Stefan, answer the trolley problem

[scn]

Inspired by David Edmonds's book, "Would You Kill the Fat Man," I have been researching the possible libertarian ethical response to variants of the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).

 

In FDR2165 Stefan says the trolley problem is so unlikely to happen as presented literally that he dismisses the questions raised as farcical, a waste of time, and refuses to comment.  I find this response disappointing.  As a conceptual thinker, Stefan should understand such arbitrary, imaginary scenarios are constructed not because they might unfold literally, but to distsill and focus attention on the essence of a crucial philosophical issue - an issue that can and does occur in real life every day in various incarnations.

 

Taking the trolley problem for example, it is easy imagine an industrial accident of any kind, say in a steel plant, a building construction site, or an oil drilling platform.  It is easy to imagine a manager posed with the dilemma of throwing a switch that would route lethal damage away from a group of workers but at the expense of killing another otherwise uninvolved worker.

 

Wartime is full of such ethical dilemmas.  One could easily imagine a terrorist about to blow up a bomb killing hundreds of innocents in the sights of a shooter but placed behind one individual innocent who must be killed in order to kill the terrorist.  Etc.

 

I won't get into the issues in this post, but have expended much brainpower trying to figure out the libertarian position without reaching a definitive conclusion.  I invite Stefan to take this up.

[Songbirdo]

The relevance is similar to an earlier podcast where someone asked if shining a light in someone's face would be considered assault in an anarchic world and what would be done about it.

 

Ask yourself: what is the bigger evil in the world? The trolley/workplace freak accident and a terrible situation all around, but a once in a lifetime of even hearing about it let alone be involved in it...or child abuse?

 

And what can you possibly do about fixing either of those evils?

 

Freak accident? Can't do much to prevent it or to plan for. But you can affect the prevalence of child abuse.

 

Reducing the amount of child abuse in the world takes precedence over these theoretical encumbrances.

[NotDarkYet]

Before requesting Stefan to answer something for you...have you done any due diligence and looked through the thousands of podcasts to find one where he addresses Life Boat Scenarios?

 

 

 

[andkon]

Before requesting Stefan to answer something for you...have you done any due diligence and looked through the thousands of podcasts to find one where he addresses Life Boat Scenarios?

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/search/lifeboat

[nathanm]

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

[Good man]

On 9/25/2014 at 2:41 PM, scn said:

OLD

[NotDarkYet]

Trolly answer is in that video.

 

Btw, when you have your answer, how will it change your view of anarchism?

[scn]

As I indicated in my original post citing FDR2165 "The Ethics of Idiocy," I heard no answer to the trolley problem offered therein.  Or at least, I don’t consider slapping on a pejorative label of “lifeboat problem” and refusing to consider a question to constitute an intellectually satisfactory response.

 

I understand some artificial philosophical scenarios out there are so contrived as to be tedious to delve into given they won’t yield much real-world insight.  The trolley problem is not one.  Tough dilemmas around property loss, actions, and responsibility arise every day in the real world in ways great and small.

 

Construction of hypothetical scenarios is a legitimate method to crystallize and emphasize the essential nature of categories of real-world conflicts, providing thinkers a framework for discussion.  If a framework lacks essential information present in real-world cases, identifying what type of information is needed and how it is used answers the question.

 

The answer to the trolley problem should not impact anyone’s views of anarchism or the legitimacy of anarchism.  Injecting state force into the trolley problem has no bearing on what constitutes right and wrong - what constitutes proper interpretation of the NAP and proper respect for property rights.

 

It’s great that FDR spends the bulk of its energies tackling the most immediate social ethical problems like child abuse and most egregious widespread political injustices like war.  However, I hope FDR can afford a little bandwidth to delve into how to handle various tough situations of property rights conflicts.  This is a non-trivial area of philosophical inquiry since aggressors always claim to be using force in self-defense and since having ready suggestions for good standards determining how property rights will be recognized, i.e. force will be employed, is vitally important when attempting to convince others of the viability and order of a free society.

 

Remember the state justifies its monopoly on force and all the widespread horrors that follow from that based on the premise that simple individual property rights recognition and ordinary day-to-day conflicts can't be justly resolved through free market methods.  When we noodle over free market trolley problem solutions, we undermine that premise.

 

Moreover, every thinking man not just parroting others’ views ought to be constantly challenging his own beliefs, diving into and resolving what-if scenarios and apparent contradictions with gusto, so as to forge and refine his own ever-more rigorous understanding.  The foundations of one’s beliefs can never be too well-examined, too well thought-through in their potential implications.  Not to mention the fringe benefits of such efforts in preparing one to respond to statist challenges.

 

For example, Stefan’s previous delving into the issue of the man hanging from a flagpole breaking a window to save himself showed that one can choose to violate the NAP on utilitarian grounds so long as one pays the consequences.  This was enormously enlightening and indeed suggests one possible valid response to the trolley problem, in fact the response that Walter Block has offered to it.

 

I would appreciate Stefan doing his own earnest analysis of the trolley problem and its derivatives, as I have found libertarians who firmly believe in non-aggression and property rights can come to starkly contrasting views around how to respond to the trolley problem and associated issues of attributing responsibly for aggression.  See this fascinating discussion:

http://archive.freecapitalists.org/forums/t/2137.aspx

[Bedouin]

The relevance is similar to an earlier podcast where someone asked if shining a light in someone's face would be considered assault in an anarchic world and what would be done about it. Ask yourself: what is the bigger evil in the world? The trolley/workplace freak accident and a terrible situation all around, but a once in a lifetime of even hearing about it let alone be involved in it...or child abuse?...Reducing the amount of child abuse in the world takes precedence over these theoretical encumbrances.

Too right.Would you rather be helping reduce and speak out against child abuse, and helping children and improving the future that way, or be discussing small-scale ethical hypotheticals? It's not that they aren't relevant, or even important for that matter, but there are much bigger problems to be dealt with.I know Stefan has addressed certain lifeboats like the one where you're hanging from a flagpole, and his answer to those issues was the somewhat non UPB, i.e. aesthetic but entirely reasonable 'You're a Dick' (YAD) policy. If, for example, some walkers stroll onto a guy's land in the countryside and don't realise that it's private property, and the owner shoots them on sight... Technically, this is him 'defending his property' (unless it doesn't count according to UPB because of the walkers' lack of awareness) but for anyone to consider this as a reasonable and proportional use of defensive force I think would be very unlikely, and frowned upon by all. It's not the trolley problem but it's an approach to another lifeboat scenario.I would also like it if Stefan spoke to the 'trolley problem' specifically. While it is slightly masturbatory as a conundrum, if he's got some time then eh why not. Still, I doubt he will address it in a video unless it is something that is being bought up a lot.@ your original post, where you mentioned that war is full of such ethical dilemmas... Well, wars are products of states after all. You see the silliness in that statement?Btw, I appreciate that you have come to this forum to ask such a question, and you're actually trying to resolve this dilemma within yourself between statism and libertarianism. It is more than most people can even think of 'stomaching'. As I'm sure you're aware, it will feel a lot safer to stick with the status quo and remain allied to the state but obviously the easy position is not always the right position.

[JamesP]

Bedouin, you touch exactly on "why not" with "if he's got some time."

 

Of all of the evils and challenges facing philosophers today, a hypothetical never-gonna-happen mental exercise just isn't that interesting. Where is the payoff? It may satisfy a few people's idle curiosity, but will it do anything to combat evil?

 

It's not that he can never relax or do anything else, but if it is that important, then make the case. If Stef spends a day on this, which means he has spent a day less on promoting peaceful parenting, what is the cost benefit?

 

Alternatively, since there is an implicit criticism of Stef's opinion on the trolley problem, you could try calling in.

[TheRobin]

idk, but isn't it a rather straightforward problem anyway? I mean, the moment you do someting you take on moral responsibility for that action. So the moment you flip that switch you just murdered someone. Not doing anything isn't immoral.

[JamesP]

idk, but isn't it a rather straightforward problem anyway? I mean, the moment you do someting you take on moral responsibility for that action. So the moment you flip that switch you just murdered someone. Not doing anything isn't immoral.

 

Oh, I would not say you murdered anyone. Look at the way the trolley problem is formulated on Wikipedia.

 

The general form of the problem has people *tied up* on the tracks and unable to move. The murderer is the person who tied those people to the tracks, not you if you try to save them by diverting the trolley which then, because this is a magical situation, goes on to kill somebody else.

 

In the world of DROs, how might this be judged? There are so many unanswered questions here, it rather boggles the mind.

 

• Who tied those people up on the tracks?
  • How can we prevent people from being tied to the tracks?
  • Can we have a system which detects obstructions and shuts everything down until it is investigated and repaired?
• Why are people allowed to cross the tracks at all?
  • If the trolley can reach a fatal speed, how are there no guard rails or fences walling it off?
• How can we prevent runaway trolleys?
  • If control is lost, should there not be an automatic brake that gets deployed?
  • How would a trolley move without an operator?

 

I know that you can come up with all kinds of answers to each question posed, but for each answer you give, you increase the improbability of this scenario by some rather significant factors.

 

You're not questioning morality here. You're contriving a disaster scenario that only happens in bad movies. I mean, anyone with the name Snidely Whiplash would surely be locked up in the real world.

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

Oh, I would not say you murdered anyone. Look at the way the trolley problem is formulated on Wikipedia.

 

The general form of the problem has people *tied up* on the tracks and unable to move. The murderer is the person who tied those people to the tracks, not you if you try to save them by diverting the trolley which then, because this is a magical situation, goes on to kill somebody else.

 

In the world of DROs, how might this be judged? There are so many unanswered questions here, it rather boggles the mind.

 

• Who tied those people up on the tracks?
  • How can we prevent people from being tied to the tracks?
  • Can we have a system which detects obstructions and shuts everything down until it is investigated and repaired?
• Why are people allowed to cross the tracks at all?
  • If the trolley can reach a fatal speed, how are there no guard rails or fences walling it off?
• How can we prevent runaway trolleys?
  • If control is lost, should there not be an automatic brake that gets deployed?
  • How would a trolley move without an operator?

 

I know that you can come up with all kinds of answers to each question posed, but for each answer you give, you increase the improbability of this scenario by some rather significant factors.

 

You're not questioning morality here. You're contriving a disaster scenario that only happens in bad movies. I mean, anyone with the name Snidely Whiplash would surely be locked up in the real world.

 

Wikipedia isn't the best source for information. In the original problem, the people are working on the track but can't get out of the way in time (suppose, for instance, that they're on a bridge) - no one tied them up, they are there doing their job.

 

JSTOR article on it:

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/thomsonTROLLEY.pdf

 

Another .edu source (simply the problem itself):

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Trolley_Problem-PHIL_1A.pdf

[Bedouin]

Bedouin, you touch exactly on "why not" with "if he's got some time."Of all of the evils and challenges facing philosophers today, a hypothetical never-gonna-happen mental exercise just isn't that interesting. Where is the payoff? It may satisfy a few people's idle curiosity, but will it do anything to combat evil?It's not that he can never relax or do anything else, but if it is that important, then make the case. If Stef spends a day on this, which means he has spent a day less on promoting peaceful parenting, what is the cost benefit?Alternatively, since there is an implicit criticism of Stef's opinion on the trolley problem, you could try calling in.

That's a fair point.

In terms of real, tangible costs...

If Stefan has been going for about 10 years (3650 days) and helped a round sum of 100,000 people to enact the beneficial practice of peaceful parenting then that makes 27 people per day, although it is likely that it is even more people who are being 'converted' currently given the increasing popularity, and assuming that the amount of listeners becoming peaceful parents follows the same trend (maybe 50 a day or more?).

 

Given this fact, I can appreciate what you're saying. The only factor that might be used to counter that (although I agree with you) is that perhaps such a video encompassing all of the common lifeboats would not only persuade some people who see them as relevant (like the OP) but also look better than 'waving them away' which no doubt looks 'weak' in some sense. This is the impression I get anyway. I think that some people see the 'well lifeboats are trivial' response as a cop-out. This all depends of course on whether such people are seen as worth the time.

 

But yes, what you've said is right and I agree. Whatever is worth more in terms of the number and extent of people's lives improved is the better option to go with.

[TheRobin]

Oh, I would not say you murdered anyone. Look at the way the trolley problem is formulated on Wikipedia.

 

The general form of the problem has people *tied up* on the tracks and unable to move. The murderer is the person who tied those people to the tracks, not you if you try to save them by diverting the trolley which then, because this is a magical situation, goes on to kill somebody else.

 

 

Well, the problem states that you know you're gonna kill another person by diverting the trolley, so it's a concious choice to make. Essentially the question is, how far can you take self-defense, if others come to harm, I think.I mean, let's assume one of the 5 guys that are tied up have the switch, if we say, that they're completely moral for killing that other person to safe themselves from their own death, then the principle would be something like "If someone else causes you harm then you can divert that harm to other people to safe yourself" which would have some real world applications.

 

Say, you end up in a robbery and someone shoots around, can you take another human and use them as a shield? The answer then would also have to be "yes". Furthermore, the principle isn't bound by the specific time of the incident. Like you can steal a bike back months later from the thief, that principle of self-defense by diverting the harm to others can not be tied to that single moment. So you'd need to go even so far as to say, that if you get stabbed and need a new kidney, you can take it violently from someone else, because that still would fall under self-defense then.

 

So, while the trolley problem doesn't question morals, we should still be able to apply the same framework to it as to any other situation, which would imo mean, that, you can't just flip the switch without having some moral agency in the death of the person.

[K.o.t.H.]

Stefan addresses situations like this several times just in volume 1. I think that if you start at the beginning and listen to the podcasts many of your questions will be answered, several of mine have and I am only now starting on volume 2.

[scn]

For those insisting the trolley problem is an absurd dilemma that has no relevance to real life, here is a current real-world instance - one that human drivers are de facto making moral choices around every day.

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you

[Bedouin]

For those who have trouble employing hypothetical scenarios for discussion of principles or for those insisting the trolley problem is an absurd dilemma that has no relevance to real life, here is a current real-world instance - one that human drivers are de facto making moral choices around every day.

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you

It is definitely an interesting problem! I find it somewhat interesting anyway. However, in terms of its importance re: the libertarian morality...

Support libertarian morality and you

 

+ condemn the murder of 250+ million people in the last century (alone) and all of the murders in the future

+ condemn the everyday, endemic theft of taxation

and therefore can have a pretty sparkly clean conscience. What you do from there is your choice but you are one nicely moral side of a moral fence.

 

- potentially cannot solve a small problem which may as an upper limit have affected a few million people throughout all of time.

It's possibly a 'hole' but whereas it's quite a small little pothole along a fairly smooth, fresh road, aligning with the statist paradigm means ignoring the 20m wide sinkhole which has engulfed many households and led to people's deaths.

 

Which side of the fence are you on then?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

idk, but isn't it a rather straightforward problem anyway? I mean, the moment you do someting you take on moral responsibility for that action. So the moment you flip that switch you just murdered someone. Not doing anything isn't immoral.

 

You can't passively "do nothing" in this case (and I would argue in any case).

 

Short of someone or something interfering with you, you can only actively choose to kill 5 people or actively choose to kill 1 person. Standing there, walking away, and talking on your phone are all equivalent to actively choosing to kill 5 people.

[shirgall]

Brown v. United States 256 U.S. 335 (1921) "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." ---Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

 

The solution to the trolley problem is related to the doctrine of necessity (sometimes called the doctrine of two evils) and the immediacy of making a decision. It is better to break the law, even if it endangers others, if you act in a way that causes the least loss of innocent life, and very few people will fault you for making a decision in the brief moment you have. It is just as reasonable to freeze up and take no action at all because you neither planned nor predicted the dilemma. You have no way to get more information, or more options, and it is therefore most likely better to kill the one than kill the five, but you are hardly forced to.

 

This is *not* the same as the Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity which is about materialism, determinism, and the implicit lack of free will.

[TheRobin]

You can't passively "do nothing" in this case (and I would argue in any case).

 

Short of someone or something interfering with you, you can only actively choose to kill 5 people or actively choose to kill 1 person. Standing there, walking away, and talking on your phone are all equivalent to actively choosing to kill 5 people.

Why is doing nothing equivalent to killing 5 people?

[shirgall]

Why is doing nothing equivalent to killing 5 people?

 

Yeah, I have to agree with this. being seized with indecision because death will result in either of a bichromatic choice is not equivalent to the intentional killing of another. The actor of the killing is not the person deciding whom has to die, but rather who set up the scenario in the first place.

 

The switcher is neither intent on killing, nor allowing death by negligence or recklessness. From a legal perspective (not a moral one), murder and manslaughter are out the window in either outcome. Morally a person forced into such a position can only do the best they can in the moment, and the choice is not fundamentally clear. Every Spock will seek more alternatives and not act lest they be condemned for agency. Every Kirk might feel it's better to act than not to act less they be condemned for cowardice. Every Bones will cry, "I'm a doctor not a railway engineer."

 

I've already spent too much time for a lifeboat problem, but it's been fun.

[NotDarkYet]

Sorry to bump this.  I just had a thought.

 

This scenario is not universalizable, because it involves personal value judgments. 

 

It is therefore an aesthetic question and not a challenge to moral theory.

 

To call it a "challenge to moral theorists" is like calling a poem a "challenge to mathematicians"

[dsayers]

You can't passively "do nothing" in this case (and I would argue in any case).

 

Short of someone or something interfering with you, you can only actively choose to kill 5 people or actively choose to kill 1 person. Standing there, walking away, and talking on your phone are all equivalent to actively choosing to kill 5 people.

 

Unchosen positive obligations are unethical.

 

Wartime is full of such ethical dilemmas.

 

The initiation of the use of force is immoral. You're begging the question by putting forth "wartime" as if it's legitimate. Just as in the trolley whatever, you're putting forth that the bystander is at all involved. Also, it's fallacious to claim that choice is possible where coercion is present. Finally, it's a severe miscalculation to say that because you cannot interpret the scenario, we need people that throw trolleys at everybody every day if they don't obey arbitrary edicts. If you don't have the right to steal from, assault, rape, and murder people, you cannot give that right to others.

[J-William]

Wow... You successfully roped some people into discussing this problem.

I'm amazed.

[PatrickC]

I am curious, would it make any difference if the trolley belonged to Walmart or Tesco? (rhetorical)

[TheAuger]

Why should the "solution" to this fake scenario be even be taken seriously, much less answered? Set-pieces like this only occur in things like David S. Goyer screenplays...

 

Maybe the more pertinent question, "thread-originator", would be, "why the trepidation over Stef's 'non-answer' to the 'trolley-question"? Would NAP be any more/less-valid with a positive answer by Stef one way or another?

[Whieduk]

Stefan could answer this but it probably doesn't have a lot of value.  These exercises are fun to think of but consequentailly, they probably don't have much value.  Remember, we have war, hatred, violence and a whole bunch of other things currently occuring so should these hypotheticals take precedence?

 

The questions I would want to know to this apparently arbitrary question is why are there only two options?  Why do I have to choose either to save 1 person or 5 people?  Can't I try to save them all?  Can I call someone or try something else? 

 

If they all die, I did nothing wrong as I did not initiate the events, nor did I have the intent to do something malicious. 

[scn]

The initiation of the use of force is immoral. You're begging the question by putting forth "wartime" as if it's legitimate.

 

My bad for mentioning war which injects distracting issues.  Replace with "use of defensive force."  Any use of defensive force carries some risk to innocents.  Firing a shot at a charging home invader carries risk that bullet will go through the wall and kill an innocent.  Or what if an innocent is in the same room.  Or at various degrees of proximity to the aggressor.  Or standing in front of the aggressor.  Etc.

 

Stef has argued responsibilities for injuries to innocents resulting from use of defensive force accrue to the initial aggressor who set the chain of events in motion.  However, this is exactly what governments claim when they bomb buildings full of innocents to kill one bad guy.

 

Blaming the victim/bystander for his actions is problematic.  Immunizing the victim/bystander from his actions is problematic.  The victim/bystander always has some degree of choice as to how much damage to tolerate versus how much damage to transfer.  What are the moral choices according to the NAP when the circumstances pit self against other, many against few, action against inaction.

 

To summarize the core issue:

 

How should responsibility for aggression be justly attributed when a victim or bystander is thrust into a position to employ or redirect force to reduce overall harm to himself or others via taking action resulting in harm to persons otherwise spared via his inaction.

 

 

Wow... You successfully roped some people into discussing this problem.I'm amazed.

 

Maybe because this subject is important.  As champions of the NAP, we should all be endeavoring to become experts in its nuances, proper interpretation, and correct application.  Especially in complicated cases.  What topic could be more central to our beliefs.

[dsayers]

@scn: War and defensive force are not interchangeable concepts. One is the initiation of the use of force and the is not.

 

A homeowner shooting a home invader is not comparable to a government bombing a building. 1) Government being a concept and not a moral actor cannot own property. Therefore nothing done in the name of government can be said to be defensive. 2) A bomb can never be used in the context of defensive force as it's effect cannot be controlled by the person utilizing it. 3) Attacking a building could never be described as defensive force for the same reason.

 

You mention "many against few," but this merely obfuscates the conversation. Humans are not fundamentally different in proximity to other humans. Crowds do not have emergent properties. To understand the morality of behaviors of individuals is to understand those same behaviors by those same individuals when other people are there also.

 

You said action vs inaction, but these are not comparable. Morality applies to behaviors not a void of behavior. I covered this well in my first post. Which you've done nothing to address other than to substitute defensive force for war. I'm typing right now, which means I'm NOT engaging in X-1 behaviors where X is every possible behavior (a nearly infinite number). To suggest that an interpretation could be attached to my NOT engaging in any one of those behaviors is logically impossible.

[scn]

@dsayers

 

Sorry if I failed to respond to some good points you made.  A lot of good points here to respond to and I don’t want to be that guy who posts too much.

 

My goodness, I would never suggest war and defensive force are interchangeable.  I merely retracted my previous citation of war as presenting many property rights dilemmas because war has all sorts of confounding underlying moral issues of the sort you mention.  My point was and is that NAP conflicts are not rare in the world.  Using a simple home invasion defensive force scenario highlights the point I’m trying to make a lot more clearly.

 

And I would never suggest individual home defense and government bomb dropping are comparable. I see now my use of government in the example is distracting from the issue I’m really trying to focus on.  Allow me to replace it with an individual throwing a bomb.

 

Most here would deem an individual shooting a gun to repel a home invader to be a case of a victim acting in self-defense.  Even if firing that gun poses some small danger to nearby innocents.  Most here would deem an individual throwing a bomb into a crowd of innocents harboring a charging aggressor to be a case of a victim initiating his own aggression against the innocents.  I.e. to be moral, one must suffer an attack from an aggressor effectively employing human shields.

 

I can think of a range of circumstances between these two extremes posing progressive degrees of risk to innocents.   I humbly ask where the line is.  Or if it is a matter of principle, then what principle must be employed to separate self-defense from aggression in the case of victims/innocents presented with choices impacting aggression-in-progress.

 

I mention many against few in reference to cases where 1 might die vs 5, or 100, or 1,000 where the natural rights of each individual is violated in equal nature and degree.  Is consequentialist calculation permitted in this case?  The trolley problem is such an example.  Another example might be an innocent standing in front of a terrorist about to detonate a bomb that would kill 5 innocents around him including the one blocking the shot.  Would shooting through the heart of the innocent to kill the terrorist constitute murder by the shooter?

 

The unethical nature of unchosen positive obligations is well understood.  I concur with you.  But there is a distinction to be made between obligation and action.  Yes, morality applies to choices of behaviors, but choosing inaction is just such a choice of behavior.  In some cases action may be required, in other cases inaction may be required in order to respect one’s negative obligations under the NAP. 

 

For example, if an employee of the trolley company representing the trolley owner is manning a rail switch and has the option to throw that switch to send a runaway trolley to the side to avert deaths, under the NAP he has the moral obligation to take action to throw the switch.  By contrast if throwing the switch would send the trolley into a crowd rather than safely away from it, under the NAP he has the moral obligation to not throw the switch, i.e. to take no action.

[dsayers]

Yes, morality applies to choices of behaviors, but choosing inaction is just such a choice of behavior.

 

NOT behavior has no moral component as one of the requisites for moral consideration is behavior.

 

What you are doing with your every post is taking something simple (theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral), throwing a whole bunch of stuff on top of it, and then claiming that with all that stuff on top of it, it's complicated. What is it you feel you stand to gain by portraying objective morality as so complicated? The reason I ask is because if you seriously need a moral grey area to think about, one needs look no further than the inevitable gradient of human offspring growing from creature to creature with capacity for rational thought. So many rich and truly useful conversations could arrive from that alone.

[Josh F]

There is no purpose, guys, to repeating the "this isn't a valid or real question" thing as if thats an argument.  The question is valid to this guy, thankfully some people above gave it a shot.  What a very sloppy and aggravating way to engage in "the largest philosophical conversation."

 

The first thing is that no philosophy can argue for SHOULDS without running into another philosophical problem.  So in the UPB approach, there are no you should do x or y arguments made, only that the outcome of an action can be described as moral or immoral.  According to UPB one must be capable of free choice, choice not under the threat or use of violence, for them to be considered to have moral agency.  In the case of a guy able to flip a switch to determine who dies, but who is not responsible for setting up that violent scenario, they're not subject to any moral evaluation.  

 

If the question is a legal one, then UPB is not going to help.  You need to look for the common law way of solving this problems, which is to hold the person who initiated the string of violence responsible for all subsequent violence (intended or not).  

 

If you take a Randian approach, morality is determined by self interest, which I suppose would mean either choice and all participants are without moral evaluation, but that it becomes in the interest of the parties involved to operate in a way which best serves those interests... like flipping the switch to save a friend and kill a stranger, or in finding the guy who set up this horrific scenario and just shooting him in the face.  I'm more and more sympathetic to this view of morality.  

[yagami]

Steph answers your question in the video even though he says he wont at the beginning lol. He says where there is no choice morality doesn't apply. So there is your answer. There shouldn't be anything left to discuss.