The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Moral Orel]

One of the premises is the same as the conclusion.

No, they're not. Need to look at them again? Here you go:

p we shouldn't actively kill someone no matter what
p pulling the lever actively kills someone
c we shouldn't pull the lever

Now can you see that "we shouldn't actively kill someone no matter what" =/= "we shouldn't pull the lever"? I mean there's only two words that are the same in each sentence. In what universe are these two sentences equal to each other?

The first premise is a statement that applies to a broad range of situations. The second premise ties the specific situation you find yourself in to the rule in the first premise. The conclusion finds that you should follow the broad rule in the specific situation you find yourself in.

The Roosters play the best footy.
Nobody else plays better.
Therefore the Roosters play the best footy.

Please tell me that you see that that's nonsensical.

Yes, "the Roosters play the best footy" == "the Roosters play the best footy". And your argument is not valid. It isn't analogous to my argument because my premise =/= my conclusion.

It's a standard deductive argument.

All dogs have fur.
Dolphins don't have fur.
Dolphins aren't dogs.

You're going from the general to the specific.

Here's your argument if it was analogous to mine:

The Roosters play better footy than all other footy teams.
The Cows are a footy team.
The Roosters play footy better than The Cows.

You're going from the general to the specific. C'mon, man. Your objections are getting ridiculous.

 

[Bradskii]

No, they're not. Need to look at them again? Here you go:

p we shouldn't actively kill someone no matter what
p pulling the lever actively kills someone
c we shouldn't pull the lever...

...and actively kill someone.

We're looking to determine a moral act. Not specifically pulling a lever or pushing a button.

 

[Moral Orel]

...and actively kill someone.

We're looking to determine a moral act. Not specifically pulling a lever or pushing a button.

I'm sorry that my detailed explanation has gone over your head. I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do for you.

 

[o_mlly]

Back to the trolley problem. The facts are indisputable. They are objective facts. Pull this lever, one person dies. Don't pull it, five people die. So is actively killing one person wrong, as many Catholics would say?

The one on the now safe track is your wife. How many need to be in jeopardy on the other track for you to pull that lever, eg., just the 5, or 10, or 1000? What number of lives equate to your wife's one life in your objective calculus?

Now back to the thread. Anyone?

 

[Bradskii]

The one on the now safe track is your wife. How many need to be in jeopardy on the other track for you to pull that lever, eg., just the 5, or 10, or 1000? What number of lives equate to your wife's one life in your objective calculus?

I need to check her insurance. I'll get back you you. By the way, are you on the track with the other people?

 

[o_mlly]

I need to check her insurance. I'll get back you you. By the way, are you on the track with the other people?

No, I'm not. Those other people on the track are all rapists but, you know, the "good" kind of rapists.

Following your moral compass (it's good to kill 1 to save 5), Mrs. B. hears you say, "Sorry, dear, I just have to pull the lever." You put your hand on the lever and Mrs. B. shoots you dead. Is her preemptive strike a moral act?

 

[Bradskii]

Following your moral compass (it's good to kill 1 to save 5)...

The numbers only matter to those who aren't deontological. And all the acts are moral acts. Whether they are morally good or morally bad, that is a question you need ask the individuals concerned. The numbers only determine value. Is my wife worth more than X number of people? To anyone who is not connected to either of us, the answer would be no. To myself and my family? Who knows.

The question obviously doesn't mention family members or friends because that clouds the issue. One needs a simple answer to a simple question to scratch away the veneer and see if there's a utilitarian underneath.

And who says it's good to kill 1 to save 5? It's an awful decision and a terrible result. If I decide to sacrifice my wife to save 5 do you think I'd believe that's a good act? You're still stuck in this mindset that says that if you claim something is objectively bad and someone argues that point, then that person must therefore think it's good.

And based on that error you keep on asking for posters to present someone who would disagree with you that an awful act that you say is objectively bad and say that it is actually good. Which isn't the argument. And wouldn't prove that the act was subjective any more than if everyone on the planet agreed it was bad made it objective.

You really need to get your head around this aspect of the problem. And you need to explain to everyone that you take an absolutist view on matters such as these and therefore, in your view, any acts must be objective and any arguments to the contrary are a waste of time.

 

[o_mlly]

The numbers only matter to those who aren't deontological. And all the acts are moral acts. Whether they are morally good or morally bad, that is a question you need ask the individuals concerned. The numbers only determine value. Is my wife worth more than X number of people? To anyone who is not connected to either of us, the answer would be no. To myself and my family? Who knows.

The question obviously doesn't mention family members or friends because that clouds the issue. One needs a simple answer to a simple question to scratch away the veneer and see if there's a utilitarian underneath.

And who says it's good to kill 1 to save 5? It's an awful decision and a terrible result. If I decide to sacrifice my wife to save 5 do you think I'd believe that's a good act? You're still stuck in this mindset that says that if you claim something is objectively bad and someone argues that point, then that person must therefore think it's good.

And based on that error you keep on asking for posters to present someone who would disagree with you that an awful act that you say is objectively bad and say that it is actually good. Which isn't the argument. And wouldn't prove that the act was subjective any more than if everyone on the planet agreed it was bad made it objective.

You really need to get your head around this aspect of the problem. And you need to explain to everyone that you take an absolutist view on matters such as these and therefore, in your view, any acts must be objective and any arguments to the contrary are a waste of time.

So, we are not going to get your answer regarding the morality of the one on track's preemptive attack as justifiable homicide or not. And, as to pulling the lever on a loved one, we get, "Who knows?". Thanks for your non-input.

Placing someone known on the track does not cloud but clarifies the shallowness and lack of humanity in your moral position. If you would pull the lever on a stranger but not your wife discloses a gross disregard for the mother, father, spouse, and/or children of the one who to you is a stranger.

You need to explain how deciding morality by the feeling in your gut rather than thinking objectively with your head is correct. When does the one on the track gain entry into the select group whose lives you would spare? First cousins, fourth cousins twice removed? Just where is the line drawn between stranger and friend ? Does that line move depending on the day of the week or if you had a bad bout of insomnia last night?

 

[Bradskii]

When does the one on the track gain entry into the select group whose lives you would spare? First cousins, fourth cousins twice removed?

You nearly had it.

'I would willingly die for two brothers or eight cousins.' J B S Haldane.

 

[o_mlly]

You nearly had it.

'I would willingly die for two brothers or eight cousins.' J B S Haldane.

Still no answer.

To keep the exchange related to the thread's OP, what say you as to the morality of the one on the track who preemptively attacks the bystander who has expressed his intent and moves to pull the lever? Justifiable homicide or not?

 

[Bradskii]

To keep the exchange related to the thread's OP, what say you as to the morality of the one on the track who preemptively attacks the bystander who has expressed his intent and moves to pull the lever? Justifiable homicide or not?

I don't know why I'm surprised that you think the Trolley Problem is a means to determine the legal aspects of the act. If you kill someone then it's homicide. That's a given. By definition. Is it murder? Well, you'll need malice aforethought. A debateable point. Maybe murder in the second degree or perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Those are questions for the relevant authorities.

Now is it justified? Well, self defence is always a valid justification. So yes. The question you should have asked is whether it was the right decision. Ask her and she might say yes it was. Or might say that it was the wrong decision because five people would die, but she'd pull the trigger and save her own life anyway (this would be my answer if it was my wife - saving her would be wrong, but I'd probably do it anyway).

Ask me and I'd say it was the right decision for her but the wrong decision overall. I guess it's all subjective. Except for those who take an absolutist position of course.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't know why I'm surprised that you think the Trolley Problem is a means to determine the legal aspects of the act. If you kill someone then it's homicide. That's a given. By definition. Is it murder? Well, you'll need malice aforethought. A debateable point. Maybe murder in the second degree or perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Those are questions for the relevant authorities.

The is the Ethics and Morality forum; not the Legal forum. If one, as you do, regulates their behavior with their fleeting feelings rather than their reason, it easy to see how quickly you can muddle the issue.
Murder and murder in the second degree have nothing to do with the act under examination.

Now is it justified? Well, self defence is always a valid justification. So yes.

Very good. Now self-defense is valid iff the one who is about to attack is an unjust aggressor. This condition makes the bystander and his act of pulling the lever unjust. You should have began and stopped right there. But ...

Or might say that it was the wrong decision because five people would die, but she'd pull the trigger and save her own life anyway (this would be my answer if it was my wife - saving her would be wrong, but I'd probably do it anyway).

Ask me and I'd say it was the right decision for her but the wrong decision overall. I guess it's all subjective. Except for those who take an absolutist position of course.

Ethics and morality are about rights and duties. No more, no less. While always commendable, heroic virtue is never a duty. Next.

 

[Bradskii]

The is the Ethics and Morality forum; not the Legal forum. Murder and murder in the second degree have nothing to do with the act under examination.

The term you used in asking about my position re the trolley problem is a legal one.

...regarding the morality of the one on track's preemptive attack as justifiable homicide or not.

It's a concept that one can use to avoid criminal proceedings for culpable homicide. I responded in kind. And odd that you can claim that legal definitions of the act of killing an innocent person has nothing to do with the matter at hand, yet you immediately say that self-defence can be claimed to bolster your argument.

Very good. Now self-defense is valid iff the one who is about to attack is an unjust aggressor. This condition makes the bystander and his act of pulling the lever unjust.

Unfortunately you have difficulty in coming to terms with concepts like 'the lesser of two evils'. So I'll pass on trying to explain that the problem is not to determine whether the act is good or bad. It's to determine which way you'd act in a specific situation. That is, can one do something considered to be bad so that a greater good may come from it. As I said, that means absolutely nothing to you, so...waste of my time explaining further.

 

[o_mlly]

The term you used in asking about my position re the trolley problem is a legal one.

Nope.

what say you as to the morality of ...

It's a concept that one can use to avoid criminal proceedings for culpable homicide. I responded in kind. And odd that you can claim that legal definitions of the act of killing an innocent person has nothing to do with the matter at hand, yet you immediately say that self-defence can be claimed to bolster your argument.

No need to invoke legalisms. Morality is always about justice and only immoral acts have to deal with issues of culpability.

... yet you immediately say that self-defence can be claimed to bolster your argument.

Perhaps you missed the #1 post.

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

This thread has always been about self-defense. It took you awhile to get to the answer but better late than never.

Unfortunately you have difficulty in coming to terms with concepts like 'the lesser of two evils'. So I'll pass on trying to explain that the problem is not to determine whether the act is good or bad. It's to determine which way you'd act in a specific situation. That is, can one do something considered to be bad so that a greater good may come from it. As I said, that means absolutely nothing to you, so...waste of my time explaining further.

I have no problem understanding the lesser of two evils. But you have stated the real problem you have with morality: "the problem is not to determine whether the act is good or bad ...".
That's precisely the problem that morality addresses.

 

[Bradskii]

I have no problem understanding the lesser of two evils. But you have stated the real problem you have with morality: "the problem is not to determine whether the act is good or bad ...".
That's precisely the problem that morality addresses.

The trolley problem is simply to determine if you'd commit an act even if you considered it wrong. It asks you to make a subjective determination as to the best course of action. Or the least worse.

 

[o_mlly]

The trolley problem is simply to determine if you'd commit an act even if you considered it wrong. It asks you to make a subjective determination as to the best course of action. Or the least worse.

If one judges an act to be wrong, ie., immoral, and proceeds to commit the act then one has acted immorally. If an act that is wrong in itself, that is, regardless of any particular actor, then that act is objectively wrong. The best course of action is always to act morally.

We always choose the apparent good but the apparent good is not always the true good. One who commits an immoral act may do so subjectively because erroneous thinking is subjectively determined. But the act remains objectively immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

We always choose the apparent good...

Darn tootin'. We can only play the cards that we are dealt. I have many commendable characteristics, but omniscience isn't one of them.

 

[o_mlly]

We can only play the cards that we are dealt.

And, sometimes it's better to fold 'em than hold 'em.

 

[o_mlly]

And, sometimes it's better to fold 'em than hold 'em.

Just to finish the thread with the lyrics from "The Gambler" (Kenny Rogers).

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run​