So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it.
— EyE
Lol so what are your thoughts on this now. — EyE
You would sacrifice all of humanity because you personally believe not even one person should ever be forced to sacrifice their life? — ToothyMaw
The problem, from a deontological perspective anyways, is whether you can formulate a general rule or maxim that can account for particularly dire circumstances without undermining the force of the command for all other circumstances. In other words is it possible to draw an abstract and general line between the exceptions and the rule.
A consequentialist does not directly have this problem, the consequentialist does need to decide though how to integrate concerns about moral hazard and respect for the individual into their calculation. — Echarmion
Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance. — LuckyR
I don't think anyone is saying that the person who might pull the lever is literally responsible for all those deaths if they don't pull it. — ToothyMaw
Most people recognize that inaction can be wrong even if they don't directly cause the relevant bad outcome they could have prevented - in fact so wrong that they might break a rule against killing to prevent the outcome. — ToothyMaw
The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander". — LuckyR
As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem". — LuckyR
a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox — LuckyR
Yes. They would have been wrong. You don't kill children because of what their parents do. Find a better answer.Patterner Assuming that all forms of strategic bombing involve deaths of innocents, do you think it's always immoral? For example, suppose a well placed bomb in WW2 could wipe out the Nazi leadership but also destroy a school. Would the Allies have been wrong to do it? — RogueAI
I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money??Let's say the aliens do indeed come to Earth and demand a death row inmate for some known or unknown, potentially nefarious reason. Let's say the world leaders listen to you and refuse to capitulate because of their high-minded stance on never sacrificing a person unwillingly. A bunch of people's sons and daughters are then drafted to fight in a war against these far more technologically advanced aliens. Many millions of them die. While they would indeed now be defending our freedoms and lives, this would not have happened if not for adherence to an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule.
Let's say that we fight back the aliens, against all odds, and they decide to negotiate with us, demanding the United States' entire foreign aid budget as a sort of tithe in exchange for peace. This might directly result in millions of deaths but will stop the war. Alternatively, we keep the money and fight until every last human is dead. Should we accept the terms of the agreement? — ToothyMaw
I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. — Patterner
What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money?? — Patterner
It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel. — Patterner
Let's say they aren't the most honest, moral beings running around. They certainly wouldn't have any credibility with me. So maybe they were faking, and only wanted us using up our time and resources on this useless task, then they resumed their attack after we gave them the money. — Patterner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.