Why Is This A Problem???

[Tone]

In that those 4 people pay with their lives for the sake of you leaving the scene with a "I didnt get involved" feeling. Maybe sacrifice isnt the right word for that.

Yes, my point is exactly that. It isn't a sacrifice.

In the case of the OP it's a crime scene.

A sacrifice involves the willingness of the person.

It seems as though they were there against their will.

 

[durangodawood]

....For all the "lever-pullers", let's suppose that the one innocent tied to the track doesn't think it's a good day to die. (Say, he has a sick wife with COVID and 8 children to care for. If that's not a good enough reason to want to live, make up one that you think does.)

Fortunately, he's armed and with his one free hand, he can bring his weapon to bear. You, the bystander, yell out, "I must pull the lever!". You put your hand on the lever and the one on the tracks shoots you dead. Now 6 people died.

Thats completely un forseeable. You can only work with reality as you apprehend it.

 

[Tone]

@durangodawood

What about your decision to pull...

On what basis is it the right thing to do?

 

[BNR32FAN]

A person capable of saving lives in front of you.

But in order to do that I must kill someone. If I do nothing then it’s in God’s hands not mine.

 

[durangodawood]

What value do you assign to one life?
The value of one innocent human life is infinite, ie., innumerate. Five infinities are not greater than one infinity....

Paradoxes about infinity probably wouldnt come to mind when you have the opportunity to steer a peril toward a less populated part of town.

 

[jacknife]

But in order to do that I must kill someone. If I do nothing then it’s in God’s hands not mine.

I'd argue you killed 5 by inaction.

 

[durangodawood]

@durangodawood

What about your decision to pull...

On what basis is it the right thing to do?

Here it is, again:

I am asking why you believe this? Why saving five lives is better than saving one?

Because I value lives. And I value reducing suffering. Most people do. We get together and call those things "better". If youre looking for an additional cosmic backstop to those values, ask one of the Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Once you apprehend the options before you, you cannot un-apprehend them. At that point you will decide for one option or the other. There's no way out of that, unless youre a robot.

... or, unless you're the Incredible Hulk!!!! RAAAAAAGGGH!!

By the way, I actually stopped the Trolley and no one died.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'd argue you killed 5 by inaction.

But you’d be wrong since I wasn’t involved at all. And another thing, you could probably be charged with murder or at the very least voluntary manslaughter for pulling the lever since it is premeditated and intentional.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because I value lives. And I value reducing suffering. Most people do. We get together and call those things "better". If youre looking for an additional cosmic backstop to those values, ask one of the Christians.

I am not looking for anything but why you believe killing one is better than five. This answer is sufficient, thanks.

 

[o_mlly]

Thats completely un forseeable. You can only work with reality as you apprehend it

Uhhh ... this is not reality; it's a hypothetical.

Paradoxes about infinity probably wouldnt come to mind when you have the opportunity to steer a peril toward a less populated part of town.

In a hypothetical, one has plenty of time to do the right thing.

 

[jacknife]

But you’d be wrong since I wasn’t involved at all. And another thing, you could probably be charged with murder or at the very least voluntary manslaughter for pulling the lever since it is premeditated and intentional.

I'd argue that it's not part of the hypothetical (though if you don't throw the lever because of legal ramifications that's an answer I would understand.) But inaction is a choice and action in and of itself. A life guard who dosn't intervene in someone's drowning is just as responsible for thier death.

 

[durangodawood]

Uhhh ... this is not reality; it's a hypothetical.

In a hypothetical, one has plenty of time to do the right thing.

This hypothetical takes place in reality, hypothetically.

I agree that the purpose of the hypothetical is to step back and take time to reason about which decision we should make.

 

[Tone]

Here it is, again:

Oh, so you don't know why human life has value?

 

[durangodawood]

Oh, so you don't know why human life has value?

I didnt say that.

 

[o_mlly]

This hypothetical takes place in reality, hypothetically.

So the lever-puller is a possible hero to the five and an unjust aggressor to the one ... until in self-defense the one shoots him dead. But one act cannot be good and evil in the same act.

 

[durangodawood]

So the level-puller is a possible hero to the five and an unjust aggressor to the one ... until in self-defense the one shoots him dead. But one act cannot be good and evil in the same act.

I agree that when you steer your doomed plane into the few rather than the many, the few would be very upset about it. I dont think theyd have a case that your action is unjust tho.

 

[o_mlly]

I agree that when you steer your doomed plane into the few rather than the many, the few would be very upset about it. I dont think theyd have a case that your action is unjust tho.

Wrong hypothetical. Meanwhile, back at the train station ...

 

[durangodawood]

Wrong hypothetical. Meanwhile, back at the train station ...

Same difference. Is it ok to actively steer a peril away from the many towards the few instead? Thats the issue, which is served well enough by either hypothetical. Probably better by the airplane one just because its less bizarre.

If the hypothetical is a hang up lets just go right to the principle that many here disagree with me on: Is it ok to actively steer a peril away from the many towards the few instead?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Same difference. Is it ok to actively steer a peril away from the many towards the few instead? Thats the issue, which is served well enough by either hypothetical. Probably better by the airplane one just because its less bizarre.

If the hypothetical is a hang up lets just go right to the principle that many here disagree with me on: Is it ok to actively steer a peril away from the many towards the few instead?

So, when this scenario is playing itself out----let's say we're pilots in the cockpit of a plane that's going zonkers----are we "aiming" for the few rather than the many? Or are we actually attempting to avoid everyone ... as best we can, and we just happen to hit the few?

I just have to ask since, as you said earlier, all of this is imaginary and we're simply trying to wrap our minds around what we each think is the core value at play here. So far, being imaginary, it's not very clear.