My spin on this is a little different. In my scenario the two people on Track A BOTH have a 50% of going on to lead a bad life and kill someone, whilst the person on Track B has a 75% of the same.

What do you do? — I like sushi

I don’t understand what difference this makes to the original question.

I think there is something wrong with you then. Much like I did when you said you’d rather let the human race die out than pick one billion to die.

Then when you say they "both have a 50%" of killing someone, do you mean there's 50% chance one person dies because of the two of them and 50% chance no one dies, or that there is 25% 0 die, 50% 1 dies and 25% 2 die? — leo

They BOTH have a 50% chance of killing one person NOT a 50% chance between them. So the later.

Just work through it and see what you come up with and why you make the decision you make.

Just work through it and see what you come up with and why you make the decision you make. — I like sushi

My decision would be the same in both cases because your addition makes no
difference; I would redirect the train to save 2 people.

Could you explain what difference your addition is supposed to make?

They BOTH have a 50% chance of killing one person NOT a 50% chance between them. So the later. — I like sushi

Ok, it could have been interpreted as if "both taken together" have a 50% chance of killing someone.

So if you kill track A on average 2.75 people die, and if you kill track B on average 2 people die. If you kill track A at least 2 people die for sure and maximum 3, if you kill track B at least 1 person dies for sure and maximum 3. So if your variable to minimize was the projected loss of life then you would pick track B.

But in real life you don't know how the lives of people are going to turn out. If you have two 90 years old on track A and one baby on track B what do you do? Then you might want to look for the guy who tied these people to the tracks so he doesn't do it again.

I think there is something wrong with you then. — I like sushi

Yes, I gathered that.

But can you imagine how tedious it would be even with modern technology, going through a few billion faces and swiping left for death and right for life? I think your philosophy ignores the essential banality of death.

you might want to look for the guy who tied these people to the tracks so he doesn't do it again. — leo

I bet it was that guy from the other thread killing a billion people to save humanity.

I bet it was that guy from the other thread killing a billion people to save humanity. — Unenlightened

I’m VERY happy to admit that I’d prefer choose one billion to die to save six billion rather than see EVERY human die. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who’d agree with you in allowing the human race to die.

Clearly you don’t value life.

But in real life you don't know how the lives of people are going to turn out. If you have two 90 years old on track A and one baby on track B what do you do? Then you might want to look for the guy who tied these people to the tracks so he doesn't do it again.

It’s not real life. It’s a hypothetical.

Probably because I mistyped! Oops! :(

It’s meant to be 25% chance to go bad and kill one person for the single person ans 50% chance each for the two people! Sorry about that :/

Note: error in OP that’s been corrected. Would’ve noticed sooner if someone had actually bothered to reply on the first page. Haha!

It’s meant to be 25% chance to go bad and kill one person for the single person ans 50% chance each for the two people! Sorry about that — I like sushi

If I allow the train to continue on Track A then there is a 100% chance that 2 or more people will die and a 25% chance that 3 people will die.

If I redirect the train to Track B then there is a 75% chance that 2 or more people will die and a 25% chance that 3 people will die.

So I'd still redirect the train to Track B as there's a better chance to minimize the number of deaths.

You didn’t fall for the trick and if you’d not read any of the thread good for you! :D

I pretty much messed this up though with the numbers :( ah well!

Clearly you don’t value life. — I like sushi

Once upon a time there was this guy called Adolph. He was very kind to animals and didn't even eat meat, the sensitive soul. But he became convinced that it was his moral duty to save mankind, and for the sake of a thousand years of glorious humanity, a few people - just a few million - would have to die.

As it goes, it didn't work out and he failed. But I say that even if he had succeeded, he would still have been the epitome of immorality.

Your point being?

Your point being? — I like sushi

I think there is something wrong with you. Clearly you don’t value life.

Why? Because I pose a hypothetical question to investigate morals or because you don’t understand the use of hypothetical questions and deem them essentially immoral ... even though you seem to think one person dying is no different than a billion dying?

At least try and make some sense. Come back when you’ve found someone who agrees with you. Until then I suggest you go and bother someone else with your nonsense.

I suggest you go and bother someone else with your nonsense. — I like sushi

Oh no. You have the greatest need of it. I will lay it out for you as simply as I can. The problem with your position is that there is literally nothing that is unequivocally wrong. There is nothing so vile you will not call it a moral act if circumstances dictate; pick any extremity of horror, make a dilemma between that and something even worse, and there you will be performing theorising it as your moral duty.

You ought not indulge your need for rationality to this extent, because as I just pointed out and you dismissed, we know it leads to the worst of human depravity. And this is widely instantiated in, for instance, the ethics of human experimentation. The potential for saving many lives does not justify inhumane treatment of a few.

And the only way to avoid the endless slippery slope by which anything at all can be justified is to draw a moral line. No to torture, no to killing - at any price.

Come back when you’ve found someone who agrees with you. — I like sushi

Well I agree with him entirely, so if that's what you needed to take what @unenlightened has to say here seriously, then maybe you can do so now.

Are you sure you do?

I am referring to the other thread here. The hypothetical is that you either have to decide what billion people die OR the entire human race dies.

Are you saying you’d let the human race die to preserve human “morality”? Don’t quite see how that works.

The next point was that he contradicted himself by saying he cares about a man in fire in the street yet doesn’t see any difference between one person dying and a billion.

Are you SURE you agree with this? If so explain.

Note: There appears to be a purposeful blindsightedness toward the “HYPOTHETICAL”. Because I pose a difficult scenario it does mean I wish or believe it to be true. The issues seem to be arising when people add into the scenario their own particular flavour of neurosis. This thread is about logical thought and how it balances with moral views. The other is more focused on the irradication of the logical to reveal the moral heart of the individual to themselves.

You ought not indulge your need for rationality to this extent, because as I just pointed out and you dismissed, we know it leads to the worst of human depravity. And this is widely instantiated in, for instance, the ethics of human experimentation. The potential for saving many lives does not justify inhumane treatment of a few. — Unenlightened

What on earth are you talking about? What did you point out and what did I dismiss? Both the threads I’ve made are quite clear and quite simple (besides my error in this one with the figures.) In the other thread you chose to exterminate the human race and in this one you’ve refused to do some basic calculations in order to see the point.

Are you saying you’d let the human race die to preserve human “morality”? Don’t quite see how that works. — I like sushi

Yes. We either all die together or no one dies at all. It's called solidarity.

The next point was that he contradicted himself by saying he cares about a man in fire in the street yet doesn’t see any difference between one person dying and a billion.

Are you SURE you agree with this? If so explain. — I like sushi

I'm not a utilitarian. I don't 'deduce' that killing is wrong by some kind of calculus, it just feels wrong. It feels wrong to kill one man, it feels wrong to kill a million. Its ethical value, not maths.

I can see the conflict you’re presenting. It still doesn’t hold up from my perspective. I assume that people generally want to live and having to do something horrific in order to allow people to live seems like a worthy price to pay.

If the trolley problem involved loved ones the whole dynamic changes. It is not me who is being unemotional or robotic. I assume these people matter and want to live so preserving two lives is better than preserving one on that basis alone. The choice would be a humane one not one based on arithemtic only and in my view better than adherring to some roughshod one size fits all attitude of “solidary because I say so.” That seems utterly at odds with a humanist approach to the problem.

I weigh the decision by the possible outcomes. One means everyone is dead and one means 6 billion people are not dead and can live their lives.

I am not saying we should apply cold hard logic or emotion. Both are required. Either alone is dogmatic and I view “solidarity for all” as futile given that the very idea of “solidarity” perishes with the human race. If the scale was different I guess it makes life easier if you have one singular answer to apply to every circumstance - I would caution against such an attitude though.

It certainly feels wrong to kill anyone. The point in the other thread is whether or not you value your own sense of morality over the rest of the human race enough to allow everyone to die. You appear to believe your sense of morality is superior and so everyone must die? Of course I am probing here because I want to see if you can give me a better idea of what you’re thinking is.

Thanks

I'm not a utilitarian. I don't 'deduce' that killing is wrong by some kind of calculus, it just feels wrong. It feels wrong to kill one man, it feels wrong to kill a million. Its ethical value, not maths. — Isaac

Does it feel wrong to allow someone to die when you could have saved them?

Your point being? — I like sushi

I assume that people generally want to live and having to do something horrific in order to allow people to live seems like a worthy price to pay. — I like sushi

The point is that, in your hypotheticals you can say things such as "such person has X% chance of killing someone" or "if you don't kill a billion people everyone dies" with certainty, but how that translates to real life is the problem, and attempting to connect your hypotheticals with real life can indeed be dangerous.

gave a fine example. Adolf was convinced that jews were going to lead to the extinction of mankind, if you read Mein Kampf he says as much. Here is the passage:

Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

The real fundamental problem is not in deciding between killing 1 billion people or letting the human race die, but in knowing with certainty that mankind is about to disappear and the only way to save it is to kill a billion people.

You may be absolutely convinced that the human race is going to go extinct and that you need to kill a billion people to prevent it, but what if you're wrong? What if there was a flaw in your reasoning, what if there was something you hadn't realized that implies you killed a billion people for nothing? Then you would be no savior, you would be the worst monster. Out of attempting to be the morally good individual saving the human race, you would instead become the worst monster who killed a billion people because of his delusions.

People commit the worse atrocities out of fear, yet what is feared is often worse than what actually happens. As Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so".

The point is that, in your hypotheticals you can say things such as "such person has X% chance of killing someone" or "if you don't kill a billion people everyone dies" with certainty, but how that translates to real life is the problem, and attempting to connect your hypotheticals with real life can indeed be dangerous. — leo

Sure :)

That is what I am going to go into in another thread. I don’t see the hypothetical question as mapping 1 to 1 onto reality at all. That would be delusional.

The trolley problem is NOT a moral issue. Where we can't choose i.e. we're constrained there can be neither good nor bad. Either option is acceptable.

I assume that people generally want to live and having to do something horrific in order to allow people to live seems like a worthy price to pay. — I like sushi

That presumes a preference for continued existence above all else which the rampant suicide rate immediately proves to be erroneous.

Continued existence is simply not the highest preference on most people's list and having that existence at the expense of a horrific act of genocide is something most people would not want. Have you heard of 'survivor guilt'?

I assume these people matter and want to live — I like sushi

'Mattering' and 'wanting to live' are often contradictory goals. Sometimes one must sacrifice oneself in order to 'matter'.

You appear to believe your sense of morality is superior and so everyone must die? Of course I am probing here because I want to see if you can give me a better idea of what you’re thinking is. — I like sushi

I have no choice but to believe my sense of morality is superior. If I thought another superior then that would be my sense of morality. The fact that everyone must die (in your scenario) is caused, not by my moral choice, but by whatever factor created this horrific circumstance. I have to decide whether survival as a direct consequence of genocide is a survival worth having. I can't simply ask everyone, so it's not about moral superiority, I only have my moral judgement to go on, so of course it's going to be my moral judgement I use.

Does it feel wrong to allow someone to die when you could have saved them? — Michael

Yes, but less so. It depends on what would need to be done to save them. All actions have consequences, and the further into the future we look, the more complex calculating the consequences becomes until, much like predicting the weather, we rapidly end up with little better than a wild guess.

Thanks for the relpy.

I don’t have a trouble with anything but this:

That presumes a preference for continued existence above all else which the rampant suicide rate immediately proves to be erroneous.

Continued existence is simply not the highest preference on most people's list and having that existence at the expense of a horrific act of genocide is something most people would not want. Have you heard of 'survivor guilt'? — Isaac

Suicide is certainly not the norm nor is it “rampant”.

We don’t “try” to exist we just exist. The point I’ve come across a lot in this exercise is about how the individual feels because of what they may have done. Genocide no, but if it was a matter of that or the extinction of the human race I’d go for genocide I because I value humanity.

Survivor guilt? People can live through all sorts of traumas and no doubt, if you’re old enough, you’ve lived through a few too. Sacrificing your own humanity to save humanity would be something. I have no idea if I could handle it or not and the situation will never occur I hope!

Anyway, to the trolley problem. If you had the chance to step aside and let someone else take responsibility would you? I guess you can see what I’m asking here.

Thanks again. I am VERY interested in how people think these things through and it’s not about me trying to convince you otherwise (although I won’t deny I hope at least to give you something to think about if nothing else!)

It is and it isn’t a moral problem. I altered the parameters a little to highlight this.

All actions have consequences, and the further into the future we look, the more complex calculating the consequences becomes until, much like predicting the weather, we rapidly end up with little better than a wild guess. — Isaac

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.

Suicide is certainly not the norm nor is it “rampant”. — I like sushi

The point was that if a large enough number of people are deciding that the benefits of continued existence do not outweigh whatever harms they are experiencing (and we know those harms to be psychological) then it is very likely the case that an even larger number of people are making that assessment (presuming that not everyone who makes it reaches the conclusion that the one outweighs the other). Thus, a large number of people must consider the avoidance of certain psychological states to be more important than continuing to exist.

My judgement is that the psychological states which suicide indicates people consider to be more important to avoid than their own continued existence, are of an equal or lesser degree than the 'survivor guilt' of being left behind as a consequence of mass genocide. Therefore I don't think it is unreasonable, if I didn't have the opportunity to actually ask everyone, to guess that they'd rather be dead than live in those psychological conditions.