Earlier you said "I'm not a utilitarian. I don't 'deduce' that killing is wrong by some kind of calculus, it just feels wrong." so the above seems at a bit of a 180. — Michael

Not sure what you're getting at. The above was by way of an explanation as to why I'm not a utilitarian. The calculation process quickly becomes little more than a guess and one might just as well go with one's gut.

Not sure what you're getting at. The above was by way of an explanation as to why I'm not a utilitarian. The calculation process quickly becomes little more than a guess and one might just as well go with one's gut. — Isaac

As it followed on from you saying "Yes, but less so. It depends on what would need to be done to save them" I assumed you were explaining why you feel that allowing someone to die when you could save them isn't as bad as killing someone.

I assumed you were explaining why you feel that allowing someone to die when you could save them isn't as bad as killing someone. — Michael

Yes, because I wouldn't feel as bad, but the extent to which I wouldn't feel as bad, I think, would depend on what would need to be done to save them. If all I had to do was yell a warning, then not doing so would make me feel really bad about myself, but if I had to cross a minefield, I think I would feel less bad about not doing so because the possible consequences of such a prerequisite are so numerous, I could easily convince myself that it wasn't the right thing to do anyway.

I am still curious about how you’d feel about someone else making the decision? Would you actively block someone else from pulling the lever or prefer that someone else took the responsibility on themselves. This seems to me a very hard question to deal with if I had your disposition toward this matter.

If you could offer up your thoughts on this matter I’d appreciate it a great deal.

Thanks

I am still curious about how you’d feel about someone else making the decision? Would you actively block someone else from pulling the lever or prefer that someone else took the responsibility on themselves. — I like sushi

Someone else making the decision is even more removed, so it would be easier to not interfere (if that's what I felt like doing). With another person in charge of the lever, I have to consider not only the complexity of the consequences of the deaths of either track-bound victim, but I'd also have to include the effect any action I might take to influence the decision-maker might have. How many times have you tried to influence someone's behaviour only to find them respond in the exact opposite way that to the one you intended?

If I knew the person, I may well make my preferences known, but if they thought the opposite, then I immediately have cause to doubt my judgement and so less justification to interfere.

I don't think, though, that this preference would extend to me actually wanting to shift responsibility to someone else. Deliberately shifting responsibility, just so one doesn't have to make difficult decisions feels pretty weak to me and not something I'd aspire to.

We are framing this as a set hypothetical so you wouldn’t know the person and only be able to make judgements from their actions. If the person is acting against your position and you doubt your position then it seems you lack conviction.

If someone was guarding the lever from my intent I would hope I would have the courage to physically force my way past this person and pull the lever to prevent an extra person dying - this is assuming the situation as a hypothetical and that the person guarding the lever is privy to exactly the same information as me about the people on the tracks (that is they are human).

I could of course then challenge my own convictions and ask myself what degree of force I’d be willing to use to get past the person guarding the lever due to his moral convictions. Would I be willing to kill him? Could I seriously justify killing this person to save another?

This is where things get even more interesting! One the one hand I may strongly disagree, to the point where I am convinced that the person is utterly wrong (which I do) BUT this extra piece of information cannot be neglected. What I have standing before me is a person of strong moral conviction, so I’m now in a position of weighing this person against a generic human I know nothing about PLUS the added weight of guilt upon my shoulders if I was to kill this person. This still doesn’t answer how far I would consider TOO far. Breaking an arm or a leg to get to the lever? I’d like to believe I could. To permanently maim or disable the person ... now I’m getting jittery thinking about such a thing along with the psychological price I have to pay for causing harm to another.

Of course how I feel at the time would play into this. That is not how I see the use of the hypothetical though. I know that if I’m hungry or sad then I’m more likely to act in a certain manner. The point is about asking myself what I would WANT to do and what I determine, as best I can, as the right thing to do. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t admire moral conviction even though I may deem the “moral stance” in question to be at fault. That is a piece of information the person would have over the person/s tied to the tracks. Even if I ignored the personal act of causing harm to the person guard the lever I couldn’t honestly justify killing them.

Further still I can then contemplate how I would “measure” passive and active act of “not pulling the lever”. Should I admire the doubter more or the person of moral conviction? It is here where I begin to align more with your stance on the matter probably (?), but it’s a secondary matter and not one that would change my conviction about pulling the lever - I don’t deem one action to better in “reality” but in a hypothetical I do because the parameters are set even if they’re unrealistic (there being no generic “human”). I completely understand if people have hard time disconnecting the two OR don’t even see it.

If the person is acting against your position and you doubt your position then it seems you lack conviction. — I like sushi

Yes, that would be exactly how I imagine I would feel. In a situation of such little data, I imagine I would very much lack conviction. A lack of conviction seems entirely appropriate to me in the uncertain circumstances.

The problem with these hypotheticals for someone of my convictions is that they break down the process of moral decision making further than I think we have the capacity to judge of ourselves. I believe moral judgements are made mostly without our conscious awareness and any rationalisation of them is mostly post-hoc.

What this means is that decisions are made, using all the data available, in a kind of 'black box'. You're asking me to remove data that would always exist in the real world and explain how that affects the decision. Its like asking what the weather would be like tomorrow if there was no such thing as wind. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, and it's my belief that no one really does.

The problem with these hypotheticals for someone of my convictions is that they break down the process of moral decision making further than I think we have the capacity to judge of ourselves. I believe moral judgements are made mostly without our conscious awareness and any rationalisation of them is mostly post-hoc. — Isaac

Perfect! I’ll make my next post in this subject at some point during the next couple of weeks. Hopefully it will be an interesting and worthwhile exchange for both :)

I’ll make my next post in this subject at some point during the next couple of weeks. Hopefully it will be an interesting and worthwhile exchange for both — I like sushi

I shall look out for it then.

I keep going back and forth on this one, to be honest. There is a necessary moral burden, but I’m not convinced that this burden would always be greater in allowing two people to die instead of one.

If I were responsible for the lever - and therefore also the direction of the train, then I would switch the train to Track B. I don’t put much stock in % chance of living a ‘bad’ life and killing someone - all this does is convert it to a maths problem, and distance it even further from real life. This is not a moral dilemma.

But if I were a passerby who realised that I could reach the lever in time, then I wouldn’t switch tracks, because in all honesty, this would involve me first choosing to accept moral responsibility for the actions of the train in killing before choosing which track. I’m not going to voluntarily do that. If I choose inaction and the train continues on and kills two people, that is not a greater burden for me to bear than my actively directing the train to kill a different person instead. I am not to blame for the train’s actions - it does not automatically become my responsibility to act when there is no ‘good’ choice to be made. I imagine I will continue to wonder if I did the right thing, whatever I decide. But I think I would struggle more to sleep at night after taking conscious, voluntary action that was directly responsible for an individual’s death, than if I was to regret inaction. Enabling two others to live is not going to make up for that, in my opinion.

The logical choice certainly sounds better (more rational/sensible) in hypothetical discussions like these, but then we don’t have to experience the whole gruesome event and have it play out in our memories and nightmares when rational thought is asleep.

I don’t think it’s a matter of protecting my own sense of morality, either. I don’t believe anyone will succeed in preventing suffering, but I can succeed in not causing it by my thoughts, words or actions.