On the other hand, does forcing really exempt you from moral responsibility? — Apustimelogist
I'm inclined to think that framing it this way makes the situation different to a simple choice of 1 vs. 5. Viewed this way you could also argue that there is not so much a forcing element here. — Apustimelogist
I agree with your simple breakdown and I think your claim brings up good points. People will argue about the distractions, but I believe its possible they do because it works for their tailored liking, or it works for their reasons. If you have to be particular in acknowledging a distraction, I think the ground standing on those distractions is not going to be solid enough. Distractions do not alter, "the heart of the problem" like you said. While it appears that those who want to favor the distractions lose sight of the more important considerations here. Fire Ologist continues, "These questions influence what the basic hypo actually is, so they have to be answered before one could say whether they killed 1 or 5 people was right or wrong." -- I do think this point is more relevant than the distractions, but I want to clarify. Do you think those "watching 5" are actually KILLING? Allowing them to die, those who got themselves in this situation in the first place. BUT pulling the lever is, to me, actually deciding that KILLING 1, by literally pulling lever (hand aiding the death) VS ALLOWING / WATCHING 5 people die....hm, what if no one was there at all, the train was going to follow the track and kill the 5 anyways. The lever option to me, is involving your self in this scenario and by wanting to make that call because of (BLANK)[insert reason why]--it says a lot about the character behind the choice.↪Apustimelogist
The heart of the trolley problem is this:
“Without any context or explanation, if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?”
Everything else is a distraction. Trolleys, levers, instructions given to force you to make a decision, no brakes or time for brakes, etc) allow you to start to picture the scene, but these facts introduce the real world, which introduces many new questions. These questions influence what the basic hypo actually is, so they have to be answered before one could say whether they killed 1 or 5 people was right or wrong.
So to avoid the creeping presence of real world questions, and stick to the hypo, the question becomes: is it worse to kill one person or five people.
Depends on what you think of people. If it’s bad to kill a person, then, since you are forced to kill either one person or five people, it seems a no brainer. And since you are FORCED to kill one or five, neither choice is immoral or moral for you. One might be better or more practical, but it’s not your fault someone has to die.
Who is forcing the choice?
— Fire Ologist
Yes you are right. I considered an omission to still be an action—as a conscious choice refraining from intervening. By not pulling the lever, you are actively deciding to let events unfold.Essential to the trolley problem is the possible distinction between an act and an omission, and ↪Fire Ologist
excluded that distinction from the problem. Regardless of what the trolley problem was to begin with, it has now become a stock argument for consequentialism. It is essentially the cultural reaction to deontology. — Leontiskos
↪Apustimelogist - :up: Essential to the trolley problem is the possible distinction between an act and an omission, and ↪Fire Ologist excluded that distinction from the problem. Regardless of what the trolley problem was to begin with, it has now become a stock argument for consequentialism. It is essentially the cultural reaction to deontology. — Leontiskos
, then there is nothing to consider of their consent behind either choice.to either watch five people be killed or pull a lever so that only one person gets killed. — Captain Homicide
Maybe I did over simplify. Well, I see there is a choice between 1 and 5, “I can save or kill five or one” and in that sense am not forced. And after giving me the instructions about the pulling the lever or not, no one forced anything further to happen, the rest is up to me. And that’s where the trolly case starts.
But isn’t there still a third element in any situation like the trolly vital to the conversation? There is also my willing participation in the choice and its effect enacted (as with the one person being hit by the trolley). The choosing act, about which we say “I am responsible.” And it is in that willingness, that consent, that we find something vital to ethics, but greatly diminished in the trolley case.
The trolly has clarified for me that, my consent, and my choice are two different pieces; I can choose to kill the five or kill the 1, and we can debate goodness among those choices, but to do either, to act, to kill 5 for instance, I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?
Only in a world of willing consent, (better, a world of many willing consenting ones), can there emerge an ethics. Not just a world of choices and options like one and five.
Now we look for freedom in this, freedom versus forcing a choice (by controlling the options) or forcing your consent (by commanding participation). — Fire Ologist
The trolley example has to judge what the person is consenting to in their act — Fire Ologist
Those who chose the lever everytime to "save lifes" offer an interesting perspective — Kizzy
To your question (that has no real answer, im afraid), "Who is forcing the choice?" I offer another one: What if the chooser is the force? — Kizzy
what if i dont feel forced, just scared? — Kizzy
Very nice, I like this!what if i dont feel forced, just scared? — Kizzy
That’s why I think it would take courage to do the truly moral thing on the trolley and not participate at all. I guess fear is a kind of force that might also diminish the ability to consent and therefore the ability to commit a moral act. — Fire Ologist
Little confused here, "I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?" if you care to, could you expand any more on this? what do you mean when you say that consent can only be freely given? Consent is the voluntary agreement or approval of what is done or proposed by another...I dont think consenting or approving the choice is necessary BUT IF ONE HAS TO BE MADE, (extremeness in this manner make the problem not realistic (to me),BUT I find this problem can be wildly interesting) — Kizzy
Hm, interesting...I still have to consent to one among this other in order to act and MAKE the choice — Fire Ologist
Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?
If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!
All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero. — Tzeentch
Well, you were challenging my comment and I worked with what you gave me. — Tzeentch
Yes. I challenge the idea that we have no obligation to strangers. We have a small obligation to do something if we reasonably can to make another's situation better if they are in difficulty. — unenlightened
It is only useful where we know nothing about the past or the future, the situation is entirely decontextualised from reality and then we are commanded to chose. It is a game, nothing more and nothing less and we can always choose not to play. All valid moral choices. — Benkei
reducing this to statistics is not a solution as I could save the wrong person. I could save a Hamas leader or Bibi and I'd rather not. — Benkei
Yes. I challenge the idea that we have no obligation to strangers. We have a small obligation to do something if we reasonably can to make another's situation better if they are in difficulty. — unenlightened
I think introducing another calculation as to the moral worth of the individuals is a completely false move. This is what doctors are expressly forbidden to do, but their oath is to do their best for PolPot and Mother Theresa without distinction. — unenlightened
I think you're throwing the term around too loosely, and in the process either claiming the existence of moral obligations which are impossible to fulfill, or 'obligations' which are so vague and subjective that they lose all their meaning. — Tzeentch
And I think you are confusing moral obligations with legal ones. — unenlightened
Of course moral obligations are impossible. — unenlightened
But if I didn’t think of the sickness of the situation and recognize all of the apparatus and planning that had to be in place to put me here, and I just played along, that doesn’t make me a hero or murderer for pulling the lever. It makes me quick at math under some pressure. It demonstrates the immorality of telling someone to make that choice in that fabricated situation. It doesn’t make me any better or worse if I made a choice that someone else would have made differently. — Fire Ologist
"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a perfectly realistic moral obligation, for example. — Tzeentch
Of the fatalities on the railway in 2019/20:
Six occurred on a level crossing
17 involved people trespassing on the railway
283 were suicides or suspected suicides
Not sure why you've suddenly started linking railway death statistics. — Tzeentch
Yes, I think most moral analogies automatically fail in that they are too simple for being actually valuable in moral philosophy — Christoffer
A wrong by omission occurs when you already recognize an affirmative good deed (saving a baby that falls in a fountain) and omit the action, choose not to act. You might be able to fabricate a trolley scenario where there is a wrong of omission (maybe with babies and pedophiles on the tracks or something), but choosing to stay seated is choosing not to pull the level, as much as pulling the lever is choosing not to stay seated. I only see acts of commission in leaving 5 alive or leaving 1 alive. No acts of omission. — Fire Ologist
I actually think the moral choice here is to confront the trolley trap maker and say “I choose neither so all that follows remains your doing.” You could say that I am choosing not ro pull the lever, but no - if we are to judge my lever pulling as good or bad, we have to know what I would consent to, am consenting to as I act. — Fire Ologist
It is only useful where we know nothing about the past or the future, the situation is entirely decontextualised from reality and then we are commanded to chose. — Benkei
I'm not sure I agree that scenarios like the trolley problem never happen - I think they probably do a lot in a messier way — Apustimelogist
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.