Copernicus
NOS4A2
If all available options violate rights, can morality demand a choice at all?
Does the reframed problem prove that utilitarianism is the only viable framework when non-interference is impossible?
Can an individualist ethic survive scenarios where all choices involve direct harm?
Is the moral guilt of killing one equal to the moral guilt of killing three, or are outcomes morally significant regardless of principles?
Does the reframed trolley problem show that philosophy must move beyond rigid doctrines and toward pluralistic ethics?
Copernicus
Next time we might try removing the utilitarian options and asking the same question. — NOS4A2
Yes. The future is unknown. One cannot know if his choices result in direct harm until that time comes. One can only do his best to avoid inflicting that harm or protect others from it. In your scenario, his only option is to try to stop the train or remove the people from the track. — NOS4A2
ProtagoranSocratist
Copernicus
ProtagoranSocratist
What if they're absolutely identical entities, with nothing distinguishable among them? — Copernicus
You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. — Copernicus
Copernicus
not "must" — ProtagoranSocratist
real life moral and ethical decisions are complex, laden with fear, laden with shame, laden with politics. — ProtagoranSocratist
Copernicus
you did so in a seemingly patronizing/insulting manner. — ProtagoranSocratist
Astorre
Copernicus
T Clark
Suppose the trolley is not moving toward anyone until you decide its course. You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. There is no longer an option to “do nothing.” Every outcome stems from your deliberate agency. — Copernicus
Copernicus
One thing you haven’t taken into account is liability. When I choose, I take on liability for the consequences. It might not be unreasonable for me to make no choice at all as a way of protecting myself from that liability. — T Clark
T Clark
It is not about practical reasoning. If you were given a choice, a hypothetical scenario, or should I say, imperative, what is your preferable choice? — Copernicus
Copernicus
I don’t think that has anything general to say about the two moral options — T Clark
T Clark
It does... In terms of deontological individualism. — Copernicus
Tom Storm
hypericin
No longer able to appeal to the sanctity of non-interference, the individualist ethic risks moral paralysis. — Copernicus
Copernicus
Copernicus
hypericin
Copernicus
Banno
javi2541997
The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve.That's why they make for long and often tedious threads. — Banno
Copernicus
The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve. — Banno
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.