Why Is This A Problem???

[durangodawood]

If you do not pull the lever you are letting 5 people die to save one. If you pull it you let one person die to save 5.

It is the same situation as if 2 buildings are on fire on opposite sides of town. 5 people are trapped in one building, 1 person is trapped in another. Which building should the fire department go to first?

I agree.

But other people think theres something special about the initial condition of the switch. If you disturb that, then you are getting involved in the death of the one person, whereas if you just walk away you arent involved at all. "Clean hands" rationale.

I dont buy that. A decision is thrust upon you and your preferred outcome will be registered one way or the other. There is nothing special about the initial condition of the switch. It means nothing. But your choice means a lot.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree.

But other people think theres something special about the initial condition of the switch. If you disturb that, then you are getting involved in the death of the one person, whereas if you just walk away you arent involved at all. "Clean hands" rationale.

I dont buy that. A decision is thrust upon you and your preferred outcome will be registered one way or the other. There is nothing special about the initial condition of the switch. It means nothing. But your choice means a lot.

We can envisage the same situation in that scenario. The fire truck reaches the building where one person is trapped. The driver can stop - no involvement, or turn the wheel to head one block away to the building where five are trapped - getting involved.

The five better hope he's not a Catholic.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was only referring to Aquinas' definition of good, as that which all things seek after, specifically, being. Personally, I have my own subjective definition of good, but unfortunately it's neither easily codified nor transferable. Being is good, but suffering isn't, and suicide occurs when one overwhelms the other. And it's not my right to judge when that is.

If you've concluded that suicide is the answer, then you've concluded that being is not good. You've concluded that to be is equivalent with to suffer. That's the point, that there isn't even a consensus that being is good. As I said to Zippy in another post, living is a second order type of thing. We evaluate living as good if we believe living will lead to pleasure, which is the more fundamental thing. Suffering is a more fundamental thing. And we evaluate living as bad if we believe living will lead to suffering.

You're treating "being" and "suffering" as two parts of a different whole, where we weigh one against the other. But we don't weigh being against suffering, we weigh suffering against pleasure to decide if being is good at all.

 

[durangodawood]

We can envisage the same situation in that scenario. The fire truck reaches the building where one person is trapped. The driver can stop - no involvement, or turn the wheel to head one block away to the building where five are trapped - getting involved.

The five better hope he's not a Catholic.

Stop and rescue the one person?

 

[partinobodycular]

You're treating "being" and "suffering" as two parts of a different whole, where we weigh one against the other. But we don't weigh being against suffering, we weigh suffering against pleasure to decide if being is good at all.

I understand your position, and I wouldn't argue against it. As a reminder the idea of good and being is Aquinas'. My position on suffering and suicide is uniquely my own, and was recently heightened by the suicide of my sister, whom I had cared for for many years, and who had suffered more than I can know. But I am, as I have always been, sympathetic to those who choose that path.

 

[zippy2006]

This is where we need to go back and examine the original premise and then the original question.

The original premise is Aquinas':



So all things...everything...everywhere...is seeking the good, and the good is "being", aka survival.

As I noted in my last, Aquinas' definition is not based exclusively on survival.

Humanity is simply doing what everything else is doing. From cows, to whales, to Covid-19 viruses. They're all trying to survive using any and all means possible. But remember, they're all seeking the same good. They're all fighting the same fight, every one of them. And humanity, with its high and mighty reasoning is of no greater value to the attainment of this good than the cow or the Covid-19 virus.

Reasoning doesn't bring anything else to the table except another means of killing. So of what benefit is it, what greater good does it achieve that can't be achieved without it?

Say I'm starving and there are apples high up in a tree which I am unable to climb. Say I use my reason to fashion a tool (a ladder) on which to climb up and collect the apples.

Now it seems pretty obvious to me that this is an example of reason benefitting me and allowing me to achieve something that could not be achieved without it in order to feed myself.

Again, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. You seem to have some secret definition of "benefit" that I'm not privy to, by which reason does not benefit mankind.

 

[zippy2006]

It sounds like you're going backwards from our last talk. If something is really and truly good, then shouldn't all things seek it? If we're going to separate things into kinds, where is the correct place to draw the line between them? What about different kinds of humans?

Before, we were looking for something more fundamental, such as pleasure/happiness and (perhaps) the avoidance of pain/suffering. Nourishment would be a second order type of thing because it is a thing that gives us happiness; and beef/grass would be a third order type of thing because it is a thing that gives us nourishment which in turn gives us happiness. Seems to me the moment you add, "depends on kind", the whole "all things" blows up.

In our last discussion on this topic, which began with this post (link), we were constraining ourselves to talking about human good. Human desire is always for happiness, because this is what humans ultimately desire. My hamburger is good for me but it's not good for the cow. By "kinds" I primarily mean species, like humans and cows and snakes and mosquitoes.

As I said to Zippy in another post, living is a second order type of thing. We evaluate living as good if we believe living will lead to pleasure, which is the more fundamental thing. Suffering is a more fundamental thing.

Yes, except I am talking about desire and aversion, which are more fundamental than pleasure and suffering. If you remember, last time we looked at the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to see that some people find suffering desirable.

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand your position, and I wouldn't argue against it. As a reminder the idea of good and being is Aquinas'.

Maybe I parsed it wrong, but I took the following quote of yours to be you sharing your subjective thoughts on what is good:

Personally, I have my own subjective definition of good, but unfortunately it's neither easily codified nor transferable. Being is good, but suffering isn't, and suicide occurs when one overwhelms the other.

And I'm not even trying to work out what is good and what isn't. More like trying to formulate the equation. You seem to have a dichotomy between "being" and "suffering", but that isn't accurate. You either have "be and suffer" or "be and enjoy". If you choose to "not be" then you neither have suffering nor pleasure. If you feel that "be and enjoy" is unattainable, then you'll conclude that "to be" is "to suffer". And if being is suffering, then being is not good.

 

[Moral Orel]

In our last discussion on this topic, which began with this post (link), we were constraining ourselves to talking about human good. Human desire is always for happiness, because this is what humans ultimately desire. My hamburger is good for me but it's not good for the cow. By "kinds" I primarily mean species, like humans and cows and snakes and mosquitoes.

I know you were using "kinds" like YECs use kinds. I'm asking "why?" What is the correct way to segregate things? Why stop at "human kind" and not go further to say "this kind of human that kind of human"? Or even, why go so far? Why not say conscious life v unconscious life? I think you're drawing arbitrary lines.

Yes, except I am talking about desire and aversion, which are more fundamental than pleasure and suffering. If you remember, last time we looked at the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to see that some people find suffering desirable.

Eh... I don't see desire/aversion as another level from pleasure/suffering. Pleasure and suffering are the objects of our desire and aversion, respectively. It doesn't make sense to me to call them "more fundamental".

And the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] doesn't find suffering to be desirable, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pain to be pleasurable. Isn't that why we removed aversion to suffering from the equation, because avoiding suffering is pleasurable, so pleasure (or happiness as you like to insist on the distinction) is the most fundamental thing we seek?

 

[Bradskii]

Stop and rescue the one person?

And the five die.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand your position, and I wouldn't argue against it. As a reminder the idea of good and being is Aquinas'. My position on suffering and suicide is uniquely my own, and was recently heightened by the suicide of my sister, whom I had cared for for many years, and who had suffered more than I can know. But I am, as I have always been, sympathetic to those who choose that path.

My sincere condolences to you and the rest of your family.

 

[RDKirk]

Ah, but lacking omniscience, in seeking the unapparent good, isn't one at risk of incurring the unapparent evil?

Very possible.

Nature always works toward the greater good.

I dispute that contention. Nature could strike the earth with an asteroid that destroys all life on the planet. Nature is not working toward any good.

 

[zippy2006]

I know you were using "kinds" like YECs use kinds. I'm asking "why?" What is the correct way to segregate things? Why stop at "human kind" and not go further to say "this kind of human that kind of human"? Or even, why go so far? Why not say conscious life v unconscious life? I think you're drawing arbitrary lines.

Whether or not we can distinguish them with perfect precision, isn't it obvious that there are different species that benefit from different things? I mean, if you don't believe me that cows and snakes are different, then go buy a snake and give it grass to eat and see how long it lives.

The reason humans are different is because we are rational. We do math and build cathedrals and compose symphonies and trade stocks.

Eh... I don't see desire/aversion as another level from pleasure/suffering. Pleasure and suffering are the objects of our desire and aversion, respectively. It doesn't make sense to me to call them "more fundamental".

And the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] doesn't find suffering to be desirable, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pain to be pleasurable. Isn't that why we removed aversion to suffering from the equation, because avoiding suffering is pleasurable, so pleasure (or happiness as you like to insist on the distinction) is the most fundamental thing we seek?

Well we experience desire and aversion before we experience pleasure and pain.

I think you are trying to do the same thing Aquinas was doing in that quote. He was trying to give the bare-bones, fundamental-level account. If we have an account of human action which is truly fundamental then it must account for all psychological motivation we find in humans (perhaps apart from those that are unintelligibly pathological).

I don't think the pleasure/pain theory accounts for things like martyrdom or sacrifice. A few nights ago I watched Red Sparrow, wherein Dominika willingly undergoes Russian torture for a higher cause. In cases such as these a cognized good is taking precedence over a carnal good, and this is what humans are characteristically capable of in comparison with animals. Pleasure and pain are feelings, but humans do at times hold such feelings in contempt in favor of other (cognized) goods. Not everyone is a hedonist.

 

[partinobodycular]

I dispute that contention.

And I agree, that was very poorly worded.

 

[IceJad]

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.

The issue with the trolley problem is it's lack of context and surrounding interconnected cause & effect. I have to derive the meaning by adding in outside variables such as who is involve and who's making is the scenario I'm put into. It is not usable to be a basis of morality by itself. The scenario itself guides you to make the only rational choice devoid of additional information which is to save the 5 and kill the 1. It is not a choice, for any rational human will do the same. It is only a choice when more context is added to the situation.

The only solution if nothing is added to the trolley problem is utilitarianism by its very nature. Maximize happiness to the most people. That is not morality only a subset of morality given a very specific situation. Utilitarianism cannot work when the majority desires happiness at the expense of the minority.

If the 5 are saboteurs planning to derail the trolley to achieve a destructive end and the 1 is a rail worker trying to repair damages, utilitarian morality fails given if there is no wider surrounding world. Any problem that forces you to act (to do or not to do) without given context cannot be use as a basis for any moral standard.

Morality itself cannot be decoupled from context.

 

[Bradskii]

The scenario itself guides you to make the only rational choice devoid of additional information which is to save the 5 and kill the 1. It is not a choice, for any rational human will do the same.

Then we have some irrational people posting in this thread.

Morality itself cannot be decoupled from context.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[durangodawood]

....Morality itself cannot be decoupled from context.

For sure we can hold context-less moral principles. Whats lacking is a sense of how they compete against other moral principles.

The trolley problem has given us a set of limited knowns in which we can examine the perfectly sensible principle that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The trolley problem fails only to confront us with any of the other moral principles that naturally compete with the utilitarian principle in more complex scenarios.

In no way does the trolley problem suggest that its deciding principle should be the sole moral principle for all circumstances. I dont know where people get that notion from.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whether or not we can distinguish them with perfect precision, isn't it obvious that there are different species that benefit from different things? I mean, if you don't believe me that cows and snakes are different, then go buy a snake and give it grass to eat and see how long it lives.

The reason humans are different is because we are rational. We do math and build cathedrals and compose symphonies and trade stocks.

I never said there aren't differences. I'm saying that you're arbitrarily choosing which differences are important. And humans aren't the only species who engage in reasoning. We aren't the only ones who learn. We're better at it, by a long shot even, okay, but we aren't alone in that. And remember that survival is secondary to happiness. When we truly feel like happiness is completely out of reach, we desire to stop surviving.

Well we experience desire and aversion before we experience pleasure and pain.

Do we? How do you know? I avoid bees, but only now, after I've been stung.

I don't think the pleasure/pain theory accounts for things like martyrdom or sacrifice. A few nights ago I watched Red Sparrow, wherein Dominika willingly undergoes Russian torture for a higher cause. In cases such as these a cognized good is taking precedence over a carnal good, and this is what humans are characteristically capable of in comparison with animals. Pleasure and pain are feelings, but humans do at times hold such feelings in contempt in favor of other (cognized) goods. Not everyone is a hedonist.

I remember going over this too. The martyr is happy when he dies, even if it's coupled with a painful death. We make plans that involve a temporary sacrifice of comfort for the expected gain of happiness. The hedonist wants instant gratification all the time, the rest of us are more patient, but we all have the same goal (to feel good). My shoulder is already sore, but I'm going to go to work tomorrow knowing that it will be worse by the end of the day, because I know that at the end of the week, I'm getting a paycheck. And that makes me happy, so I suffer through the work because money buys happiness. I thought that movie was terrible by the way.

 

[zippy2006]

The scenario itself guides you to make the only rational choice devoid of additional information which is to save the 5 and kill the 1. It is not a choice, for any rational human will do the same.

Whats abouts that pesky commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Or St. Paul's admonition in Romans 3:8?

Have the Lutherans traded the Bible for a philosophical ethics textbook?

The only solution if nothing is added to the trolley problem is utilitarianism by its very nature. Maximize happiness to the most people. That is not morality only a subset of morality given a very specific situation.

The Trolley Problem is simply an argument against deontological thinking.

Morality itself cannot be decoupled from context.

If that were true then we could never say a word about moral norms, for concrete contexts can never be exhaustively described.

 

[Bradskii]

If that were true then we could never say a word about moral norms, for concrete contexts can never be exhaustively described.

Change that to 'moral absolutes' and you'll get a lot of agreement.