the-ethical-fourier-transform
Original: the-ethical-fourier-transform on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Transcript
Panel 1
Bald man with glasses: I call it the ethical courier transform.
Panel 2
Bald man with glasses: You've got an ethical conundrum instead of solving it, convert it to the realm of economics having solved it then, declare it to be a solved ethical problem.
Panel 3
Bald man with glasses: Example: Suppose you're piloting a trolley. It's headed toward the people you can change course to kill only one. What do you do?
Panel 4
Woman: I don't know. Life is special. It's like asking whether one infinity is bigger than another. It's as big as it gets. Infinities.
Panel 5
Bald man with glasses: Exactly. Unsolvable. But we can calculate the damage to the trolley, which is derived from the mass of the special human lives.
Panel 6
Woman: Thus, it is best to kill only one person.
Panel 7
Woman: This is a terrible method. It doesn't even solve basic virtue problems, like whether you can steal bread to feed your family.
Panel 8
Bald man with glasses: Let me check today's grain market prices, and...
Panel 9
Bald man with glasses: It'll be ethical to steal bread to feed your family until inflation, and November.
Woman: It should always be ethical to steal to eat!
Panel 10
Bald man with glasses: It's for infinities. Corn, and some varieties of rice.
Panel 11
Woman: This is damage to your moral truth doesn't hinge on commodity pricing!
Panel 12
Bald man with glasses: Oh? Let me ask you this: is it ethical to steal truffle mushrooms and champagne to feed your family?
Panel 13
Woman: I don't, well, honestly, that somehow does feel like a different moral matter than the bread.
Panel 14
Bald man with glasses: This is working me out. Come to the dark side.
Votey:
Bald man with glasses (in a speech bubble): Whether you can kill to eat depends on the victim's citizenship.
Bald man with glasses: I call it the ethical courier transform.
Panel 2
Bald man with glasses: You've got an ethical conundrum instead of solving it, convert it to the realm of economics having solved it then, declare it to be a solved ethical problem.
Panel 3
Bald man with glasses: Example: Suppose you're piloting a trolley. It's headed toward the people you can change course to kill only one. What do you do?
Panel 4
Woman: I don't know. Life is special. It's like asking whether one infinity is bigger than another. It's as big as it gets. Infinities.
Panel 5
Bald man with glasses: Exactly. Unsolvable. But we can calculate the damage to the trolley, which is derived from the mass of the special human lives.
Panel 6
Woman: Thus, it is best to kill only one person.
Panel 7
Woman: This is a terrible method. It doesn't even solve basic virtue problems, like whether you can steal bread to feed your family.
Panel 8
Bald man with glasses: Let me check today's grain market prices, and...
Panel 9
Bald man with glasses: It'll be ethical to steal bread to feed your family until inflation, and November.
Woman: It should always be ethical to steal to eat!
Panel 10
Bald man with glasses: It's for infinities. Corn, and some varieties of rice.
Panel 11
Woman: This is damage to your moral truth doesn't hinge on commodity pricing!
Panel 12
Bald man with glasses: Oh? Let me ask you this: is it ethical to steal truffle mushrooms and champagne to feed your family?
Panel 13
Woman: I don't, well, honestly, that somehow does feel like a different moral matter than the bread.
Panel 14
Bald man with glasses: This is working me out. Come to the dark side.
Votey:
Bald man with glasses (in a speech bubble): Whether you can kill to eat depends on the victim's citizenship.
Alt text
A multi-panel SMBC comic. A bald man wearing round glasses explains a concept he calls the "ethical courier transform": taking an ethical conundrum, converting it into the realm of economics where it is already solved, and then declaring it a solved ethical problem. As an example he poses the trolley problem to a woman: a runaway trolley headed toward several people, with the option to switch course and kill only one. She replies that life is special, like comparing infinities. He agrees it is unsolvable in the abstract but says they can calculate the damage to the trolley from the mass of the human lives, leading to the absurd conclusion that killing one person is best. The woman objects that this method cannot even handle basic virtue questions like whether one may steal bread to feed a starving family. The man checks the grain market and gives a pricing-dependent, time-limited answer, treating moral truth as if it fluctuates with commodity prices. He then asks whether it is ethical to steal truffle mushrooms and champagne to feed a family, and the woman admits that somehow feels morally different from stealing bread, undercutting her own position. In the final panel the man grins and says she is coming around, inviting her to "the dark side." In the votey, the same bald glasses-wearing man delivers the punchline in a hand-lettered speech bubble: "Whether you can kill to eat depends on the victim's citizenship."
Transcribed by Claude Opus 4.8.