Why Is This A Problem???

[o_mlly]

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.

No. I have not changed the parameters, only the perspective from that of the bystander to the innocent one on the tracks. Those who think he has no say in the morality of the act that directly causes his death have not thought this problem through.

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?

That' the crux of the matter. May one do evil in order that good may come of it. No.

 

[o_mlly]

Why is that immoral in every case?

Can you give an example in which it is moral to do so?

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

There’s a difference between what God expects of a Christian and God choosing a specific task for someone. I’m every case where God has given someone a specific task they have never failed to carry it out.

 

[o_mlly]

It's obvious that five lives are worth more than one.

No, it is not self-evidently so. Can you show us your math that calculates the value of one human life?

Otherwise you'd allow the whole of humanity to cease to exist rather than sacrifice one life ...

Yes, if that life is innocent.

I seem to recall a story I read somewhere where one life was sacrificed to save humanity

What story was that? If the one on the tracks out of heroic virtue told the bystander to pull the lever then the morality of the bystander's act is changed.

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.

As an atheist, that you would find the theist's belief to be extraordinary is, well, not extraordinary.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

There also seems to be considerable difficulty with understanding that doing nothing is actually a decision for which you must accept responsibility. Doing nothing appears to be an unconscious way of avoiding a decision by substituting a fatalistic "it's not my problem - its in the hands of God" approach.

OB

 

[setst777]

There’s a difference between what God expects of a Christian and God choosing a specific task for someone. I’m every case where God has given someone a specific task they have never failed to carry it out.

We will never know in this life how many Christians have failed God, whether it be a specific task, or working out in our lives what God purposed for us to do.

In this scenario of the runaway trolley, you are in a position to make a difference. You cannot say, "Oh I was not chosen to do anything, or that God expected me to do nothing, so I am free of any obligation," because, whatever situation we find ourselves in, and with the mind, body, and talents we possess and develop, we are not free to say we have no obligation when the situation all depends on us.

Those are my feelings on the matter. There are times in my life where I know I could have made a difference. I was in the right place at the right time, and I failed. I regret those times, and will never forget.

When I do reflect on those times, I apologize to God and, even though I am underserving of His forgiveness, I pray that God would forgive me, and still give me a chance to be used in His Army of Light - a force of Good in this world.

 

[jacknife]

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.

I fail to see the huge difference in both examples you are choosing who lives or dies no matter what choice you make. That's an unavoidable part of the hypothetical.

 

[jacknife]

?


No. I have not changed the parameters, only the perspective from that of the bystander to the innocent one on the tracks. Those who think he has no say in the morality of the act that directly causes his death have not thought this problem through.

That' the crux of the matter. May one do evil in order that good may come of it. No.

Sometimes to do good you gotta do a little bad.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it is not self-evidently so. Can you show us your math that calculates the value of one human life?

Yes, if that life is innocent.

What story was that? If the one on the tracks out of heroic virtue told the bystander to pull the lever then the morality of the bystander's act is changed.

As an atheist, that you would find the theist's belief to be extraordinary is, well, not extraordinary.

I can't be bothered cuttin' 'n' pasting the questions, so in order...

I thought you were of the opinion that all lives were of equal value. So the value of this life is exactly the same as the value of that life. Hence five are more valuable than one. Simple maths using your definitions of value.

Your position that you'd sacrific all of humanity rather than sacrifice one person is noted. But I think we've been here before. When you stated that lying was always immoral so therefore you can't say 'there's no-one hiding in the attic' (maybe it was somebody else, but the point will still stand). My point was that, OK - so it's offically immoral as per your religious beliefs. And you might want to class it as immoral whatever one's religious beliefs - or lack of them. In which case my response would be - I don't care. So I would lie to protect those in the attic and I'd pull the lever.

One might ask if there's a certain degree of thought for oneself in the position you take. Can you be worried about what God would think and the punishment you'd suffer? And a certain amount of buck passing. 'Above my pay grade, sunshine. Nowt to do with me. So humanity will cease to exist? Not my problem'. Whereas I'd take the responsibility and suffer the consequences.

What story? Someone was sacrificed. And crucified by the Romans I believe. To save us all. You must have read about it.

And as an atheist, what I find extraordinary is the dogmatic and rigid applications of what some people deem to be moral absolutes. Some French guy once said that doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.

I think he was French anyway...

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Its not murder if the deadly peril isnt caused by you. The person who cause the deadly peril is the murderer. Or it could be an "act of God".

 

[setst777]

I can't be bothered cuttin' 'n' pasting the questions, so in order...

I thought you were of the opinion that all lives were of equal value. So the value of this life is exactly the same as the value of that life. Hence five are more valuable than one. Simple maths using your definitions of value.

Your position that you'd sacrific all of humanity rather than sacrifice one person is noted. But I think we've been here before. When you stated that lying was always immoral so therefore you can't say 'there's no-one hiding in the attic' (maybe it was somebody else, but the point will still stand). My point was that, OK - so it's offically immoral as per your religious beliefs. And you might want to class it as immoral whatever one's religious beliefs - or lack of them. In which case my response would be - I don't care. So I would lie to protect those in the attic and I'd pull the lever.

One might ask if there's a certain degree of thought for oneself in the position you take. Can you be worried about what God would think and the punishment you'd suffer? And a certain amount of buck passing. 'Above my pay grade, sunshine. Nowt to do with me. So humanity will cease to exist? Not my problem'. Whereas I'd take the responsibility and suffer the consequences.

What story? Someone was sacrificed. And crucified by the Romans I believe. To save us all. You must have read about it.

And as an atheist, what I find extraordinary is the dogmatic and rigid applications of what some people deem to be moral absolutes. Some French guy once said that doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.

I'm pretty certain he was French...

Good points. I agree.

I think of the Titanic that sank. The Titanic did not have enough life boats to save everyone, so it was not first come first serve, but rather, it was women and children first. That was the moral choice made. And I believe that was a correct choice.

And let us say that all of humankind was tied to one of the tracks, but the runaway trolley was headed for the track that had one person tied to it.

Ask these Christians who think it would be murder to change the tracks to save the many, so one person could live, when it was in their power to change the tracks and save all of humanity, if they would still not lift a finger to press that lever.

 

[durangodawood]

Can you give an example in which it is moral to do so?

Here's a better hypothetical I set out earlier. It is immoral in this case not to redirect the peril to a less populated place. (I do think this kind of test is quite rare in real life, and a person will likely never face one in a lifetime.)

Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot and killed the engines. The plane is on a glide path right toward what looks to you like the most populated part of the city. Youve been taught how to steer a plane in a situation like this. No other pilots on board. Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward less populated area? The plane itself is totally doomed either way. .......Or.... hands off, let God decide? Those are the available options in your very best judgement at the time.

 

[Occams Barber]

And as an atheist, what I find extraordinary is the dogmatic and rigid applications of what some people deem to be moral absolutes. Some French guy once said that doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.

I'm pretty certain he was French...

Spot on about moral absolutism.... and the quote is from Voltaire:

“Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Good points. I agree.

I think of the Titanic that sank. The Titanic did not have enough life boats to save everyone, so it was not first come first serve, but rather, it was women and children first. That was the moral choice made. And I believe that was a correct choice.

Indeed. There must have been many ocassions when a crewman physically turned someone away from a boat to almost certainly die so that someone else could live. What would be the difference between that and the trolley problem?

Although someone might say the women and children should be saved and the men sacrificed. So what happens when we have five children on the track. Does it change one's position as to pulling the lever?

 

[durangodawood]

By doing nothing you have taken on 'the authority to determine who lives and who dies'.....

Yes. A decision is forced on you, and you cannot avoid it. Which group do you prefer gets the peril? You cannot wash your hands of this.

 

[Bradskii]

Spot on about moral absolutism.... and the quote is from Voltaire:

“Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

OB

Yeah, love that quote. I try (and generally fail) not to use it too frequently (maybe I should put it as a signature). But I didn't want to name him directly and allow for the retort: 'Oh, are you certain it was Voltaire? Something of a ridiculous position, n'est ce pas?'

It's the same mindset that posts 'So, you say that there are no moral absolutes. Yet you say that you are absolutely certain about that.'

 

[durangodawood]

...I think of the Titanic that sank. The Titanic did not have enough life boats to save everyone, so it was not first come first serve, but rather, it was women and children first. That was the moral choice made. And I believe that was a correct choice.....

Great example. Doesnt totally "track" with the trolley problem. But does show how one isnt made a murderer by apportioning life and death in perilous situations.

Also shows how we can give different values to lives in various circumstances, and most people, including Christians, dont throw up moral objections to this.

 

[durangodawood]

No, it is not self-evidently so. Can you show us your math that calculates the value of one human life?

We typically value various human lives differently. We value the lives of people we care about way more than strangers, for example. This is almost universally true regardless of what moral system you assent to.

But in my plane crash example, if you know no one in the city, then we can say a stranger's life has the value L. And 5L > 1L.

 

[jacknife]

Great example. Doesnt totally "track" with the trolley problem. But does show how one isnt made a murderer by apportioning life and death in perilous situations.

Also shows how we can give different values to lives in various circumstances, and most people, including Christians, dont throw up moral objections to this.

From what I understand the people in charge of the life boats were kind of left to decide on thier own who got on. Some only accepted children some were first come first serve. Some only accepted women. I remember this from a documentary mind you so I don't have a link I can post. But it's an intresting moral case.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's the same mindset that posts 'So, you say that there are no moral absolutes. Yet you say that you are absolutely certain about that.'

Yeah. It's a failure to understand that "there are no moral absolutes" is a meta-moral statement and not a moral itself.