Why is my time less valuable than an ambulance or doctor? You have to make a lot of assumptions and normative judgements for that to be true, which I reject.

Morally DB (through the driver) is the one lying and saying things like "cannot stop". They don't want to stop - that's different. They've already broken the social contract, I'm free to do the same.

▲

Macha 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The consequence of wasting a doctor or ambulance drivers time is depriving someone else of medical care, potentially leading to worse medical outcomes, up to death.

I’m sure you’re going to pose a hypothetical that you would be in the way to save someone’s life, but we both know that’s not true and even in that situation, you could raise that with the train company rather than faking a new, different medical emergency

	▲	abigail95 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I won't give you a new hypothetical, just complete the comparison. It's true an EMS call might reduce QALY (quality adjusted life years). It's also true that taking a train full of passengers somewhere they don't want to go also reduces QALY. Iterate this enough and DB changes their policy. Now we have a new equilibrium. The full game theory of this isn't as simple as wasted doctor time = bad.

▲

throw310822 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's probably less valuable because they're surely working, and their job is to save lives and it's time sensitive; while there are chances that you're not working and that your job is less time-critical than theirs.

However I second your idea that "if the train doesn't stop it's because they decided they didn't want it to stop"- and therefore they should be considered responsible for kidnapping their customers unless it can be proven that it was absolutely impossible to stop the train without catastrophic consequences.

▲

saagarjha 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not shoot the driver and take control of the train?

▲

abigail95 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The ad absurdum of this situation would be DB escalating it into a full on hijacking scenario where they run the train in a loop, forever claiming the train cannot ever stop.

In that situation - you do what is necessary to stop the train, because nobody else will, which might involve killing the driver.

The reason you don't jump straight to shooting the driver is that doesn't achieve your goals. There is a long list of things to do before needing to kill anyone, so do those first.

	▲	saagarjha 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint better. You will do the minimum necessary to make the outcome you want happen, regardless of what it might be. The goal you want and the actions needed to make it come about need not be proportional.

▲

croes 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

EMS on duty vs you on a train, doesn't take a lot of assumptions to guess whos wasted time risks more lives. And it's not don't want to stop, it's not allowed to stop. Do you think it's the driver's decision when and where to stop. Unless in case of emergency there s strict rules they have to follow.

One simple rule for everybody is: Never ever waste the time of EMS.

▲

abigail95 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What if I get 10 people off the train for one EMS call.

What about 100? If you bring an absolute like that to a philosophical argument you're backing yourself into a corner.

	▲	croes 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What if one person dies because of this call, what if other peoplre follow your example and more people die? How about that? The driver asks for you to sacrifice your life then he will stop the train an let 100 people off the train. According to your logic a good choice. There is a huge difference between wasted time and being dead escpecially for the relarives of the dead. Maybe you should tell your logic to someone who last someone because EMS was late.