Ok, but what Im asking is how you decided the prevention of greater loss of life in the trolley problem isnt obligatory. Walk me through your reasons for excluding it from obligatory in your diagram, I dont understand. — DingoJones
I don't think there is a standard definition of inaction that is considered as correct, but I would define it as how I did in my previous post. So yes, you could say that I just believe it, at least in the situation of this situation of the trolley problem.It may seem contentious, but how do you know this? Or do you know this? Or do you just "think" it? Or just believe it? And assuming that "inaction" is a decision wrt a set of possibilities that includes action, then inaction is just a choice of an action, yes?
But the fact is that you still decided not to pull the lever in the end. Your final choice was inaction. Even if you were about to choose action (pull the lever), you still decided not to (inaction)Lastly, can’t the same situation be phrased either as action or non-action, or even both? Let’s say I don’t flip the switch. Phrased this way, it is a non-act. But if I say I refrained from flipping the switch, isn’t “refraining” an action? Or I can combine both phrasings so that it appears that I did both (I didn’t flip the switch. I wanted to, but chose to refrain from doing so.).
I don't see why I would feel any kind of fear now while thinking what I would do if the situation was real. Fear would perhaps be able to play a role only in the real situation, if you would feel any to begin with, that is. Bystander effect is also not it, as it would only work if there are other people around you and I assumed in this situation that you would be alone in the train yard. I think a reason one would choose inaction is that there is no good solution to the trolley case. You are to choose between a minor sacrifce and a major one, and no matter what you choose you are still going to sacrifice someone. If I could, I would just go in front of the trolley and stop it with my bare hands.
You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person." — Marin
Your framing is “shifting the track to the one is killing one” and its just as easy to frame it as “shifting the track to the one is saving 5”. Semantics. — DingoJones
Also, you use the impossibility of preventing all bad things from happening as a justification to not prevent something bad where its entirely possible to do so. Thats fallacious reasoning. — DingoJones
Shifting the track does both of those things. One is supererogatorily good: saving peope. The other is impermissibly bad: killing something. That makes an act that does both of those things impermissibly bad. — Pfhorrest
Like is a hypothesis implies some things which are contingently true, but also some things that are impossible. That makes that hypothesis impossible. The true things are still true, but you need a different explanation for them. And the good thing (saving people) is still good, but you need a different means to achieve it. — Pfhorrest
No, I use the unreasonableness of saying that anyone who does anything short of absolutely everything they can do to help everyone they can is morally wrong (that that is impermissible) to conclude that failing to do good things is permissible, and therefore that failing to do a good thing because it would require an impermissible thing is permissible. — Pfhorrest
Killing something isnt impermissibly bad. That's a convenient framing to service your conclusions. — DingoJones
There is no different way to achieve it, thats implicit in the trolley problem, its designed to exclude creative, problem solving ways around the moral dilemma posed. — DingoJones
I can’t eat 1 chip cuz I cant eat the whole bag. — DingoJones
So you think not saving someone is impermissible (you have to save them if you can), but killing someone is permissible (you can kill them if you have to)? That’s pretty backwards. Also contradictory: if you can save someone by not killing them, and you must save them if you can, it would follow that you must not kill them, yet you say also that you may kill. — Pfhorrest
Sure, in which case it’s a contrived morally intractable situation. That doesn’t mean you get to murder someone. — Pfhorrest
No, you’re still misconstruing it. It’s: you can’t be expected to stuff yourself sick on as many chips as you can possibly eat, so it’s okay to leave some chips uneaten. — Pfhorrest
But the fact is that you still decided not to pull the lever in the end. Your final choice was inaction. Even if you were about to choose action (pull the lever), you still decided not to (inaction) — Marin
There’s nothing better than heaven. But a ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than heaven? — Pfhorrest
The question of freedom is not relevant here since any obligation is a restriction of freedom. Of course you can obligate someone to do his duty even though it means a restriction his freedom.you can't obligate someone, without violating his rights to freedom — Marin
"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person." — Marin
If you have a job as police or surgeon or important politician, then inaction is clearly immoral. — DrOlsnesLea
So the surgeon ought to kill a healthy patient and harvest his organs to save five dying patients? — Pfhorrest
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.