Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The text, which I copied from wikip, says "....2.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."Yes it wasn’t explained correctly. The one person is also supposed to be tied and bound to the tracks.
I dont understand deontological thinking. It seems untethered and dependent entirely on human notions of what the divine wants. Its backstop is faith alone....The Trolley Problem is simply an argument against deontological thinking.....
The text, which I copied from wikip, says "....2.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."
That said, the trolley problem doesnt have you killing people either way. That blame belongs solely to the trolley company and whatever they did to cause a deadly runaway trolley
If whether or not something is good is dependent on what "kind" it is, then we're already heading down relativism road. Where we draw the lines between kinds will affect what's good and what ain't. If you've got some reasoning to draw the line at "human" then you can prescribe what's good for humans, but why stop there? A psychopathic killer is a kind of human that exists, but I'm sure you wouldn't say that what he seeks (murder) is good? A suicidal person is another kind of human that exists, but I'm sure you wouldn't say that what he seeks (death) is good. We have to draw the lines at humans so that we can say that what these kinds seek is bad, but we're already drawing lines to make things good for one thing or another. So why stop?
Interesting. Anything about something directly related to the topic? Frinstance, does an infant cry because it desires sustenance, or does it cry because of hunger pains it doesn't understand, only later creating an association between feeding and relieving the hunger pains?
Meh, don't get too excited. I still see happiness as the second order thing caused by experiencing pleasure.
I watch a lot of movies, and I like all kinds. But some things have subject matter that is done best dark and gritty. It was far too nice. The ham-fisted cleaning that had to be done to keep it from being realistic annoys me. To be fair, I'm biased towards dark because it's so rare and I crave things that are different. As an example, I love Spider-Man movies, sure. But Logan was a masterpiece.
Interesting question.I don't think this is correct. Erect the same scenario except erase the five people. Would pulling the lever be murder? Could the person who pulls the lever blame the death on the trolley company?
Right. Is not the desire to stay alive a "natural human value"? How deep a thinker does the one on the track have to be to convince those bystanders who think his life is, well ... just a "throw away life"?I prefer moral rules backstopped in natural human values and formulated in deep wisdom ...
Someone is going to get hit with the deadly peril. Not sure any one of them has a better argument to make than any other about how much they value their own lives.Right. Is not the desire to stay alive a "natural human value"? How deep a thinker does the one on the track have to be to convince those bystanders who think his life is, well ... just a "throw away life"?
How about this argument: "Hey, hold off on pulling that lever! If you pull that lever, I'm taking you off my birthday party list!"
Or just put a penny on the tracks because that would be.... fun?I'd repeatable pull on the lever hopefully derailing the trolley. Potentially killing everyone and myself in the process, lol.
Interesting question.
Generally: whats your level of responsibility if you choose to direct a deadly peril toward a more populated area, all else being equal?
I think thats making a deadly peril even deadlier, which counts as murder if thats your intent. BUT it starts at minimum as a deadly peril no matter what. You didnt make it that way.
The you in the problem did not do tie anyone up. Thats just a feature of the situation as you encounter it.The trolley case is not "directing deadly peril." It is killing. The five people will die if the trolley hits them. The one person will die if the trolley hits them. Since there is a 100% chance of death this is not a case of "directing deadly peril."
If you tie someone up on a train track with full knowledge that a train is coming it is murder. It not merely endangering their life.
The you in the problem did not do tie anyone up. Thats just a feature of the situation as you encounter it.
I can see how "tied-up" it a terrible feature of the construction of the trolley problem as it introduces the useless complication of who would tie somebody to tracks, and what their responsibility is.
So skip tied-up and just go with: whoever the trolley hits will get killed in your best judgement. The trolley is supposed to be the deadly peril in this thought experiment.
Or better yet, use my alternative hypothetical in post #30, which tests for the same moral issue.
Uh. No. As I said, the train is a deadly peril before it even gets to you. That is not your fault in any way.It doesn't matter who tied them up. Whether or not there are five people on one of the tracks, if you pull a lever to put a trolley on a track that you know will kill someone, then you have murdered them. To murder someone is to intentionally kill them (apart from wars and criminal executions, which are not unlawful).
The question is, "Should I murder one to save five others from death?"
PH rightly described a parallel murder scenario in post #93.
Uh. No. As I said, the train is a deadly peril before it even gets to you. That is not your fault in any way.
You are the one redefining murder here. Murder means an unlawful killing. Is it unlawful in this case where a person, in good conscience, directs a deadly peril that they didn't cause towards a less populated area? I highly doubt it.It is not your fault that five people are about to die, but if you pull the lever then it is your fault that the lone person has died. When you decide to intentionally kill someone you have murdered them. We don't get to redefine words when the going gets tough. That fact that you have saved the five doesn't mean you haven't murdered the one.
Here is Philippa Foot's original paper, by the way: "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect."
It is not your fault that five people are about to die, but if you pull the lever then it is your fault that the lone person has died. When you decide to intentionally kill someone you have murdered them.
Not subtle. You didn't want anyone to die. You didn't create the deadly peril. It's appearance was thrust upon you unwanted. You'd probably be seen as a hero for getting involved and directing the peril towards the least populated part of town you could.But it isn't your intent to kill the guy. It's your intent to save the five. A subtle difference but one that probably would absolve you of a criminal charge.
You know me, I separate all the way down to the individual.First, what is your alternative?
Okay, my bad, I thought you were working out moral goodness. If you aren't there yet, and you're just talking about what people desire, then okay. I like steak, I desire steak, I'd say steak is good in that context, sure.Second, you seem to be talking about moral goodness, whereas I am talking about psychological goodness. The killer and the suicide are both seeking a psychological good, namely something that they understand to be desirable. (I am using "psychological" in the philosophical sense of that which relates to the subject's mind or psyche)
So your assumption that I am setting the stage for arbitrary distinction is false.
The only "good" you've talked about so far is survival and the food that helps you survive. Does an infant desire food before he eats, or does he feel hunger pains he doesn't understand?Why do you think my examples were unrelated to the topic? I think an infant probably cries because of some form of discomfort.
Why? Just because they've accepted some pain, doesn't mean that it isn't accompanied by pleasure from a different cause. When you're experiencing happiness, you're experiencing pleasure. So what? Why is it so important to you that this not be the case?Then you need to go back to my point that some people shun pleasure for the sake of happiness (and not merely for delayed gratification of their desire for pleasure).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?