Daniel Unplugged Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 First a classic moral dilemma: A train is out of control and is about to plough into and kill a group of 5 people who are tied to the track. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the train onto another track that has one person tied to it. Should you pull the lever? The NAP would seem to require you not to pull the lever, since it agresses against the person on the other track. Of course, we would like to minimise the deaths of innocent people, but without violating our principles. Here is my idea: NAP is not violated where the agression is consensual, like in a boxing match. Therefore, if the person on the other track consents to sacrificing himself to save 5 lives, it is ok to pull the lever. In this case, consent cannot be given by the guy on the other track, since he is too far away for his voice to be audible. I think it is OK to pull the lever if there is necessary, reasonably assumed, consent (NRAC). That is, if it is reasonable to believe, and it is impossible to know for sure, that given the choice, the person on the other track would consent to their life being sacrificed to save the lives of 5 others, then it is OK to pull the lever. This eliminates the violation of the NAP, minimises the death count, and, does not open the door to taxation, since taxation is obviously not consensual (if you pull the lever because of a utilitarianist arguement, you legitimize taxation, since in regards to taxation, exactly the same principle applies, that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few). Any thoughts on this?
dsayers Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 If people are tied to train tracks, the person who tied them there is the aggressor. Scenarios like this are meant to obfuscate that which is more useful the clearer it is. Notice the lack of consideration of the person who tied these people up in the first place? I don't mean you. I know that this is an age old question. I'm not sure what you mean by consent though. The people who are tied to the tracks are not capable of giving consent because they don't have free will in the moment and are under duress.
LanceD Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Principles and morals are irrelevant when coercion is involved. So moral "dilemmas" like this are just mental masturbation because they do nothing to help people navigate their lives and make sound decisions on a day to day basis.
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 22, 2014 Author Posted February 22, 2014 The guy pulling the lever was not coerced, so morality applies to him. While this dilemma ultimately has few practical applications in of itself, except in the rarest of circumstances, I thing it is important to nut it out. In any case, it is at minimum an interesting thought experiment.
dsayers Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 The guy pulling the lever was not coerced Oh? So if the guy in question could choose between running somebody over with a train, running several people over with a train, or playing golf, he'd run people over? Are people tied to train tracks a naturally occurring phenomenon or does it require human behavior to create it? I'm no engineer, but I'd imagine they're designed like big rigs where the brakes lock up in the event of a malfunction. Either way, we haven't even touched base on why the train is out of control. The bottom line is that the scenario doesn't offer enough information, it asks the wrong question, and it assumes that the answer is of any value.
Xeeg Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 What other people do with their time is up to them, but someone who follows the NAP will not pull the lever. NAP does not change with the argument "But more people will be saved!". Forcing someone to die for any reason other than self defense is clearly against the NAP.
Xeeg Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I'm surprised that both Stefan and Dsayers avoided answering this question by essentially saying "we don't answer hypothetical situations that make our moral cause look bad". If they want a real world scenario to answer consider the Calgary flood in 2013. In 2013 there was an abnormal amount of rainfall in the rocky mountains that resulted in a flood that hadn't been seen for over 100 years. The Old Man River Dam was preventing the water from flooding Calgary while at the same time was starting to overflow and flood the surrounding region. You can look up the details online. Question. If you were the decision maker would you open up the dam to minimize losses in the surrounding region while exposing Calgary to a large risk of massive property damage? Or would you leave the dam alone and flood the area around it? I think the answer NAPers should give is, "It is immoral to do an action that results in harm to another in order to help someone else." Meaning, they would not open the dam, no matter the scenario.
dsayers Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I'm surprised that both Stefan and Dsayers avoided answering this question by essentially saying "we don't answer hypothetical situations that make our moral cause look bad". That's quite the accusation. Since my input on the subject is text RIGHT HERE, you should have no problem pointing out where this was said. And since you are saying that if somebody is asked a question, they MUST answer, I will formally put it into question form: Where did I ever say this? Morality is objective. You can choose to cross it, but you cannot choose what it is. The very idea of making a "moral cause" "look bad" indicates you don't know what you're talking about.
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 That's quite the accusation. Since my input on the subject is text RIGHT HERE, you should have no problem pointing out where this was said. And since you are saying that if somebody is asked a question, they MUST answer, I will formally put it into question form: Where did I ever say this? Morality is objective. You can choose to cross it, but you cannot choose what it is. The very idea of making a "moral cause" "look bad" indicates you don't know what you're talking about.Isn't morality by definition subjective, since it is concerned with human emotions, notably empathy for the victim of immortality? The purpose of the thought experiment above is not to make a moral cause look bad, it is to push moral principes to their extreme to see if they still hold.
dsayers Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Isn't morality by definition subjective I don't think so. When religions (including the state) push "morality," it is subjective, which is how you know it isn't morality. A lot of people misuse the words "morals" and "philosophy" when they mean "personal beliefs," which is why it's easy to mistake either as being subjective. If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. This is the definition and totality of objective morality as I understand it. I happen to think it's beautiful because those four words (theft, assault, rape, and murder) tells the entire story. Anything more convoluted beyond those four words are trying to obfuscate or abandon the truth.
june Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. This is the definition and totality of objective morality as I understand it. I happen to think it's beautiful because those four words (theft, assault, rape, and murder) tells the entire story. Anything more convoluted beyond those four words are trying to obfuscate or abandon the truth. you must state your self-claimed caveat here dsayers -- people are fundamentally different, in that some can reason reason, and some can not. and those who cannot reason do not have self-ownership. and thus theft, assault, rape and murder become legitimate upon such people.source: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38826-importance-of-non-violent-child-rearing-derided-by-hoppe/ Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have.
PatrickC Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 This lifeboat scenario is a 'false dichotomy'... I shan't repeat the otherwise good points dsayers has already mentioned.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Once they hear your solution they will just change the scenario to say that all the people on the tracks do not give consent. The point of these cretinous dilemmas is to create moral paralysis. They are specifically created to have no answer. If one pulls the lever or doesn't pull it they have made a choice. Either choice violates the nap but the violation is not with the lever puller/ non-lever puller but with person who created the situation. The person with the choice is just a helpless link in person X's violation of the nap. Whatever choice they make they are not morally responsible for so the nap can not even be applicable. So pull the lever or don't pull it. Either way you cannot violate the nap.
Recommended Posts