Why Is This A Problem???

[The happy Objectivist]

Where's the sacrifice of you in either the plane or trolley scenario? I'm not seeing it at all. No ones asking you to jump on the tracks or even stick out your small toe. And the plane is going down regardless. So I dont see here this implicit principle you object to.

I explained this already. The cost to me is that I would take on the burden of guilt for the rest of my life if chose to pull the lever. I am not responsible for their plight, I had no part in it, so why would I be morally responsible for their deaths. I would be if I pulled the lever though and that would entail a terrible price for me. I've explained why your two scenarios are not analogous? I don't see where you've interacted with any of the points that I have made.

 

[durangodawood]

I explained this already. The cost to me is that I would take on the burden of guilt for the rest of my life if chose to pull the lever. I am not responsible for their plight, I had no part in it, so why would I be morally responsible for their deaths. I would be if I pulled the lever though and that would entail a terrible price for me. I've explained why your two scenarios are not analogous? I don't see where you've interacted with any of the points that I have made.

The points you made only become salient IF you are indeed being expected to make a sacrifice. And I contest your assertion that you are.

You did have a part in their plight. That part was unjustly thrust upon you by whoever let the trolley loose, or failed to maintain the aircraft. The path of the peril in either case goes through a decision made by you. A decision you cannot escape from, which is: where does this peril end up?

Great point about the airline employee's obligation. We can sub in a non obligated passenger to remove that issue from the hypothetical. (Pre-cockpit door locks. I remember landing at Denver International in a smaller plane with only a curtain, which was drawn back. I could see the whole landing from row 1. Was pretty cool.)

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No one has a right to place an obligation on me except for me. And it is a sacrifice. I would be sacrificing my happiness for the good of a complete stranger. Why should I do this? Why are my happiness and life less important than a stranger's life? You have never justified this. You just take it for the given. I do not hold the good of others as the justification for my existence.
I hold my own good as the justification of my existence. My life and happiness are far higher on my hierarchy of values than the life and happiness of a random stranger. Therefore if I traded my happiness for the good of others, I would be trading something of great value for something of little value. That is the definition of sacrifice.

 

[durangodawood]

No one has a right to place an obligation on me except for me. And it is a sacrifice. I would be sacrificing my happiness for the good of a complete stranger. Why should I do this? Why are my happiness and life less important than a stranger's life? You have never justified this. You just take it for the given. I do not hold the good of others as the justification for my existence.
I hold my own good as the justification of my existence. My life and happiness are far higher on my hierarchy of values than the life and happiness of a random stranger. Therefore if I traded my happiness for the good of others, I would be trading something of great value for something of little value. That is the definition of sacrifice.

I agree that your situation here is totally unjust. In no way am I proposing that the trolley company has a right to impose this burden on you. But that deed is done. The trolley is careening. Now there's a decision on your plate that you cant get out of: where does this peril end up?

 

[Moral Orel]

My life and happiness are far higher on my hierarchy of values than the life and happiness of a random stranger.

And to the stranger, his life and his happiness are far higher on his hierarchy of values than the lice and happiness of you. And both of these hierarchies are equally valid. Everyone values things differently, and no one is wrong to do so. Welcome to moral subjectivity.

Therefore if I traded my happiness for the good of others, I would be trading something of great value for something of little value. That is the definition of sacrifice.

It isn't something of great value. That implies it has an actual value. It's something that you personally value greatly. But that isn't even close to the same thing as "something of great value". Nothing has an actual value because no one is right or wrong about how much value they place on a thing. Value is entirely subjective.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

Well the trolly problem is actually pretty easy, you send it down the track with the most people, and then put blades on the side in order to hit the ot...oh wait I got that wrong again didn't I? :> Cookies to anyone that gets the reference.

 

[loveofourlord]

On a more serious note, I think it's related to the problem of vaccines. If I'm unvacinated and I die from covid it was just gods will or was going to happen, if I take the vaccine and die from it, I actively caused my death.

 

[durangodawood]

Well the trolly problem is actually pretty easy, you send it down the track with the most people, and then put blades on the side in order to hit the ot...oh wait I got that wrong again didn't I? :> Cookies to anyone that gets the reference.

So many creative solutions!

 

[partinobodycular]

No one has a right to place an obligation on me except for me. And it is a sacrifice. I would be sacrificing my happiness for the good of a complete stranger. Why should I do this?

Because it's the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, when every pundit has had their say, and every philosopher has voiced their opinion, that's the answer that counts...it was the right thing to do.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Because it's the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, when every pundit has had their say, and every philosopher has voiced their opinion, that's the answer that counts...it was the right thing to do.

If you say so, partinobodycular.

 

[Bradskii]

If you read what I posted then you'd see that is not "exactly what you've posted".

Then you're free to explain why you'd choose the five over the one. You refused last time, so the only option is to go with what you've already posted. Which was contradictory. Here's your chance to add some clarity.

Why is saving five a better option than saving one?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

And to the stranger, his life and his happiness are far higher on his hierarchy of values than the lice and happiness of you. And both of these hierarchies are equally valid. Everyone values things differently, and no one is wrong to do so. Welcome to moral subjectivity.

That is not moral subjectivism, Moral Orel. Moral subjectivism is the belief that right and wrong, good and evil, true vs false is determined by a mind. These things are not determined by a mind but by nature. But these facts are discovered by the mind and principles are the form in which we identify, integrate, and retain this knowledge.

It isn't something of great value. That implies it has an actual value. It's something that you personally value greatly. But that isn't even close to the same thing as "something of great value". Nothing has an actual value because no one is right or wrong about how much value they place on a thing. Value is entirely subjective.

Who are you to tell me that my life and happiness are not a great value? Of value to whom and for what? I think that by actual you mean intrinsic. Of course, the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy is a false dichotomy. Values do not exist in reality apart from the mind (intrinsic) nor do they exist in the mind apart from reality (subjective). Values exist in the relationship between the mind and reality. They are a type of fact. They are facts evaluated by a mind against some standard or goal. This is the objective view of values.

Yes, it is something that I personally value, but this does not make it subjective. Life is not only a value, it is the ultimate value because it is only in the context of the conditional nature of life that anything can have value. A rock's existence is not conditional, it does not have to act in order to continue it's existence the way a living thing does. therefore rocks do not have values.

It is an incontrovertible fact that I value my life. According to you, a fact is not actual. How can something that is a fact not be actual? That is absurd.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you say so, partinobodycular.

Well I'm just talking, didn't know anybody was actually listening. For gosh sakes why would anybody do that?

 

[Moral Orel]

That is not moral subjectivism, Moral Orel. Moral subjectivism is the belief that right and wrong, good and evil, true vs false is determined by a mind.

Incorrect. There is no (moral) right and wrong in subjectivism or good and evil. True and false aren't determined by minds according to moral subjectivity. I don't even know where you got that idea.

Who are you to tell me that my life and happiness are not a great value?

You did when you said that the stranger's life and happiness are not a great value. Are you correct that his life is less valuable than yours, or is he correct that your life is less valuable than his? If neither of you is correct, and neither of you are, it's all just subjective feelings.

It is an incontrovertible fact that I value my life... How can something that is a fact not be actual? That is absurd.

It is a fact that you value things. It is not a fact that the thing now has value because you value it. The value has nothing to do with the nature of the thing, just how you personally feel about that thing.

You value bicycles. I do not. You would say that bicycles have value. I say they do not. Which one of us is correct? When you have to add "to me" you cease to be objective and move into my realm of subjectivity.

According to you, a fact is not actual.

I'd prefer you didn't just make things up out of thin air. Is your argument strong enough to make without doing so?

 

[durangodawood]

So you value human life against driving at 30,000 lives. Why not 30,001 lives?

Right. There's no clear bright line, therefore judgement on the matter is impossible. This oughta be called "Bright Line Fallacy" or something.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right. There's no clear bright line, therefore judgement on the matter is impossible. This oughta be called "Bright Line Fallacy" or something.

I think it qualifies as the Nirvana Fallacy. "We can't do it perfectly, so don't do it at all."

 

[o_mlly]

Then you're free to explain why you'd choose the five over the one. You refused last time, so the only option is to go with what you've already posted. Which was contradictory. Here's your chance to add some clarity.

Why is saving five a better option than saving one?

You know there's help for people suffering from dyslexia.

Explain why the taste of Jagermeister is better than Sambuca (reverse the drinks if you like).

 

[o_mlly]

Right. There's no clear bright line, therefore judgement on the matter is impossible.

Good. We agree that it is impossible to put a value on human life just as it is impossible to assign a number to infinity.

 

[Bradskii]

Explain why the taste of Jagermeister is better than Sambuca (reverse the drinks if you like).

You've had a few hours to think of an explanation as to why you'd save five rather than one one whilst trying to maintain that there is no difference between either, and that is the best you came up with? It's no different than expressing a preference for a drink?

I don't know which is more embarrassing. Your position or the excuse you have put forward to support it. Extrapolate the concept and the choice to save a nation over one person would carry no more decision making ability on your part than you having chicken rather than steak.

'Hey, I'd just rather chicken/saving more people. I'm not saying it's better. I'm not making a value call here. You can't say one is better than the other. It's just me. There's no actual reason apart from personal preference. You might choose differently and I can't argue against that'.

Apparently not.

 

[o_mlly]

You've had a few hours to think of an explanation as to why you'd save five rather than one one whilst trying to maintain that there is no difference between either, and that is the best you came up with? It's no different than expressing a preference for a drink?

I don't know which is more embarrassing. Your position or the excuse you have put forward to support it. Extrapolate the concept and the choice to save a nation over one person would carry no more decision making ability on your part than you having chicken rather than steak.

'Hey, I'd just rather chicken/saving more people. I'm not saying it's better. I'm not making a value call here. You can't say one is better than the other. It's just me. There's no actual reason apart from personal preference. You might choose differently and I can't argue against that'.

Apparently not.

I understand your angst. Sadly, you believe that this life is all there is so you can see circumstances that justify, in your mind, murder. I don't. Did you pull that lever on yourself? I guess not and that's telling.