This is the mistake of the consequentialists that makes it so appealing: they don’t understand the nature of moral responsibility, and how it relates to actions and intentions. — Bob Ross
The key difference is that they aren't experiments, they are theoretical in nature only. You cannot really do these experiments practically and the ethical requirements today are so high that they can't ever be done. — Christoffer
Yes, they work as introduction courses to philosophy, but since there's no validation past the theoretical, and real world examples of similar events show much more complexity in their situational circumstances that they become unquantifiable as statistical data, they end up being just introduction material, nothing more. — Christoffer
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing — Christoffer
sometimes just a question of their current state of mind and mood. — Christoffer
But still, the problem is that people's justifications rarely correlate to how they actually behave in real moral situations. — Christoffer
Just reading the audience discussion around the moral actions in The Last of Us part 2 and how people had problems with everything that happened in that story is more fascinating and revealing as a case study in morality than how people justify their choices in the trolley problem. — Christoffer
the more trivial I've found these thought experiments to be. — Christoffer
But if the person on the trolley said “I need to save the most innocent people I can” and pulled the lever he wouldn’t be culpable for murder because that was not his intent. — Fire Ologist
What if it was about their own life and not innocent people? What if it was about tge reward of a tasty cheeseburger: " I didn't intend to kill anyone, I just wanted that cheeseburger so bad". — Apustimelogist
If we are going to start changing the hypo and adding intentions and cheeseburgers, we would have to conduct a new analysis of responsibility and intent and actions in furtherance of these. — Fire Ologist
I think the question the hypo poses is: should the person who either pulls the lever or sits still be held responsible for anyone’s death? And the answer is no, under the existing facts. — Fire Ologist
Very interesting. Even if it was the whole human race (including your self?)?
There then comes the irony and absurdity of committing to your moral standards so strongly that you would allow the human race to die and, arguably in doing so, render your value system meaningless.
Assuming John Wayne Gacy was not moral responsible for anything bad which was occurring in that trolley situation (which is to say that he has not forfeited his right to not be killed in this situation); then, no I would not.
It is always wrong to kill an innocent person; and by 'innocent' I mean innocent in the specific situation---otherwise, it is irrelevant (even if there is other information that would emotionally move us). I would love to pull the lever in the case of John Wayne Gacy but that would still be immoral. — Bob Ross
I think this is a strawman because cleaely what is not interesting about the trolley problem is not the trolley problem on its own, its the underlying reasons that people make decisions on it. — Apustimelogist
Someone may not be blameworthy in some sense that they can't help being forced into a situation where someone had to die. But does that mean there was not a better or worse decision ethically? Not necessarily. — Apustimelogist
So you are saying the scenario is asking us whether, in these circumstances, a duty arises to act at all, and then complicates it by then asking if you fail to act at all, or pull the lever, are you culpable for committing murder, or culpable by omission for committing the murder of five? — Fire Ologist
That’s not what I am saying about omission. I am saying there must be an affirmative duty prior to there being an intentional omission of acting on that duty.
If you intend to kill five you can sit still, but you are committing an act of sitting still.
If you see you have a duty to save five and you sit still intentionally, you are committing a wrong because of your duty by your act of omission. — Fire Ologist
the premise is almost certainly that, "Nothing which is intended can come about by omission." — Leontiskos
I notice that in the paper the situation is portrayed as "killing one or killing five",but that would be an inaccurate representation of cause and effect. The omission of pulling the lever does not kill anyone. — Tzeentch
Negligence, culpability, these are legal terms, and I think under most legal systems you would be charged with second-degree murder if you pushed some innocent bystander on the tracks, regardless of your intentions.
If you are talking about these terms in a moral sense, I think they need to be explained in more detail. When is one morally culpable? Negligence implies a failure to do a duty - what duty are we talking about here, and when can one be said to be morally negligent? — Tzeentch
No it’s not almost certainly, because it’s not the premise at all. I’m saying sitting still doesn’t reveal an intention, you have to seek more facts (such as ask the person) what their intention is by sitting still.
A lifeguard sees a person drowning and does nothing and watches the person drown. That is intentional conduct. It is a wrong done by omission of a duty. — Fire Ologist
It’s not an omission if you intend to kill five people. It’s how you carry out your intention. It’s a physical act to stay seated in order to kill five. — Fire Ologist
1. Nothing which is intended can come about by omission.
2. Suppose the death of the five is intended.
3. Therefore, in that case the not-pulling of the lever which results in the death of the five is not an omission. — Leontiskos
As to your reasonable declaration that killing innocent people is wrong, sure it is, but folks do things that are wrong all the time (though perhaps not with such severe consequences). Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to performing an action. — LuckyR
But my simple point is, you need a duty in place before you can perpetrate a wrong by omission. It’s omission of a duty. The act is not the point. Sitting still is an act. Sitting still doesn’t tell you anything about whether that act perpetrates a wrong by omission or a wrong by commission, or anything.
The trolley problem, to me, creates a simple switch, if you switch the switch one way, five people die and the other way one person dies. The way you physically operate that switch is by sitting down or pulling a lever.
If we all have a duty to save the most lives at every opportunity to do so, then sitting still could be wrong by omission of that duty. If you switch the people on the tracks and put 5 on the lever side and 1 on the rolling side, then failing to pull the lever would be a wrong by omission as well. — Fire Ologist
The heart of the trolley problem is this:
“Without any context or explanation, if you were forced to kill either 1 person or 5 people with no other options, which would you do?” — Fire Ologist
I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome. — Bob Ross
What’s the difference? You are killing someone mo matter what you do. — Fire Ologist
You don't think there is an absurdity in letting the whole human race die because you don't want to kill an innocent person?
I think regardless of what you think of the morality of that behaviour, it is most definitely absurd. — Apustimelogist
Here is what Bob Ross said (and I agree):
I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome.
— Bob Ross — Leontiskos
I take the hypo to be an attempt to force you to participate. — Fire Ologist
It assumes you have to make a choice - choose five or one deaths. And under these circumstances, they are all innocent deaths. — Fire Ologist
That, to me, is the right moral response - to stay out of the whole bloody death trap scenario. — Fire Ologist
Life happens whether we consent or not, and at times it involves tough decisions. — Leontiskos
You are claiming that by refusing to pull the lever Bob has killed five people, and this is a controversial claim on your part. — Leontiskos
You are claiming that by refusing to pull the lever Bob has killed five people, and this is a controversial claim on your part. — Leontiskos
No I’m not! — Fire Ologist
Sitting still is both killing five people and saving one. — Fire Ologist
If you had the poise to think you could make this ongoing accident better and intended to make it better by pulling the lever, you are not intentionally killing one person. — Fire Ologist
What’s wrong with the doctrine of double effect? But I don’t really know what that is. — Fire Ologist
It's the intellectual part of the trolley problem. — Leontiskos
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.