Why Is This A Problem???

[Newwave]

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.

exactly. Pull the lever. Also the 5 people are tied up and the 1 person on the side track is not tied up. So it’s still possible that person could get out of the way and not get run over.

even if they don’t get out of the way it’s still better for only 1 person to die instead of 5.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

the trolley problem can be restated that forces a different perspective. The same trolley is on a path to the same trapped people and if nothing is done they will be killed. There is a very large fat man by the tracks and you know if that man were blocking the train it would be enough to stop the train and save the people but kill the fat man. There is nothing else that can be done so do you push the fat man on the tracks or do you let the trolley go on its path. In both trolley problems one can be sacrificed for the many but in the latter you have a more active role in the sacrifice. You could also change the trolley problem with the trapped people all being convicted criminals of some sort do you pull the level then? What if they were all on death row? What if they were all Hitler? The point is we can all think of scenarios where we would pull the level and where we wouldn't pull the lever. All of this is to show this cannot be reduced to a simple math problem and it's more complicated than that. But that's the point of the thought exercise, there really is no right answer and no matter what you do you loose.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

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.

I don't know about 'value being entirely subjective,' through and through. I think you're right that a lot of things in life can very well be known to have variable levels of value among different individuals.

But I'd aver that some aspects of valuating 'things' among human beings are objectively woven intrinsicly into the structures of humanity, and we can all recognize this. Take 'eye-sight,' for example. Have you ever met a person who thinks they'd be better off without their eyes? Or that they think the rest of the world would be better if no one else had functional eyes? I haven't. And I'm betting you haven't either.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

A thicker gray line is still a line, and our society has one.

We find human lives are an acceptable price to pay for convenience, pleasure, and additional material prosperity..... so long as we dont feel its "too many" lives.

The gray line is because people have differing finite values on human life. If we typically assigned human life infinite value, there'd be no line at all. Life would trump all else.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

How can you get things so wrong?

The fact that I believe that this is all there is means that to save the five I would be ending everything for that person. No happy ever after. No lifetime of bliss. No eternity in the bosom of a loving God. Just a return to whence they came from. Back to their constituent parts. Endless nothing. And you think that that justifies ending a life in some way? As opposed to you who'd think that you'd be sending them to an eternal life of happiness?

How can you get things so very wrong?

And if I'm on the track? Do I sacrifice myself? For my family? I'd kill someone who tried to prevent me reaching the lever. But to save strangers? I don't know if I'd have the courage. In fact I think I might fail if it was a snap decision. The sense of self preservation can override the most noble of intentions. But give me time to think on it and I think I might. I think I might do something that you seem unable to do. I'd try to balance the value of my life - which would include the shame of saving my own skin, against the value of the five others.

Give me time for some self reflection and goodbyes and it would be a little harder than selecting my favourite liqueur - which I know will come as a surprise to you. But I think I'd do it.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know about 'value being entirely subjective,' through and through. I think you're right that a lot of things in life can very well be known to have variable levels of value among different individuals.

But I'd aver that some aspects of valuating 'things' among human beings are objectively woven intrinsic into the structures of humanity, and we can all recognize this. Take 'eye-sight,' for example. Have you ever met a person who thinks they'd be better off without their eyes? Or that they think the rest of the world would be better if no one else had functional eyes? I haven't. And I'm betting you haven't either.

Value is always comparative. My coffee is sitting on a coaster made of sticks stuck together, painted with some well worn felt stuck on it. Made by my son when he was about 6. It's worthless to you but very valuable to me. And the mug my coffee is in was painted by my daughter when she was about the same age. Nobody else is allowed to use it. We'd give it different values.

So something like eyes? Well, let's just say that I'd be very careful indeed suggesting that if all people agree to something then it is objectively good. Unless you effectively want to vote on what is objectively good?

 

[durangodawood]

the trolley problem can be restated that forces a different perspective. The same trolley is on a path to the same trapped people and if nothing is done they will be killed. There is a very large fat man by the tracks and you know if that man were blocking the train it would be enough to stop the train and save the people but kill the fat man. There is nothing else that can be done so do you push the fat man on the tracks or do you let the trolley go on its path. In both trolley problems one can be sacrificed for the many but in the latter you have a more active role in the sacrifice. You could also change the trolley problem with the trapped people all being convicted criminals of some sort do you pull the level then? What if they were all on death row? What if they were all Hitler? The point is we can all think of scenarios where we would pull the level and where we wouldn't pull the lever. All of this is to show this cannot be reduced to a simple math problem and it's more complicated than that. But that's the point of the thought exercise, there really is no right answer and no matter what you do you loose.

I cant play the fat man version because it defies intuition so badly. I cant shake the sense that a man wont derail the trolley. The hypothetical has crossed into the absurd.

As I said, in the game of rock-trolley-human, everyone knows trolley cuts human.

I do agree that any scenario is a losing situation. Thats because someone upstream of you started this disaster. Your role is just how to manage it. You cant wave it away.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Value is always comparative. My coffee is sitting on a coaster made of sticks stuck together, painted with some well worn felt stuck on it. Made by my son when he was about 6. It's worthless to you but very valuable to me. And the mug my coffee is in was painted by my daughter when she was about the same age. Nobody else is allowed to use it. We'd give it different values.

Yes, human valuing always involves a human act of comparison between individuals. However, I'm wouldn't analytically go so far as to say that the act of comparison implies utter relativism. And if I were you, I wouldn't assume that your son's handmade coaster would be utterly worthless to me. You don't know that. That's for me to tell you, not for you to merely surmise about me (and quite subjectively so I'd say, really).

Sure, I might not feel as strongly about it as you do since, well, your son is your son. But if I have certain common empathies, emotions and (eek! -- values) as you do already, I might say: "Hey, that's a dandy coaster your son made for you there! I know that's a special thing!" And why? Because I likewise have a son who has 'made' things for me, and I understand (by comparison even) that these things can be especially felt on the immediate family level.

In fact, I might even value your son's eyes more than you do; this might be the case if he were say, a world reknown brain surgeon and he was about to operate on me. I'd value very much his good eye-sight.

So something like eyes? Well, let's just say that I'd be very careful indeed suggesting that if all people agree to something then it is objectively good. Unless you effectively want to vote on what is objectively good?

I think we can both agree that taking a moving survey of any worth among nearly 8 billion people is still impossible (today, anyway). So, when we talk about 'objectivity,' if it's real then it can't be expected to be something too dissimilar than what our individual, subjective experiences are and be somethat that, thereby, we are able to tap into, even if it's not on a universal level among ALL human beings in all places (or at all times).

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, human valuing always involves a human act of comparison between individuals. However, I'm wouln't analytically go so far as to say that the act of comparison implies utter relativism. And if I were you, I wouldn't assume that your son's handmade coaster would be utterly worthless to me. You don't know that. That's for me to tell you, not for you to merely surmise about me (and quite subjectively so I'd say, really).

Sure, I might not feel as strongly about it as you do since, well, your son is your son. But if I have certain common empathies, emotions and (eek! -- values) as you do already, I might say: "Hey, that's a dandy coaster your son made for you there! I know that's a special thing!" And why? Because I likewise have a son who has 'made' things for me, and I understand (by comparison even) that these things can be especially felt on the immediate family level.

In fact, I might even value your son's eyes more than you do; this might be the case if he were say, a world reknown brain surgeon and he was about to operate on me. I'd value very much his good eye-sight.

I think we can both agree that taking a moving survey of any worth among nearly 8 billion people is still impossible (today, anyway). So, when we talk about 'objectivity,' if it's real then it can't be expected to be something too dissimilar than what our individual, subjective experiences are and be somethat that, thereby, we are able to tap into, even if it's not on a universal level among ALL human beings in all places (or at all times).

OK, you might see some value in the coaster. But it would be your subjective value. Which was the point I was making.

And you are still implying that an objective 'good' is somehow related to the decisions of, if not all people, then at least a sizeable majority. A concept which I reject entirely. You are literally proposing in this post doing what I suggested you might be proposing in your last post: Voting on what is good. You are saying that 'Hey, if so many people say it's good (and I agree with them) then...it must be what we describe as an absolute good.'

Is it not an absolute good if less then half think it is but then somehow becomes an absolute good if we have 99.9% agreeing on it? Is it an absolute good if almost everyone believes it to be so but you disagree completely?

It simply doesn't, and can't, work like that.

 

[o_mlly]

We find human lives are an acceptable price to pay for convenience, pleasure, and additional material prosperity..... so long as we dont feel its "too many" lives.

Who is we? How many is "too many"?

Your logic is akin to Bradski's: the number is too many only when my number is on the list. Or did he pull the lever on himself yet?

"Sacrifice" is beautiful as long as its you and not me.

 

[o_mlly]

And you think that that justifies ending a life in some way? As opposed to you who'd think that you'd be sending them to an eternal life of happiness?

Oh, there you are.

How more twisted can one get? I never tried to justify ending anyone's life. That position has always been yours. Own it. How many times does this command need to be repeated: No one has the right to directly take the life of an innocent person.

But give me time to think on it and I think I might. I think I might do something that you seem unable to do. I'd try to balance the value of my life - which would include the shame of saving my own skin, against the value of the five others.

Why don't you read what I posted? I wrote that the only life one may sacrifice is their own.

In your hubris, you believe that you have the right to "sacrifice" another. I do not. Would I sacrifice my life for the five. If I am given the grace to do so then I would. You'd want to smoke a cigarette and think about it for awhile. If the five are my family ... don't owe me money ... not much use to me ...

Give me time for some self reflection and goodbyes and it would be a little harder than selecting my favourite liqueur - which I know will come as a surprise to you. But I think I'd do it.

Do you buy your straw by the trainload? I offered the analogy on the liquors to help you understand that in matters of taste there is no argument. Not so in matters of truth.

If you did sacrifice yourself for others then you could only do that if God gave you the grace to do so; same as me.

 

[durangodawood]

Who is we? How many is "too many"?

We is the society generally, the systems we tolerate, the activities we perform.

"How many is too many?" Thats a question we ask all the time in our society. Its a constant source of struggle because different people weigh convenience against human life differently. And the answer is always that we can live with a certain number of deaths.
-how much mercury can the power plant emit?
-what should the speed limit be?
-is this crib safe enough to go on the market?

But if human life was valued infinitely, the "how many is too many?" question would never come up. Life would simply trump all else.

 

[RDKirk]

So something like eyes? Well, let's just say that I'd be very careful indeed suggesting that if all people agree to something then it is objectively good. Unless you effectively want to vote on what is objectively good?

Societies do that all the time.

 

[Bradskii]

I offered the analogy on the liquors to help you understand that in matters of taste there is no argument. Not so in matters of truth.

So just a personal preference in saving many over the one. You prefer to have chicken/save five people. No value judgement at all. Who can say if one is better than the other? It's all equally valid. I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that. It's been stated and acknowledged as nonsensical.

I never tried to justify ending anyone's life.

You claimed that my lack of belief in God could justify my actions. Whereas if I did believe in God I could have justified my actions by knowing that he was being sent to an eternal happiness. As it is, ending his life completely is the more difficult decision (as opposed to thinking which might be your personal preference in the case of being able to free one or t'other).

 

[Bradskii]

Societies do that all the time.

They vote on what they consider to be good. But it doesn't make it objectively good. Even if they all agree.

 

[RDKirk]

I cant play the fat man version because it defies intuition so badly. I cant shake the sense that a man wont derail the trolley. The hypothetical has crossed into the absurd.

As I said, in the game of rock-trolley-human, everyone knows trolley cuts human.

I do agree that any scenario is a losing situation. Thats because someone upstream of you started this disaster. Your role is just how to manage it. You cant wave it away.

I keep mentioning being involved with military targeting because it was a real-world application of this problem.

When we got the execution order that kicked off the Persian Gulf War, I was immensely sad because I had spent many, many hours doing bomb damage assessment during the Vietnam War...seeing all those craters, all those craters in populated areas.

The genius bombs we used in the Persian Gulf War mitigated that to a great extent most of the time. But the dumb bombs dropped by B-52 aircraft were just as dumb in Iraq as they had been in Vietnam. There was that oil tank "farm" that was set as a B-52 target because it was so large...how could they miss? But that oil tank farm was just across the river from an apartment complex...and they did miss the tank farm and raked right over the apartment complex. I'm glad I didn't identify that target and especially didn't "weaponeer" it (the "weaponeer" is the person who decides what kind of weapon to use).

The Persian Gulf war added a feature for my role that had been missing from the Vietnam War: We got the "bomb camera" videos, and many times we could actually see the people who got killed in the moment before their deaths. I need to insert an expletive here to explain how that felt, particularly when it was me who identified that target. Even when I could be sure it was an enemy soldier, it was still a man who would have lived that day if I hadn't put a cross on that bunker.

Like the guy with the trolley switch in front of him, someone upstream started that disaster. My role was how to manage it. I had to operate under the belief that Swartzkopf's plan--perfectly executed--would end the war with the fewest casualties, and all I cold do was to target accurately to reduce civilian casualties. And I couldn't just step away, because my replacement might not care.

 

[o_mlly]

But if human life was valued infinitely, the "how many is too many?" question would never come up. ...

? I thought I just brought that question up. Haven't got an answer yet.

 

[RDKirk]

How more twisted can one get? I never tried to justify ending anyone's life.

Yes, you have. Consistently, all along.

 

[RDKirk]

They vote on what they consider to be good. But it doesn't make it objectively good. Even if they all agree.

You say it's not an objective good, but they say it is...because they all agreed that it is.

 

[RDKirk]

We is the society generally, the systems we tolerate, the activities we perform.

"How many is too many?" Thats a question we ask all the time in our society. Its a constant source of struggle because different people weigh convenience against human life differently. And the answer is always that we can live with a certain number of deaths.
-how much mercury can the power plant emit?
-what should the speed limit be?
-is this crib safe enough to go on the market?

But if human life was valued infinitely, the "how many is too many?" question would never come up. Life would simply trump all else.

The right number is "as few as possible."

"Too many" is "more than I could have managed."