Why Is This A Problem???

[durangodawood]

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

The text, which I copied from wikip, says "....2.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."

 

[durangodawood]

...The Trolley Problem is simply an argument against deontological thinking.....

I dont understand deontological thinking. It seems untethered and dependent entirely on human notions of what the divine wants. Its backstop is faith alone.

I prefer moral rules backstopped in natural human values and formulated in deep wisdom about how our actions support or defeat those values. In fact I think the excellent moral principles in the Bible came about that way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The text, which I copied from wikip, says "....2.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."

Sorry I wasn’t implying that it was your mistake.

 

[zippy2006]

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

I don't think this is correct. Erect the same scenario except erase the five people. Would pulling the lever be murder? Could the person who pulls the lever blame the death on the trolley company?

 

[zippy2006]

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?

First, what is your alternative?

Second, you seem to be talking about moral goodness, whereas I am talking about psychological goodness. The killer and the suicide are both seeking a psychological good, namely something that they understand to be desirable. (I am using "psychological" in the philosophical sense of that which relates to the subject's mind or psyche)

So your assumption that I am setting the stage for arbitrary distinction is false.

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?

Why do you think my examples were unrelated to the topic? I think an infant probably cries because of some form of discomfort.

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

Then you need to go back to my point that some people shun pleasure for the sake of happiness (and not merely for delayed gratification of their desire for pleasure).

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.

Haha, okay. But I think that tension between the subterranean world and the prim and proper world of surface life was part of the theme of the movie.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think this is correct. Erect the same scenario except erase the five people. Would pulling the lever be murder? Could the person who pulls the lever blame the death on the trolley company?

Interesting question.

Generally: whats your level of responsibility if you choose to direct a deadly peril toward a more populated area, all else being equal?

I think thats making a deadly peril even deadlier, which counts as murder if thats your intent. BUT it starts at minimum as a deadly peril no matter what. You didnt make it that way.

 

[o_mlly]

I prefer moral rules backstopped in natural human values and formulated in deep wisdom ...

Right. Is not the desire to stay alive a "natural human value"? How deep a thinker does the one on the track have to be to convince those bystanders who think his life is, well ... just a "throw away life"?

How about this argument: "Hey, hold off on pulling that lever! If you pull that lever, I'm taking you off my birthday party list!"

 

[durangodawood]

Right. Is not the desire to stay alive a "natural human value"? How deep a thinker does the one on the track have to be to convince those bystanders who think his life is, well ... just a "throw away life"?

How about this argument: "Hey, hold off on pulling that lever! If you pull that lever, I'm taking you off my birthday party list!"

Someone is going to get hit with the deadly peril. Not sure any one of them has a better argument to make than any other about how much they value their own lives.

 

[MehGuy]

I'd repeatable pull on the lever hopefully derailing the trolley. Potentially killing everyone and myself in the process, lol.

 

[durangodawood]

I'd repeatable pull on the lever hopefully derailing the trolley. Potentially killing everyone and myself in the process, lol.

Or just put a penny on the tracks because that would be.... fun?

 

[zippy2006]

Interesting question.

Generally: whats your level of responsibility if you choose to direct a deadly peril toward a more populated area, all else being equal?

I think thats making a deadly peril even deadlier, which counts as murder if thats your intent. BUT it starts at minimum as a deadly peril no matter what. You didnt make it that way.

The trolley case is not "directing deadly peril." It is killing. The five people will die if the trolley hits them. The one person will die if the trolley hits them. Since there is a 100% chance of death this is not a case of "directing deadly peril."

If you tie someone up on a train track with full knowledge that a train is coming it is murder. It not merely endangering their life.

 

[zippy2006]

Speaking of directing deadly peril, no one does it like Batman!

 

[durangodawood]

The trolley case is not "directing deadly peril." It is killing. The five people will die if the trolley hits them. The one person will die if the trolley hits them. Since there is a 100% chance of death this is not a case of "directing deadly peril."

If you tie someone up on a train track with full knowledge that a train is coming it is murder. It not merely endangering their life.

The you in the problem did not do tie anyone up. Thats just a feature of the situation as you encounter it.

I can see how "tied-up" it a terrible feature of the construction of the trolley problem as it introduces the useless complication of who would tie somebody to tracks, and what their responsibility is.

So skip tied-up and just go with: whoever the trolley hits will get killed in your best judgement. The trolley is supposed to be the deadly peril in this thought experiment.

Or better yet, use my alternative hypothetical in post #30, which tests for the same moral issue.

 

[zippy2006]

The you in the problem did not do tie anyone up. Thats just a feature of the situation as you encounter it.

I can see how "tied-up" it a terrible feature of the construction of the trolley problem as it introduces the useless complication of who would tie somebody to tracks, and what their responsibility is.

So skip tied-up and just go with: whoever the trolley hits will get killed in your best judgement. The trolley is supposed to be the deadly peril in this thought experiment.

Or better yet, use my alternative hypothetical in post #30, which tests for the same moral issue.

It doesn't matter who tied them up. Whether or not there are five people on one of the tracks, if you pull a lever to put a trolley on a track that you know will kill someone, then you have murdered them. To murder someone is to intentionally kill them (apart from wars and criminal executions, which are not unlawful).

The question is, "Should I murder one to save five others from death?"

PH rightly described a parallel murder scenario in post #93.

 

[durangodawood]

It doesn't matter who tied them up. Whether or not there are five people on one of the tracks, if you pull a lever to put a trolley on a track that you know will kill someone, then you have murdered them. To murder someone is to intentionally kill them (apart from wars and criminal executions, which are not unlawful).

The question is, "Should I murder one to save five others from death?"

PH rightly described a parallel murder scenario in post #93.

Uh. No. As I said, the train is a deadly peril before it even gets to you. That is not your fault in any way.

 

[zippy2006]

Uh. No. As I said, the train is a deadly peril before it even gets to you. That is not your fault in any way.

It is not your fault that five people are about to die, but if you pull the lever then it is your fault that the lone person has died. When you decide to intentionally kill someone you have murdered them. We don't get to redefine words when the going gets tough. That fact that you have saved the five doesn't mean you haven't murdered the one.

Here is Philippa Foot's original paper, by the way: "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect."

 

[durangodawood]

It is not your fault that five people are about to die, but if you pull the lever then it is your fault that the lone person has died. When you decide to intentionally kill someone you have murdered them. We don't get to redefine words when the going gets tough. That fact that you have saved the five doesn't mean you haven't murdered the one.

Here is Philippa Foot's original paper, by the way: "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect."

You are the one redefining murder here. Murder means an unlawful killing. Is it unlawful in this case where a person, in good conscience, directs a deadly peril that they didn't cause towards a less populated area? I highly doubt it.

Plus your definition means killing on the battlefield in wartime is an act of murder.

 

[Bradskii]

It is not your fault that five people are about to die, but if you pull the lever then it is your fault that the lone person has died. When you decide to intentionally kill someone you have murdered them.

But it isn't your intent to kill the guy. It's your intent to save the five. A subtle difference but one that probably would absolve you of a criminal charge.

And going from the small percentage of people in this thread who wouldn't have pulled the lever and extrapolating, I would say that anyone charged would not be convicted. I sincerely doubt you'd even get a majority verdict for guilty. I'm certain that you wouldn't get a unanimous one.

 

[durangodawood]

But it isn't your intent to kill the guy. It's your intent to save the five. A subtle difference but one that probably would absolve you of a criminal charge.

Not subtle. You didn't want anyone to die. You didn't create the deadly peril. It's appearance was thrust upon you unwanted. You'd probably be seen as a hero for getting involved and directing the peril towards the least populated part of town you could.

 

[Moral Orel]

First, what is your alternative?

You know me, I separate all the way down to the individual.

Second, you seem to be talking about moral goodness, whereas I am talking about psychological goodness. The killer and the suicide are both seeking a psychological good, namely something that they understand to be desirable. (I am using "psychological" in the philosophical sense of that which relates to the subject's mind or psyche)

So your assumption that I am setting the stage for arbitrary distinction is false.

Okay, my bad, I thought you were working out moral goodness. If you aren't there yet, and you're just talking about what people desire, then okay. I like steak, I desire steak, I'd say steak is good in that context, sure.

Why do you think my examples were unrelated to the topic? I think an infant probably cries because of some form of discomfort.

The only "good" you've talked about so far is survival and the food that helps you survive. Does an infant desire food before he eats, or does he feel hunger pains he doesn't understand?

I looked up the snake thing too. I found an article that said kids aren't afraid of snakes, necessarily, but triangular shapes like fangs and claws.

Then you need to go back to my point that some people shun pleasure for the sake of happiness (and not merely for delayed gratification of their desire for pleasure).

Why? Just because they've accepted some pain, doesn't mean that it isn't accompanied by pleasure from a different cause. When you're experiencing happiness, you're experiencing pleasure. So what? Why is it so important to you that this not be the case?