My answer to the Trolley problem...opinions?

[Erlian]

I believe the case is unreal, because there's certainty involved. In real life there's no certainty.
That aside. I find it curious how you use the words 'murdering' and 'killing' a lot more than 'saving'.
If I push the guy, I save 5 persons. If I don't push the guy, I spare 1 and don't save 5.

I'm a subjective consequentialist. I guess it's a bit closer to utilitarianism than deontology.
I judge an action based on the intended consequences.
I don't condemn one for killing someone by accident.
I condemn someone for trying to kill even if they fail.

 

[dogman6126]

At this point one has to use intuition to get a best guess at the greatest happiness and health of everyone. Overall happiness is likely to enable better growth of civilization and birth rate. We have to accept human error for what it is. But happiness and health of an individual is secondary to actual life of an individual. Also, the continuation of the social and civilized system is more fundamental to the overall progress of humanity than anyone's life. Children represent that continuation of society and are therefor more valuable.

You threw in a number of different things here, lol. So, you think the goal is the greatest happiness and health of everyone because that enables a better growth to civilivation. However, you also say that happiness is secondary to life. I suppose that's fine. However, if happiness is secondary, then that supposes that we can live a good enough life without happiness. That's a tough pill to swallow. Personally, I can conceive of a life not worth living, be it so completely full of pain and misery and loneliness with no possibility of change.
You further said that continuity of society is more important than the individual. That's not logically inconsistent, but continuity of one's society leads to a stagnant society. And if you suppose that is more important than any one life, and you take life to be more important than happiness, then you must take society to be more important than happiness. So this idea allows for a society that is cruel. Now if you take the greatest happiness of all involved like a utilitarian, then you have a contradiction. Some responsibility to society and some responsibility to happiness.

 

[dogman6126]

The first case has an unacknowledged actor that has forcibly subdued the people and bears any and all moral consequences. Coercion generally cedes fault to the coercer and not the coerced despite the coerced still having freedom of choice, i.e. a person with a gun to their head can still choose not to cooperate, yet we (generally) do not find fault with the person being coerced.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear why this is relevant. Could you please explain? I'm probably just tired, lol

I find it amusing that despite acknowledging an actor's ability to self-sacrifice, it is not acknowledged as a choice that you yourself could choose to self-sacrifice rather than pushing someone else or allowing the five to die. Hypotheticals are a waste of time if they are too absurd.

The idea here is you would be insufficient to stop the trolley by self-sacrificing. Killing yourself is pointless here. And you loose the intrinsic value of your life which is morally reprehensible.

 

[dogman6126]

Yes good point.
The question about pushing another larger person in front of the train is incomplete. There is another option. You push the person AND jump on the track yourself. Both of you are horribly disfigured and messed up for the rest of your life, but you both survive.
I choose option z in all cases. I jump in front of the train freeing myself from having to make any choice or knowing the outcome. Perhaps an alien being sees this predicament (an angel for religious folks) and chooses to stop the whole proceeding. That there can only be a few outcomes here is why I will not spend much time thinking about this. There are always other factors that are not known until an actual situation comes around.

in what way would you both survive? I suppose you could make a separate thought experiment out of that option, but in this one whoever jumps in front of the trolley will die, be it the fat man, you, or the both of you. The fat man would be enough weight to stop the trolley while you are insufficient alone.

So instead of exercising your own agency and free will in a difficult situation (of which many would say you are responsible to do so), you would choose to just end your life? You do realize what that sounds like, yes? I don't mean to sound rude, but the implication of your statement is....concerning.

 

[dogman6126]

I would travel back in time, or get somebody else to, in order to save the 5 and leave the dude alone. So, I reject the premise that you have to choose between them.

As to why killing the other guy is wrong, the other premise that you can KNOW it will work is faulty, and thus you become not only a murderer but also a murderer who failed to accomplish what was sought.

My two cents anyway.

erm, presupposing a number of not only highly unlikely but logically inconsistent variables. To say travel back in time, you where driven to make that jump in time because of the unfortunate circumstance. By traveling back in time to alter it, you create a paradox similar in design (but lesser in severity) to the grandfather paradox. Not to mention a fundamental problem of most theories of physics deem reverse time travel impossible.....At least until someone can prove wormholes of the right type true. And then supposing they are traversable, and controllable.

And to know something as true is not something that is faulty. We can do this with physics. suppose the man is a sumo wrestler of 800 pounds, and each of the five people weigh 100 pounds. we can now calculate friction coefficient of the fat man on a train track, consider basic collision physics, and then you necessarily know the standard weight of trolleys because of your hobby in trolley workings (with this trolley being standard) as well as having a LIDAR in your backpack because you are a police man.
There are ways around these practical questions. And beyond that, that's not of concern here. We aren't exploring if the situation is ever going to happen in reality exactly as described. We are questioning if such a moral dilemma will ever occur in reality. As mentioned earlier, physics assumes spherical chickens, but there's no such thing as a spherical chicken. Similarly, philosophy assumes knowing will die or will not die. That is a reasonable part for questions of the objective nature of reality. Now if you do not take an objective measure of morality to be true, and that it all comes down to the practical application then your concern is more valid. But then you must have a non circular argument for why there is no objective morality.

 

[dogman6126]

I believe the case is unreal, because there's certainty involved. In real life there's no certainty.
That aside. I find it curious how you use the words 'murdering' and 'killing' a lot more than 'saving'.
If I push the guy, I save 5 persons. If I don't push the guy, I spare 1 and don't save 5.

I'm a subjective consequentialist. I guess it's a bit closer to utilitarianism than deontology.
I judge an action based on the intended consequences.
I don't condemn one for killing someone by accident.
I condemn someone for trying to kill even if they fail.

That's a good point you raise about killing vs saving. I use those words because moral obligation comes from the idea of lives being important, and to some extent in this type of situation you have an obligation to act morally. Moral consideration of this type, being based on culpability, and we wouldn't say a person is culpable for the good in their action. Rather a person is culpable for their bad actions. While the good side can be an important consideration in determining culpability, it wasn't so much what the trolley problem is tackling.

Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist, yes. But that's an interesting view you have. Subjective consequentialism. It seems odd because consequentialists are usually concerned with the moral consequences of some thing while your saying the intentions of someone deem it moral or not has nothing to do with the consequences.....

 

[Matt3737]

I'm sorry, I'm not clear why this is relevant. Could you please explain? I'm probably just tired, lol

The idea here is you would be insufficient to stop the trolley by self-sacrificing. Killing yourself is pointless here. And you loose the intrinsic value of your life which is morally reprehensible.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be. In such a hypothetical situation, whoever tied the people up is solely responsible for those deaths incurred.

(of which many would say you are responsible to do so)

Who says? You? This hypothetical situation is posed in such a way as to make the listener feel as if they are complicit in someone's death simply by being presented with a false dilemma, i.e. that your action is what is directly responsible for the resultant death or deaths.

erm, presupposing a number of not only highly unlikely but logically inconsistent variables. To say travel back in time, you where driven to make that jump in time because of the unfortunate circumstance. By traveling back in time to alter it, you create a paradox similar in design (but lesser in severity) to the grandfather paradox. Not to mention a fundamental problem of most theories of physics deem reverse time travel impossible.....At least until someone can prove wormholes of the right type true. And then supposing they are traversable, and controllable.

And to know something as true is not something that is faulty. We can do this with physics. suppose the man is a sumo wrestler of 800 pounds, and each of the five people weigh 100 pounds. we can now calculate friction coefficient of the fat man on a train track, consider basic collision physics, and then you necessarily know the standard weight of trolleys because of your hobby in trolley workings (with this trolley being standard) as well as having a LIDAR in your backpack because you are a police man.
There are ways around these practical questions. And beyond that, that's not of concern here. We aren't exploring if the situation is ever going to happen in reality exactly as described. We are questioning if such a moral dilemma will ever occur in reality. As mentioned earlier, physics assumes spherical chickens, but there's no such thing as a spherical chicken. Similarly, philosophy assumes knowing will die or will not die. That is a reasonable part for questions of the objective nature of reality. Now if you do not take an objective measure of morality to be true, and that it all comes down to the practical application then your concern is more valid. But then you must have a non circular argument for why there is no objective morality.

So let me get this straight. You want to attempt to make a serious physically plausible hypothetical situation, wherein we suppose that I, a small(er) man not capable of stopping the trolley on my own, am given the option of shoving another man (a sumo wrestler no less; a profession wherein such a person's sole occupation is resisting being shoved or moved outside a given space!) into the path of an oncoming trolley to accomplish the task?

Are you even being serious any more?

 

[dogman6126]

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be. In such a hypothetical situation, whomever tied the people up is solely responsible for those deaths incurred.



Who says? You? This hypothetical situation is posed in such a way as to make the listener feel as if they are complicit in someone's death simply by being presented with a false dilemma, i.e. that your action is what is directly responsible for the resultant death or deaths.



So let me get this straight. You want to attempt to make a serious physically plausible hypothetical situation, wherein we suppose that I, a small(er) man not capable of stopping the trolley on my own, am given the option of shoving another man (a sumo wrestler no less; a profession wherein such a person's sole occupation is resisting being shoved or moved outside a given space!) into the path of an oncoming trolley to accomplish the task?

Are you even being serious any more?

you threw in terms like coercion. Further, I did not see the relation between the trolley example and the example you suggested. At least in relation to the moral question that the trolley example is meant to tackle.

With the intention of exploring the nature of morality. Not some hypothetical physics (time travel).
Not only is this a widely accepted method for probing the question of morality, but this idea of thought experiments can be traced back to ancient greece. You test if gravity is there, you see it in action. To see what it is and what it means, your probe it's extremes. That's just what we are doing with morality here. And you can raise questions of direct and passive responsibility, but that doesn't make the thought experiment usless. If anything it lead us to that type of question.

 

[Y0u]

you threw in terms like coercion. Further, I did not see the relation between the trolley example and the example you suggested. At least in relation to the moral question that the trolley example is meant to tackle.

With the intention of exploring the nature of morality. Not some hypothetical physics (time travel).
Not only is this a widely accepted method for probing the question of morality, but this idea of thought experiments can be traced back to ancient greece. You test if gravity is there, you see it in action. To see what it is and what it means, your probe it's extremes. That's just what we are doing with morality here. And you can raise questions of direct and passive responsibility, but that doesn't make the thought experiment usless. If anything it lead us to that type of question.

I think a more basic moral lesson is to try to avoid extremes in duality, and instead find another way, because there usually is one. By ignoring the "hypotheticals", a false dilemma is presented. One cannot KNOW anything but tautologies. If morality has value in the real world, then reality ought to be factored in. Accepting and acting on false dilemmas such as these is one reason why people can be apt to doing the nasty things we see around us.

 

[Eventhorizon]

in what way would you both survive? I suppose you could make a separate thought experiment out of that option, but in this one whoever jumps in front of the trolley will die, be it the fat man, you, or the both of you. The fat man would be enough weight to stop the trolley while you are insufficient alone.

So instead of exercising your own agency and free will in a difficult situation (of which many would say you are responsible to do so), you would choose to just end your life? You do realize what that sounds like, yes? I don't mean to sound rude, but the implication of your statement is....concerning.

My point is there is no way at all to know the outcome of any decision you make in this regard. And there are more choices to be had than the few choices you are given to choose from in the thought experiment.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Option z.1. I walk away saving nor killing anyone. I find the person who set this scenario up and shove them in front of an oncoming trolly for being a sick @#$&.

 

[Tin Man]

I agree with eventhorizon. I dislike the question, it's too binary in nature. Such situations are rarely so black and white. You also don't know how you'll react in that scenario. I've been in a few life or death situations and there's little time for reflection on what is the morally right thing to do. Maybe you push the guy, maybe you don't. Maybe you're simply not good in those situations and shut down. You make no choice, not out of apathy but because you freeze up. In the end, it's barely even a choice. Your instincts will likely kick in and what you do will be a result of an innate behavior or maybe deeply ingrained social values.

Of course, out of this you could imply everything we do is a result of conditioning and that we have little choice at all in what we do. But that's a lot more difficult to answer.

 

[Erlian]

Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist, yes. But that's an interesting view you have. Subjective consequentialism. It seems odd because consequentialists are usually concerned with the moral consequences of some thing while your saying the intentions of someone deem it moral or not has nothing to do with the consequences.....

I know realise that this doesn't really have to do a lot with the trolley problem. But indeed it's an odd combination.
I learned this -ism at a philosophy course. Half a year later (not long ago) I tried to find what it was called again. I couldn't really. Because once I came upon consequentialism I didn't really think that'd fit at all.
But eventually managed to find something on it here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Other responses claim that moral rightness depends on foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences, rather than actual ones. <Examples>

Consequentialist moral theories that focus on actual or objectively probable consequences are often described as objective consequentialism (Railton 1984). In contrast, consequentialist moral theories that focus on intended or foreseen consequences are usually described as subjective consequentialism. Consequentialist moral theories that focus on reasonably foreseeable consequences are then not subjective insofar as they do not depend on anything inside the actual subject's mind, but they are subjective insofar as they do depend on which consequences this particular subject would foresee if he or she were better informed or more rational.

I'm not quite sure if I draw the line at intended or foreseen consequences. But this is how I judge actions. At the trolley problem there's not much of a difference between intended, foreseen, foreseeable of likely consequences, because there are no uncertainties. Subjective consequentialism can't really answer such a problem, but I don't mind, because stuff like a trolley problem (with all the certainties attached) could never happen in real life.

 

[dogman6126]

I think a more basic moral lesson is to try to avoid extremes in duality, and instead find another way, because there usually is one. By ignoring the "hypotheticals", a false dilemma is presented. One cannot KNOW anything but tautologies. If morality has value in the real world, then reality ought to be factored in. Accepting and acting on false dilemmas such as these is one reason why people can be apt to doing the nasty things we see around us.

I'm not clear what you mean by factored in. This explores questions is agency, value of life, freedom of choice, responsibility, etc. Assuming objective morality, those are the measures of reality being factored in and assessed. To compare back to the spherical chicken, that idea probes volume and geometry and if I remember correctly some calculus.

 

[dogman6126]

My point is there is no way at all to know the outcome of any decision you make in this regard. And there are more choices to be had than the few choices you are given to choose from in the thought experiment.

Which is an odd stance to take when realizing the point of the question is to consider the nature of morality. Your to focused on the exact replication of reality, not the consideration of morality

 

[dogman6126]

Option z.1. I walk away saving nor killing anyone. I find the person who set this scenario up and shove them in front of an oncoming trolly for being a sick @#$&.

And that is an interesting choice to make. Walking away. One might say you are in fact still making a choice and still responsible to some extent on the outcome. Or one could say you acted badly for not acting out your agency and are responsible in that way

 

[dogman6126]

I agree with eventhorizon. I dislike the question, it's too binary in nature. Such situations are rarely so black and white. You also don't know how you'll react in that scenario. I've been in a few life or death situations and there's little time for reflection on what is the morally right thing to do. Maybe you push the guy, maybe you don't. Maybe you're simply not good in those situations and shut down. You make no choice, not out of apathy but because you freeze up. In the end, it's barely even a choice. Your instincts will likely kick in and what you do will be a result of an innate behavior or maybe deeply ingrained social values.

Of course, out of this you could imply everything we do is a result of conditioning and that we have little choice at all in what we do. But that's a lot more difficult to answer.

Again, the question isn't so much what you would do in reality. It's more work what morality requires you to do. You guys could claim this problem questions nothing of moral consequence for some of the points you guys have made, but then you would have to reject the idea of an objective morality. Then you must accept good and bad are no more unique than red and blue. Simple perceptions without an objectively correct nature.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

It is a little difficult to make claims about an objective morality using a hypothetical that does not conform to any known objective reality.

 

[dogman6126]

I know realise that this doesn't really have to do a lot with the trolley problem. But indeed it's an odd combination.
I learned this -ism at a philosophy course. Half a year later (not long ago) I tried to find what it was called again. I couldn't really. Because once I came upon consequentialism I didn't really think that'd fit at all.
But eventually managed to find something on it here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

I'm not quite sure if I draw the line at intended or foreseen consequences. But this is how I judge actions. At the trolley problem there's not much of a difference between intended, foreseen, foreseeable of likely consequences, because there are no uncertainties. Subjective consequentialism can't really answer such a problem, but I don't mind, because stuff like a trolley problem (with all the certainties attached) could never happen in real life.

That's very interesting. I don't think I've encountered that view before. I've heard moral responsible adda product of intentions, but not with the spin of intentions the person would have had given enough information. And I could see how such a subjectivist view renders the trolley problem as.... not pointless as it can still be answered, but doesn't explore anything new about morality. Personally, I find that view of morality to be distasteful because I believe there to be a more objective truth. But at that point there's no way really to prove one view or the other.

 

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

It is a little difficult to make claims about an objective morality using a hypothetical that does not conform to any known objective reality.

I can raise the example in physics of the spherical chicken again. That idea does not conform to the truth of reality but is still a reasonable question to ask.