Why Is This A Problem???

[Tone]

What I'm seeing is you would permit a peril to endanger more people rather than less so you can preserve your own personal "clean hands" peace of mind.

What I'm seeing is going against the Law of Elohim is more perilous (to the individual and society) than going with the whims of society.

One is unchanging and the other can be manipulated any which way according to the flavor of the day.

 

[jacknife]

Because I would be putting myself in a position to kill innocent people. By not interfering any deaths would not be the result of my doing.

I disagree when in situations where lives are at stake the only wrong decision is to not make a decision.

 

[Tone]

True. But I think the cause of hesitation is the same. People don't want to pull the lever because they don't want to tarnish their sense of goodness. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of five people to be a good person who has no causal connection to another's death, even if being so related is justifiable due to circumstances.

Uhhh, it's kinda the other way around...

One pulls the lever and self-righteously decides to sacrifice another for the sake of doing the right thing...

 

[durangodawood]

True. But I think the cause of hesitation is the same. People don't want to pull the lever because they don't want to tarnish their sense of goodness. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of five people to be a good person who has no causal connection to another's death, even if being so related is justifiable due to circumstances.

With the tyrant there are additional causes for hesitation, like: he could change his mind. The hypothetical cannot rule that out. Its impossible for the 'player' to know anothers state of mind perfectly.

 

[Tone]

I'm not pulling the lever out of faith in a Higher Standard. Not pulling it is an expression done out of obedience to "thou shall not kill", for one.

It is a simple trust that He Is Ultimately In Control.

 

[durangodawood]

What I'm seeing is going against the Law of Elohim....

I googled that but am not confident the results are what you mean. What is that?

 

[public hermit]

Uhhh, it's kinda the other way around...

One pulls the lever and self-righteously decides to sacrifice another for the sake of doing the right thing...

I don't think doing nothing absolves one of culpability in this situation. If you see someone drowning, and you're an excellent swimmer and capable, you are obligated to get involved. Standing there saying, "I didn't cause this" doesn't help.

Since, given the scenario, you can do something you are already deciding five should die, instead of one. Whatever you do, you're culpable unless you think something like double-effect absolves you, which is a possible rejoinder no one seems to be appropriating.

 

[Tone]

I googled that but am not confident the results are what you mean. What is that?

Google Torah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True. But I think the cause of hesitation is the same. People don't want to pull the lever because they don't want to tarnish their sense of goodness. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of five people to be a good person who has no causal connection to another's death, even if being so related is justifiable due to circumstances.

My apologies, PH, but as in most of my replies, I don't think we can necessarily assume in any given case that it is a sense of remainimg coherent to one's own status of 'being the good person' which actually drives a decision to pull the lever upon either the Right or the Left.

In a more expansive axiological awarenes, I think we can readily realize that the answer to this will depend upon which of the several ethical frameworks any one specific moral agent subscribes to.

If we want to be hypothetical in regard to this (in what is seemingly to me a silly ethical dilemma), I'd pull the lever in the direction AWAY from what I deemed to be my most pressing moral relationship. So, if the single person on the second track was Joe Blow Anonymous, I'd probably thrust the lever toward him.

But, if that single person was, say, my own son, then in that case the outcome would be "So sorry Charlie.....and Suzie, and Ditzy, and Micky, and Bill and ....well....whoever else you are out there!"

Unless, of course, the Lord was to actually show up and give me the ol' Kierkegaardian/Abrahamic 1/2 punch ................ ...................... ....................... which I doubt He'll actually do these days.

 

[Tone]

I don't think doing nothing absolves one of culpability in this situation. If you see someone drowning, and you're an excellent swimmer and capable, you are obligated to get involved. Standing there saying, "I didn't cause this" doesn't help.

Since, given the scenario, you can do something you are already deciding five should die, instead of one. Whatever you do, you're culpable unless you think something like double-effect absolves you, which is a possible rejoinder no one seems to be appropriating.

I guess you'd have to ask yourself which is higher:

The legalities of your particular culture

Or

What is Lawful according to the Creator


?

 

[durangodawood]

Google Torah.

did "Torah Law of Elohim". Nothing clear there. What is it?

 

[Tone]

did "Torah Law of Elohim". Nothing clear there. What is it?

The first 5 books of the Bible traditionally, Genesis to Revelation in reality.

AKA the Old and New Testaments.

 

[jacknife]

The first 5 books of the Bible traditionally, Genesis to Revelation in reality.

AKA the Old and New Testaments.

Yeah but what is "the law of Elohim" specifically in the context you use it.

 

[Tone]

Yeah but what is "the law of Elohim" specifically in the context you use it.

Why Is This A Problem???


"Thou shall not kill".

 

[jacknife]

Why Is This A Problem???


"Thou shall not kill".

Thank you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you.

Apparently, killing by inaction is fine by the law of Elohim.

 

[durangodawood]

....One pulls the lever and self-righteously decides to sacrifice another for the sake of doing the right thing...

One decides to leave the lever where it is and sacrifices four people for the sake of doing the right thing.

The physical action/non-action is nothing. Its your decision that matters morally.

 

[Tone]

Apparently, killing by inaction is fine by the law of Elohim.

If you didn't have to kill somebody...if it was just a matter of being in a position to save lives...

...of course you pull the lever.

The crux of the scenario in question is that there is no basis for deciding to take life to save life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you didn't have to kill somebody...if it was just a matter of being in a position to save lives...

...of course you pull the lever.

The crux of the scenario in question is that there is no basis for deciding to take life to save life.

But you are deciding who lives or dies. You decided to let 5 people die by your inaction.

 

[Tone]

But you are deciding who lives or dies. You decided to let 5 people die by your inaction.

On what basis?