If you stick to the raw, initial facts first, before moving this into more layered situations and questions - what do you see as the moral issues? — Fire Ologist
Its about killing innocents to save more people. If just sticking to the initial facts, I feel like the only reason to not make a choice is that you object to the idea of not killing innocent people, and that is indistinguishable from having msde a choice - to not pull the lever. — Apustimelogist
Lol. I guess we will never know for certain......and I am surely not going to argue with you about what you think are my ethical commitments. — Bob Ross
If the axe murderer comes looking for your friend, you're going to tell him the truth about where he's hiding?
If the Nazi's want to know where the Jews are hiding, we're supposed to tell them them the truth? Because we value the truth so much?
No. When the chips are down, nobody acts like that.
So “not blameworthy”, but worthy of a judgment of “worse ethically.” Hmm. — Fire Ologist
If you are forced to either kill one or five people, with seconds to choose, and you had no interest in killing anyone at any point, and you can’t be held blameworthy for the outcome, how is the decision you do make better or worse ethically? I would say the decision (should you decide to risk participation in this death trap) is a practical one, not an ethical one. Less death is practically speaking a better outcome. Why ethically? — Fire Ologist
morally counter-intuitive to the untrained mind — Bob Ross
I think the only way a consequentialist can consistently go is to deny that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being: they would have to say that sometimes that is true, and sometimes false.
Sure, and people get math problems wrong all the time, too. That doesn't mean anything with respect to the question at hand. Suppose you are on a math forum and they are discussing a math problem and you say, "Ah, well it seems that you have arrived at the right answer, but people get the wrong answer all the time. Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to arriving at an answer." This is an ignoratio elenchus at best, unless it is being proposed as an argument for mathematical (or moral) relativism.
because both people that I would be lying to have forfeited their "right" — Bob Ross
I am advocating that it is wrong to kill innocent people — Bob Ross
That said, killing an innocent person isn't really right. Then again, saving humanity is a right thing to do on its own, and benefits people (at least under some opinions, because I think that the belief that humanity is bad and a creator of suffering is also kind of a reasonable view in some ways) so surely its fair to say there is both good and bad in the choice?
I would say it seems to be a similar case in your morality too where people can forfeit their right to life and its okay to kill them in self-defence or if they are not innocent.
You permit bad things for an end.
Sure, you would say they are justified in a special way, but then there are probably some people who are even stricter than you are on when it is permissible to kill.
Could you say the person standing on the track has forfeited his life? I mean, we all know to stay off the trolley tracks. Does that person have any duty to the trolley driver to stay off the tracks and avoid being killed?
But if we were stuck on that train and knew there was no trick, no murderer behind the scenario, this was just a horrible accident about to happen, then are you killing anyone or is the trolley killing the people?
Since the pilot has to essentially pull the lever to land on the baseball field, is he wrong because it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent people? Should he just chug past and see what happens, or does he have any duty now thrust in his lap to kill as few people as he can?
The only way to reduce the destruction and death is to quick land on that baseball field with kids playing. It’s either two teams and some fans die, or probably fifty or one hundred or more people everywhere else. — Fire Ologist
If killing an innocent person is wrong, then you can’t do: period. You can’t turnaround and permit yourself to do it in instances where you could avoid a bad outcome or create a better outcome—that would be akin to saying that some immoral acts are morally permissible, which is a manifest contradiction. — Bob Ross
I don’t. I will not permit anyone to kill an innocent human being for any end; because it is wrong. — Bob Ross
that would be akin to saying that some immoral acts are morally permissible, which is a manifest contradiction. — Bob Ross
but I disagree. — Bob Ross
Whether you pull or do not pull the lever, you aren’t responsible for any of the deaths. — Fire Ologist
I'm using "wrong" to mean: violates one's moral code, not a final conclusion after considering all possible points of view (including but not limited to morality). — LuckyR
Now, there is an interesting discussion, from Anscombe, about the difference between intentionally killing someone and doing something which has a statistically likelihood or certainty of killing an innocent person. I am still chewing over that part, so I can’t comment too much; but I am guessing Leontiskos can probably inform us better on that. — Bob Ross
I read the paper. Liked it. Agree with it. Think I am speaking in line with much of it. — Fire Ologist
So the good pilot will land in the area with fewest people to minimize injury and death. — Leontiskos
Isn’t there an argument that by pulling the lever you are landing the trolley in the area with the fewest people? — Fire Ologist
As a parallel to the airplane scenario, folks who pull the lever tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity, similar to the pilot. — Leontiskos
As a parallel to the airplane scenario, folks who pull the lever tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity, similar to the pilot. — Leontiskos
He should never intentionally kill innocent people: even to avoid a bad outcome. — Bob Ross
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.