Why Is This A Problem???

[Bradskii]

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.

I think saving them on the track emphasises the reluctance to commit an action which will result in a death. As opposed to choosing to actively saving 5 with the unfortunate result that one die. It's then no different from triage.

But as @durangodawood said, it makes nonsense of the claim that one life is equally valuable to the sum of all lives.

 

[setst777]

He would only put me there if I were going to succeed in carrying out His plan. God doesn’t choose people to carry out His plan who will fail.

When we are saved, God creates us for good works which He has purposed for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). Unfortunately, many Christians are lax in their faith, and do not walk in the good works God purposed for us to do.

So, although, God leaves Christians on this earth to make a difference, to be light and salt in this world, that does not mean we will always act in the way God hoped for us in all situations.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t need to worry about that because if it is His plan for me to do it then I won’t have any choice in the matter.

Darn it. There goes free will...

 

[Occams Barber]

Darn it. There goes free will...

I get a bit confused, but I think free will only counts when you do bad stuff. When you do good stuff I think God gets the credit.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I get a bit confused, but I think free will only counts when you do bad stuff. When you do good stuff I think God gets the credit.

OB

It's the same mindset that says that God only chooses people who succeed in preventing a disaster. Kinda surprising that I have to point out that that's a claim that's self fulfilling.

He crashed the plane? Can't have been chosen by God.
He landed safely? Obviously one of God's choices.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I remember a similar situation regarding flight 93, do you overpower the terrorists and crash in a field, or do nothing and let the terrorists kill hundreds more. Not the same since the switch puller doesn't die either way but similar.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

I started reading this and went, what so bad about a shopping trolley going down the train tracks? That's what a trolley is here - a shopping cart. So I would leave that since I wasn't the one who nabbed the darn trolley from Woollies in the first place.

 

[o_mlly]

If the hypothetical is a hang up lets just go right to the principle that many here disagree with me on: Is it ok to actively steer a peril away from the many towards the few instead?

Is it moral for one to take to themself the authority to determine who lives and who dies by an act that directs the pending misfortune to some to rather become the misfortune to others? No.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is it moral for one to take to themself the authority to determine who lives and who dies by an act that directs the pending misfortune to some to rather become the misfortune to others? No.

By doing nothing you have taken on 'the authority to determine who lives and who dies'. Not acting is as much of a moral decision as acting. You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by saying you have done nothing.

This is what makes this an ethical dilemma.

OB

 

[o_mlly]

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

The topic is a hypothetical meant to elicit a theoretical principle that can be applied in practice universally. Only a hypocrite would profess the theory but act in opposition.

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.

No. Those who do not want to think the problem through from the perspective of all the actors involved will call it a distraction.

But for the life of one on the track that the "lever-pullers" so easily decide is a throw-away life, the issue is critical. From the perspective of the innocent one on the track, the lever-puller is an unjust aggressor and the one on the track has a right to self-defense.

 

[o_mlly]

By doing nothing you have taken on 'the authority to determine who lives and who dies'. Not acting is as much of a moral decision as acting. You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by saying you have done nothing.

This is what makes this an ethical dilemma.

Nope. The moral obligation is to act in order to save innocent lives but never to murder an innocent one in order to do so.

 

[Occams Barber]

The topic is a hypothetical meant to elicit a theoretical principle that can be applied in practice universally. Only a hypocrite would profess the theory but act in opposition.

No. Those who do not want to think the problem through from the perspective of all the actors involved will call it a distraction.

But for the life of one on the track that the "lever-pullers" so easily decide is a throw-away life, the issue is critical. From the perspective of the innocent one on the track, the lever-puller is an unjust aggressor and the one on the track has a right to self-defense.

You've mixed my quote with your answer in your second quote making it appear as if I'm the one talking about the sick wife etc.


For the record: the distraction I'm talking about is you changing the parameters of the problem by introducing a bunch of other elements. The whole point of the exercise was to address the problem as it was presented in the OP. These attempts to twist the problem around seem to be a Christian thing judging by other responses in the thread.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Nope. The moral obligation is to act in order to save innocent lives but never to murder an innocent one in order to do so.

But if you don't act, 5 innocent lives will be lost. Will you cause the death of one to save five or five to save one? Which is the lesser of two evils?

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Apparently something approaching the Trolley Dilemma has actually occurred in real life.

From Trolley problem - Wikipedia

An actual case approximating the Trolley Driver dilemma occurred on June 20, 2003, when a runaway string of 31 unmanned Union Pacific freight cars was barreling toward Los Angeles along the mainline track 1. To avoid the runaway train from entering the Union Pacific yards in Los Angeles, where it would not only cause damage, but was also where a Metrolink passenger train was thought to be located, dispatchers ordered the shunting of the runaway cars to track 4, through an area with lower-density housing of mostly lower-income residents. The switch to track 4 was rated for 15-mph transits, and dispatch knew the cars were moving significantly faster, thus likely causing a derailment.[52] The train, carrying over 3800 tons of mostly lumber and building materials, then derailed into the residential neighborhood in Commerce, California, crashing through several houses on Davie Street. The event resulted in 13 minor injuries, including a pregnant woman asleep in one of the houses who managed to escape through a window and avoided serious injury from the lumber and steel train wheels that fell around her.[53]

OB​

 

[jacknife]

Apparently something approaching the Trolley Dilemma has actually occurred in real life.

From Trolley problem - Wikipedia

An actual case approximating the Trolley Driver dilemma occurred on June 20, 2003, when a runaway string of 31 unmanned Union Pacific freight cars was barreling toward Los Angeles along the mainline track 1. To avoid the runaway train from entering the Union Pacific yards in Los Angeles, where it would not only cause damage, but was also where a Metrolink passenger train was thought to be located, dispatchers ordered the shunting of the runaway cars to track 4, through an area with lower-density housing of mostly lower-income residents. The switch to track 4 was rated for 15-mph transits, and dispatch knew the cars were moving significantly faster, thus likely causing a derailment.[52] The train, carrying over 3800 tons of mostly lumber and building materials, then derailed into the residential neighborhood in Commerce, California, crashing through several houses on Davie Street. The event resulted in 13 minor injuries, including a pregnant woman asleep in one of the houses who managed to escape through a window and avoided serious injury from the lumber and steel train wheels that fell around her.[53]

OB​

Not a bad outcome really.

 

[jacknife]

Apparently something approaching the Trolley Dilemma has actually occurred in real life.

From Trolley problem - Wikipedia

An actual case approximating the Trolley Driver dilemma occurred on June 20, 2003, when a runaway string of 31 unmanned Union Pacific freight cars was barreling toward Los Angeles along the mainline track 1. To avoid the runaway train from entering the Union Pacific yards in Los Angeles, where it would not only cause damage, but was also where a Metrolink passenger train was thought to be located, dispatchers ordered the shunting of the runaway cars to track 4, through an area with lower-density housing of mostly lower-income residents. The switch to track 4 was rated for 15-mph transits, and dispatch knew the cars were moving significantly faster, thus likely causing a derailment.[52] The train, carrying over 3800 tons of mostly lumber and building materials, then derailed into the residential neighborhood in Commerce, California, crashing through several houses on Davie Street. The event resulted in 13 minor injuries, including a pregnant woman asleep in one of the houses who managed to escape through a window and avoided serious injury from the lumber and steel train wheels that fell around her.[53]

OB​

Glad to see an atheist was there to pull the lever.

 

[Occams Barber]

Glad to see an atheist was there to pull the lever.

This example suggests that Railroad Companies should generally be very careful about employing Christians.

OB

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

No you can leave out the part about the life guard having to kill someone in order to save others. That’s the key issue here.

 

[Bradskii]

But if you don't act, 5 innocent lives will be lost. Will you cause the death of one to save five or five to save one? Which is the lesser of two evils?

OB

I think if we drew a graph of the number of people who would save the five depending on the degree of their personal involvement we'd see it rise as the involvement became less.

So if you had to beat someone to death, almost everyone would baulk at it. Then less so if you had to shoot someone. And then move to the fat guy scenario and pushing him onto the tracks and you get a few more. And more who would pull the lever up to everyone (presumably) who would untie the five rather than the one.

It's obvious that five lives are worth more than one. Otherwise you'd allow the whole of humanity to cease to exist rather than sacrifice one life (I seem to recall a story I read somewhere where one life was sacrificed to save humanity...). But if the position is taken that it's wrong to take a life - period, then the person taking that position must allow it.

I find that more than extraordinary.

 

[durangodawood]

Is it moral for one to take to themself the authority to determine who lives and who dies by an act that directs the pending misfortune to some to rather become the misfortune to others? No.

Why is that immoral in every case?