Why Is This A Problem???

[durangodawood]

Thank you for your empathy. I'm sorry about your mother. I mentioned my situation only as a means of pointing out that it can be a real life problem.

I don't agree with you. I think its exactly the same problem as the trolley. In this case 'degree of suffering' is a substitute for 'number of people killed'. 'Pulling the lever' is analogous to actively causing death and minimising suffering while not pulling the lever amounts to passively allowing prolonged suffering.

OB

I dont think the difficult balance between valuing the life of a beloved vs valuing their freedom from suffering maps onto the trolley problem, which can be summarized with no loss of meaning as: is it OK to steer danger toward less populated areas? There's really nothing else to draw out of the problem presented as its given to us above.

I think hard conflicts of values would require a different hypothetical to explore, or some very significant elaboration on the one I read. The problem you graciously offered from your own experience seems much more difficult, for individuals involved, and for the law.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

How do you know that pulling the lever won’t result in more people being killed farther down the track? If I don’t pull the lever the railroad is responsible for the deaths. If I do pull the lever I’m responsible for anything that happens afterwards. Maybe diverting the train onto another track might cause it to collide with another train killing even more people.

 

[durangodawood]

How do you know that pulling the lever won’t result in more people being killed farther down the track? If I don’t pull the lever the railroad is responsible for the deaths. If I do pull the lever I’m responsible for anything that happens afterwards. Maybe diverting the train onto another track might cause it to collide with another train killing even more people.

The hypothetical presents the problem as it appears to you. We're presuming you are of sound mind. And not drunk or half blind. We're presuming all the things necessary for the hypothetical to be basically what it says it is.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The hypothetical presents the problem as it appears to you. We're presuming you are of sound mind. And not drunk or half blind. We're presuming all the things necessary for the hypothetical to be basically what it says it is.

Oh I was assuming this would be a real life situation where the alternate track would continue going on past the one person somewhere unknown to me. I wasn’t aware that we were to assume that the tracks end was in sight.

 

[durangodawood]

Oh I was assuming this would be a real life situation where the alternate track would continue going on past the one person somewhere unknown to me. I wasn’t aware that we were to assume that the tracks end was in sight.

Pretty much every morality hypothetical can be broken by adding various elements to the story.

The point of them is to isolate a particular moral issue without having to make a novel of it. Youre supposed to go with it as presented and not find ways to break it. Unless its simply farcical as presented. This one isnt.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Pretty much every morality hypothetical can be broken by adding various elements to the story.

The point of them is to isolate a particular moral issue without having to make a novel of it. Youre supposed to go with it as presented and not find ways to break it. Unless its simply farcical as presented. This one isnt.

I have a tendency to think ahead and I thought the point of the exercise was to evaluate the consequences of my actions. In a real life situation I wouldn’t touch the lever because I don’t know where the other track goes and as soon as I touch that lever I put myself responsible for anything that would happen afterwards. There’s no indication that said runaway trolly is going to stop so I could be making myself responsible for God knows what if I intervene. So my choice would be not to get involved because I don’t know what I’m doing. I could be causing a head on collision with another train killing even more people.

 

[durangodawood]

I have a tendency to think ahead and I thought the point of the exercise was to evaluate the consequences of my actions. In a real life situation I wouldn’t touch the lever because I don’t know where the other track goes and as soon as I touch that lever I put myself responsible for anything that would happen afterwards. There’s no indication that said runaway trolly is going to stop so I could be making myself responsible for God knows what if I intervene. So my choice would be not to get involved because I don’t know what I’m doing. I could be causing a head on collision with another train killing even more people.

I really do see the reasonableness in your real-lifeing of the situation.

But.... the spirit of the hypothetical would ask you to modify the story as needed so that the moral issue the author wants to explore can be tested by you, and not avoided.

So do what you need to make it so your characters excellent judgement confronts you in the story with the kind of the dilemma the author is probing.

 

[durangodawood]

I have a tendency to think ahead and I thought the point of the exercise was to evaluate the consequences of my actions....

How did I miss this? Thats not the point at all. The consequences are givens. 1 dead. Or 5 dead. Thats it.

The point of the exercise is to evaluate the moral correctness of either pulling the lever, or of choosing not to, leading to the given consequences.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I really do see the reasonableness in your real-lifeing of the situation.

But.... the spirit of the hypothetical would ask you to modify the story as needed so that the moral issue the author wants to explore can be tested by you, and not avoided.

So do what you need to make it so your characters excellent judgement confronts you in the story with the kind of the dilemma the author is probing.

Well in that case it would still depend on the situation like who are these 5 people and the 1 person? Is it 5 old people and a young child? Is it 5 hell’s angels and a nun? But just for the sake of compliance if it were 5 identical people I still wouldn’t touch the lever because I don’t want to be the one who chooses who lives and who dies. I’ll leave that in God’s hands.

 

[durangodawood]

.....But just for the sake of compliance if it were 5 identical people I still wouldn’t touch the lever because I don’t want to be the one who chooses who lives and who dies. I’ll leave that in God’s hands.

Its not about being a good boy and complying. Its about what you just did there: looking the moral issue straight on, and justifying a decision.

Of course I totally disagree with your decision.

Let me use a different scenario:

Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot and killed the engines. The plane is on a glide path right toward what looks to you like the most populated part of the city. Youve been taught how to steer a plane in a situation like this. No other pilots on board. Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward less populated area? The plane itself is totally doomed either way. .......Or.... hands off, let God decide? Those are the available options in your very best judgement at the time.

 

[setst777]

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 one person on the side track, according to your analogy, does not appear to be tied up, so he is free to move.

So the one person on the side track has an opportunity to get off the track before the diverted trolley hits him, BUT the five who are tied up have no opportunity to avoid the trolley.

So, what I would do is shout to the guy on the side track to move out of the way, and then I would pull the lever to divert the trolley on the side track.

 

[durangodawood]

The one person on the side track, according to your analogy, does not appear to be tied up, so he is free to move.

So the one person on the side track has an opportunity to get off the track before the diverted trolley hits him, BUT the five who are tied up have no opportunity to avoid the trolley.

So, what I would do is shout to the guy on the side track to move out of the way, and then I would pull the lever to divert the trolley on the side track.

The hypothetical, which is not mine, says the one person will die if you pull the lever. Tie him up too if it helps set the scene.

Pls see #27 for my take on probing the hypothetical head on.

 

[Tone]

The real question is: Where is the actual application for the so-called "Trolley Propaganda Machine" dilemma

What's kinda sad, but funny is my biological father used this illustration to explain to me why he was in and out of prison and not raising me...

He considered himself a minister to the other inmates. So I was the one person he chose to sacrifice in order to save the others.

I believe I've even heard this as an illustration for God's choice to sacrifice His Son.

I personally don't see the connection in either scenario though.

 

[durangodawood]

What's kinda sad, but funny is my biological father used this illustration to explain to me why he was in and out of prison and not raising me...

He considered himself a minister to the other inmates. So I was the one person he chose to sacrifice in order to save the others.

I believe I've even heard this as an illustration for God's choice to sacrifice His Son.

I personally don't see the connection in either scenario though.

Make sure you read RDKs post #11 about "To whom do I owe a duty in my actions?"

Its a perspective I hadnt thought of for a hypothetical where you really do know one or more of the affected.

 

[Tone]

Make sure you read RDKs post #11 about "To whom do I owe a duty in my actions?"

Its a perspective I hadnt thought of for a hypothetical where you really do know one or more of the affected.

Well, I think it'd be the Utilitarian view.

It certainly isn't a Biblical view.

 

[Tone]

As for me personally, I wouldn't even answer the question, because it really doesn't make any sense.

It treats people quantitively and then asks for a qualitative answer.

 

[durangodawood]

As for me personally, I wouldn't even answer the question, because it really doesn't make any sense.

It treats people quantitively and then asks for a qualitative answer.

All you know is the number of people affected. But that doesnt mean you have to think of them as mere numbers rather than whole people with everything that implies. The hypothetical does not require that. They are people. Thats a given.

 

[Tone]

All you know is the number of people affected. But that doesnt mean you have to think of them as mere numbers rather than whole people with everything that implies. The hypothetical does not require that. They are people. Thats a given.

Then why mention numbers at all?

 

[Tone]

If you pull the lever you are intentionally doing something that will kill someone.

 

[durangodawood]

Then why mention numbers at all?

Because those are the facts of the situation. If those facts dont matter to you, well ok. But I think they should matter.

Its right to steer danger toward the least populated area you can.