Heh it's a fun "gotcha" kind of modification. Alas, it misunderstands the thought experiment. They're not changing the emotional valence. They are removing a fundamental aspect of a dilemma: harm. One of the purposes of the trolley problem is to provoke the thinker into questioning what they believe about moral responsibility and (in)action.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's changing the problem from definite harm and potential upside to definite upside and potential harm.

It makes sense people value potential harm different from potential upside.

[–] Soleos 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. What is the potential harm in the comic?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The potential harm in the comic is lack of buff dudes, the potential upside in the classic is more good people being alive.

[–] Soleos 1 points 1 week ago

That does not make sense. What does "harm" mean to you? Less good is not "potential harm". To put it another way, let's assume you and I are completely independent and I have to moral responsibility to give you money. If I chose to not give you any money, you would not be harmed. If I gifted you $100, you would not be harmed. If I gifted you $20 you would not be harmed because I did not gift you $100.