Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The Trolley Problem

Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 9:51:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

1 < 5
?
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 9:56:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wait...

Who tied them up? That Guy deserves to be the one that dies, and if it's the 1 guy untied on the other track, he should die.

Otherwise, don't mess with fate. Let the 5 Die.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:11:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:56:16 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Wait...

Who tied them up? That Guy deserves to be the one that dies, and if it's the 1 guy untied on the other track, he should die.

That is irrelevant for the question at hand. You are evading the question.

Otherwise, don't mess with fate. Let the 5 Die.

By the way, the source is Wikipedia.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:13:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:11:31 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 1/8/2014 9:56:16 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Wait...

Who tied them up? That Guy deserves to be the one that dies, and if it's the 1 guy untied on the other track, he should die.

That is irrelevant for the question at hand. You are evading the question.

See Below. That is my answer, the above is just an exception. It's also similar to the fat man problem where you can push him in front of the train to kill him.

Otherwise, don't mess with fate. Let the 5 Die.

By the way, the source is Wikipedia.

Ok then. My answer is still k then.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 1:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've got a better one. An evil man kidnaps you and tells you (convincingly) that there is a bomb planted in an area with lots of people that he will detonate if you don't follow his instructions precisely. You have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

He brings out several small children and infants and tells you to rape, mutilate, and otherwise torture them for hours on end or else he will detonate the bomb, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

What do you do?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 12:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 1:13:51 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I've got a better one. An evil man kidnaps you and tells you (convincingly) that there is a bomb planted in an area with lots of people that he will detonate if you don't follow his instructions precisely. You have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

He brings out several small children and infants and tells you to rape, mutilate, and otherwise torture them for hours on end or else he will detonate the bomb, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

What do you do?

Nothing. Even if there is a bomb planted, that doesn't mean he would stop his plans to kill all of the kids no matter what he tells you. For all you know, you could rape and mutilate all of these kids and he would still do what he was going to do.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 12:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 12:20:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 1:13:51 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I've got a better one. An evil man kidnaps you and tells you (convincingly) that there is a bomb planted in an area with lots of people that he will detonate if you don't follow his instructions precisely. You have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

He brings out several small children and infants and tells you to rape, mutilate, and otherwise torture them for hours on end or else he will detonate the bomb, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

What do you do?

Nothing. Even if there is a bomb planted, that doesn't mean he would stop his plans to kill all of the kids no matter what he tells you. For all you know, you could rape and mutilate all of these kids and he would still do what he was going to do.

Excellent. And so you have solved both my example and the trolley problem as well. The answer is not to participate in them. People across the world are in a "trolley problem" all their lives; they think they are helping certain people by sacrificing the freedom of others, but trying to work the formula so that they do more good than less (or so they tell themselves). This utilitarian attitude always favors them personally along the way, no doubt!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 12:35:22 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:20:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 1:13:51 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I've got a better one. An evil man kidnaps you and tells you (convincingly) that there is a bomb planted in an area with lots of people that he will detonate if you don't follow his instructions precisely. You have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

He brings out several small children and infants and tells you to rape, mutilate, and otherwise torture them for hours on end or else he will detonate the bomb, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

What do you do?

Nothing. Even if there is a bomb planted, that doesn't mean he would stop his plans to kill all of the kids no matter what he tells you. For all you know, you could rape and mutilate all of these kids and he would still do what he was going to do.

Excellent. And so you have solved both my example and the trolley problem as well. The answer is not to participate in them. People across the world are in a "trolley problem" all their lives; they think they are helping certain people by sacrificing the freedom of others, but trying to work the formula so that they do more good than less (or so they tell themselves). This utilitarian attitude always favors them personally along the way, no doubt!

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Is this philosophy suggesting that individuals close their eyes whenever something doesn't directly involve them? (not stepping in for a victim of bullying, for example).
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 1:10:09 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Is this philosophy suggesting that individuals close their eyes whenever something doesn't directly involve them? (not stepping in for a victim of bullying, for example).

No, it doesn't. It simply means that you don't hurt others and try to justify it intellectually (which is always going to coincidentally favor yourself, in practice. Could you elaborate on your bullying example? How does it weaken my argument?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:13:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Evil by inaction is still evil. If you had the opportunity to save someone and didn't, you are complicit in the murder. Utilitarianism makes more sense in this case from an objective viewpoint - 5 > 1.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:21:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 1:12:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:10:09 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Is this philosophy suggesting that individuals close their eyes whenever something doesn't directly involve them? (not stepping in for a victim of bullying, for example).

No, it doesn't. It simply means that you don't hurt others and try to justify it intellectually (which is always going to coincidentally favor yourself, in practice. Could you elaborate on your bullying example? How does it weaken my argument?

I totally get your explanation for choice one. But i'm trying to figure its dimensions (how far it can be applied, to what it can be applied).

To ask you another question, does this mean that in the trolley situation, would me trying to stop the trolley itself from continuing in its path (either path) violate the philosophy you suggested? Would it make me responsible for ALL 6 of them if I failed?

The bullying example is the same idea (kind of). IF you were the only person that was able to witness a bullying (the bully was physically and/or mentally harassing the victim), and you had the power to step in, would stepping in violate the philosophy you suggested? I'm guessing not because it isn't certain whether a person's life is in question...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

No brainer. You save the 5 people, as it is more people. Isn't this extremely easy? It is not a hard dilemma at all...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 2:54:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 1:13:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Evil by inaction is still evil. If you had the opportunity to save someone and didn't, you are complicit in the murder. Utilitarianism makes more sense in this case from an objective viewpoint - 5 > 1.

I'm using the information I am given to produce the only possible result that is not immoral. If the only information I have is that
1) for some reason some people are tied to a track and
2) I can murder somebody to potentially save them,
then I'm not getting involved because the ends don't justify the means.

Now, this particular example is extremely misleading, which is why I didn't answer it in my first post. You see, in REAL life, situations have infinite variables surrounding them. By using this amazingly simplistic scenario, we're actually not capturing any true morality because morality is real and this scenario is fiction. Trying to capture morality by using fiction is about as genuine as asking whether superman or batman would win in a fight and then arguing it out.

Now, to try and put some reality into it, I'd like to add more information that is absolutely required to make a genuine moral analysis. Why are these people tied to the track? Let's imagine that these people are protesters to the gov't and are simply trying to martyr themselves. Is it still worth murdering somebody to save them?

You might insist on wiping the slate clean for the 5 potential victims by insisting they were captured or something. Well, if they are truly innocent and there is another mind behind this, then the blood is on his or her hands, not you. You didn't tie 5 people to a track in a sick game, they did.

If this situation was to take place in reality, as unbelievably unlikely as it would be, then your decision would actually not be a matter of morality at all. You see, morality has nothing to do with utility (hence, why utilitarianism is ridiculous). Morality has to do with your innate sense of selfishness due to you being an intelligent creature. Your desire to put yourself ahead of others, to be greedy, to envy and take out hatred on people, etc. That's morality. Some obscure scenario involving a psycho serial killer never touches on these impetuses. When you are deciding what to do in the trolley problem, the factors at stake are entirely intellectual. Whether you kill one, five, all, or none of them has only to do with your non-moral abilities... perhaps your IQ, your speed, strength, or even courage. These are amoral traits. Morality =/= ability.

Now, let's say that, while in the middle of all this, you realize that the 1 victim is an ex-girlfriend that you wished was dead. You might think "oh well, it's better this way anyway" and decide to kill her. In the end you will always insist that you did what you had to, but there was a moral element inside - wrath - that crept its way into your decision-making process and tainted it (you would likely use utilitarianism to justify it, however). Perhaps you noticed the 5 victims were black and you don't like black people as much so you refuse to act. In reality, there are moral factors everywhere weighing on your mind and this simplistic scenario conveniently wipes them all away. I understand the scientific nature of trying to control for all but one variable, but morality has too many variables to successfully achieve this.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 4:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 1:21:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:12:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:10:09 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Is this philosophy suggesting that individuals close their eyes whenever something doesn't directly involve them? (not stepping in for a victim of bullying, for example).

No, it doesn't. It simply means that you don't hurt others and try to justify it intellectually (which is always going to coincidentally favor yourself, in practice. Could you elaborate on your bullying example? How does it weaken my argument?

I totally get your explanation for choice one. But i'm trying to figure its dimensions (how far it can be applied, to what it can be applied).

To ask you another question, does this mean that in the trolley situation, would me trying to stop the trolley itself from continuing in its path (either path) violate the philosophy you suggested?

I don't understand. Are you attempting to derail the train and save everyone?

Would it make me responsible for ALL 6 of them if I failed?

How could all 6 die? The train can only kill 1 or 5.

The bullying example is the same idea (kind of). IF you were the only person that was able to witness a bullying (the bully was physically and/or mentally harassing the victim), and you had the power to step in, would stepping in violate the philosophy you suggested? I'm guessing not because it isn't certain whether a person's life is in question...

Self-defence is an amoral activity. Helping somebody out who's being bullied is a scenario ripe for immoral activity, but it can be successfully navigated amorally by positioning yourself between the bully and the victim and then defending yourself from being attacked.

The greatest people who ever lived were non-violent. They forfeited their own health and safety for the principles they believed in. While defending yourself physically against the bully is not immoral (the difference lies in whether you are acting out of anger or not), it is positively moral to simply "turn the other cheek" as Jesus put forth.

So let's play this out step by step. I see a kid being bullied. I decide to help because I want to do something morally positive.

Option 1: Attack the bully viciously. I could decide that the ends justify the means, and just attack the bully physically. Take that! In this scenario, I'm justifying my anger (wrath) with consequentialism. My reasoning is that the consequences of my actions (saving the victim) outweigh the means (vicious attack on bully). I can use utilitarian calculations to show the disutility of not acting versus the utility of acting, and of course it is simply a matter of taste what the actual values are to those equations.

Option 2: Attack the bully defensively. Same as above, except I control my angry impulses. I may strike him defensively, but I hold my anger in check because I know it's wrong to strike out in anger. In this scenario, I achieve my ends (saving the victim) without immoral consequences (taking out my anger on the bully). However, my ends have not anything to do with morality, so in this situation I have not created any positive morality.

Option 3: Turn the other cheek. I decide to save the victim, but refuse to defend yourself from the bully. The bully thrashes me and I take it without contest. In this scenario, I have achieved my ends, avoided immorality, and also acted morally positive. Jesus doesn't say to turn the other cheek for nothing; there is a reason for it. It is the opposite of wrath: patience. Patience isn't simply the act of waiting, it is the source of tolerance and fortitude as well. I can be patient with a child by not spanking them or yelling at them when I'm frustrated, and I can be patient with a bully by not "legitimately attacking them in self-defense." The greatest men who ever lived loved everyone, not just themselves and their family - that includes bullies and bad people too. This is based on the reverse of consequentialist thinking: that you are not endowed with the power to justify the means by your perception of values and ends, and therefore must humble yourself to the reality that such things are beyond your comprehension. It is only your job to do avoid immoral actions and have "faith" that not acting immorally is good even though you cannot figure it out at the moment. Faith pays off in the end, because you always come to terms with the moral consequences of your actions later on. Those with faith reap the benefits of these rewards and those without faith use utility to measure things intellectually, and are lost in the wilderness as to why they turn into bad people.

Option 4: Fear overcomes me and I decide not to step in. I am a coward. I avoid immorality, I don't produce positive morality, I don't achieve my ends. I might be disappointed at myself for missing the opportunity to be productive, but that in itself is not a moral dilemma. If I don't become CEO of the company I work at, it's a similar situation. A missed opportunity is simply a missed opportunity. There's nothing wrong with being meek. Everyone would be a hero if they could, but if everyone was a hero then we wouldn't need heroes in the first place ;)

So, to recap:

Option 1: ends achieved, no positive morality, cause negative morality
Option 2: ends achieved, no positive morality, no negative morality
Option 3: ends achieved, cause positive morality, no negative morality
Option 4: ends not achieved, no positive morality, no negative morality

"What Would Jesus Do" if given these four options? I think that is clear without saying.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 4:56:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 1:26:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

No brainer. You save the 5 people, as it is more people. Isn't this extremely easy? It is not a hard dilemma at all...

Is it really that simple? Can we quantify the value of ones life, so that 5 people become more valuable than 1? Consider you were the 1 person, would you then still say it is the correct choice to kill you over the other 5? Further, how do you justify your decision to put murder lower on the moral hierarchy than inaction (which indirectly causes the death of 5 people).
There are also another problem with this specific line of reasoning, which the follow dilemma shows us:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

What would you do in this situation?
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 4:56:13 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:26:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

No brainer. You save the 5 people, as it is more people. Isn't this extremely easy? It is not a hard dilemma at all...

Is it really that simple?

Yes.

Can we quantify the value of ones life, so that 5 people become more valuable than 1?

With no other background knowledge, and pressure to chose quickly; yes.

Consider you were the 1 person, would you then still say it is the correct choice to kill you over the other 5?

I wouldn't like it, no. However, consider the 5 people. Would all 5 of them like it if they got killed? I can run the same argument but in reverse. The only difference is, well, my argument is 5 times stronger.

Further, how do you justify your decision to put murder lower on the moral hierarchy than inaction (which indirectly causes the death of 5 people).

Inaction is murder in a sense. If you can save someone and you don't, that is a choice you made that cause a person to die. A choice you make that causes a person to is essentially murder. Either way, you are causing someone to die. Why not save 4 more people? It is really a no brainer.

There are also another problem with this specific line of reasoning, which the follow dilemma shows us:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

What would you do in this situation?

Well, I admit, this is harder. I would say to let the man live, and the 5 die. This is because, pulling a lever to cause a train to change directions is one thing, but I don't know if I could go through killing someone with a gun or a knife just for their bodies parts. That seems much more gruesome.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:06:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, I could pull a lever to save 5 lives and not feel guilty about it. This is because someone has to die by the same method. To kill the guy, I would have to slaughter and butcher him, but that is not the same way the patients would die (natural causes). So, I think there is a relevant difference here between the train scenario, and the doctor one.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 4:56:13 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:26:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

No brainer. You save the 5 people, as it is more people. Isn't this extremely easy? It is not a hard dilemma at all...

Is it really that simple? Can we quantify the value of ones life, so that 5 people become more valuable than 1? Consider you were the 1 person, would you then still say it is the correct choice to kill you over the other 5? Further, how do you justify your decision to put murder lower on the moral hierarchy than inaction (which indirectly causes the death of 5 people).
There are also another problem with this specific line of reasoning, which the follow dilemma shows us:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

What would you do in this situation?

I do not think the position the doctor is in is the same as the person at the railroad.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:35:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 4:32:45 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Option 1: Attack the bully viciously. I could decide that the ends justify the means, and just attack the bully physically. Take that! In this scenario, I'm justifying my anger (wrath) with consequentialism. My reasoning is that the consequences of my actions (saving the victim) outweigh the means (vicious attack on bully). I can use utilitarian calculations to show the disutility of not acting versus the utility of acting, and of course it is simply a matter of taste what the actual values are to those equations.

Option 2: Attack the bully defensively. Same as above, except I control my angry impulses. I may strike him defensively, but I hold my anger in check because I know it's wrong to strike out in anger. In this scenario, I achieve my ends (saving the victim) without immoral consequences (taking out my anger on the bully). However, my ends have not anything to do with morality, so in this situation I have not created any positive morality.

Option 3: Turn the other cheek. I decide to save the victim, but refuse to defend yourself from the bully. The bully thrashes me and I take it without contest. In this scenario, I have achieved my ends, avoided immorality, and also acted morally positive. Jesus doesn't say to turn the other cheek for nothing; there is a reason for it. It is the opposite of wrath: patience. Patience isn't simply the act of waiting, it is the source of tolerance and fortitude as well. I can be patient with a child by not spanking them or yelling at them when I'm frustrated, and I can be patient with a bully by not "legitimately attacking them in self-defense." The greatest men who ever lived loved everyone, not just themselves and their family - that includes bullies and bad people too. This is based on the reverse of consequentialist thinking: that you are not endowed with the power to justify the means by your perception of values and ends, and therefore must humble yourself to the reality that such things are beyond your comprehension. It is only your job to do avoid immoral actions and have "faith" that not acting immorally is good even though you cannot figure it out at the moment. Faith pays off in the end, because you always come to terms with the moral consequences of your actions later on. Those with faith reap the benefits of these rewards and those without faith use utility to measure things intellectually, and are lost in the wilderness as to why they turn into bad people.

Option 4: Fear overcomes me and I decide not to step in. I am a coward. I avoid immorality, I don't produce positive morality, I don't achieve my ends. I might be disappointed at myself for missing the opportunity to be productive, but that in itself is not a moral dilemma. If I don't become CEO of the company I work at, it's a similar situation. A missed opportunity is simply a missed opportunity. There's nothing wrong with being meek. Everyone would be a hero if they could, but if everyone was a hero then we wouldn't need heroes in the first place ;)

So, to recap:

Option 1: ends achieved, no positive morality, cause negative morality
Option 2: ends achieved, no positive morality, no negative morality
Option 3: ends achieved, cause positive morality, no negative morality
Option 4: ends not achieved, no positive morality, no negative morality

"What Would Jesus Do" if given these four options? I think that is clear without saying.

Sorry for the dumb moment. lol. Can't have all 6 die haha. Yes, I meant to say that by attempting to derail the train/stopping the train, you would be recognized as trying to save them all in stead of having to choose who dies. I don't think you can be considered a culprit in this case :D

I'd choose option 2. I'd step in and try to cool the fuss. If push comes to shove, i'll be there to defend myself in honor of another's safety. I see nothing wrong with loving yourself along with everyone else.
I don't understand your reasoning behind option #3 and why it's so special. I'm an advocate for non-violence, but what do you achieve by letting an immoral person take your life and continue his immoral journey? Defending yourself is the least you can do. Nonetheless, we deal with courage, confidence, and over-confidence. It's wise to think through your options. If a dilemma is clearly stacked against you (5 intimidating, scary looking guys bullying a helpless lady), i'd find it reasonable to back off, or "turn the other cheek." Nothing gets achieved if those 5 guys get both of us.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:58:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 2:54:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 1:13:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:53:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/9/2014 12:40:26 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't see a problem with saving more lives. The case you gave is different than the OP's.

I apologize: you should take option 1) in the OP. Doing nothing (not participating) is the only sensible option. If you switch the lever, you are committing murder. If you let five people die, you are not. If those five people die their lives are on the head of the person who tied them up, not yours!

Pulling the lever violates the principle of "the ends never justify the means." In other words, you are perceiving an intellectual end ("let's save lives") and using those ends to justify murder ("I should kill that person because it will be better for everyone"). That thought process is inherently flawed, and is consistent with teleological/consequentialist ethical beliefs. It is not wise to endow your intellect with the ability to justify hurting others to satisfy your own ends, even if your own ends are for "others."

If you would like an excellent lesson on the trolley problem, you should watch my absolute favorite movie of all time: "Storm of the Century." This movie is written by Stephen King and it grabs you from the very first minute and doesn't let go. Two minutes into it you'll be on the edge of your seat and even though it's three hours long it feels like thirty minutes because it's so damned good. At the end they have a version of the trolley problem and they do an excellent job with it - I think you will understand my POV better if you see it.

Evil by inaction is still evil. If you had the opportunity to save someone and didn't, you are complicit in the murder. Utilitarianism makes more sense in this case from an objective viewpoint - 5 > 1.

I'm using the information I am given to produce the only possible result that is not immoral. If the only information I have is that
1) for some reason some people are tied to a track and
2) I can murder somebody to potentially save them,
then I'm not getting involved because the ends don't justify the means.

Except the ends do justify the means.

Now, this particular example is extremely misleading, which is why I didn't answer it in my first post. You see, in REAL life, situations have infinite variables surrounding them. By using this amazingly simplistic scenario, we're actually not capturing any true morality because morality is real and this scenario is fiction. Trying to capture morality by using fiction is about as genuine as asking whether superman or batman would win in a fight and then arguing it out.

This is like saying that fiction is incapable of imparting morals, which is an absurd standpoint. A Christmas Carol, Fahrenheit 451, The Little Engine That Could - all of these are works of fiction with themes and morals.

Now, to try and put some reality into it, I'd like to add more information that is absolutely required to make a genuine moral analysis. Why are these people tied to the track? Let's imagine that these people are protesters to the gov't and are simply trying to martyr themselves. Is it still worth murdering somebody to save them?

Now it is no longer objective.

You might insist on wiping the slate clean for the 5 potential victims by insisting they were captured or something. Well, if they are truly innocent and there is another mind behind this, then the blood is on his or her hands, not you. You didn't tie 5 people to a track in a sick game, they did.

If a child is drowning in a lake and you don't save him/her, then are you innocent because the blood is on that child's hands?

If this situation was to take place in reality, as unbelievably unlikely as it would be, then your decision would actually not be a matter of morality at all. You see, morality has nothing to do with utility (hence, why utilitarianism is ridiculous). Morality has to do with your innate sense of selfishness due to you being an intelligent creature. Your desire to put yourself ahead of others, to be greedy, to envy and take out hatred on people, etc. That's morality. Some obscure scenario involving a psycho serial killer never touches on these impetuses. When you are deciding what to do in the trolley problem, the factors at stake are entirely intellectual. Whether you kill one, five, all, or none of them has only to do with your non-moral abilities... perhaps your IQ, your speed, strength, or even courage. These are amoral traits. Morality =/= ability.

Selfishness is a (wrong) type of morality that we as reasoned creatures are capable of overcoming. Utilitarianism is the high road because it removes that subjective, human element that hampers our reason.

Now, let's say that, while in the middle of all this, you realize that the 1 victim is an ex-girlfriend that you wished was dead. You might think "oh well, it's better this way anyway" and decide to kill her. In the end you will always insist that you did what you had to, but there was a moral element inside - wrath - that crept its way into your decision-making process and tainted it (you would likely use utilitarianism to justify it, however). Perhaps you noticed the 5 victims were black and you don't like black people as much so you refuse to act. In reality, there are moral factors everywhere weighing on your mind and this simplistic scenario conveniently wipes them all away. I understand the scientific nature of trying to control for all but one variable, but morality has too many variables to successfully achieve this.

Morality includes acting for others.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

Someone is going to die regardless of my decision to participate or not. I will save the five by pulling the lever. Those five people will be indebted to me for the rest of their lives. I will be a hero to those five. The one person dying is regrettable but it is best to save as many lives as possible. Someone will have to die in this scenario no matter what.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:17:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:


You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

Isn't it sad that you have to choose what is considered to be less bad? It's even sadder that equations like this can occur in reality...
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:34:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Surveys have found that the average person answers differently based on how the question is worded.

If we are required to take some kind of action to save the life of one party and kill another, most people won't. Even if the party saved is larger or more important. People simply aren't willing to be technically responsible for the other party's death.

If, however, we are required to abstain from action in order to save the greater party, most of us will. Because we don't feel tied down by responsibility.

Personally, I don't think the choice itself matters. As long as you have some kind of rationalization for your decision and you stick with that decision regardless of wording, you are acting morally.

In the end, you have no way of knowing whether you made the world a better place in total. One of the people you saved could be a serial killer, or someone you kill might have ended up saving hundreds more. In such a simplified scenario devoid of meaningful context, all you have are your principles. And those principles are a simply meant to be a reflection of what kind of person you want to think of yourself as.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:34:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Surveys have found that the average person answers differently based on how the question is worded.

If we are required to take some kind of action to save the life of one party and kill another, most people won't. Even if the party saved is larger or more important. People simply aren't willing to be technically responsible for the other party's death.

This is actually factual incorrect. Approximately 90% of the people will choose to (2) switch the lever.
http://healthland.time.com...
Further, about 68% of professional philosophers would switch.
http://philpapers.org...


If, however, we are required to abstain from action in order to save the greater party, most of us will. Because we don't feel tied down by responsibility.

Personally, I don't think the choice itself matters. As long as you have some kind of rationalization for your decision and you stick with that decision regardless of wording, you are acting morally.

In the end, you have no way of knowing whether you made the world a better place in total. One of the people you saved could be a serial killer, or someone you kill might have ended up saving hundreds more. In such a simplified scenario devoid of meaningful context, all you have are your principles. And those principles are a simply meant to be a reflection of what kind of person you want to think of yourself as.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 4:29:25 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:34:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Surveys have found that the average person answers differently based on how the question is worded.

If we are required to take some kind of action to save the life of one party and kill another, most people won't. Even if the party saved is larger or more important. People simply aren't willing to be technically responsible for the other party's death.

This is actually factual incorrect. Approximately 90% of the people will choose to (2) switch the lever.
http://healthland.time.com...
Further, about 68% of professional philosophers would switch.
http://philpapers.org...


Thanks for your reply. I had a forgotten a crucial part of the scenario, namely the "fat man":
http://www.nytimes.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:54:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:17:24 AM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:


You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

Isn't it sad that you have to choose what is considered to be less bad? It's even sadder that equations like this can occur in reality...

lol...

Would you rather have one ice cream cone or two?

=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:58:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 9:28:44 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice, and why?

Simple. It depends upon who is at risk of death.

If I do not know any of the people on the tracks, then it would be wrong of me to steal that single persons life just because the others were unlucky enough to have been tied to the tracks. Maybe they were all murderers put there by a vigilante. Maybe they were all supremely innocent. I refuse to make numbers be the deciding factor in tragedy. A single un-natural death is as tragic as 20 of them.

If only a single child had been killed in any one of the recent school shootings instead Of more than one, would it be less of a tragedy?
My answer is no.

I say it is not my right to decide who lives and dies.

However, I began this response with a clarifier.
Although I may be wrong to make the choice, if someone I love is on either side of the tracks, then the trolley hits the other.
I think it would do irreversible damage to my psyche to pull the switch, but I would not hesitate to pull it in order to save one I love.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.