Why Is This A Problem???

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I washed my hands of it yesterday. Ahhhhh! Clean hands. Feels so good!

And since it doesn't seem anyone here actually happened upon the article link I had installed over in my past 'Good Spock/Bad Spock' thread, I'll just paste the article link it again, for good measure:

Does the Trolley Problem Have a Problem?

This, and the meta-epistemic problems that exist which basically prevent the Trolley Problem from being a real problem.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

You seem to only be focusing on being responsible for saving people and not very concerned with killing someone in the process. You seem to be ok with killing someone, others may not feel the same way.

 

[setst777]

You seem to only be focusing on being responsible for saving people and not very concerned with killing someone in the process. You seem to be ok with killing someone, others may not feel the same way.

Let us say, hypothetically, that every human being on earth was tied to one track, and the runaway trolley was destined to run over and kill all of them - over 12 billion people. But then, on the other track is one person tied to the track. Would you not shift the lever of the track, if it were within your control, to save the entire human race, OR is that murder in your eyes?

 

[durangodawood]

I washed my hands of it yesterday. Ahhhhh! Clean hands. Feels so good!

And since it doesn't seem anyone here actually happened upon the article link I had installed over in my past 'Good Spock/Bad Spock' thread, I'll just paste the article link it again, for good measure:

Does the Trolley Problem Have a Problem?

This, and the meta-epistemic problems that exist which basically prevent the Trolley Problem from being a real problem.

Will read. Do you think these objections also apply to my preferred hypothetical in post #30 ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its not about being a good boy and complying. Its about what you just did there: looking the moral issue straight on, and justifying a decision.

Of course I totally disagree with your decision.

Let me use a different scenario:

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.

... I'd modify this to "Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward the least populated area that you can?".

And the best answer [i.e. "YES!!"] would likely fit with just about any Ethical framework we might deign to proffer at this point.

 

[o_mlly]

Sometimes to do good you gotta do a little bad.

Are you referring to that great humanitarian Joseph Stalin: "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". Duranty's justification for Stalin's starving 4 million Ukrainians to death.

I thought you were of the opinion that all lives were of equal value. ...

Let me stop you there as you are not reading the posts. I know, I know ... you can't be bothered. But what I wrote is that a human life is of infinite value, ie., innumerate. The value of a human life cannot be measured.

Your position that you'd sacrific all of humanity rather than sacrifice one person is noted. ...

Where do you come up with the word "sacrifice"? What I wrote is that I would not murder an innocent person to save the world.

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

Is that what they teach you in atheist Sunday school? Change the passive voice in your first sentence to the active and you'll have the exemplar of heroic virtue. Or is that an alien idea to most atheists?

The rest of your post is, it appears to me, consistent with an atheist's worldview. Like Stalin, as noted above, once one eliminates God then murder becomes permissible. I can only hope that you don't hang around railroad stations.

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".

? The innocent one on the track is in no peril until you pull the lever. An "act of God"? That would require the lever supernaturally moves the tracks. But you did that all on your own.

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.

The principle has not changed. The "people in the less populated place" are identical to the "innocent one on the tracks". Neither the bystander nor the airline passenger may directly attack the lives of innocent people. We call that murder. This is Catholic moral theology. Atheists will, of course, see no point in not offending a Being they do not believe exists. Theists do.

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.

Not quite. Yes, we have a duty to care for our own first if faced with limited resources to care for others. But the value of a human life is infinite ... so 5I = 1I.

 

[jacknife]

Are you referring to that great humanitarian Joseph Stalin: "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". Duranty's justification for Stalin's starving 4 million Ukrainians to death.


Let me stop you there as you are not reading the posts. I know, I know ... you can't be bothered. But what I wrote is that a human life is of infinite value, ie., innumerate. The value of a human life cannot be measured.


Where do you come up with the word "sacrifice"? What I wrote is that I would not murder an innocent person to save the world.

Is that what they teach you in atheist Sunday school? Change the passive voice in your first sentence to the active and you'll have the exemplar of heroic virtue. Or is that an alien idea to most atheists?

The rest of your post is, it appears to me, consistent with an atheist's worldview. Like Stalin, as noted above, once one eliminates God then murder becomes permissible. I can only hope that you don't hang around railroad stations.

? The innocent one on the track is in no peril until you pull the lever. An "act of God"? That would require the lever supernaturally moves the tracks. But you did that all on your own.


The principle has not changed. The "people in the less populated place" are identical to the "innocent one on the tracks". Neither the bystander nor the airline passenger may directly attack the lives of innocent people. We call that murder. This is Catholic moral theology. Atheists will, of course, see no point in not offending a Being they do not believe exists. Theists do.


Not quite. Yes, we have a duty to care for our own first if faced with limited resources to care for others. But the value of a human life is infinite ... so 5I = 1I.

Holy macaroni how did you jump to Stalin from what I posted??? What I said is a simple fact of life like lying to protect an innocent person for example.

 

[durangodawood]

... I'd modify this to "Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward the least populated area that you can?".

And the best answer [i.e. "YES!!"] would likely fit with just about any Ethical framework we might deign to proffer at this point.

For sure, the least populated area you can.

Youd think it would fit any ethical framework, right? But it doesnt, as demonstrated in the discussion that followed on.

Basically the objection went like this:
-the plane's current trajectory dooms certain people
-humans are not allowed to decide that other people should be doomed instead. once you do that, its "murder".
-it doesnt matter that those other people are a much smaller number of people

I think thats bonkers, of course.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For sure, the least populated area you can.

Youd think it would fit any ethical framework, right? But it doesnt, as demonstrated in the discussion that followed on.

Basically the objection went like this:
-the plane's current trajectory dooms certain people
-humans are not allowed to decide that other people should be doomed instead. once you do that, its "murder".
-it doesnt matter that those other people are a much smaller number of people

I think thats bonkers, of course.

ok. Rather than me looking back through this thread to "match up" the objections, can I just assume that these objections are ones here in this thread and not found elsewhere?

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me stop you there as you are not reading the posts. I know, I know ... you can't be bothered. But what I wrote is that a human life is of infinite value, ie., innumerate. The value of a human life cannot be measured.

I think the word you're looking for is "priceless". "Infinity" is a number, so it isn't innumerate. And thanks to Set Theory we can understand that some infinities are actually greater than other infinities. For instance, the set of real numbers is greater than the set of prime numbers, even though both are infinitely large.

 

[o_mlly]

Holy macaroni how did you jump to Stalin from what I posted??? What I said is a simple fact of life like lying to protect an innocent person for example.

Atheists can be expected to think alike on matters moral, not so?

Youd think it would fit any ethical framework, right? But it doesnt, as demonstrated in the discussion that followed on.

Basically the objection went like this:
-the plane's current trajectory dooms certain people
-humans are not allowed to decide that other people should be doomed instead. once you do that, its "murder".
-it doesnt matter that those other people are a much smaller number of people

I think thats bonkers, of course.

And you're entitled to your opinion. But keep "seeking" and you will find out why that notion is wrong.

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. ... Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation (Catechism of the Catholic Church).​

 

[durangodawood]

ok. Rather than me looking back through this thread to "match up" the objections, can I just assume that these objections are ones here in this thread and not found elsewhere?

Yep.

 

[o_mlly]

I think the word you're looking for is "priceless". "Infinity" is a number, so it isn't innumerate. And thanks to Set Theory we can understand that some infinities are actually greater than other infinities. For instance, the set of real numbers is greater than the set of prime numbers, even though both are infinitely large.

Nope. "Infinity" is the correct word. "Infinity" is not a number, it's an idea.

 

[jacknife]

Atheists can be expected to think alike on matters moral, not so?

And you're entitled to your opinion. But keep "seeking" and you will find out why that notion is wrong.

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. ... Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation (Catechism of the Catholic Church).​

Oh yeah of course were a hive mind deal also we each get invited to join the illuminati too. Great pension plan highly reccomend.

 

[durangodawood]

...And you're entitled to your opinion. But keep "seeking" and you will find out why that notion is wrong.

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. ... Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation (Catechism of the Catholic Church).​

I think the part youre getting wrong is not the value of human life as described above, but in exactly who it is thats taking a life in the plane crash scenario. As the pilot you are not taking lives by re-directing the plane. Lives are lost either way. Thats out of your hands. The killer is whatever caused the plane to become disabled.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep.

Yeah, I agree that those answers are a bit shallow ...

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. "Infinity" is the correct word. "Infinity" is not a number, it's an idea.

You are factually wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

You are factually wrong.

Do you have trolleys in Moralton? Or planes?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let us say, hypothetically, that every human being on earth was tied to one track, and the runaway trolley was destined to run over and kill all of them - over 12 billion people. But then, on the other track is one person tied to the track. Would you not shift the lever of the track, if it were within your control, to save the entire human race, OR is that murder in your eyes?

No I won’t kill an innocent person to save the human race. Something that significant would no doubt be the will of God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you have trolleys in Moralton? Or planes?

Well, we have planes, but they don't land. This here is flyover country. But let me be the first atheist to try and alter the hypothetical. Is it possible to uncouple the cars by flipping the switch at just the right time to send cars down both tracks killing all six people?