The Moral Argument

[Hieronymus]

The point was to show you sometimes it is best to take life, regardless of how old the person is, if in the taking, some greater good is achieved, like the minimization of suffering or the preservation of a greater number of lives, etc.

Yes, i see, the choice between evils when there is no other choice than evil, so to speak.
I should have read the thread, sorry..
But the least bad option becomes the 'right' option.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The thought experiment attempts to show what a morally sufficient reason might be for causing a train to run over a child.

Once again, in the dilemma you gave, the person with access to the switch is not CAUSING a child to be run over. The train is unstoppable and 1 or more children WILL be run over - regardless of what the flip switcher does.

At no point in this hypothetical is the flip switch causing the death of a
child.

At best, the flip switcher engages in "damage control" in a situation that WILL result in traggic loss of life - out of the flip switcher's control.

The person didn't start the train, nore did the person put the children there.

The thought experiment can take many forms but it paints the scenario in such a way as to make it easier to see how causing something that we would normally recoil at and react violently to looks when compared with something else, namely, two children being run over.

No. And you're only using part 1 of the thought experiment. You are completely ignoring part 2: pushing the innocent fat guy on the tracks to stop the train.

In which case you would actually be causing the death of someone.

In isolation, the running over of a child by a train is not something we would all think is good, but if it is set over against the running over of two, just one more than the one, it has a different connotation and we here can see how one would be morally obligated to save the two for the sake of the one.

1. that is not what the thought experiment is about
2. no outcome of this hypothetical is "good".

If we were to change the 2 to 200 or 2,000, our conscience would not protest as much as it did with the 2.

And if we remove the switch and replace it with pushing the fat guy on the tracks, it changes everything.

We rightly perceive and intuit that if we were given the choice to press a button and thereby cause 2,000 people in a large prison cell to be gassed experiencing slow suffocating death, or to not push it and thereby condemn a child to being shot in the head, we would choose the latter in order to achieve a greater good, namely the preservation and minimization of suffering for the 2,000.

Therefor, it is okay to kill babies and toddlers when god commands you to?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm going to butt in here and if I am ruining the way AP wanted this to go down I apologize. But...think of the Canaanite and Amalekites as the train and God at the switch. The situation was already in progress... the train going towards the children as the evil that was taking place against many including child sacrifice is the one child and on the other hand millions of children on the other side. Which do you choose?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm going to butt in here and if I am ruining the way AP wanted this to go down I apologize. But...think of the Canaanite and Amalekites as the train and God at the switch. The situation was already in progress... the train going towards the children as the evil that was taking place against many including child sacrifice is the one child and on the other hand millions of children on the other side. Which do you choose?

Ummm... isn't Yahweh supposed to be omnipotent?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm going to butt in here and if I am ruining the way AP wanted this to go down I apologize. But...think of the Canaanite and Amalekites as the train and God at the switch. The situation was already in progress... the train going towards the children as the evil that was taking place against many including child sacrifice is the one child and on the other hand millions of children on the other side. Which do you choose?

The problem is that the "train" in this case, includes innocent and harmless babies and toddlers.

I can compare a 2-week old baby to a nuclear bomb that needs to be dismantled, but it won't change the fact that in reality, it's just a 2-week old baby.

Also, it's not actually a god at the switch. It's people claiming to be acting on behalf of a god.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm going to butt in here and if I am ruining the way AP wanted this to go down I apologize. But...think of the Canaanite and Amalekites as the train and God at the switch. The situation was already in progress... the train going towards the children as the evil that was taking place against many including child sacrifice is the one child and on the other hand millions of children on the other side. Which do you choose?

Often it was an assignment to (attempt to) eradicate 'giants' and their offspring. ( Genesis 6:1-4 etcetera.. )

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ummm... isn't Yahweh supposed to be omnipotent?

Yes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Often it was an assignment to (attempt to) eradicate 'giants' and their offspring. ( Genesis 6:1-4 etcetera.. )

Yes.

 

[bhsmte]

Read your own quote!

If you think intellectual honesty is important in the pursuit of truth, then why wouldn't you approach that question openly? Also, why did you claim to be open if you aren't?

He is full of contradictions, which is typical, when one is trying to protect something.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem is that the "train" in this case, includes innocent and harmless babies and toddlers.

I can compare a 2-week old baby to a nuclear bomb that needs to be dismantled, but it won't change the fact that in reality, it's just a 2-week old baby.

Also, it's not actually a god at the switch. It's people claiming to be acting on behalf of a god.

Oh, my problem here. The train is the evil, the Canaanites/Amalekites are the one child and on the other side is millions of children and God has the switch.

 

[bhsmte]

No. The train is.

You only would be if the switch had a third option which would stop the train and you consiously chose not to use that option.

Stop being so dishonest.

He can't help it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes?

So why couldn't he save them all?

 

[bhsmte]

So, is it your opinion that all people who don't believe this jesus fellow was the son of a god (or god himself), have identical mentalities and opinions about anything and everything?

Do you consider this sensible?

He probably creates self comfort in trying to convince himself, of his self conceived, view point.

Tons of cognitive dissonance comes from it though, as evidenced by his posts.

 

[quatona]

Oh, my problem here. The train is the evil, the Canaanites/Amalekites are the one child and on the other side is millions of children and God has the switch.

It´s interesting to see at which point in the process God starts to intervene.

 

[quatona]

So why couldn't he save them all?

I´ve always wondered why - when God is known to have hardened people´s hearts - God can´t/doesn´t soften people´s hearts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I´ve always wondered why - when God is known to have hardened people´s hearts - God can´t/doesn´t soften people´s hearts.

Or why Yahweh needs others to do his smiting for him, even though he has no qualms about doing it himself, as seen in the Flood story.

 

[anonymous person]

Once again, in the dilemma you gave, the person with access to the switch is not CAUSING a child to be run over. The train is unstoppable and 1 or more children WILL be run over - regardless of what the flip switcher does.

At no point in this hypothetical is the flip switch causing the death of a
child.

At best, the flip switcher engages in "damage control" in a situation that WILL result in traggic loss of life - out of the flip switcher's control.

The person didn't start the train, nore did the person put the children there.




No. And you're only using part 1 of the thought experiment. You are completely ignoring part 2: pushing the innocent fat guy on the tracks to stop the train.

In which case you would actually be causing the death of someone.



1. that is not what the thought experiment is about
2. no outcome of this hypothetical is "good".



And if we remove the switch and replace it with pushing the fat guy on the tracks, it changes everything.



Therefor, it is okay to kill babies and toddlers when god commands you to?

You have already stated what you would do and why.

My point has already been made.

You acknowledge that if a greater good is achieved, then the one child on the parallel track should die.

In this scenario, it could be rightly said that one would have a morally sufficient reason in directing the train over onto the parallel track.

But suppose you are still hung up on the train experiment.

Suppose you are given a gun and told you can either choose to shoot two children in the head or one child in the head. You obviously choose to shoot one in the head, to save the two.

Notice we are not here arguing whether or not you willingly are killing the child. You are under compulsion to do either or. So you are not doing it freely but are constrained. Nevertheless, you kill the child by shooting the child in the head to save the two.

Now suppose you had the choice to choose to either shoot 1,000 children in the head, or the 1 in the head. You would obviously choose to shoot the 1.

Now suppose, going back to the first experiment, all you know about the two children on your left is that they will grow up to torture, rape, pillage, and murder people for as long as they live, and the one child on the right will grow up to be an altruistic, philanthropist who spends all his effort, time, and energy in feeding and taking care of the poor and hungry of the world.

Would you not instead of killing the one, kill the two?

 

[anonymous person]

Stay on topic please guys. We are talking about the trolley experiment and variations of it. We are talking about morally sufficient reasons for doing or allowing certain things to happen.

We are not talking about God or Yahweh yet. That is coming. I know you guys are eager, but please be patient.

 

[quatona]

Stay on topic please guys. We are talking about the trolley experiment and variations of it.

Which is off-topic.

We are talking about morally sufficient reasons for doing or allowing certain things to happen.

Exactly. Regarding your off-topic scenario, we have been talking about humans acting upon their human values.
You proposed the moral rule: The less lives taken, the better the option. You even got very nasty when people didn´t fully agree with it. Let´s not forget that.
Now, in order to get back on topic, here´s my question again:
If God commanded you not to flip the switch what would be the moral thing to do?

We are not talking about God or Yahweh yet.

Yes, we are. That´s what the moral argument is about - despite all your attempts at irrelevant distractions.

 

[quatona]

Since there are four or five addressing me, I will write in general all that I can.

The thought experiment attempts to show what a morally sufficient reason might be for causing a train to run over a child. The thought experiment can take many forms but it paints the scenario in such a way as to make it easier to see how causing something that we would normally recoil at and react violently to looks when compared with something else, namely, two children being run over.

In isolation, the running over of a child by a train is not something we would all think is good, but if it is set over against the running over of two, just one more than the one, it has a different connotation and we here can see how one would be morally obligated to save the two for the sake of the one.

If we were to change the 2 to 200 or 2,000, our conscience would not protest as much as it did with the 2.

We rightly perceive and intuit that if we were given the choice to press a button and thereby cause 2,000 people in a large prison cell to be gassed experiencing slow suffocating death, or to not push it and thereby condemn a child to being shot in the head, we would choose the latter in order to achieve a greater good, namely the preservation and minimization of suffering for the 2,000.

This is not an example for "greater good" btw. - it´s plain and simple body-count thinking.