soulless and you have to rationalise it
>but actual soulless hedonoids don't actually rationalise anything, so all the rationalisation is just psychopathy and playing the victim

Can I see the people I'm about to kill? If they're all black, for example, then the choice is easy. I fucking hate all of these train track dilemmas. You never get enough information. If I know nothing about the people and I can't even see them then why would I murder them?

Tell the 5 dudes to get in that crawling position, tell the 6th to join them, and do one bomb ass jump over everyone.

>They're not in danger
>Tied to a track
They're in danger of something just not that trolley.

Attached: 1557629550365.png (480x361, 49K)

who 300IQ here?

Attached: 1518062342223.jpg (960x842, 166K)

The greater good is letting those five fat acceptance bloggers die.

I agree

Attached: 1557630300816.jpg (743x306, 41K)

I save the person I know so I can shift the blame onto them and feel no guilt for my actions.

Giddyup!

close, you now have a 50/50 shot of being right instead of a 33% chance

Attached: 1557667222533.png (698x721, 517K)

tldr
B5

somone in Yea Forums got and I'm gonna find out who

If the fat man is so huge that his mass would stop the trolley when it has enough energy to blow through five normal sized people there's no way you would have enough strength to push the fat guy down.

is it b4?

based newfag

IT'S TIME

Attached: FEVER.gif (500x281, 1.86M)

Morality is abstract you retard.

Also, the only moral behavior is to not act immoral. Preventing immoral behavior is the responsibility of the perpetrator.

t. Kant chads

A2

>nobody would know
I would know though

>the only moral behavior is to not act immoral

That's a pretty dumb idea. What if you're in a position to save someone's life? Doing nothing would be immoral.

Take him down with me

Attached: 1557648782543.png (680x649, 269K)

Beautiful.

Well?

Attached: 1557653972259.png (960x383, 137K)

he is right you know

You're always in a position to save someone's life or do some arbitrary good deed.
You could sell all your belongings, fly to africa and feed niggers right now.
If you had a moral responsibility to help others, but only did so when it's convenient (when someone is in peril right next to you), you'd still be immoral.

Tenpenny picks off innocent wastelanders from his balcony and paid you to blow up a town and the whole town is made up off assholes. Makes Nipton look like upstanding citizens

C3

not a tranny
say bye bye to those 40 extra props

>You're always in a position to save someone's life
Stopped reading there because this is retarded and not true at all. Whose life could I be saving right now in my room at home? My own? Jesus christ.

>You could sell all your belongings, fly to africa and feed niggers right now.
That's a moral act, is it? The niggers make little niglets and now they need even more food. The niggers come to my country. Average IQ drops, crime rates increase, etc.

I knew I'd get some brainlet response like this. I completely regret replying to you.

And the ghouls are still the worse choice.

gotta look out for numero uno here
the ones where (You) are involved in the problem directly are too easy, it'd be absurd for anyone to not choose themselves. if they do they'd be lying to themselves

The best one.

Attached: 1488632699651.jpg (809x1200, 86K)

yes but ghouls are rabid animals as much as they claim not to be. tenpenny himself and his one aide he sends to megaton are the only ones who should die.

kek

Pull the lever and flex all my muscles, fully retracting my dick into my body

What does this have to do with McCarthy? I read blood meridian but I don't see a connection. Just curious

Literally go to a hospital and donate both of your kidneys you dumb fuck.

The only reason you're not saving someone's life right now is because it's personally inconvenient for you.

You allow it to hit box 2. This has the biggest chance of working out in your favor. If you allow it to continue, it MIGHT kill some people. If you hit the switch, it will definitely kill people.

anyone who doesn't choose to save kith and kin over strangers deserves extinction.

Attached: 1557648581406.jpg (506x267, 34K)

>Give her to a bunch of junkies with no clear direction
>Leave her with her parents so her father can find a cure as he keeps maintaining a resemblance of order.

Back when I was a teen, I thought this was good writing as the decision was ambiguous at the time but as I grew up I came to understand that keeping the social order is tough and any shake up leads up to anarchy which despite what edgelords believe it is not inherently good as it leads to demagogue leaders who would sooner doom society before they come to fix anything, so a tyrannical despot which at least some resemblance of humanity left in him still beats some shady fuckers with no idea on how to govern their own society, which is all they have ever known, making them unfit and ignorant.

>The only reason you're not saving someone's life right now is because it's personally inconvenient for you.

That's not true at all. It's more that I don't give a shit about those people. If someone I cared about was in danger then I'd save their life because I care whether they live or die. You call me a dumb fuck but you're the dumbest fuck here. I wouldn't even donate you a turd I crapped out to save your life.

b4

As the defendant I cannot be forced to testify at my own trial. Furthermore I can avoid testifying and touching the lever, I am not involved.
Bailiff or Prosecutor can pull the lever if they wish and I get a mistrial because the Government killed my lawyer.

tldr lol, just eat the baby

I clicked the image with the idea that, I wanted to check once more which option would lead to the most suffering...so, thank you.

>specopstheline.jpg

We'll at least that one dude gets to live. Hope he enjoys it.

truly an enlighten choice

Nobody gives a shit what you would do you dumb nigger, we're talking about what's moral and what's not.
A braindead nigger ape like you would be a pretty bad compass for morality, after all.

I punctuated that like a retard, sorry, here it goes again.

Back when I was a teen, I thought this was good writing as the decision was ambiguous at the time.

As I grew up, I came to understand that keeping the social order is tough and any shake up leads up to anarchy which despite what edgelords believe it is not inherently good.

Social outbursts leads to demagogue leaders who would sooner doom society before they come to fix anything. Even a tyrant, which at least some resemblance of humanity left in him, still beats an unorganized system if that leader has come to be the embodiment of the system, because the continuation of government is still very important.

The alternative are shady fuckers with no idea on how to govern their own society, which is all they have ever known, making them unfit and ignorant.

>eat the baby
Still a solution...was that a solution? I played Fo3 about a decade ago.

Attached: 1557653548783.jpg (507x612, 47K)

>10ft away for ez headshot
>lol lets just give the guy what he wants
>lol lets not bother to shoot in the 5 seconds we have guns pointed at him and he has no hostage
dumb game

>we're talking about what's moral and what's not.
Didn't you originally say
>Morality is abstract
If that was you then you're fucking retarded because you gave the answer, meaning there's nothing to discuss.

>Nobody gives a shit what you would do
Why did you even reply, then? It's because you're a subhuman brainlet who can't control his emotions long enough to give a rational response. That is what you've revealed.

correct

Do you trust in your fellow man?

Attached: 1557653681758.jpg (696x960, 100K)

Bottom, its almost guaranteed for at least one of them to survive.

What the fuck are you babbling about you dumb fucker?

You said that people are morally obliged to save lives rather than simply acting immorally, and when I asked you why you aren't saving lives right now, you said "because I don't care hurr".
Which means you either admit that you made a retarded argument, or that you're an immoral nigger by your own definition. I can't make this any more clearer, if you still don't get it, please gas yourself, you clearly have some kind of mental deficiency.

save the top one and then have sex with them

Pick the top or bottom door. If the middle door is revealed then multi-track drift into your original door and the middle door for 2/3rd 10killstreak bonus. If the far door is revealed then multidrift into the far and middle door for 1/3rd 10killstreak bonus.

If you multi-track drift you're guaranteed at least 6 kills, but by doing the choose-2 monty-hall problem you can get the highest probability of a 10kill.
If the far side is revealed

>You said that people are morally obliged to save lives rather than simply acting immorally

I'm going to stop you there because this very first line doesn't even make sense meaning you're clearly upset and therefore incoherent. You are dumb and wrong. Feel free to reply again but I'm done conversing with your brainlet ass.

send it to the other losers just to fuck with them.
IDGAF what they choose. If everyone pulls, then kill is only 4, which is what normies like, unless it is infinite trolly problems and then unlimited kills.

nigger

I find it incredibly ironic that the person behind these posts claims to know a bit about morality, but acts like a primitive asshole at every given opportunity.

>E.Y.E agree

Truth is a virtue.
Calling dumb niggers for what they are is perfectly moral, compared to lying by pretending they're not dumb niggers.

>I find it incredibly ironic that the person behind these posts claims to know a bit about morality

Jej'd and I agree. He's the one who claims to understand morality. I've never studied the matter. I just made a suggestion that if someone was able to save another and chose to do nothing, it would be immoral. What did I get for my suggestion? Just nonstop insults. He calls me a nigger when his intelligence and personality is MUCH more nigger-like. He's the average person, essentially. He doesn't have anything meaningful to say so he just throws insults.

I think the Pitt is the best part of Bethesda-Fallout, just for this choice

There's no one best answer outside of Cannibal perk

>if someone was able to save another and chose to do nothing, it would be immoral
Why aren't you saving people right now?

Never (not even once) did I claim to be moral. Does that help, little brainlet? I'm not saving people right now because there's nobody worth saving. Something for your little brain to think about.

Save my loved ones of course

Attached: Nine lives blade works.jpg (786x480, 85K)

the real question if I know that a priori or not

>the villain wins in the end

Which means that according to you, literally everyone on earth is immoral all the time, because they're currently not saving someone's life.
Do you see the problem with this, you dumb nigger?

I mean I guess imagining that every single human is an amoral nigger like you is a comforting thought, but that's not how morality works, faggot.

obviously if the predictor has never failed a guess then i'm best off putting zero thought into it and being as predictable as possible. so i roll with track 2 and sacrifice the one person right off the bat to hopefully save the other five.

>that's not how morality works
>proceeds to end his brainlet rant there

How does morality work? I'd love to hear your dumb ass thoughts. I really would.

I´m a tribal person, so a) unless we are talking about thousands or more

Attached: 1565704176042.jpg (320x320, 10K)

I've already told you, nigger.
Everyone is only responsible for their actions, which means it's only immoral to do bad, not refrain from doing good. The only person responsible for a bad deed is the one who committed it, not everyone who happened to not prevent it.

But I wouldn't expect a nigger like you to know anything about Kantian universal morality, philosophy is a white man's subject, after all.

yes i would

Attached: 1567674229358.png (1627x1577, 523K)

That's some Judge-tier fuckery the cat is doing

>Everyone is only responsible for their actions, which means it's only immoral to do bad, not refrain from doing good
Yes, I've heard you say that but I still don't agree and I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority of humanity don't agree with you.

I hope that one day your life is threatened and nobody helps. Maybe you'll rethink your dumb view on morality, or maybe you'll just die an idiot. Either is fine with me.

im not gonna live with the guilt of 40 dead people

>where you had a baby and an older child (like 5-10 or something) and you could only save one of them from drowning
curiously enough, if the baby is a newborn or close (s)he can swim instintively

...

the least worse scenario in this, is that 4 people die if I divert the train to continue and be handled by the other dudes on the levers.
If I keep it on it's original track, the body count will be 5
the difference is only 1, but the theoratical difference can be huge. So I leave the train on it's main track, I sacrifice one additional person for the safety of many.

The vast majority of humanity are dumb niggers just like you, though.

There's no arbitrary cut off line where ignoring a dying granny at your feet is immoral, but ignoring a dying guy who needs a kidney transplant across town is suddenly ok.
"hurr durr moral obligations only apply when it's convenient"
nigger

>The vast majority of humanity are dumb niggers just like you, though.
Interesting... didn't you say just here: >I mean I guess imagining that every single human is an amoral nigger like you is a comforting thought, but that's not how morality works, faggot.

You should really make up your mind, moron. Anyway, there's literally only one way to deal with brainlets like you. That is, to avoid you. I will now be closing the thread.

It's not our fault, the predictor put them there.
>bazinga

nigger

I ate em, all of em.

Loved ones, fuck those people they might be furries.

push the fatso, that alone won't stop the trolley and will kill the other five, also if where no survivors no one can know that you was the one who killed the fat man

Attached: 156661511143.png (1080x1080, 221K)

Attached: 1531153862400.jpg (700x417, 81K)

Yes you are!

>both of your kidneys
you are contradicting yourself because doing that being healthy I would actively sabotaging myself, therefore not saving someone (me)

Attached: 156572829319.png (600x541, 295K)

No, the predictor always predicts wrong, and if he predicts you randomly decide he puts them in the box.
As such, you MUST be random, as he will never put them in the box, because he would be correct.

His armor is cool so I want to believe him too. But he's a raider so he'd probably let his boys snipe the runners once he frees them.

literally the first 10 minutes of Fable 3

>wait, I know you.
He's obviously trying to arrest me, so I gotta kill him.

Not saving someone and actively causing harm are two different scenarios.
Which one is morally better is up to debate.

Think of it as a mini trolley's problem. Would you rather save someone by sacrificing yourself, or do nothing, resulting in death?
If you subscribe to the notion that not preventing death is as bad as causing harm, then the first option would zero sum to neutral, while the second option would be immoral.

The one I bonded with seems to only care about himself, so what's stopping him from leaving me once I save him?

Obvs the one I bonded with
I saved a stranger once and I didnt even get a thank you

The one I have a bond with obviously. It makes sense the most from societal, biological and evolutionary perspective too. A friend is already someone I know, am safe and secure with and who will come to my aid in times of peril. The five strangers might just shake my hand after I save them and then leave never to be heard of again. In a situation where there is no clear right or wrong answer, it's best to simply go with the more practical option. In fact, I would choose my friends over a hundred people and not just five.

Attached: California wew lad.jpg (712x696, 81K)

you madman

Attached: 1553886642046.gif (480x252, 141K)

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

Attached: 1556304415119.png (600x616, 556K)

brainlet alert

>save some literally whos who probably don't give a shit about you
>save a friend/relative/lover who cares for you
easy

Top. No matter how high the probability, you do not have a 100% chance of any of them surviving. With the top you have a chance of saving 6 people and the only possible loss is losing one instead of 5.

You'll never escape my trolley problems parade, Yea Forumsirgin incel! It was me doing it all along, Professor Evil! And look what I just wrote in your hand-writing!

Attached: 1515202810452.png (521x485, 14K)

different theseus
no relation
common misconception

if it goes along track one
not only does it have a possibility of killing no one at all
i dont even have to make the choice to pull the lever
i dont have to do shit and leave myself completely uninvolved
but pulling the lever will definitively kill at least one person and could possibly kill up to 6
this is the highest possible death toll and requires me to make the conscious decision to kill at least one person

this question is a joke

Why

The trolly problem always fucks with me, but here's how I look at it. The group of people in that scenario are going to die whether you're there or not so in my opinion morally the best move is to do nothing. The moment you interact with the lever you involve yourself and you kill someone that would have lived otherwise.

Attached: 1556589227705.png (700x819, 318K)

>putting the lives of complete strangers over that of loved ones

What kind of literal retard does this?

Loved ones of course, if you say anything else you're a fucking psycho

C3, 100%

the patrician choice

4D
Albert knows that Bernard knows the number, but doesn't know the pad eliminating 5b and 6a as potential choices. Because Albert knew that Bernard didn't know the number, and using that information he could've deduced if it was 4b, meaning it isn't 4b since he doesn't know. This leaves 4D as the only singled out panel, which is the only way for Bernard to determine the panel given a number (if it's been singled to one possible letter, as 4D has been). Once Bernard has said this, Albert can also draw this conclusion.

The ONLY solution!

Attached: judgedoom.jpg (236x236, 11K)

I never understood this problem. Either way people are going to die so just make a decision. It doesn't matter who you choose because killing one person is the same as killing 5 in the sense that taking a life is considered a horrible thing to do, except when it's not. Whether you directly lead to their deaths or whether they die due to your inaction doesn't matter.
What matters is that you get off the fence and just decide. Personally I'd do nothing, because I don't care. I consider it a mercy to kill people.

I think the thread has gone to shit, but there's a great sidequest in Atom RPG, where you might encounter some army officer who tells you about a notorious gang and its leader who massacred the whole village in front of him, and that officer wants revenge. Sometime later you might encounter the same gang leader but you discover that he's turned into a new leaf, and kept a notebook with all of his victims' names in it so he could pray for each name there. You're given multiple ways to approach this quest:
>inform the officer
>exact revenge on behalf of the officer
>let the gang leader go

why is A disqualified? Albert could know it's A but not know if it's A2 or A3?

I want to say strangers but I really don't know. I'll be honest though, if the strangers were some kind of trash I would save my friend over them. Losing some garbage over a good person seems worth it.

You being there is already interacting. Doing nothing is still you choosing

I find this hard to believe, because all infants get "bad touches" when nappies are changed or they are bathed. How can they tell the difference between a babysitter patting powder into their bum and that same babysitter groping them?

>t. Kant chads

Attached: Cringe.jpg (596x415, 39K)

You're definitely wrong, but I can't explain how since I have no idea what
>Because Albert knew that Bernard didn't know the number, and using that information he could've deduced if it was 4b, meaning it isn't 4b since he doesn't know.
is supposed to mean.

Albert says "I don't know which is the correct pad": this means the correct letter has multiple pads on it. Which is all the letters, so this doesn't help.
Albert says "I know Bernard doesn't know the correct pad": if the letter were A, then Albert couldn't know the pad wasn't A6, which would let Bernard know the correct pad. Same applies to B and B5. So A and B are ruled out.
Bernard says "At first I didn't know which was the correct pad": this means it's not 5 or 6, but we've already figured that out.
Bernard says "Now I know the correct pad": Bernard now knows it's not A or B, so this means the correct number only has one pad on tracks C and D together. Thus, 1 is ruled out.
Albert says "Now I know the correct pad": at this stage, the only viable pads are D2, C3, and D4, and Albert knows this. Since he's figured out the pad, knowing only the letter more than we do, it must be C3 (if it were D, he would still be unsure).

HF Shirou only good Shirou

Attached: Untitled.png (1448x842, 785K)

Everyone so far is wrong. Cheryl can't resist playing a sick game and glorifying herself. There fore it's C6. C for Cheryl and 6 letters

U dont understamd probability m8. Id rather make 5 rolls at 3/4 chance than 1 roll at 3/20 chance, if the goal is to end up with zero casualties or as few as possible

>Whether you directly lead to their deaths or whether they die due to your inaction doesn't matter.
>What matters is that you get off the fence and just decide. Personally I'd do nothing

Dude I'll just fuck Cheryl Mad scientist pussy and be done with it. What a gay ass riddle.

Spoken like a true Edgelord Nihilist

>tfw too brainlet to understand

>lose all 5
>WOW WHAT BUT PROBABILITY SAID IT WAS 100% CHANCE INSURED NOOOOOOO REEEEE MORE LIKE 0%!!!!
You in 5 minutes

Which step are you having problems with, user?
You're a brainlet today, but you don't have to be a brainlet tomorrow.

i really dont understand how you got #2

You can solve this in Doom.

youtube.com/watch?v=MiEYCXPI-qY

Attached: 1556652778398.jpg (684x1024, 520K)

babies are more vulnerable, they are a blank slate good to be anything aka completely innocent and we are programmed to protect them.
10 year old can fend for itself to some degree.
Baby can't.
If you have a burning house and the 10 year old fails to get out its partially its fault because it can move and make descisions.
If the baby burns in its the fault of everyone for not saving it because its our job to keep our young and vulnerable safe.

So, Bernard knows what number the correct pad is on. He knows, just like we do, that the five pads crossed out in #1 can't be valid. So, just look at the 5 that aren't crossed out there.
The number is either 1-4, and Bernard knows which number it is.
If the number were 1, Bernard would still be unable to figure out the pad -- it could be C1 or D1, he'd have no way of knowing. The fact he said he does know means it can't be 1 (thus crossing out both pads on 1).
For comparison, if it were 2 he'd know it must be D2, 3 he'd know C3, 4 he'd know D4.

underrated

Attached: 4a2.png (500x373, 63K)

caprice is a badge engineered worthless piece of shit, i let the trolley run it over, sell it for scrap and buy a civic

The person I know, no question.

Maybe those four strangers are Chad douchebags.

the person who i have a bond with
strangers don't give a fuck about you even if you save their lifes daily

Attached: 1545002589544.png (372x317, 262K)

wait back up how does he know A or B cannot be true

Attached: cat and wolf.jpg (1920x1080, 342K)

Whats the relevance of the 5 minutes?

Ever play an RPG game with probability rolls? I'd rather make 5 rolls each with 3/4 chance than 1 roll for 3/20. Learn about statistical significance m8

>lose zero
>WOW WHAT BUT PROBABILITY SAID IT WAS ONLY 75% CHANCE INSURED NOOOOOOOOO REEEEEEE MORE LIKE 100%!!!!
You in 5 minutes

Same reason we do: he deduces it based on Albert's statement that he doesn't know the launch pad, and that Bernard doesn't either.

who's this cutie

a dick can be sewn on again.

>kill everyone after obtaining the perforator and then leave
>combine with chinese stealth armour and feel badass
>then acquire double barrel shotgun and kill the game

Fuuuuuuck I completely forgot about that!
I fucking got stuck in that part because my game would crash when I tried to leave the area or something.
Since then I got the habit of making constant multiple saves in every Bethesda game onwards.

>YOU FUCKERS SET ME UP
Welcome to the Trolly Problem

children>wife>me>family>race>community>nation

I only have loyalty to friends and family

Attached: trolleyMadness.png (1000x3000, 1.14M)

I've followed this dumb little chain a bunch and I have to just butt in right here and say you're being a little butthole. His point makes perfect sense and comes from an actual school of philosophy while yours comes from just your own self admitted lack of personal morality.

The Trolly problem is a moral problem, if you turn it into a numbers problem then that means you are putting value on life and taking away personal responsibility for an idea of "The greater good" which isn't bad but it's not an objective moral choice.

The trolly problem basically points out all the brainlets who thinks there's an actual choice. Say to switch it, say to not switch it, both are fine choices, but if your logic is "switching it makes me a murderer" you're both making a decent choice while also looking like a complete dumbass. These threads are ripe for trolling because it's a bunch of monkeys thinking they're smart and the actual people who understand ethics are laughing at them.
>W-Well, what would YOU do?
In the heat of the moment I'm having a hard time believing that anyone WOULDN'T actually flip the switch with the very understandable exception of being stuck in shock. If you understood the situation, jumped to the lever, and had a good 10 seconds to divert the track, I have in pretty firm belief that most people would switch it simply because on the surface, it becomes a number problem instead of a moral problem. And the JOKE, presented here is making fun of everyone being armchair philosophers discussing what is or is not moral while the fucking trolly is barreling down at the innocent civilians.

Either change the track or don't, sitting there talking about it is retarded.

Just suplex the trolley.

Different user here. I think the confusion stems from people relating this scenario to real life conversations and not realizing they're just axioms coming out of nowhere. Ofc the info "I know that you don't know the pad" narrows it down if we KNOW for CERTAIN that it is true, but who talks like this? How exactly would he KNOW (not just guess or be highly confident, but literally KNOW) that the other person doesn't KNOW? Just SAYING "I know" doesn't mean dick, but here we are meant to accept it as an axiom

Save my loved ones of course

Ok after reading all of the scenarios pushing the fat man onto the track is the best solution as he is just a machine incapable of experiencing anything. This would also allow me to stop the bloody rebellion saving those lives. And now having saved the company owners life as well as his son's life and employees I use my leverage to convince the company owner to treat his employees better and talk him out of the evil demon's influence.

It's a classic logic problem. Of course nobody talks like this with absolute certainty.

That and "dragon" hunt on Skellige iirc
>Found your dragon, it was actually a wyvern
>hurr durr if it wasn't a dragon then it wasn't that dangerous, I'll pay you less
Fucking serfs.

Well if it's just 4 then yeah I just send it up, and make those people eat their own fucking dumb morality "flipping the switch is murder" even though I've forced this problem onto them and if they don't move it, MORE people will die. If it's just 4, everyone flips the switch, 4 people die, 20 people live.

However if I don't know how many people are there then I'd feel morally obligated to run over the 5 because that could potentially go into infinity, or at least a really fucking big number, way bigger than 5.

Unless, of course, you live on an island with 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and one person with green eyes called the Oracle.

Yes but the flavor text that is used to describe the logic problem is misleading because it gives us humans extra input that it isn't meant to give

>tfw green eyes
I'm the Oracle now, bitches

To everyone wondering who wasn't there, this guy was actually going REEE and screaming and crying and he had a red face. He lost all 75% chances and shit his pants all the way full.

Thanks for the additional 23% chance to my guess, Kevin Spacey

SO HERE I AM

The fact they didn't even give you an option to beat the shit out of them for cheating you out of your reward is bullshit.

I saved the based scientist couple because I'm a raging technocrat who despises the poor, unwashed masses and wanted the love and lab that Ashur represented to be saved.

>tfw no qt 3.14 scientist gf to abuse human test subjects with

Attached: circusclown.jpg (1280x959, 195K)

Based and actually correct occam's razor poster.

This one is both a simple and a complex problem:
1. It is solved in a way by fork()
2. Both will after a short time know who is who cause mental states will be copied as well. Therefore the clone notices a change of scenery which he probably at first fails to process but then he notices he's standing somewhere else. They cannot both have the same location.

It took me only one read of this to realize is was a troll question.

>mfw Reeesetera believes this is fitting in

lmao

People who perish in other's battles are worms…

Attached: Berserker_Armour_Version_1.png (722x1055, 552K)

>says niggers unironically
>gets negative feedback about being a pansy

Oh i am laffin

"I knew showing up drunk to my railroad switch technician gig was a bad idea..."

If It's someone who I actually care, of course I would save him before anyone who I don't know.
You can blame me all you want, I can live with it.

It's a troll question in the same way every single trolley problem is. Guess that's why they call it a troll-y problem
The math problem they bolted on checks out though.

this is like the gotham ferry thing. if it were to save my child i would blow up the criminal ferry no hesitation

even if it were like 100 million vs my wife i would still save my wife

the same kind of people who want open borders

You're not arguing "Do I save one person or save five" here, if there are people in the opaque box they're dead no matter what they don't magically disappear after pulling the lever.
The only thing you can do is leave the lever and hope The Predictor got it wrong.

>is it morally ethical to save a zombieman by sacrificing 5 chaingunners?
kek

>some pretentious snob who doesnt understand morality and tries to argue that everyone is immoral while making retarded arguments such as "donate your kidneys" while some guy just yells nigger
Never disappointing,Yea Forums

No, they clearly would rather die instead of me saving them. As long as I know that beforehand during that situation I don't need to worry.

>In the heat of the moment I'm having a hard time believing that anyone WOULDN'T actually flip the switch with the very understandable exception of being stuck in shock. If you understood the situation, jumped to the lever, and had a good 10 seconds to divert the track, I have in pretty firm belief that most people would switch it simply because on the surface, it becomes a number problem instead of a moral problem.
I'm not him, but I actually think most people would do nothing. People are generally very, very uncomfortable with directly killing someone. Even firing squads don't load every weapon with live ammo, so that the guys can feel like maybe they didn't actually kill the person being executed.

But he's bound to bring a better society if he lives, hopefully saving every other worker making their lives better, meanwhile the 5 dudes are just evil.

If it's a friend, I'd run him over. If it's a family member, I'd save them. In all honesty, if it's anyone outside my close family-sister and parents, I don't care about them at all.

How on Earth does x + 1 converge to -1/12?

Attached: ichihime7edit.png (240x240, 91K)

it's basically the archetypical mathematical meme
don't listen to it.

This doesn't work if we assume the predictor simulated your thinking in order to make his prediction. (He could do so randomly, but the odds of success probably wouldn't be good enough to have never been wrong.) If the predictor is simulating you, the best course of action to take now (and then) is to pull the lever, because your simulation has no way of knowing it's a simulation. If the simulation pulls the lever, the opaque box will be empty, and you should act in accordance with that. If you're wrong, hey, at least the predictor has now made a wrong prediction.

At least that's the lesswrong solution to newcomb's problem that I'm familiar with. It's more morally dubious in this case since you have to kill someone to take that route, in the original problem you're just risking the opportunity to get some money.

>MFW playing TTW and getting Pa's Fishing Aid, the unique double barrel that was cut
>14.4 x 14 damage
>1x crit rate with 40 crit damage that apply to all the 14 projectiles shot by the gun
>MFW using it with the New Vegas shotgun perks

Attached: 1495834975870.gif (510x510, 690K)

According to the Riemann zeta function, 1+1+1+1+... results in -1/2, so you will have killed even less people. Shit image.