Why Is This A Problem???

[zippy2006]

I never said there aren't differences. I'm saying that you're arbitrarily choosing which differences are important. And humans aren't the only species who engage in reasoning. We aren't the only ones who learn. We're better at it, by a long shot even, okay, but we aren't alone in that. And remember that survival is secondary to happiness. When we truly feel like happiness is completely out of reach, we desire to stop surviving.

But why is my choice arbitrary and how does that arbitrariness affect the topic at hand?

It doesn't bother me that some monkeys open nuts with rocks (tools). I haven't claimed otherwise.

You asked what "good" means, and I told you. It is that which each living thing seeks. Water is good for plants, grass for cows, etc. I didn't think I was saying anything so controversial at this early stage.

Do we? How do you know? I avoid bees, but only now, after I've been stung.

There are things like pre-experiential aversion to snakes and pre-experiential attraction to human faces, etc. Usually this is explained in terms of Evolution.

I remember going over this too. The martyr is happy when he dies, even if it's coupled with a painful death. We make plans that involve a temporary sacrifice of comfort for the expected gain of happiness. The hedonist wants instant gratification all the time, the rest of us are more patient, but we all have the same goal (to feel good). My shoulder is already sore, but I'm going to go to work tomorrow knowing that it will be worse by the end of the day, because I know that at the end of the week, I'm getting a paycheck. And that makes me happy, so I suffer through the work because money buys happiness.

Ah, but now you've made the switch from pleasure to happiness, which was my point. That switch makes me happy. ..because it is reasonable.

I thought that movie was terrible by the way.

Haha, how so? I thought it was well-done and interesting, ignoring the propaganda angle. I enjoyed it but I don't count it as a great movie.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you do not pull the lever you are letting 5 people die to save one. If you pull it you let one person die to save 5.

Why does pulling the lever kill the one person? What's to stop him from moving out of the way?

 

[Bradskii]

Why does pulling the lever kill the one person? What's to stop him from moving out of the way?

It's a hypothetical. You respond to the situation as noted. You don't make up 'with one mighty bound, he was free' scenarios.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's a hypothetical. You respond to the situation as noted.

Of course!

You don't make up 'with one mighty bound, he was free' scenarios.

What are you talking about here?

 

[zippy2006]

It's a hypothetical. You respond to the situation as noted. You don't make up 'with one mighty bound, he was free' scenarios.

According to the hypothetical in the OP the single person is not tied up.

 

[IceJad]

Whats abouts that pesky commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Or St. Paul's admonition in Romans 3:8?

Have the Lutherans traded the Bible for a philosophical ethics textbook?

There is nothing pesky about the commandment of "Thou shall not kill". However it is not the word of the commandment we follow but the spirit of the commandment. Same applies with law. If you see an innocent human about to be killed by a determined killer (like a terrorist) and you're the only person who is capable to stop it by killing the killer, do the words "Thou shall not kill" apply?

We understand the morality that God teaches us as a whole not by selective passages. In totality God wants us to do good to others as we want others to repay in kind. Preserve life where possible take it when necessary as Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun.

I read the Bible holistically and in totality. Cherry picking gets everyone in trouble when the word of the message contradict the spirit of the message. Jesus didn't stone the adulterer, in fact He challenges others who by the law of the time demand stoning for the sin. The end is compassion is better than strict law.

If that were true then we could never say a word about moral norms, for concrete contexts can never be exhaustively described.

There is why there are courts. Killing is wrong in general but there are many scenarios it is needed. Not all killings are murders. This is where context is needed.

 

[Bradskii]

According to the hypothetical in the OP the single person is not tied up.

Irrelevant. The question is: Do you kill one to save five. Not: Think of ways he can avoid the trolley.

 

[zippy2006]

Irrelevant. The question is: Do you kill one to save five.

It's a hypothetical. You respond to the situation as noted.

 

[zippy2006]

Whats abouts that pesky commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"?

Preserve life where possible take it when necessary...

Mmmk.

 

[Bradskii]

A comment might clarify the reason for that post.

 

[IceJad]

The trolley problem has given us a set of limited knowns in which we can examine the perfectly sensible principle that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The trolley problem fails only to confront us with any of the other moral principles that naturally compete with the utilitarian principle in more complex scenarios.

For me when I confront the trolley problem, it is not so much as to what my conscience tells me is the moral action. For there is not an actual person being hurt. It is a thought experiment on what morality to apply.

As such I approach the question to "why is this a problem?" with the understanding of how does this challenges other competing moral standards I hold. I'm looking at it from a more meta-contextual aspect.

The solution is obvious if no extra context is given. But I'm not here for the solution to the problem. Which I believe you're not either. It is to debate what entails the utilitarianism of the trolley problem. I hope I'm reading you right.

 

[IceJad]

Mmmk.

I don't get why you're amused by the 2 statements. When the commandments are given it is the basis for normative societal structure. When all things are peaceful don't go against the commandments.

The trolley problem is non-normative situation, therefore we must apply wisdom to solve it. If the 10 Commandments are so inviolable why does God commanded the Israelites to wipe out their surroundings people? Why give a command that contradict the earlier commandment? Because the situation is non-normative. There is a reason behind the killings of which is better left in the theological forums.

 

[zippy2006]

It's fascinating how this is often viewed as killing one person instead of saving five.

I would say it is correctly viewed as killing one person to save five.

There is a similar scenario where I'm visiting a foreign country run by a tyrant. The tyrant is about to execute 10 people as I am walking by and offers to free nine if I shoot one.

I can refuse and ten die. I can kill one and nine live. What causes me to hesitate? I don't want to commit murder. Essentially, I value my own righteousness more than nine lives. Or, I am unwilling to sacrifice my goodness for the sake of nine lives. Once it is framed that way, it appears I value my own righteousness more than the lives of others, which is selfish. On the other hand, to sacrifice one's own goodness for the sake of the many is a sacrifice worth considering. What matters more, my sense of being a good person or nine lives? Would I sacrifice nine lives to be good? That's such an odd thought.

This is basically a strawman. No deontologist would claim that what is at stake is their sense of righteousness. The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," not, "Thou shalt not lose thy sense of righteousness."

It's quite odd to reduce moral claims to self-perceptions. Self-perceptions are just another consequence, and by your consequentialist logic that consequence is outweighed by the competing consequences of lives saved. But you don't seem to realize that the person who rejects consequentialism does not accept the idea that consequences--whether lives saved or subjective feelings--do not have the final say.

...This group would include those who uphold the principle of double effect but deny that it provides a permission to swerve the trolley (Elizabeth Anscombe, 1982)...

Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Anscombe is right, as usual. Applying double-effect to this scenario would be 'casuistry'.

But I would think not pulling it does not absolve one of culpability, since they could have pulled it...

This is your crucial argument, but I disagree. I think acting and not-acting are really different sorts of things. Those who would pull the lever are willing to commit murder that good may come.

Even for all the power of consequentialism, the analysis doesn't seem very difficult to me, at least for deontologists or Christians. If the one person is not on the tracks then you are obliged to pull the lever because there is nothing intrinsically immoral about that act. If the one person is (tied down) on the tracks then you can't pull it. We are not the masters of life and death in that way.

If you received permission from the lone person to pull the lever then I should think that you could pull it, but that is merely an intuition I haven't worked out.

 

[IceJad]

Why does pulling the lever kill the one person? What's to stop him from moving out of the way?

This maybe?

 

[Moral Orel]

But why is my choice arbitrary and how does that arbitrariness affect the topic at hand?

It doesn't bother me that some monkeys open nuts with rocks (tools). I haven't claimed otherwise.

You asked what "good" means, and I told you. It is that which each living thing seeks. Water is good for plants, grass for cows, etc. I didn't think I was saying anything so controversial at this early stage.

If whether or not something is good is dependent on what "kind" it is, then we're already heading down relativism road. Where we draw the lines between kinds will affect what's good and what ain't. If you've got some reasoning to draw the line at "human" then you can prescribe what's good for humans, but why stop there? A psychopathic killer is a kind of human that exists, but I'm sure you wouldn't say that what he seeks (murder) is good? A suicidal person is another kind of human that exists, but I'm sure you wouldn't say that what he seeks (death) is good. We have to draw the lines at humans so that we can say that what these kinds seek is bad, but we're already drawing lines to make things good for one thing or another. So why stop?

There are things like pre-experiential aversion to snakes and pre-experiential attraction to human faces, etc. Usually this is explained in terms of Evolution.

Interesting. Anything about something directly related to the topic? Frinstance, does an infant cry because it desires sustenance, or does it cry because of hunger pains it doesn't understand, only later creating an association between feeding and relieving the hunger pains?

Ah, but now you've made the switch from pleasure to happiness, which was my point. That switch makes me happy. ..because it is reasonable.

Meh, don't get too excited. I still see happiness as the second order thing caused by experiencing pleasure.

Haha, how so? I thought it was well-done and interesting, ignoring the propaganda angle. I enjoyed it but I don't count it as a great movie.

I watch a lot of movies, and I like all kinds. But some things have subject matter that is done best dark and gritty. It was far too nice. The ham-fisted cleaning that had to be done to keep it from being realistic annoys me. To be fair, I'm biased towards dark because it's so rare and I crave things that are different. As an example, I love Spider-Man movies, sure. But Logan was a masterpiece.

 

[Estrid]

But why is my choice arbitrary and how does that arbitrariness affect the topic at hand?

It doesn't bother me that some monkeys open nuts with rocks (tools). I haven't claimed otherwise.

You asked what "good" means, and I told you. It is that which each living thing seeks. Water is good for plants, grass for cows, etc. I didn't think I was saying anything so controversial at this early stage.



There are things like pre-experiential aversion to snakes and pre-experiential attraction to human faces, etc. Usually this is explained in terms of Evolution.



Ah, but now you've made the switch from pleasure to happiness, which was my point. That switch makes me happy. ..because it is reasonable.



Haha, how so? I thought it was well-done and interesting, ignoring the propaganda angle. I enjoyed it but I don't count it as a great movie.

There is no "pre experiental aversion to snakes"
in human beings.
"Evolution" is not a proper noun.

 

[durangodawood]

Whats abouts that pesky commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Or St. Paul's admonition in Romans 3:8?...

As Icejad notes, the Bible if chock full of divinely sanctioned killing of human by humans. So its reasonable to interpret the commandment as applying just to normal situations.

That said, the trolley problem doesnt have you killing people either way. That blame belongs solely to the trolley company and whatever they did to cause a deadly runaway trolley

 

[durangodawood]

For me when I confront the trolley problem, it is not so much as to what my conscience tells me is the moral action. For there is not an actual person being hurt. It is a thought experiment on what morality to apply.

As such I approach the question to "why is this a problem?" with the understanding of how does this challenge other competing moral standards I hold. I'm looking at it from a more meta-contextual aspect.

The solution is obvious if no extra context is given. But I'm not here for the solution to the problem. Which I believe you're not either. It is to debate what entails the utilitarianism of the trolley problem. I hope I'm reading you right.

This thread has answered its title question in abundance. Far beyond expectations. So thanks to all the participants!

Not sure what you mean "debate what entails the utilitarianism of the trolley problem."

What Ive seen here is some people holding a huge aversion to the utilitarian principle that its better to help many than few. The aversion seems to stem from the false notion that you can only pick one single moral principle to apply to every situation. And so if the hammer of utilitarianism is your only moral tool, you will end up smashing most things to bits.

But why just one moral principle? Why not many? And why not look to the wisdom of the ages for how we should weigh all our moral principles against each other in complex situations?

There's a touch of Captain Ahab, it seems, in the monomaniacal insistence that moral complexity succumb to a one-liner moral rule.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why does pulling the lever kill the one person? What's to stop him from moving out of the way?

In the scenario the one person is also tied and bound to the tracks like the 5 others are. So that’s why he can’t get out of the way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

According to the hypothetical in the OP the single person is not tied up.

Yes it wasn’t explained correctly. The one person is also supposed to be tied and bound to the tracks.