[Alt-text] Spongebob and Patrick work out their strategy with a utility based analysis.

We tend to assume that the means accomplish the ends, but that’s not necessarily the case. The trolley problem never looks at where the trolley is going, just how it gets there. But if the way we want to get there doesn’t actually go to the destination we want, then it’s not a solution. Hope this helps. =D

edit: trolley is spelled with an e

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The first bit of that is exactly what I was trying to say, indeed almost exactly the same as an example I considered giving but didn’t to avoid extra length, so we’re in agreement there.

    The second, though, I think misses that there is a distinction between physical possibility and practical ability. In theory, it breaks no physical laws for me to become richer than Jeff Bezos by the end of next year. In practice, though, the fact that most pathways to achieving that level of wealth, especially quickly, involve a whole lot of luck on very low likelihood (but not impossible events), means that there is probably no sequence of actions that I can actively decide to take that stand any reasonable chance of me achieving it. There are technically sequences like “buy a lot of winning lottery tickets in a row” that might do it, but because they rely on abilities I don’t have (like knowing which tickets win in advance), I can’t actually attempt to take those paths.

    • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Becoming richer than Jeff Bezos most likely requires you to have been born in a very wealthy family, so your odds are practically zero.