Why Is This A Problem???

[durangodawood]

So, when this scenario is playing itself out----let's say we're pilots in the cockpit of a plane that's going zonkers----are we "aiming" for the few rather than the many? Or are we actually attempting to avoid everyone ... as best we can, and we just happen to hit the few?

I just have to ask since, as you said earlier, all of this is imaginary and we're simply trying to wrap our minds around what we each think is the core value at play here. So far, being imaginary, it's not very clear.

I did spell out this hypothetical in detail. The idea is that in your best judgement your options are letting the plane continue its trajectory and killing a lot or grabbing the stick to change course and kill less.

But I'm not interested in dialing in a hypothetical if its just going to obscure the principle want to explore, which is: Is it morally right to actively steer a peril away from the many and towards the few instead?

Extra credit: is it reprehensible not to?

 

[Chesterton]

Why would a Buddhist do nothing when the prevention of suffering is easily at hand?

There's a school of thought within Buddhism that could be described as "non-interventionist". You should neither harm nor help others. If you see something bad happening, that's just the universe playing itself out toward its ultimate end.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. There's a school of thought within Buddhism that could be described as "non-interventionist". You should neither harm nor help others. If you see something bad happening, that's just the universe playing itself out toward its ultimate end.

You knew in post #2. But I can see how the course of the thread might have spun your thinking a bit since then.

I think that school of thought is pretty rare, dont you?

 

[Chesterton]

You knew in post #2. But I can see how the course of the thread might have spun your thinking a bit since then.

lol, well I edited because it sounded like a contradiction. I know what they say, but I don't know how they ultimately justify such a terrible idea. Nine pages in less than 24 hours, wow. I haven't read the whole thread.

I think that school of thought is pretty rare, dont you?

I think it's a minority among them. I don't remember, I read about it years ago.

 

[durangodawood]

lol, well I edited because it sounded like a contradiction. I know what they say, but I don't know how they ultimately justify such a terrible idea. Nine pages in less than 24 hours, wow. I haven't read the whole thread.....

Curiously its all the atheists here who would pull the lever, so youre 0/ALL there, among our small sample.

The Christians seem to be split.

 

[Chesterton]

Curiously its all the atheists here who would pull the lever, so youre 0/ALL there, among our small sample.

The Christians seem to be split.

What? I don't recall stating my opinion on whether I'd pull the lever.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did spell out this hypothetical in detail. The idea is that in your best judgement your options are letting the plane continue its trajectory and killing a lot or grabbing the stick to change course and kill less.

But I'm not interested in dialing in a hypothetical if its just going to obscure the principle want to explore, which is: Is it morally right to actively steer a peril away from the many and towards the few instead?

Extra credit: is it reprehensible not to?

And that, my fried, is where we'll leave it: as a mere hypothetical question, which is all it is and all it ever apparently will be since my follow up, Second Order questions can't be taken into account, thus allowing the fact of its mere hypothetical status to resound upon and within our modern skulls.

 

[durangodawood]

What? I don't recall stating my opinion on whether I'd pull the lever.

...of the ones whove stated an opinion, roughly split.

 

[jacknife]

Curiously its all the atheists here who would pull the lever, so youre 0/ALL there, among our small sample.

The Christians seem to be split.

Awwwww yeah high five athiest squad!

 

[Chesterton]

...of the ones whove stated an opinion, roughly split.

I don't understand.

 

[jacknife]

I don't understand.

Of the Christians who have stated an opinion in the thread about pulling the lever. Roughly half would and half would not while atheist who have voiced an opinion have all voiced that they would pull the lever.
Also chesterton! It's been awhile how gave you been?

 

[Occams Barber]

What value do you assign to one life?
The value of one innocent human life is infinite, ie., innumerate. Five infinities are not greater than one infinity.

This is fine in theory, but when there are actual people with actual finite lives, what will you do?

For all the "lever-pullers", let's suppose that the one innocent tied to the track doesn't think it's a good day to die. (Say, he has a sick wife with COVID and 8 children to care for. If that's not a good enough reason to want to live, make up one that you think does.)

Fortunately, he's armed and with his one free hand, he can bring his weapon to bear. You, the bystander, yell out, "I must pull the lever!". You put your hand on the lever and the one on the tracks shoots you dead. Now 6 people died.

This is a distraction. The problem under discussion is the one described in the OP.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Of the Christians who have stated an opinion in the thread about pulling the lever. Roughly half would and half would not while atheist who have voiced an opinion have all voiced that they would pull the lever.
Also chesterton! It's been awhile how gave you been?

It's also worth noting that it's Christians who are reluctant to answer or want to change the rules.

OB

 

[jacknife]

It's also worth noting that it's Christians who are reluctant to answer or want to change the rules.

OB

This is true and I don't get it it defeats the point of a hypothetical thought experiment to replace it with your own hypothetical thought experiment.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'd argue that it's not part of the hypothetical (though if you don't throw the lever because of legal ramifications that's an answer I would understand.) But inaction is a choice and action in and of itself. A life guard who dosn't intervene in someone's drowning is just as responsible for thier death.

Well that’s not an accurate analogy to this scenario. An accurate analogy would be that the life guard refused to kill an innocent person in order to save another. So there’s a choice that must be made between directly killing one person or refusing to kill that person in order to save another. That would be the more accurate analogy since your’s left out the part about killing the innocent person.

 

[jacknife]

Well that’s not an accurate analogy to this scenario. An accurate analogy would be that the life guard refused to kill an innocent person in order to save another. So there’s a choice that must be made between directly killing one person or refusing to kill that person in order to save another. That would be the more accurate analogy since your’s left out the part about killing the innocent person.

Very well the life guard can save five people from drowning at once or just one single person from drowning, Analogy amended

 

[Bradskii]

Awwwww yeah high five athiest squad!

The one guy is on the track and someone runs over to him.

'Help me, please!'
'Don't worry, friend. There's a lever over there next to those five people on the other track. I'll save as many of you as I can or my name isn't Richard Dawkins'.
'Oh, cr@p'.

 

[Bradskii]

Very well the life guard can save five people from drowning at once or just one single person from drowning, Analogy amended

I guess that's a subtle variation of the trolley problem as well. One may decide to not actively pull the lever but if you were able to release the five or the one from the tracks but could only do one or the other, then surely everyone would save the five.

I can't see anyone not doing anything in that case.

Incidentally, in some jurisdictions it is unlawful to refuse to render assistance when it could be reasonably expected that you wouldn't put your own life at risk. It's not a federal law in Australia but in the Northern Territories: 'any person who is able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person who is urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered but “callously fails to act” is committing an offence.'

 

[durangodawood]

I guess that's a subtle variation of the trolley problem as well. One may decide to not actively pull the lever but if you were able to release the five or the one from the tracks but could only do one or the other, then surely everyone would save the five.

I can't see anyone not doing anything in that case.

Incidentally, in some jurisdictions it is unlawful to refuse to render assistance when it could be reasonably expected that you wouldn't put your own life at risk. It's not a federal law in Australia but in the Northern Territories: 'any person who is able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person who is urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered but “callously fails to act” is committing an offence.'

No. Some one earlier proposed a human life should be infinitely valued. And one infinity is the same as five infinities. Therefore it doesn't matter how many you save.

I Don't think anyone bought it.

 

[jacknife]

I guess that's a subtle variation of the trolley problem as well. One may decide to not actively pull the lever but if you were able to release the five or the one from the tracks but could only do one or the other, then surely everyone would save the five.

I can't see anyone not doing anything in that case.

Incidentally, in some jurisdictions it is unlawful to refuse to render assistance when it could be reasonably expected that you wouldn't put your own life at risk. It's not a federal law in Australia but in the Northern Territories: 'any person who is able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person who is urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered but “callously fails to act” is committing an offence.'

I'm unsure what difference mine makes though. One person or five still dies all i did was change the lever to a life guard.