Why Is This A Problem???

[Moral Orel]

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's only one case: the existence of trophic levels. You're glad, overall, that they exist because as you said earlier, the alternative is more death. Carnivores cull the populations of herbivores, otherwise there wouldn't be enough vegetation to feed on, and there would be masses of prolonged starvation. Sure, you don't like seeing a lion killing a gazelle, but you like that it prevents what it prevents. Overall, and as a whole.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

You directed the trolley towards a specific person intentionally causing their death.

Zippy's summary of the situation is accurate. You saved five people, and you murdered one. I'll bet good money that he and I will disagree on whether or not that is a bad thing. But the description is accurate.

 

[Estrid]

You directed the trolley towards a specific person intentionally causing their death.

Zippy's summary of the situation is accurate. You saved five people, and you murdered one. I'll bet good money that he and I will disagree on whether or not that is a bad thing. But the description is accurate.

In good conscience even though you'd feel terrible.

I expect combat soldiers know about that,
and police who are faced with, say, " suicide by cop".

 

[durangodawood]

You directed the trolley towards a specific person intentionally causing their death.

Zippy's summary of the situation is accurate. You saved five people, and you murdered one. I'll bet good money that he and I will disagree on whether or not that is a bad thing. But the description is accurate.

Have you read a definition of murder?

 

[Ken-1122]

Irrelevant. The question is: Do you kill one to save five. Not: Think of ways he can avoid the trolley.

No, the question was do I divert the trolley or not. My answer was that I would divert the trolley to the single person; and I explained why I would do so. Now whether the single person chooses to move out of the way is up to him; I am still putting his life in danger, he is just required to act to save his own life.

 

[Ken-1122]

View attachment 304779
This maybe?

Nowhere in the scenario does it say he is tied up.

 

[Ken-1122]

In the scenario the one person is also tied and bound to the tracks like the 5 others are. So that’s why he can’t get out of the way.

If that is the case he should have made that clear in the opening statement

 

[durangodawood]

If that is the case he should have made that clear in the opening statement

The opening scenario says he will die if the trolley goes his way. That was made clear.

 

[Bradskii]

No, the question was do I divert the trolley or not. My answer was that I would divert the trolley to the single person; and I explained why I would do so. Now whether the single person chooses to move out of the way is up to him; I am still putting his life in danger, he is just required to act to save his own life.

We're over 600 posts into a thread which is discussing one of the most well known methods of determining someone's attitude to a classic moral problem. And you want to know why the one guy simply doesn't walk away? Are you being purposely obtuse?

 

[durangodawood]

We're over 600 posts into a thread which is discussing one of the most well known methods of determining someone's attitude to a classic moral problem. And you want to know why the one guy simply doesn't walk away? Are you being purposely obtuse?

 

[Bradskii]

That harmonising and those Walsh licks are just so Eagles. Very 'Life In The Fast Lane' - which he co-wrote.

 

[durangodawood]

That harmonising and those Walsh licks are just so Eagles. Very 'Life In The Fast Lane' - which he co-wrote.

Totally. I have band practice later today and we'll work on this song. Love drumming that 70s white boy funk rock.

 

[o_mlly]

Q. Why using emotion to make moral decisions is a problem?

A. Because feelings are irrational and can often be misleading.

Unless the passion which moves the will to act is vetted and affirmed by reason, the act cannot be moral. Imagine what life would be like if we are all ruled by our passions.

Examine the posts of those who feel pulling the lever is morally permissible. The rational part of their argument begins and ends with "5 are greater than 1".

Only if the lever-pullers care (have feelings for) the one person on the track would they then be less likely to kill him. Why? As long as the one is recognized only as a stranger can they avoid empathizing with him. Empathy, a feeling, requires some familiarity. Notice the strong emotional response someone posted if loved ones -- ones for whom the other has deep feelings -- were at risk:

And if I'm on the track? Do I sacrifice myself? For my family? I'd kill someone who tried to prevent me reaching the lever.

Rationally, I know one cannot be both the one tied to the track and be the bystander as suggested above but that’s what happens when emotion overwhelms reason; one becomes irrational (and perhaps now a serial killer as well).

Some admit that if they kill the one person then they will feel terrible. Why would one feel terrible in doing the right thing? Guilt and shame only arise in one who believes they have done something wrong.

Of course, the emotive ones attempt to persuade the rational ones by exaggerating the appeal to their emotions:

So your entire family is obviously worth more to you than the miserable mass murdering paedophile tied to the tracks.

But reason does not yield to the fleeting emotions; feelings come and go but right reasoning perdures.

I suppose the take-away from this thread is to absolutely avoid a “lever-puller” as your personal physician:

It is commonly agreed that, ever since the beginnings of ethical reflection, non-maleficence has been the most important of all principles, and should be given priority when in conflict with others.
...
This first variant of the Trolley Problem supports the primacy of non-maleficence in medical ethics. The five patients may die as a result of the transplant not taking place, but the surgeon is not ethically at fault since he has done no harm, and that is a doctor’s most important duty. In order to save the five, he would have had to kill the one person. The surgeon wisely refuses to engage in such a procedure in deference to non-maleficence.​

Medical ethics and the trolley Problem

 

[zippy2006]

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.

And going from the small percentage of people in this thread who wouldn't have pulled the lever and extrapolating, I would say that anyone charged would not be convicted. I sincerely doubt you'd even get a majority verdict for guilty. I'm certain that you wouldn't get a unanimous one.

If the family of the deceased got a good lawyer you would be charged for sure. You decided to kill one guy to save five. You think you had a good reason to murder him. Laws against murder don't make provisions for "good reasons to murder." Nevertheless, in many cases you probably wouldn't be prosecuted or charged. It surely wouldn't be first degree murder.

And the intent question regards "double effect," which doesn't hold in this case. You can't arbitrarily restrict your intent to saving the five and not killing the one. That's not how intent works in cases of necessity (especially when pulling the lever presupposes your knowledge of the one, for you wouldn't pull it if there were ten instead of one). Feel free to read the academic literature on this. I don't want to get into a long debate on double effect in this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Totally. I have band practice later today and we'll work on this song. Love drumming that 70s white boy funk rock.

Rock and roll! With all this free 'covid time' my guitar skills have reached the giddy heights of 'extremely average'.

 

[zippy2006]

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...

...For example:

Foot noted that such cases might motivate someone to accept the Doctrine of Double Effect, which distinguishes between harm that is strictly intended and harm that is merely foreseen. However, Foot argues that the cases can be explained by the distinction between doing and allowing harm: the judge must choose between killing one and merely allowing five to die, while the trolley driver must choose between killing one and killing five. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1986) modified the case so that it was a bystander, not the driver, who had to make the choice. The difference was important, since the bystander is clearly choosing between killing and letting die...

-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/​

 

[zippy2006]

You know me, I separate all the way down to the individual.

Morally and psychologically?

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.

Right, and maybe I am a little bit off-topic for this thread. My first post to you was more a consequence of our private conversation and our previous conversion on the topic of happiness/desiring than something related specifically to this thread. Granted, I think it is related to this thread, but it would take some work to get there.

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?

I looked up the snake thing too. I found an article that said kids aren't afraid of snakes, necessarily, but triangular shapes like fangs and claws.

According to this article the consensus is that there is an innate fear of snakes (which relates to survival and aversion).

I'm guessing that at an early stage the infant just feels an inchoate discomfort which he is averse to, and then later finds that different stimuli alleviate this discomfort (food or touch or warmth, etc.). Eventually he has to sort out which is which.

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?

Because pleasure is not a sufficient account of psychological motivation. In the past atheists have submitted to death or torture for non-pleasure goods (such as the safety of their tribe, or whatnot). Not everything we do is motivated by pleasure. When Thomas says that good is what we seek he is including pleasure but also going beyond it, which is perfectly necessary.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

As I tried to point out earlier, this is a false analogy. You are equivocating on the term, "deadly peril." You are trying to say that sending a train towards a man tied down on a track is the same as directing an airplane towards population centers. As I pointed out in this post, the difference is that in the train case there is a 100% chance that you end up killing someone. You are literally choosing to kill one guy to save five. It's not a case of, "This train is a 'deadly peril', and I am going to send it off in this direction, and maybe it will harm someone and maybe it won't..."

The flight attendant is not choosing to kill anyone to save others. She is merely steering the plane away from people as best she is able. In that scenario it is perfectly possible that no one dies at all, and this is clearly what she is trying to achieve. The logical necessity is very different in these two cases. The flight attendant is realistically able to achieve her aim of saving people without doing things that she knows will kill others.

 

[Estrid]

Morally and psychologically?



Right, and maybe I am a little bit off-topic for this thread. My first post to you was more a consequence of our private conversation and our previous conversion on the topic of happiness/desiring than something related specifically to this thread. Granted, I think it is related to this thread, but it would take some work to get there.



According to this article the consensus is that there is an innate fear of snakes (which relates to survival and aversion).

I'm guessing that at an early stage the infant just feels an inchoate discomfort which he is averse to, and then later finds that different stimuli alleviate this discomfort (food or touch or warmth, etc.). Eventually he has to sort out which is which.



Because pleasure is not a sufficient account of psychological motivation. In the past atheists have submitted to death or torture for non-pleasure goods (such as the safety of their tribe, or whatnot). Not everything we do is motivated by pleasure. When Thomas says that good is what we seek he is including pleasure but also going beyond it, which is perfectly necessary.

Psychological studies and experiments.
The armpit of science.

Here is a counter- article.
When you were a baby, you were not scared of snakes

An acquaintance in the USA told me of teaching at
an Eskimo village in the Alaska arctic.

As science teacher he brought a big snake.

The kids, boys and girls had no fear of it at all.

A little child who saw his mother make that face as per your
article would pick that up fast.
THAT is where instinct is.

 

[Bradskii]

If the family of the deceased got a good lawyer...

I'm sure that the five I saved would chip in for a better one.