Why Is This A Problem???

[RDKirk]

you can choose to see it however you want but as for me, my choice is to not deliberately kill an innocent person in order to save others since I had no part in putting the other’s lives in jeopardy in the first place. In the scenario of the trolly the person who pulled the lever could be charge with murder or voluntary manslaughter.

There is greater likelihood of him being prosecuted (or at least persecuted) for doing nothing at all when he had a clear chance to have saved someone.

 

[o_mlly]

What doe it mean for you to value something? Really?

You posted that the reason you would pull the lever is, "Because I value human lives". Now, you ask me to explain to you what you meant? Really?

You've gone from dancing the Texas 2-step to the 3-step. Pretty soon if you don't 'splain yourself, you're gonna fall off the dance floor.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Me: Intentional inaction is an intentional action.



A choice not to act is an act of choice.

Actions and decisions are two different things entirely.

 

[durangodawood]

You posted that the reason you would pull the lever is, "Because I value human lives". Now, you ask me to explain to you what you meant? Really?

You've gone from dancing the Texas 2-step to the 3-step. Pretty soon if you don't 'splain yourself, you're gonna fall off the dance floor.

Ive been asking what you mean by value when you said human lives have infinite value. If youd prefer to keep that a secret. Ok. Thats what Id call an impasse. But not because we disagree. Just because you have put the topic off limits.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is greater likelihood of him being prosecuted (or at least persecuted) for doing nothing at all when he had a clear chance to have saved someone.

Not when the only action that was available involved killing an innocent person. This should be obvious to you. Do you really think the court is going to prosecute someone for refusing to kill an innocent person? No the way it would go down is only the rail company is authorized to use the track lever and if someone used it unauthorized and it resulted in the death of an innocent person then that person would most likely be prosecuted be either the state, the railroad company, or the family of the deceased.

 

[o_mlly]

Ive been asking what you mean by value when you said human lives have infinite value. If youd prefer to keep that a secret.

? And I answered your question: infinite, inestimable value. Now why won't you tell us how you value human life? Cat got your keyboard?

 

[durangodawood]

? And I answered your question: infinite, inestimable value. Now why won't you tell us how you value human life? Cat got your keyboard?

What do you mean by value in this context? Whats "value"? Thats the question. I dont even know what youre talking about here.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thank you for honoring my request.

That is moral nihilism, not subjectivism.

Incorrect.

Philosophy Basics

Again it depends on the context. If you are talking about personal preferrence then both can be true. Objectively one or the other must be true and the other false.

Wrong.

X has Y.
X does not have Y.

Are always mutually exclusive.

 

[o_mlly]

What do you mean by value in this context? Whats "value"? Thats the question. I dont even know what youre talking about here.

The question is what did you mean when you wrote, ""Because I value human lives".

Keep dancin', and I'll just keep askin'.

 

[durangodawood]

The question is what did you mean when you wrote, ""Because I value human lives".

Keep dancin', and I'll just keep askin'.

I have no problem saying it again.

What do you think "value" even is? It's nothing more than the regard a conscious being has for something. If you think it is something else, please tell me what that would be.

I can see I need to elaborate on what "regard" for a thing would be: You like it. You want it to persist. It satisfies you. You love it. You rely on it for various things. All these and more in the same vein accrue to you valuing a thing.

Now your turn. If you think a thing has inherent value, what exactly is value in that context?

 

[o_mlly]

I can see I need to elaborate on what "regard" for a thing would be: You like it. You want it to persist. It satisfies you. You love it. You rely on it for various things. All these and more in the same vein accrue to you valuing a thing.

As a bystander, which of these "regards" do you deny to the one on the track and at the same time attribute to the five?

Now your turn. If you think a thing has inherent value, what exactly is value in that context

Inestimable. Cannot be measured. Essential, that is, in the very nature of the thing. The value is intrinsic, that is, the value is not extrinsically assignable, removable or changeable.

 

[durangodawood]

As a bystander, which of these "regards" do you deny to the one on the track and at the same time attribute to the five?

Assuming they are all strangers, my regard for each of them is equal. So whatever that value is, 5x it is better. And 1/5 of the net suffering that radiates out into the world from such a calamity is better.

Inestimable. Cannot be measured. Essential, that is, in the very nature of the thing. The value is intrinsic, that is, the value is not extrinsically assignable, removable or changeable.

What do mean by value here? Youre still not saying. Youre only telling what its not, and thats its just in a person. But what is it?

 

[o_mlly]

Assuming they are all strangers, my regard for each of them is equal. So whatever that value is, 5x it is better. And 1/5 of the net suffering that radiates out into the world from such a calamity is better.

As you believe the value of a person is mathematically measurable although your precise value of x remains unknown (and I assume incalculably so since after many requests to do so we still do not have an answer), I submit that you, like me, cannot measure the value of a human life.

 

[durangodawood]

As you believe the value of a person is mathematically measurable although your precise value of x remains unknown (and I assume incalculably so since after many requests to do so we still do not have an answer), I submit that you, like me, cannot measure the value of a human life.

Did I say the value of a person to me is mathematically measurable? If I did, that was a mistake.

 

[o_mlly]

Did I say the value of a person to me is mathematically measurable? If I did, that was a mistake.

"5x" and "1/5x" are mathematical expressions of the value of the unknown "x". How else could those terms be interpreted? What we need to know is what value you assign to "x" the unknown variable.

 

[durangodawood]

"5x" and "1/5x" are mathematical expressions of the value of the unknown "x". How else could those terms be interpreted? What we need to know is what value you assign to "x" the unknown variable.

No we dont. 5x is a comprehensible expression. And its not meant to be precise. It functions as "a bunch more than". Can you like Bob more than Jill? Of course. Does that mean you have to have a number for it?

I already told you what I mean by value, with a lot of specificity.

Your turn.

 

[Bradskii]

What do mean by value here? Youre still not saying. Youre only telling what its not, and thats its just in a person. But what is it?

Herein lies the problem.

We have discovered that killing an innocent person (and there is no argument that the one guy on the track is innocent) is verboten. And not verboten in most circumstances. But always. Period. Just like lying is not allowed (you have to whisper an addendum to the lie that renders it truthful so that God can hear that you're obeying the rules).

Although it seems that one can allow an innocent person to die (it's the very basis of triage). And anyone involved in safety (say motoring laws) will always balance cost versus compliance and convenience - and hence fatalities. Let's face it, motoring deaths would be practically zero if we went back to having someone walk in front of all cars with a red flag. So they put a value on the number of lives that will be lost versus the cost of imposing restrictions.

That said, I think that most of us see the basic argument as eminently sensible. Which we should always follow. Except in the most extreme of situations. But some Christians will draw a line in the sand and say it doesn't matter. Life is black and white. It's either right or wrong. There are no extremes because that line doesn't waver. It's dead straight. They hate the messiness of real life. They hate the grey areas. They hate the uncertainty. They want surety.

That said, I think we have also found that some of them know that there are grey areas but will refuse point blank to admit them. So killing an entire nation will be stated as equivalent to the killing of one person. And that's not perplexing. It's nonsensical. The author of the trolley problem suggested 5 to 1 because she must have thought that a million to one wouldn't get any naysayers (well, one or two of present company excepted).

So we have to resort to value. Surely five lives are worth more than one? Which has been accepted - it's been asked which group one would save and the answer has been the five. Albeit, that has been nonsensically argued that it's simply a personal preference and nothing to do with value (the paper thin argument is more akin to wet tissue at that point). In which case I guess it's just a personal preference I have for my daughter over a random stranger as well. But heaven forbid that anyone should suggest that I value her life more than a random stranger's. It's the same!

Well...in the grand scheme of things, it is. The random stranger has as much right to life as she does. But that doesn't account for value. Saying that all people are equal in value is not the same as saying that we should value all people equally. We obviously don't. But some consider that admitting that is taking a step forward onto a long and very slippery slope. When it's not a slope. Slippery or not. It's a walk along the beach. And we're drawing a line in the sand where we think it should apply.

You know what I don't get? It's the fact that nobody really thinks like this in real life. That is to say, it's unnatural. You actually have to be taught this. You have to have the rules explained to you. And you have to agree to them whether you believe them or not. Or you don't get to become a member of whatever religious organisation is writing the rule book (no names here, but there's an Italian connection to one I have in mind).

I keep think that God is looking down, shaking His head and saying 'Gee, you guys have got this so wrong'. And various Christians shouting 'See? Listen to what He's telling you!'

And God replying 'Hey, no. I was talking to you'.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

If the one is an innocent child and the five are SS guards, I'm not pulling it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No we dont. 5x is a comprehensible expression. And its not meant to be precise. It functions as "a bunch more than". Can you like Bob more than Jill? Of course. Does that mean you have to have a number for it?

I have an idea. Let's say that the value of each person is 1. The unit of measurement is in persons. Now it has a numerical value.