Why Is This A Problem???

[o_mlly]

I composed a different take on the trolley problem that does like this:

"Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot ..."​

What did you do with that crazy flight attendant that just killed the pilot? At least duct tape her/him to the jump seat before grabbing the stick.

 

[durangodawood]

"Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot ..."​

What did you do with that crazy flight attendant that just killed the pilot? At least duct tape her/him to the jump seat before grabbing the stick.

The producers axed that part of the storyline. The writing room was disappointed but oh well.

 

[durangodawood]

I think it's almost there. We need to add back the elements missing from the trolley problem, mainly the consequences after. For one the decision maker must survive the initial execution of the choice. He/she must be around to witness the negative impact on the ones sacrificed. Secondly the consequences after must in some way affect the decision maker's closest love one. Lastly there must be judgement rendered by an authority on the decision maker.

Because in real life if we initially survive sacrificing others to achieve a greater goal, it always affects our love ones. Either in terms of emotions or societal status. And there is always the legal system at work.

BTW, I would have taken the chance to bail the plane by myself. Taking the chances on dropping hard on the ground and hoping that I only injure non-critical organs. Since the death is assured either way if I take control of the plane, I would go with self preservation. The selfish choice. And legally I'm not required to ensure the safety of the passengers in such situation.

All your add-backs are needed to assess what we might actually do. But none of them are necessary for the thought experiment directed toward what is morally correct to do.

 

[partinobodycular]

If morality is subjective then morality is reduced to merely an irrational epistemic privilege unique to each and every individual. For the moral subjectivist, what might be good or bad to you has no bearing on what is good or bad to him.

Here's the problem, you argue against moral subjectivism, but then take a blatantly subjective position.

In this thread, the value of a human life I profess to be sacred and inestimable. Therefore, the value of one human life is not less, nor greater than five human lives.

If we apply this reasoning in every situation then there's no sense in administering Covid vaccinations which may potentially kill someone. Because the value of the half million lives saved by the vaccine is of no more value than the one life lost. You're killing the one to save the half million.

It's essentially the trolley problem brought to life on a massive scale, and the vaccine advocate is choosing to pull the lever.

However, when I asked whether the one on the track has a right to lethal self-defense against the one who would murder him, I have no reply

If one holds the position that everyone has the right to self-defense, then the one on the track has the right to defend themselves. Just as the five on the other track do. Just as everybody does. It's a pretty simple concept, people have the right to self-defense.

The reason is that no rational person can agree because doing so would make the bystander in his act an unjust aggressor.

Why would it make the bystander an unjust aggressor? The position isn't, "people have a right to self-defense against unjust aggressors". The position is simply, people have a right to self-defense.

It doesn't matter whether the threatening act is unjust, well intended, or just stupid. People have a right to defend themselves.

 

[IceJad]

But none of them are necessary for the thought experiment directed toward what is morally correct to do.

Neither choice is moral in the trolley problem. It is all logic based what you place as the most advantageous outcome to you (including your emotions). In an all strangers situation, logically killing 1 is better than killing 5.

If the one is a baby and the 5 are 90 year olds, the logical choice is to kill the 5 and let the 1 with the best chance for longevity survive.

If the 1 is someone I dearly love, and the 5 are babies whom I know not I would save my love one.

For you see the situation you're put in is not of your own making. Therefore you can think logically for you're guiltless in either choice. You're morally right in any choice you make. If the situation is by your own making via negligence things aren't so simple. Either choice you make are morally wrong for you're the cause of the problem to begin with.

The trolley problem cannot be use to determine any basis of morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Neither choice is moral in the trolley problem. It is all logic based what you place as the most advantageous outcome to you (including your emotions). In an all strangers situation, logically killing 1 is better than killing 5.

If thats your basis for moral reasoning, then ok.

If the one is a baby and the 5 are 90 year olds, the logical choice is to kill the 5 and let the 1 with the best chance for longevity survive.

Again, If thats your basis for moral reasoning in this case then I can see how youd reach that conclusion.

For you see the situation you're put in is not of your own making. Therefore you can think logically for you're guiltless in either choice. You're morally right in any choice you make.

I dont view it that way. No one is ever responsible for the things in life they cant control (the disabled aircraft). They are just responsible for the things they can control (which direction to steer it).

 

[o_mlly]

Here's the problem, you argue against moral subjectivism, but then take a blatantly subjective position.

No problem. Human rights, I have argued, are objectively determined by human needs, the most basic of which is life without which all other human rights are meaningless.

Do you hold that anyone has a right to directly kill an innocent human being?

If we apply this reasoning in every situation then there's no sense in administering Covid vaccinations which may potentially kill someone. Because the value of the half million lives saved by the vaccine is of no more value than the one life lost. You're killing the one to save the half million.

It's essentially the trolley problem brought to life on a massive scale, and the vaccine advocate is choosing to pull the lever.

No. I have argued that if, and only if, the one on the tracks grants permission to the bystander may the bystander pull the lever. The same condition applies to injecting the vaccine into a human being.

If one holds the position that everyone has the right to self-defense, then the one on the track has the right to defend themselves. Just as the five on the other track do. Just as everybody does. It's a pretty simple concept, people have the right to self-defense. ... Why would it make the bystander an unjust aggressor? The position isn't, "people have a right to self-defense against unjust aggressors". The position is simply, people have a right to self-defense.

It doesn't matter whether the threatening act is unjust, well intended, or just stupid. People have a right to defend themselves.

The right to self-defense can only be claimed against an unjust aggressor. Implicit in the self-defense claim is the fact that the aggression is always that of an unjust person. One does not self-defend against any other kind of aggression.

The bystander in his act of pulling the lever loses his innocence and becomes an unjust aggressor as his act directly attacks an innocent person. In the same act, the bystander cannot be acting morally and immorally. Pulling the lever is immoral.

The object of his act is/are the proximate foreseeable effect(s). The bystander sees that his act directly kills an innocent person who is presently in no danger. It is true that the same act spares the five but one may never do evil that good may come of it. The bystander's intent does not change the object of his act which is the direct killing of an innocent person.

The five have no unjust aggressor against whom to defend themselves. He has fled the scene. They are in danger and may not export their sad situation to be the problem of the innocent one. Nor does the innocent one's act of self-defense against the unjust bystander have as its proximate end a change in the five's sad situation.

 

[partinobodycular]

The trolley problem cannot be use to determine any basis of morality.

Well for something not meant to determine any basis for morality, it certainly does a heck of a job in revealing what people's bases are. If you've got one basis, you definitely pull the lever, if you've got another one you definitely don't, and according to yet a third basis it all depends.

So I think the trolley problem does exactly what the trolley problem is meant to do, reveal what each individual's basis for morality is. For some people the answer is clear, pull the lever. For other people the answer is also clear, don't pull the lever. And then there's everybody else, and they're position isn't quite so black and white, so they're going to equivocate.

Does this help us in determining which of them is right...nope. But if morality isn't subjective, it certainly acts that way.

 

[o_mlly]

But if morality isn't subjective, it certainly acts that way.

Morality is subjective in the sense that we are the authors of our own acts and nobody chooses that which they do not believe is good for them. But we could be wrong. Apparent goods are not always real goods. Real goods are objectively good, always.

 

[RDKirk]

"Rescue the girl" -- Detective Dell Spooner (I, Robot)

 

[RDKirk]

Well for something not meant to determine any basis for morality, it certainly does a heck of a job in revealing what people's bases are. If you've got one basis, you definitely pull the lever, if you've got another one you definitely don't, and according to yet a third basis it all depends.

So I think the trolley problem does exactly what the trolley problem is meant to do, reveal what each individual's basis for morality is. For some people the answer is clear, pull the lever. For other people the answer is also clear, don't pull the lever. And then there's everybody else, and they're position isn't quite so black and white, so they're going to equivocate.

"It depends" is not equivocation.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it's almost there. We need to add back the elements missing from the trolley problem, mainly the consequences after.

No, consideration of consequences to the actor contaminates the question of the morality of the action. The action should be argued as either moral or immoral based on the action itself, not the consequences to the actor...except maybe if we want to argue that popular acclaim is the definition of "moral." But even then, it hardly matters, as the doomed actor can still imagine being posthumously declared either a hero or a villain.

 

[Bradskii]

The trolley problem cannot be use to determine any basis of morality.

Yet you just used it to formulate some rules that will be applicable in three separate situations. But if you're saying that you can't develop one single rule for all scenarios, then most of us would appear to agree.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you hold that anyone has a right to directly kill an innocent human being?

I'm not in a position to either grant nor deny anyone's rights. I'm not God. In other words, people have a right to do whatever the heck they wanna do. You have the right to kill somebody, and I have the right to put you in jail for doing so. Follow this system long enough and you'll either end up with everybody dead, or everybody agreeing about what we should and shouldn't do. Fortunately for us, we've pretty much settled on the latter. But make no mistake about it, we didn't need God, nor some objective morality in order to get there. We dun did it ourselves. We dun made ourselves moral(ish).

No. I have argued that if, and only if, the one on the tracks grants permission to the bystander may the bystander pull the lever.

Why? What's your reasoning?

The bystander has a moral decision to make. Pull the lever and sacrifice the one, or don't pull the lever, and sacrifice the five. If the one acquiesces to the pulling of the lever, then great, the one is a hero. But the one's failure to acquiesce doesn't alter the bystander's choices.

Your contention seems to be that if someone's choices threaten me, then I have the right to kill them, and I have absolutely no obligation to consider the welfare of others. My life takes precedence over everyone else's.

Does that truly seem like the moral high ground to you?

The bystander in his act of pulling the lever loses his innocence and becomes an unjust aggressor as his act directly attacks an innocent person. In the same act, the bystander cannot be acting morally and immorally. Pulling the lever is immoral.

The object of his act is/are the proximate foreseeable effect(s). The bystander sees that his act directly kills an innocent person who is presently in no danger. It is true that the same act spares the five but one may never do evil that good may come of it. The bystander's intent does not change

So the bystander in pulling the lever loses their innocence. To this I agree, and the bystander would likely agree as well. They'll probably always be tormented by their choice.

But it doesn't end there. The decision then switches to the one. Do they kill the bystander, thereby dooming the five, or do they do the compassionate thing and sacrifice their life for the sake of others?

You've said that a person isn't obligated to sacrifice themselves for others, but is there a limit to which a person is justified in sacrificing others to save themselves?

Am I justified in sacrificing the entire world to save myself? I can think of at least one person who believed the exact opposite.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's functional, and functional states as we identify them on a human level lend themselves to biological survival

Since I'm sure you like life, I'll bet you like things that "lend themselves to biological survival" too. Maybe you dislike that trophic levels are necessary, but you like what they accomplish, dontcha?

Sort of like how I dislike the work I do. But I like having money, so I like having the job I do.

 

[o_mlly]

In other words, people have a right to do whatever the heck they wanna do.

We need go no further.

 

[partinobodycular]

We need go no further.

Indeed we don't. Because your precious objective morality dies an ignominious death under the unrelenting pressure of reason and natural selection.

The battle still rages but the victory has long since been won. Morality exists because social constructs can't exist without it. But there's no profound mystery here, it simply evolved, just like everything else did.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, it only explains the existence of us. That's the truth. And if God is the truth, well then there you go, no conflict. No need for supernatural explanations, when natural ones will work just fine. But this doesn't mean that the concept of God is dead, it just means that your vision of Him is flawed. You want flamboyant and miraculous, when mundane and natural will do the job just as well.

To theism, life is about a search for God. To science, it's about a search for truth. Well guess what, they're the same darn thing. If you can't reconcile the two, well then I'm sorry, but the facts don't change just because you don"t accept them.

 

[o_mlly]

Indeed we don't. Because your precious objective morality dies an ignominious death under the unrelenting pressure of reason and natural selection.

The battle still rages but the victory has long since been won. Morality exists because social constructs can't exist without it. But there's no profound mystery here, it simply evolved, just like everything else did.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, it only explains the existence of us. That's the truth. And if God is the truth, well then there you go, no conflict. No need for supernatural explanations, when natural ones will work just fine. But this doesn't mean that the concept of God is dead, it just means that your vision of Him is flawed. You want flamboyant and miraculous, when mundane and natural will do the job just as well.

To theism, life is about a search for God. To science, it's about a search for truth. Well guess what, they're the same darn thing. If you can't reconcile the two, well then I'm sorry, but the facts don't change just because you don"t accept them.

You never know in these forums whether one is engaging a serious person or just another 30 year old in their parents basement with the latest gaming laptop hooked up to a video game console intermittently bouncing from games to forums posting screed after screed. You seem very angry? Playing Angry Birds and losing there too?

 

[partinobodycular]

You never know in these forums whether one is engaging a serious person or just another 30 year old in their parents basement with the latest gaming laptop hooked up to a video game console intermittently bouncing from games to forums posting screed after screed. You seem very angry? Playing Angry Birds and losing there too?

Dang you're so close.

I haven't played a video game in close to forty years. They never were my thing. I'll take physical or intellectual challenges any day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since I'm sure you like life, I'll bet you like things that "lend themselves to biological survival" too. Maybe you dislike that trophic levels are necessary, but you like what they accomplish, dontcha?

Since there is a lot of potential conflation and ambiguation that can float in the middle of your choice of pronouns here, and because you're now importing personal tastes into the equation, I'll have to answer with "Possibly, but not necessarily, and definitely not in all cases." There are some eventualities that come out of the processes within trophic levels that I like (like my spinach pizza and side salad), and there are aspects of it that I don't enjoy contemplating (like eagles snatching babies off the land and feeding them to their own young).

The upshot in all of this is that whether I actually like some outcome or I don't, I recognize that the full reality in which I exists is bigger than either those aspects I like or that I don't like, and there's not much I can do about it either way.

Sort of like how I dislike the work I do. But I like having money, so I like having the job I do.

Sort of. But your analogy only goes so far, so I'll say that your analagy applies, sort of, and definitely short of expressing anyting sordid on my part.