Why Is This A Problem???

[jacknife]

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?

Yes of course the Tokyo drift.

 

[durangodawood]

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?

Its a hypothetical. You can just take out any leftover people with a shark attack if you feel the need.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Okay. ?

Also chesterton! It's been awhile how gave you been?

I've been doing great! How are you, Mr. Knife?

 

[jacknife]

Okay. ?

I've been doing great! How are you, Mr. Knife?

I've been doing well I returned to hospital work to work against the pandemic so i've had a busy life this last year.

 

[durangodawood]

....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.

Ok I read the article. Very interesting. But it mainly focuses on the broken relationship between peoples written responses and how they would really act. But I'm more interested in simply learning about people's moral reasoning. And in this thread, its been a pretty good catalyst for that.

So, whats the main meta-epistemic problem you speak of?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok I read the article. Very interesting. But it mainly focuses on the broken relationship between peoples written responses and how they would really act. But I'm more interested in simply learning about people's moral reasoning. And in this thread, its been a pretty good catalyst for that.

So, whats the main meta-epistemic problem you speak of?

The meta-epistemic problem is that there isn't an absolute way in which to metaphysically ground these moral decisions via a fully functional epistemology, especially where the Trolley Problem is concerned.

But, regardless, I agree with you that if your intent here in this thread is the rational yet modest one that you've said it is, then has been a good catalyst for eliciting what folks might think if they were at the helm of the Trolley.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

I think not. The lives of the innocent people in the perceived smaller population are safe. That is, until the pilot freely and directly steers the now deadly missile in their direction.

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

Your "handle" is aptly selected.

You are factually wrong.

Oh, of course. How can I argue with that impeccable logic. Why didn't I and the rest of the world's mathematicians see that?

 

[jacknife]

I think not. The lives of the innocent people in the perceived smaller population are safe. That is, until the pilot freely and directly steers the now deadly missal in their direction.

Your "handle" is aptly selected.

Oh, of course. How can I argue with that impeccable logic. Why didn't I and the rest of the world's mathematicians see that?

You compared all atheists to Stalin and I'm the troll?

 

[Theridiidae]

A few years ago I decided to take a few philosophy course over the summer at our main college. When the trolley problem came up, it was heavily dissected for the short time we had with it. The class was polled at the start as to who would pull the lever. It was polled again after debate and discussion. Both times all hands were raised in favor of pulling the lever to save the many over the one. Except for me.

There is no way I could actively and intentionally kill someone. Even if it means more people would live.

 

[durangodawood]

I think not. The lives of the innocent people in the perceived smaller population are safe. That is, until the pilot freely and directly steers the now deadly missal in their direction.

Thats the wrong way to look at it.

Life offers no guarantee that you are safe from a difficult situation like this in which a morally correct action results in your demise. There's no one moment in the course of the ongoing mishap that we somehow privilege's and say THIS is the moment when the rightful victims are decided.

Thats why, If the pilot survives, he wont be charged with any offense whatsoever. Steering towards the least populated area will make him a hero, not a villain. Perhaps the airline or airplane maker will be sued. Or whoever was responsible for the initial disabling of the craft. Or it might just be an "act of God" so to speak.

 

[Occams Barber]

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?

That sounds fair.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

A few years ago I decided to take a few philosophy course over the summer at our main college. When the trolley problem came up, it was heavily dissected for the short time we had with it. The class was polled at the start as to who would pull the lever. It was polled again after debate and discussion. Both times all hands were raised in favor of pulling the lever to save the many over the one. Except for me.

There is no way I could actively and intentionally kill someone. Even if it means more people would live.

The question is not really about whether you could do it. It's easy to imagine that the emotional load associated with actually causing death, as opposed to passively allowing death, could prevent you (or me) from acting.

The real question is whether you think the lever should be pulled.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

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

Not so. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Full stop.

Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't come with a built in moral code or rulebook or dogma. It's quite possible to be an atheist and adopt a Christian attitude to morality (sans God). Most atheists would broadly adopt the moral rules of the society they inhabit. But this is equally true of most people - including Christians.

OB

 

[partinobodycular]

Both times all hands were raised in favor of pulling the lever to save the many over the one. Except for me.

There is no way I could actively and intentionally kill someone. Even if it means more people would live.

But would you refrain from pulling the lever because you thought that it was the wrong thing to do, or because you simply couldn't bring yourself to do it?

Personally, given a limited amount of time, I would probably not pull the lever, I simply wouldn't be able to make that important of a decision that quickly. I'd probably hesitate too long, hoping that someone would do something, only realizing too late that that someone had to be me.

On the other hand, given that this is only a hypothetical, I believe that the right thing to do is to pull the lever. Life isn't perfect, and right and wrong aren't always black and white. We have to make choices and we have to live with them. I have to kill someone, because as much as I want to, I can't save six, I just can't. But I can save five, and if that's wrong, then that's wrong. I'll have to live with it. Life does that, it gives us things that we just have to live with. You do the best you can, you save as many as you can, and you regret the ones you lose.

 

[Bradskii]

But what I wrote is that a human life is of infinite value, ie., innumerate. The value of a human life cannot be measured.

Got you. So there is no difference in value between one person and five. So if you had to untie the five or the one and only had time to do one or the other, then...it would make no difference? Infinite value equals infinite value. Which means that all of your family has no more value than a random stranger. Actually, no more value than the most evil person in existence.

Or maybe they have equal value but not equal worth. So your entire family is obviously worth more to you than the miserable mass murdering paedophile tied to the tracks. Does that prompt you to flick the switch? No, it actually doesn't. Because you've already decided you'd sacrifice the whole of humanity for one person.

At which point you become superfluous to the problem. We can just run a few simple lines of computer code. A few IF and THEN comments and you can be replaced. It will be exactly the same. We can remove you from the equation and replace you with a High performance Automatic Lever system.

'Do you read me, HAL? Throw the switch'.
'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that'.

It seems that the requirement for a fixed and unwavering adherrence to an absolute morality is too important to you to allow us to jeopardise it by introducing a sense of humanity into the equation.

Note to self: Find a copy of the film online to watch this evening.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Got you. So there is no difference in value between one person and five. So if you had to untie the five or the one and only had time to do one or the other, then...it would make no difference? Infinite value equals infinite value. Which means that all of your family has no more value than a random stranger. Actually, no more value than the most evil person in existence.

Or maybe they have equal value but not equal worth. So your entire family is obviously worth more to you than the miserable mass murdering paedophile tied to the tracks. Does that prompt you to flick the switch? No, it actually doesn't. Because you've already decided you'd sacrifice the whole of humanity for one person.

At which point you become superfluous to the problem. We can just run a few simple lines of computer code. A few IF and THEN comments and you can be replaced. It will be exactly the same. We can remove you from the equation and replace you with a High performance Automatic Lever system.

'Do you read me, HAL? Throw the switch'.
'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that'.

The requirement for a fixed and unwavering adherrence to an absolute morality is too important to you to allow us to jeopardise it by introducing a sense of humanity into the equation.

Actually, if I remember correctly, and based on the supposed 'additional context' we pick up from the sequal, a switch was thrown, and it was thrown by HAL..... ... but that's ok since we all know HAL was being utterly logical.

 

[durangodawood]

If human lives really had infinite value none of us would ever drive a car, or do a thousand other of the everyday things that get people killed once in a while.

 

[o_mlly]

You compared all atheists to Stalin and I'm the troll?

It's your moniker, not my invention.

Your sentiment is identical to his on doing evil that good may come of it.

 

[Theridiidae]

The question is not really about whether you could do it. It's easy to imagine that the emotional load associated with actually causing death, as opposed to passively allowing death, could prevent you (or me) from acting.

The real question is whether you think the lever should be pulled.

OB

For myself, I do not think it should be pulled. I believe/feel that for others, it is up to them and what they can live with, to decide if it should be pulled.

 

[Theridiidae]

But would you refrain from pulling the lever because you thought that it was the wrong thing to do, or because you simply couldn't bring yourself to do it?

Personally, given a limited amount of time, I would probably not pull the lever, I simply wouldn't be able to make that important of a decision that quickly. I'd probably hesitate too long, hoping that someone would do something, only realizing too late that that someone had to be me.

On the other hand, given that this is only a hypothetical, I believe that the right thing to do is to pull the lever. Life isn't perfect, and right and wrong aren't always black and white. We have to make choices and we have to live with them. I have to kill someone, because as much as I want to, I can't save six, I just can't. But I can save five, and if that's wrong, then that's wrong. I'll have to live with it. Life does that, it gives us things that we just have to live with. You do the best you can, you save as many as you can, and you regret the ones you lose.

I believe, for myself, it is wrong to do it.

If this were a bit more realistic, I too would panic. I would try to help the closest to me first. Or maybe I would look around to see if it could be derailed. A lot of things come to mind. However, with the hypothetical set as is, I would see it wrong to actively chose someone's death. Perhaps out of fear and many other reasons I have not thought of. Though the main thing that comes to mind as "why" is, who am I to say whos life is more valuable and what importance goes to what person.

In my opinion, humans are inherently selfish. I also believe humans to be of equal value to all other creatures on the earth. This means value is what I give it. With all humans in the equation being equal, there is no value, positive or negative, to anyone. At this point, I don't think I could morally decide to pull the lever as I have no idea if my choice would actually be for the greater good.

I hope this made sense. Brain fog is real.