Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

On The Trolley Problem

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Recently there was someone in a similar thread suggesting we should roll a dice for trolley problem. Now, I am not sure how "PhilosophyTube did a video on it" is a satisfying justification for this rather counterintuitive claim, but I have to say, the idea is very interesting.
The reasoning being that if we want to give equal consideration to everyone we would need to roll a dice, the amount of people and sides being equal. Otherwise in, say, rescuing the 5 we would give no consideration to the one.
I doubt many are going to be convinced by this and neither am I. I just find it interesting.

Anyway, I decided to present a rebuttal based on an updated version of Kant's Consent Principle by Derek Parfit.

CP: It is wrong to treat people in a way to which they would not have sufficient reasons to consent in the act-affecting sense.

First, consider a thought experiment by Parfit:

Earthquake, two people, White and Grey, are trapped in slowly collapsing wreckage. I am a rescuer, who could prevent this wreckage from either killing White or destroying Grey's leg.

Nobody knows the others and all are of equal moral status. Parfit argues that if Grey could choose my action, she would have sufficient reason for either choice. She could rationally choose to save her leg, as this would be a lot better for herself, but she could also rationally choose to save White's life, as her loss would be far greater than Grey's.
The first choice is egoistically, the latter impartially preferable.
White on the other hand could not rationally choose to save Grey's leg as this would neither be egoistically nor impartially justified.
CP thus requires the rescuer to save White's live, since it is the only action both have sufficient reason to consent to.

Now to the trolley problem.
The one, call him One, could rationally choose, I believe, either option, as again, saving him would be egoistically, saving the others impartially preferable.
The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:48:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:52:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:48:31 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Bump

"The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five."

I am assuming there are no ties from the group, to the one, or you, correct?

I am sure we can be very creative in which the ways the group could consent could be gathered, and it both be justified, though it wouldn't escape a certain degree of egotism. Exactly how far outside of the bounds of reason would you like to stretch this experiment?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:37:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:52:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:48:31 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Bump

"The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five."

I am assuming there are no ties from the group, to the one, or you, correct?
Since everyone enjoys equal moral status that seems to entail that there are no independent reasons to prefer any single one over another.

I am sure we can be very creative in which the ways the group could consent could be gathered, and it both be justified, though it wouldn't escape a certain degree of egotism. Exactly how far outside of the bounds of reason would you like to stretch this experiment?
I a not sure how I stretch the bounds of reason in any way. The consent principle is coupled with a dualism of reasons, there is no conflict between reasons for egoism and impartiality in any one agent.
The point is that one can have egoistic reasons to care for her own wellbeing and impartial reasons to care about others.
Then we just look for the option to which most people could rationally consent.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:03:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 8:37:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:52:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:48:31 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Bump

"The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five."

I am assuming there are no ties from the group, to the one, or you, correct?
Since everyone enjoys equal moral status that seems to entail that there are no independent reasons to prefer any single one over another.

I am sure we can be very creative in which the ways the group could consent could be gathered, and it both be justified, though it wouldn't escape a certain degree of egotism. Exactly how far outside of the bounds of reason would you like to stretch this experiment?

I a not sure how I stretch the bounds of reason in any way. The consent principle is coupled with a dualism of reasons, there is no conflict between reasons for egoism and impartiality in any one agent.
The point is that one can have egoistic reasons to care for her own wellbeing and impartial reasons to care about others.
Then we just look for the option to which most people could rationally consent.

By strange twist of fate, the collection of people tied to the track are convicted felons on death row, having exhausted all legal appeal. Some may not have even appealed to begin with.

What are the moral compunctions of Buddhists in such a circumstance?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:05:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:03:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:37:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:52:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:48:31 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Bump

"The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five."

I am assuming there are no ties from the group, to the one, or you, correct?
Since everyone enjoys equal moral status that seems to entail that there are no independent reasons to prefer any single one over another.

I am sure we can be very creative in which the ways the group could consent could be gathered, and it both be justified, though it wouldn't escape a certain degree of egotism. Exactly how far outside of the bounds of reason would you like to stretch this experiment?

I a not sure how I stretch the bounds of reason in any way. The consent principle is coupled with a dualism of reasons, there is no conflict between reasons for egoism and impartiality in any one agent.
The point is that one can have egoistic reasons to care for her own wellbeing and impartial reasons to care about others.
Then we just look for the option to which most people could rationally consent.

By strange twist of fate, the collection of people tied to the track are convicted felons on death row, having exhausted all legal appeal. Some may not have even appealed to begin with.

What are the moral compunctions of Buddhists in such a circumstance?

Burn those f0ckers alive, I suppose.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 1:06:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 2:58:28 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Recently there was someone in a similar thread suggesting we should roll a dice for trolley problem. Now, I am not sure how "PhilosophyTube did a video on it" is a satisfying justification for this rather counterintuitive claim, but I have to say, the idea is very interesting.
The reasoning being that if we want to give equal consideration to everyone we would need to roll a dice, the amount of people and sides being equal. Otherwise in, say, rescuing the 5 we would give no consideration to the one.
I doubt many are going to be convinced by this and neither am I. I just find it interesting.

Anyway, I decided to present a rebuttal based on an updated version of Kant's Consent Principle by Derek Parfit.

CP: It is wrong to treat people in a way to which they would not have sufficient reasons to consent in the act-affecting sense.

First, consider a thought experiment by Parfit:

Earthquake, two people, White and Grey, are trapped in slowly collapsing wreckage. I am a rescuer, who could prevent this wreckage from either killing White or destroying Grey's leg.

Nobody knows the others and all are of equal moral status. Parfit argues that if Grey could choose my action, she would have sufficient reason for either choice. She could rationally choose to save her leg, as this would be a lot better for herself, but she could also rationally choose to save White's life, as her loss would be far greater than Grey's.
The first choice is egoistically, the latter impartially preferable.
White on the other hand could not rationally choose to save Grey's leg as this would neither be egoistically nor impartially justified.
CP thus requires the rescuer to save White's live, since it is the only action both have sufficient reason to consent to.

Now to the trolley problem.
The one, call him One, could rationally choose, I believe, either option, as again, saving him would be egoistically, saving the others impartially preferable.
The question now is, whether the five could rationally consent to save One.
Talking about consent in such situations, Parfit says, is misleading, because one could, like dice-roll proponents do, take from this that every person can only consent on his or her own behalf.
Could Six have sufficient reason to save One over the five? I don't think so, this would be both egoistically and impartially unjustified.
Since it is the only option to which everyone has sufficient reason to consent to, CP requires us to save the five.

Turn left and keep doing so until I make a complete circle.