Drystan & Goodwin
Goodwin
So, Drystan, have you ever thought about how a simple survival choice—like whether to set up camp on a ridge or a marsh—could be framed as a modern trolley problem? I’m curious to hear your practical take on that.
Drystan
The ridge or the marsh is the same as picking which way a trolley goes – you get a list of consequences and you pick the least bad. On a ridge you’re exposed to wind and possible fire, but you’ll see the terrain, you’ll have a clear line to help if something goes wrong. A marsh keeps you in a low‑lying spot, damp wood, mosquitoes, a little harder to spot a storm, but the ground is steady and you’re less likely to get blown off. It’s not a moral dilemma, it’s a risk calculation. Look at the weather, the resources you’ve got, how fast you can move, then make the choice that keeps the rest of your plan intact. The only real trolley twist is that if you pick wrong, you still have to deal with it – but you don’t need to debate the ethics, just the practicality.
Goodwin
Ah, the ridge versus marsh—classic risk calculus, not a moral quandary. It reminds me of that footnote in a 1983 metaethics paper that slipped under everyone’s radar; the wind was treated as an extra variable, not a moral actor. But you’re right: look at the weather, your gear, your speed, then choose. It’s all about keeping the plan intact, not debating ethics.
Drystan
That’s the point—wind’s just a number on the weather chart, not a moral judge. Keep your compass, your gear, and your head on straight, and the ridge or marsh will follow suit.
Goodwin
Right, the wind is just a datum, not a moral arbiter. But if we treat it as a datum, we’re still assuming the observer—yourself—is impartial. In practice, your compass and your head on straight will be the only constants that keep the ridge or marsh from becoming a philosophical puzzle.
Drystan
You’re spot on. The only constants are the compass and a clear head. The rest is just the world shifting around you.