this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
284 points (97.7% liked)

Antique Memes Roadshow

9612 readers
1 users here now

Giving you the backstory and appraisals of vintage memes!

Submissions should be vintage memes or commentary about vintage memes. Commenters are advised to appraise the internet value and provenance meme antiquities.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] obre@slrpnk.net 61 points 2 months ago (4 children)

1.00 • 1 death = 1 death Vs. 0.25 • 5 deaths = 1.25 deaths

On average you're better off not pulling the lever.

[–] McGuirk808@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Look at it selfishly:

  • 100% chance of killing someone
  • 25% chance of killing someone

Pulling the level is the only way to have a shot at not being saddled with the guilt of killing someone. Sure, killing 5 people is worse than killing 1, but avoiding that personal impact entirely is a desirable goal in and of itself.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This was my thought too, initially, but then I remembered that the first possibility happens through inaction. So I guess it depends on whether or not the person sees that as them killing someone

[–] McGuirk808@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I can't say what is objectively true, but I can say that if I were in that situation, I absolutely would feel responsible for the outcome if I could have reasonably affected it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Should you feel bad for risking it, even if you get lucky? If when you cause something by accident you don't feel as bad, you're going partly by intentions, not actual outcomes.

[–] McGuirk808@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I could have done something to prevent it, but chose not to, and someone died, I would feel just as bad as if I pulled the lever and killed someone.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, same.

On the other side, the law doesn't work that way - almost killing someone and actually killing someone are treated very differently. That might partly be down to how hard it would be to prove a 1/4 expected manslaughter, though.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Implying you'll be running this multiple times?

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (5 children)

The number of attempts is not mathematically affecting the outcome of a single attempts - statistics don't "owe you" any specific outcomes, just based on previous outcomes. It will be the same formula for each

[–] ergonomic_importer@piefed.ca 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Statistics also won't help you with the guilt when the tram runs over 5 people and now it's just you and the one guy you saved now trauma bonded.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm not the idiot who tues people to train tracks. I won't be feeling much guilt

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

What if, by taking some seemingly benign action, followed by a series of unforeseeable events, you have caused the people to be on the train tracks?

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Hey I'm not an idiot.

[–] Enekk@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Actually, in this case, unless they are... refilling... the hostages each run, the results of previous runs do affect each additional run. Unless you feel that running someone over the second time kills them a second time.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

"aww damn, 5 people are double dead"

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I didn't need math to know that the only way I see a guy beheaded is if I don't pull the lever, so we got to the same answer.

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

If you don't, you will, look at the post again

[–] someone@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I am not sure this is technically true if the probabilities have any dependence.

[–] obre@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago

Implying I haven't already

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago

We have to to be sure. /s

[–] someone@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

These are not independent probabilities and we can't disregard the initial mathematical data (unless I'm wrong, not a stat major).