Why Is This A Problem???

[Tone]

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.

Where is the moral basis for this?

 

[durangodawood]

Where is the moral basis for this?

For me, its that human people have value.

Whats the moral basis for doing nothing?

 

[setst777]

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.

If that be the case, then I take the view that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. A Vulcan saying as recorded in Star Trek.

 

[Tone]

For me, its that human people have value.

Whats the moral basis for doing nothing?

Yours seems to be that human people have numerical (mathematical) value.

If you don't pull the lever that's not doing nothing. That's not intentionally doing something that kills someone.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Looks like I disagree with both you and @2PhiloVoid. I think that, while the specifics may vary, the underlying ethical problem is the same.

However, I'm happy to leave this as it stands.

OB

 

[durangodawood]

If that be the case, then I take the view that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. A Vulcan saying as recorded in Star Trek.

I think thats correct.... but very incomplete as a guide to human action. Its enough for the trolley problem. But not enough for, say, designing a government.

 

[setst777]

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.

Could it be that God put you in that very position to make a difference in the outcome?

 

[setst777]

I think thats correct.... but very incomplete as a guide to human action. Its enough for the trolley problem. But not enough for, say, designing a government.

The trolley is all that is important in this analogy.

 

[durangodawood]

Yours seems to be that human people have numerical (mathematical) value.

If you don't pull the lever that's not doing nothing. That's not intentionally doing something that kills someone.

Yes. All other things being equal, its better to let few perish rather than many. I dont even see how this could be controversial.

And no ones killing anyone either way. Its a runaway trolley in both cases!

 

[Occams Barber]

If that be the case, then I take the view that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. A Vulcan saying as recorded in Star Trek.

While what you're saying makes sense at some level it is a dangerous basis on which to frame a government. It can lead to the oppression of minorities.

In the case of the trolley I would throw the lever and cause the death of the individual. The trolley problem is too limited to create the problem of an oppressed minority.

OB

 

[setst777]

While what you're saying makes sense at some level it is a dangerous basis on which to frame a government. It can lead to the oppression of minorities.

In the case of the trolley I would throw the lever and cause the death of the individual. The trolley problem is too limited to create the problem of an oppressed minority.

OB

The trolley analogy is not discussing governments, which are far more complex, and many choices are available. The choices of the Trolley analogy are extremely limited to only two choices.

 

[Tone]

Yes. All other things being equal, its better to let few perish rather than many. I dont even see how this could be controversial.

And no ones killing anyone either way. Its a runaway trolley in both cases!

You would be intentionally pulling a lever, knowing that your action will cause someone to be killed.

How's that different than pulling a trigger knowing the shot will kill someone?

 

[durangodawood]

You would be intentionally pulling a lever, knowing that your action will cause someone to be killed.

How's that different than pulling a trigger knowing the shot will kill someone?

The trigger here was already pulled. There's already a runaway trolley. Thats the bullet in this scenario.

All youre asked to do is deflect it toward where there's less people.

 

[Tone]

The trigger here was already pulled. There's already a runaway trolley. Thats the bullet in this scenario.

The trigger wasn't pulled for the one person. You're doing that.

 

[durangodawood]

The trigger wasn't pulled for the one person. You're doing that.

Yes, you have the power to deflect the danger to where it will harm fewer people.

But dont take on the burden being the initiator of the deadly peril, which is what a trigger finger comparison does.

 

[durangodawood]

ok bedtime. Goodnight, good people!

 

[Tone]

But dont take on the burden being the initiator

Pulling that lever does indeed initiate it for that one person.

 

[Bradskii]

The trigger here was already pulled. There's already a runaway trolley. Thats the bullet in this scenario.

All youre asked to do is deflect it toward where there's less people.

These problems drive me up the wall. Not because they're tricky to answer. It's because you have to spend half your time explaining the concept of hypotheticals to so many people (No, you can't derail the trolley/ring for assistance/put up a fence to stop people getting on the track etc).

But they are interesting in how we approach the same result under slightly different conditions. Most people would pull the lever. But if you had to physically push someone in front of the trolley to derail it, and killing him in the process, thus saving five, most people wouldn't.

And if we change it to pulling a lever which will authorise someone being killed to use their various organs to transplant into five people who would otherwise die, then no-one pulls it. Even though the result is the same: one dead, five live.

 

[setst777]

You would be intentionally pulling a lever, knowing that your action will cause someone to be killed.

How's that different than pulling a trigger knowing the shot will kill someone?

You would also be intentionally not pulling the lever, since you had the will and ability to do either. By being in the right place at the right time, you have the opportunity to make a difference in the outcome, or not.

 

[Tone]

You would also be intentionally not pulling the lever, since you had the will and ability to do either. By being in the right place at the right time, you have the opportunity to make a difference in the outcome, or not.

So if you don't pull the lever are you intentionally doing something that you know will kill someone?