This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
That real situation sounds like a fairly direct translation of
the trolley problem
which is always interesting to think about. I really recommend people take a moment to read through the issues raised.
Not a particularly direct translation, as the children in that real situation were not killed, or even harmed so far as I know.
I think that, in terms of the different examples of the trolly or the judge, I'd give different answers, because I'd take into account long term effects.
The trolly being out of control is not a conscious decision of anyone. It's an accident and a tragedy, and the best way to handle it is to minimize casualties. In this case, switching tracks would be (IMO) preferable because it minimizes casualties, and won't encourage future trolleys to go out of control.
In the case of the judge, on the surface it's the life of one man vs. five. But it sends a message that the justice system is withholding justice from criminals, and that a mob can bypass this perceived injustice by brute force and threats. If this mob succeeds in finding "the real criminal" by taking hostages and forcing this decision, then in the future other people will believe that they can get justice that way, and would repeat the scenario. If the Judge tells the truth, which is they don't have the guy, it's true that those 5 people may die. But in the next circumstance, I think that a more rational group of people are less likely to repeat the mob action that got nowhere and solved nothing, and probably landed the members in jail or on death row.
It also would become "proof" that the justice system was refusing to prosecute guilty parties on their own, and would probably spur on vigilante justice against people who aren't charged, or are acquitted, because they are really innocent.
EDIT: In terms of throwing someone on the track, it isn't the same. If you have the time to throw someone, you certainly have the time to jump. You're not just trading one life for five, but you're making the decision that in order to prevent the casualties, you have the right to sacrifice someone else's life before your own. THAT is why it's not right.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
That's not an interesting moral problem, just a personal choice to be charitable or not. I don't see any interesting discussion raised by that scenario Soldrethar.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@askawa, it's either one person dies, or everyone dies. There's no moral judgement to be had here, it's majority vs minority. The only right thing to do is to sacrifice one to save everyone else. Either that one dies, and everyone else lives, or that person still dies and everyone else does too. How can you make a moral judgement here? That's why these scenarios mean nothing.
No, that's why these scenarios mean everything. When the choice is clear, and it's either be selfish, or be a good person, there's no debate. You either do the right thing, or the wrong thing. In the vast majority of moral decisions, there are multiple factors involved. Things like war, passing laws, making triage decisions, resolving disputes where both sides do have some valid points- THOSE are the decisions that make it hard to know what is the correct choice, because any choice has a good chance of either harming or preventing harm to someone.
Most scenarios in life don't follow the ones you try to use. Most of them are complicated, and have consequences you wouldn't want regardless of what choice you make. In those situations, you have to weigh all the consequences and choose what is the most right, or will do the most good. And if you refuse to consider situations like these (which are the vast majority of real life situations), then I understand why you don't understand what we're talking about in regards to morality.
We're discussing morality in life, as it exists on a day to day basis. You discuss morality in theory, in only scenarios where there is a completely moral or a completely immoral choice. We want to think about resolving real problems, and you want to use artificial ones to construct a theory of morality that has no relevance to most real decisions. That's why when people challenge you with real scenarios, your ability to maintain your argument falls apart- it doesn't apply to the real world. That's why when people want to talk about more complicated issues, you always revert to the holocaust, or molesting an 8-year-old, or shooting random people in the face- because you can't address morality in non-extreme circumstances.
Please try and examine the actual scenarios we're using, instead of the ones you'd rather use, and try and meet us half way in this discussion. Try to apply your beliefs about morality to the decisions where it matters most, and is more frequently encountered.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
EDIT: Not going to engage anymore, actually.
Asakawa- did you see my response to why throwing someone on a train track is different than diverting the train? I think that's why people's reactions are different- because it implies a third option that is the optimal solution in terms of saving other people, that you're refusing to take.
Post by
asakawa
Well I think that's why it generally a "fat man" in these thought experiments to rule out the idea that one could sacrifice oneself. As you say, the morally "correct" solution would be to sacrifice yourself for 5 people (or not, depending - I doubt many people actually would do this but we can probably agree that it's the good thing to do) but in the scenario, we're to small to stop the train/trolley but the big guy standing next to us would do the trick.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
But would you sacrifice someone else? You're not asking one person to sacrifice their life, you're forcing someone to die because you judge it to be for the greater good.
I'm all for some Spock logic on the "the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few" question but could
I
kill a random innocent (if overweight) man myself to save 5 people? I dunno but I don't think so.
Which is why I don't understand any of this.
It's okay not to understand or be interested. You don't have to post.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't know if I could push someone. Even if it's the same one vs. many cost assessment, it doesn't feel the same. In once case, you are steering an object away from the larger group, in the other you are pushing someone in front of it. The second action just feels more wrong than the first, even if logically it isn't.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't know if I could push someone. Even if it's the same one vs. many cost assessment, it doesn't feel the same. In once case, you are steering an object away from the larger group, in the other you are pushing someone in front of it. The second action just feels more wrong than the first, even if logically it isn't.
The second action is more because inherently, I think we consider there to be the question mark over whether the ploy will actually work, without the benefit of omniscience (as we have when we contrive these scenarios). Will pushing the fat guy actually stop the trolley? If it doesn't, doesn't that mean we've now killed 6 people instead? At least by diverting the tracks, we feel more reassured that the predicted outcome will actually happen.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Squish- I agree with that too. I know for a fact that if I move the train, it won't go down the track and kill those 5 people. And if it does, then my action won't have added to the loss of life in any way- just failed to prevent it. In the pushing scenario, you could in fact make the death toll higher.
Post by
asakawa
The trolley problem assumes that you know with absolute certainty that killing the fat guy will work (very much a contrivance). It's still different.
In the first the killing is removed from you. The train does the killing, you've just saved some people.
In the second you threw someone in front of a train. You did the killing.
(you know, if any of us are unlucky enough to find ourselves in this situation we'll totally miss the opportunity to save anyone due to the moment's hesitation where you think, "oh $£%^!, this is the trolley problem!")(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Asakawa- I don't think I could do it. I don't know it that makes it morally the right thing to do, but I couldn't push someone in front of a train.
Post by
Squishalot
In the first the killing is removed from you. The train does the killing, you've just saved some people.
In the second you threw someone in front of a train. You did the killing.
I don't think so. The train doing the killing is no more of an excuse than 'the gun does the killing, not me pulling the trigger'.
Post by
asakawa
No I don't think it's different but results of studies where they ask people what they would do in these scenarios show that most people would pull the lever but most people would NOT push the fat guy. I'm really just speculating on the psychology behind that rather than the morality so I'm probably drifting off topic.
Post by
Squishalot
No I don't think it's different but results of studies where they ask people what they would do in these scenarios show that most people would pull the lever but most people would NOT push the fat guy. I'm really just speculating on the psychology behind that rather than the morality so I'm probably drifting off topic.
I know, and I realise that's the conclusion that most theses on the idea comes to. I don't think it considers the probabilistic question of whether it would actually work though.
Perhaps a more contrived example would be if there was a group of 6 people including one wheelchair bound person on the secondary line, and you know that the other 5 people are able to get out of the way if you switch it. Maybe that would introduce enough doubt about whether you would have 6 deaths instead of 1 to be a fair comparison, thus controlling for 'probability bias'.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You know what was a really good morality-test scenario? The ending of The Watchmen movie.
If you don't know it:
The Earth is on the brink of nuclear war, and one superhero frames another for blowing up like a dozen major cities around the world, because he believes that if Earth is united against a common enemy, they will stop fighting each other. Some might consider this a moral dilemma- I think it's pretty clearly immoral to kill millions in the hope that will inspire peace - but if people are just doing # of lives arithmetic they might.
What the moral dilemma is, is do the superheroes who tried to stop him and failed tell the world what happened? They did everything they could to save those people's lives, but it didn't work. Now, they can either keep the secret, and let the world unite to defend against an imaginary threat (since the hero in question has since left the planet and won't be in danger from them anyway), or tell the truth, which leaves the world not more unified than before and possible ignites conflicts between the US and other countries if they are blamed for what happened. Is it more important to tell the truth about what happened, or to take advantage of the peace that the lie inspired? It gets further complicated by the fact that one of them refuses to keep the secret, because he refuses not to expose corruption, and so the only way that they would be able to keep the peace is by killing him (which they do).
How do you measure morality in this situation? Is it more important to have the world know the truth and the man who did it tried, or to salvage what good can come out of it since it's already happened, and let it create peace? Does that answer change when they have to actively take another life to keep that peace? Do you agree with the one who put the plan in motion in the first place- if everyone would have died in a nuclear war, and it was almost definitely going to happen, is killing 300 million people to save the other 5.5 billion the better option?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.