Stefan, answer the trolley problem

[David Ottinger]

This is not a moral dilemma. You have 2 options where doing something leads to people dying and doing nothing leads to people dying. So, all we're discussing is scale and of one that is predicated on a value judgment-- which, needless to say, is entirely subjective.

[doodydota]

This is not a moral dilemma. You have 2 options where doing something leads to people dying and doing nothing leads to people dying. So, all we're discussing is scale and of one that is predicated on a value judgment-- which, needless to say, is entirely subjective.

 

Exactly. It always strikes me when people discussing the trolley focus all the "responsability" on the poor guy wielding the lever, but never consider those who tied the victims to the tracks or put the trolley in motion in the first place.

[MMX2010]

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.  

 

Thanks for this post, Josh.  Cleared up a lot of annoyance for me. 

[cynicist]

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.  

 

This is confusing. You argue that people shouldn't say it's not a valid question, and then proceed to explain how it's not really a valid philosophical question? If you meant that people should explain the reason why then I get that, but the trolley problem definitely has nothing to do with philosophy. It's more in the category of games that kids in school might play. (Would you rather do X gross thing or Y gross thing? Why do I have to do either?)

 

Not to mention that the guy is trolling. The trolley problem occurs everyday? Really? Well in that case it shouldn't be hard to dig up a few hundred cases to show everyone how important this 'philosophical problem' is. Taking this thread seriously is insulting posters who actually do research and spend some time thinking about the issue themselves rather than demand answers to masturbatory theoreticals...

[Josh F]

This is confusing. You argue that people shouldn't say it's not a valid question, and then proceed to explain how it's not really a valid philosophical question? If you meant that people should explain the reason why then I get that, but the trolley problem definitely has nothing to do with philosophy. It's more in the category of games that kids in school might play. (Would you rather do X gross thing or Y gross thing? Why do I have to do either?)

 

Not to mention that the guy is trolling. The trolley problem occurs everyday? Really? Well in that case it shouldn't be hard to dig up a few hundred cases to show everyone how important this 'philosophical problem' is. Taking this thread seriously is insulting posters who actually do research and spend some time thinking about the issue themselves rather than demand answers to masturbatory theoreticals...

This is a very common question in moral philosophy, any moral philosophers should be able to either answer it or explain why it isn't a valid question.  Dismissing it without argument is "NaA" or "Not an Argument." I don't see how this person is trolling?  He might not be in agreement, but he seemed sincere in his question.  If you think he is trolling or somehow wasting your time, then move on.  Taking this thread seriously is not insulting to anyone, its part of philosophical discovery and discourse.  Calling the guy a troll is insulting.  Maybe I missed something in his posts that indicated that he was a troll, I thought he was just someone getting into some amateur level philosophy.  

[yagami]

This is a very common question in moral philosophy, any moral philosophers should be able to either answer it or explain why it isn't a valid question.  Dismissing it without argument is "NaA" or "Not an Argument." I don't see how this person is trolling?  He might not be in agreement, but he seemed sincere in his question.  If you think he is trolling or somehow wasting your time, then move on.  Taking this thread seriously is not insulting to anyone, its part of philosophical discovery and discourse.  Calling the guy a troll is insulting.  Maybe I missed something in his posts that indicated that he was a troll, I thought he was just someone getting into some amateur level philosophy.  

 I think why people have so much trouble with this problem is because they are making assumption about the implications of the answer. People get hung up because they think if you answer one way you are somehow immoral or more or less moral. Well no matter what you answer you cant be immoral because without choice morality doesn't apply and morality is binary. You are either immoral not not immoral there is no in between. So whatever choice you make it will call under the category of not immoral. In essence I think people dismiss the question because the question is designed to figure out the more moral choice when that is an impossibility. So how do you answer an impossible question you dont.

[Josh F]

 I think why people have so much trouble with this problem is because they are making assumption about the implications of the answer. People get hung up because they think if you answer one way you are somehow immoral or more or less moral. Well no matter what you answer you cant be immoral because without choice morality doesn't apply and morality is binary. You are either immoral not not immoral there is no in between. So whatever choice you make it will call under the category of not immoral. In essence I think people dismiss the question because the question is designed to figure out the more moral choice when that is an impossibility. So how do you answer an impossible question you dont.

Yes!  Excellent points.  That is exactly the reason the question is asked, and exactly the reason it is dismissed out of hand, and exactly the correct answer to reconciling the issue.  

[cynicist]

In essence I think people dismiss the question because the question is designed to figure out the more moral choice when that is an impossibility. So how do you answer an impossible question you dont.

 

Yes, it's basically a trap designed to paralyze people.

[scn]

Josh F, thanks for your considered thoughts.

 

Of course it is plain that employing violence to remove any freedom of choice from a victim makes the aggressor responsible for all resulting violence.  But you, yagami, and others seem to argue that such aggression renders the victim completely blameless for his subsequent decisions and actions.  Because morality is binary and requires complete freedom of choice.

 

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.

 

Well no matter what you answer you cant be immoral because without choice morality doesn't apply and morality is binary.

 

Yet another real world example of the moral dilemma we are considering, one that was faced by thousands of men in the 60's, is the draft.  The government threatens a man with imprisonment for several years if he doesn't go to Vietnam and drop bombs on villages full of innocent people.  Clearly the government is the primary aggressor both against the man and the Vietamese. 

 

Yet I struggle with the suggestion that the drafted man is immune from moral blame for his actions just because he is following orders under pain of punishment.  Although himself a victim, he does have choices.  They may be unpleasant, but they are choices.

 

It seems one could argue the opposite of what you are arguing.  One could argue that aggression threatened against a man does not excuse him from responsibility for his decisions contributing to subsequent harm to innocents.

[Josh F]

Josh F, thanks for your considered thoughts.

 

Of course it is plain that employing violence to remove any freedom of choice from a victim makes the aggressor responsible for all resulting violence.  But you, yagami, and others seem to argue that such aggression renders the victim completely blameless for his subsequent decisions and actions.  Because morality is binary and requires complete freedom of choice.

 

 

 

Yet another real world example of the moral dilemma we are considering, one that was faced by thousands of men in the 60's, is the draft.  The government threatens a man with imprisonment for several years if he doesn't go to Vietnam and drop bombs on villages full of innocent people.  Clearly the government is the primary aggressor both against the man and the Vietamese. 

 

Yet I struggle with the suggestion that the drafted man is immune from moral blame for his actions just because he is following orders under pain of punishment.  Although himself a victim, he does have choices.  They may be unpleasant, but they are choices.

 

It seems one could argue the opposite of what you are arguing.  One could argue that aggression threatened against a man does not excuse him from responsibility for his decisions contributing to subsequent harm to innocents.

Yes, they have choices, but not free choices.  Thats why we say "free choice" as opposed to just choice.  One is very welcome to make any argument they want, but I can't say it will survive rigorous logical examination.  

[yagami]

Josh F, thanks for your considered thoughts.

 

Of course it is plain that employing violence to remove any freedom of choice from a victim makes the aggressor responsible for all resulting violence.  But you, yagami, and others seem to argue that such aggression renders the victim completely blameless for his subsequent decisions and actions.  Because morality is binary and requires complete freedom of choice.

 

 

 

Yet another real world example of the moral dilemma we are considering, one that was faced by thousands of men in the 60's, is the draft.  The government threatens a man with imprisonment for several years if he doesn't go to Vietnam and drop bombs on villages full of innocent people.  Clearly the government is the primary aggressor both against the man and the Vietamese. 

 

Yet I struggle with the suggestion that the drafted man is immune from moral blame for his actions just because he is following orders under pain of punishment.  Although himself a victim, he does have choices.  They may be unpleasant, but they are choices.

 

It seems one could argue the opposite of what you are arguing.  One could argue that aggression threatened against a man does not excuse him from responsibility for his decisions contributing to subsequent harm to innocents.

You dont actually have choice here. You go to the military you go to jail or you die. We all know what happens if  you resist your so called "choices". It's like saying I choose to pay taxes or I choose to go to jail. So no matter what you do you certainly aren't making an immoral choice you are just making a value judgment based on what you value more. You life your freedom or your conscience. If your life is in danger of being taken morality surely goes out the window.

[wdiaz03]

Josh F, thanks for your considered thoughts.

 

Of course it is plain that employing violence to remove any freedom of choice from a victim makes the aggressor responsible for all resulting violence.  But you, yagami, and others seem to argue that such aggression renders the victim completely blameless for his subsequent decisions and actions.  Because morality is binary and requires complete freedom of choice.

 

 

 

Yet another real world example of the moral dilemma we are considering, one that was faced by thousands of men in the 60's, is the draft.  The government threatens a man with imprisonment for several years if he doesn't go to Vietnam and drop bombs on villages full of innocent people.  Clearly the government is the primary aggressor both against the man and the Vietamese. 

 

Yet I struggle with the suggestion that the drafted man is immune from moral blame for his actions just because he is following orders under pain of punishment.  Although himself a victim, he does have choices.  They may be unpleasant, but they are choices.

 

It seems one could argue the opposite of what you are arguing.  One could argue that aggression threatened against a man does not excuse him from responsibility for his decisions contributing to subsequent harm to innocents.

 

I think Walter Block makes a good case for answering these type of problems here https://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

 

He proposes the idea of negative homesteading and if you apply it to these type of scenarios the answer is clear.

[yagami]

I think Walter Block makes a good case for answering these type of problems here https://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

 

He proposes the idea of negative homesteading and if you apply it to these type of scenarios the answer is clear.

I dont think there is as problem with answering difficult questions but this particular question is actually impossible to answer. I explained why a couple of post ago. At the same time I think Steph makes an even better case that none of this will really matter as a free society will be able to deal with these once in a life time events. We should really be focusing on what will get us to a free society and not these questions.

[David Ottinger]

Josh F, thanks for your considered thoughts.

 

Of course it is plain that employing violence to remove any freedom of choice from a victim makes the aggressor responsible for all resulting violence.  But you, yagami, and others seem to argue that such aggression renders the victim completely blameless for his subsequent decisions and actions.  Because morality is binary and requires complete freedom of choice.

 

 

 

Yet another real world example of the moral dilemma we are considering, one that was faced by thousands of men in the 60's, is the draft.  The government threatens a man with imprisonment for several years if he doesn't go to Vietnam and drop bombs on villages full of innocent people.  Clearly the government is the primary aggressor both against the man and the Vietamese. 

 

Yet I struggle with the suggestion that the drafted man is immune from moral blame for his actions just because he is following orders under pain of punishment.  Although himself a victim, he does have choices.  They may be unpleasant, but they are choices.

 

It seems one could argue the opposite of what you are arguing.  One could argue that aggression threatened against a man does not excuse him from responsibility for his decisions contributing to subsequent harm to innocents.

 

 

I don't really get the point of following this train of thought.  We've already established that the engagement (i.e. war) is immoral.  We've already established that the participants aren't acting in a voluntary capacity.  

 

So, unless we're discussing this for someone's personal sake at this point, where is this going?        

[scn]

I don't really get the point of following this train of thought.  We've already established that the engagement (i.e. war) is immoral.  We've already established that the participants aren't acting in a voluntary capacity.  

 

So, unless we're discussing this for someone's personal sake at this point, where is this going?        

 

I find discussing philosophy and ethics and their application in the world to be valuable.  Those who don't need not chime in here, can pursue other highly worthy discussion topics like the tactics of fighting child abuse and tactics of opposing war.

 

However, I have found just such philosophical issues, including the ethical application of the NAP in non-trivial cases, to arise repeatedly when I engage friends and family in discussions about worthy topics like the immorality of war.

 

For example, I've had people make the following argument to me defending war, "Evil doers have attacked us.  We are victims of aggression.  In self-delfense, we must take them out.  If innocents are damaged along the way, that's a shame, but our right to defend ourselves supercedes their rights because our choice on the matter was removed by the aggressors."

 

That argument to me sounds very much like the one advocated by others on here asserting that victims of aggression are rendered ethically blameless for their own associated actions employing violence harming innocents.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who finds principled application of the NAP not always clear cut.

[shirgall]

The justification of force is the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm to yourself or the innocent. I hold this to be universal.

 

Determining this danger usually involves three legs: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

 

The use of force because of victimhood is revenge, and it is not justifiable. However, if someone or some country has attacked you, that have demonstrated ability. If they have attacked you and remain capable of conducting more attacks they have also demonstrated opportunity. If they make threats that they have attacked in the past and that they'll attack in the future they are also demonstrating jeopardy. It's a judgement call on how credible the threat is, of course, but once successful they become pretty credible.

 

It certainly behooves us to find other ways to defend ourselves that are less violent and less expensive than war (such as curtailing the ability or the opportunity), but the self-defense justification doesn't take much to build when a group has definitely made attacks.

[scn]

You dont actually have choice here. You go to the military you go to jail or you die. We all know what happens if  you resist your so called "choices". It's like saying I choose to pay taxes or I choose to go to jail. So no matter what you do you certainly aren't making an immoral choice you are just making a value judgment based on what you value more. You life your freedom or your conscience. If your life is in danger of being taken morality surely goes out the window.

 

So you and Josh F argue choice must be free of any coercion whatsoever to carry any moral weight.  I find this principle problematic.

 

It implies Vietnam draftees are blameless for killings committed because they were coerced under threat of imprisonment for several years.  What if it were just imprisonment for several months?  Or just imprisonment for several days?  Or a fine of $50?  Is proportionality to play a role or does any bona-fide act of coercion render a victim blameless for any of his associated uses of violence?

 

Although it would be cleaner, I'm trying to avoid simple hypothecial examples to avoid incessant accusations of bringing up unrealistic ethical dilemmas.

 

So for another real world example, Nazi concentration camp prison guards gassing Jews are blameless for their actions because they were just conscrpted soldiers following orders under pain of imprisonment themselves had they disobeyed?  Ditto the senior Nazi officers who would have been strung up with piano wire had they disobeyed Hitler?

 

Or to get back to my previous examples that were not addressed, a man defending himself against an aggressor can blamelessly employ violence to do so even if it kills innocents?  For example, shoot through an innocent if its the only way to stop an aggressor?  Or throw a bomb into a crowd of innocents containing an aggressor?  Such a man is blameless because the aggressor has removed this man's freedom of choice?

[shirgall]

Or to get back to my previous examples that were not addressed, a man defending himself against an aggressor can blamelessly employ violence to do so even if it kills innocents?  For example, shoot through an innocent if its the only way to stop an aggressor?  Or throw a bomb into a crowd of innocents containing an aggressor?  Such a man is blameless because the aggressor has removed this man's freedom of choice?

 

This goes back to the doctrine of necessity. You can endanger or harm innocents if it would reasonably prevent a greater loss of life to the innocent and no other reasonable choice exists in the moment. These are lifeboat problems--you are severely limiting choices--but the principle is sound. The burden of proving it in a particular situation will be tremendous, and it should be.

[dsayers]

I find discussing philosophy and ethics and their application in the world to be valuable.

 

If this is true, then why are you wasting time anthropomorphizing governments?

[scn]

If this is true, then why are you wasting time anthropomorphizing governments?

 

Not intentionally.  I am trying to avoid the tedium of repeatedly saying "Individuals asserting themselves to be agents of government, to the extent they are responsible for actions involved in the initiation of aggression."

 

I'd love to omit examples involving government altogether to avoid such distracting complications but the most vivid and common real world examples of uses of force involve, of course, governments.

[yagami]

So you and Josh F argue choice must be free of any coercion whatsoever to carry any moral weight.  I find this principle problematic.

 

It implies Vietnam draftees are blameless for killings committed because they were coerced under threat of imprisonment for several years.  What if it were just imprisonment for several months?  Or just imprisonment for several days?  Or a fine of $50?  Is proportionality to play a role or does any bona-fide act of coercion render a victim blameless for any of his associated uses of violence?

 

Although it would be cleaner, I'm trying to avoid simple hypothecial examples to avoid incessant accusations of bringing up unrealistic ethical dilemmas.

 

So for another real world example, Nazi concentration camp prison guards gassing Jews are blameless for their actions because they were just conscrpted soldiers following orders under pain of imprisonment themselves had they disobeyed?  Ditto the senior Nazi officers who would have been strung up with piano wire had they disobeyed Hitler?

 

Or to get back to my previous examples that were not addressed, a man defending himself against an aggressor can blamelessly employ violence to do so even if it kills innocents?  For example, shoot through an innocent if its the only way to stop an aggressor?  Or throw a bomb into a crowd of innocents containing an aggressor?  Such a man is blameless because the aggressor has removed this man's freedom of choice?

I feel like you completely ignored what I posted. I clearly said you dont actually have a choice. If you are to be fined just $50 and you choose to not pay that $50 and you resist arrest for not paying that $50 you die. All orders from the government are death threats. This sense of proportionality doesn't exist here. If I had my freedom of choice I would not go to war and not pay anything. The only reason the $50 dollar or jail option has any weight at all is because if you dont accept those terms you die. You cant just ignore that fact. If you want to continue with this line of thought you must at least acknowledge this objection and see how it fits into your argument.

[scn]

I feel like you completely ignored what I posted. I clearly said you dont actually have a choice. If you are to be fined just $50 and you choose to not pay that $50 and you resist arrest for not paying that $50 you die. All orders from the government are death threats. This sense of proportionality doesn't exist here. If I had my freedom of choice I would not go to war and not pay anything. The only reason the $50 dollar or jail option has any weight at all is because if you dont accept those terms you die. You cant just ignore that fact. If you want to continue with this line of thought you must at least acknowledge this objection and see how it fits into your argument.

It's cool, I get your point  You say the $50 fine for refusing to join the military is in its violation of property a death threat and so a draftee threatened with a $50 fine is rendered innoccent of any wrongdoing in his subsequent dropping of bombs killing thousands of innocents.

 

I respect the clarity and consistency of your agument.  I am not convinced of its overall soundness.

[yagami]

The question is the exact same as if someone puts a gun to your head and says shoot the some random person on the street. You can "choose" to refuse his orders if you want but there is a gun in the room that we cant ignore. If I choose to shoot that person then no I am not morally responsible the person that forced me to is responsible. Going to war is the same thing just on a larger scale but philosophy cares about the principle not the scale. It may bother you but it really isn't any different. The principle here is if you are not the person that put yourself in this situation and you dont have the capacity to remove yourself from the situation you are not morally responsible for the choices forced apon you. Now personally I would rather rot in prison than kill people but doesn't mean I've made a more moral choice it only means I have made a choice under the threat of being killed. Same would go for the person that decides to go to war. I mean there are no good options and you may think well one option has greater consequences than the other but again scale does not matter when you are talking about philosophy. If a woman could cure all disease in the world if she is rapped one time it would still be immoral to do such a thing. You just cant rely on scale to hold your argument up.

[David Ottinger]

I find discussing philosophy and ethics and their application in the world to be valuable.  Those who don't need not chime in here, can pursue other highly worthy discussion topics like the tactics of fighting child abuse and tactics of opposing war.

 

However, I have found just such philosophical issues, including the ethical application of the NAP in non-trivial cases, to arise repeatedly when I engage friends and family in discussions about worthy topics like the immorality of war.

 

For example, I've had people make the following argument to me defending war, "Evil doers have attacked us.  We are victims of aggression.  In self-delfense, we must take them out.  If innocents are damaged along the way, that's a shame, but our right to defend ourselves supercedes their rights because our choice on the matter was removed by the aggressors."

 

That argument to me sounds very much like the one advocated by others on here asserting that victims of aggression are rendered ethically blameless for their own associated actions employing violence harming innocents.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who finds principled application of the NAP not always clear cut.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not questioning your desire to discuss philosophy.  I'm questioing the relevance of this line of thought as I do not follow it.  I am confused as to what is really being discussed.

 

As far as I can tell, what you're discussing is: What are the moral principles during a state of war?

 

And to me that just doesn't make sense because the whole reason one is in a state of war is because someone somewhere chose to abandon moral principles -- specifically the NAP, thus leading to war.

 

Such an environment is one of lawlessness.  Lawlessness not being anarchy, but rather the abandonment of morality.  Hence, how we can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have great injustice in the world.  Rule by might is not the rule of law.  

 

If you look at Charles Manson's interviews, it is creepy to the degree he gets this and actually embodies it.  

 

If it's not clear what I'm saying, what I mean is that morality is irrelevant in an environment of war.  What we can discuss is the degree to which one loses his/her humanity.  And, I suppose that is where your question regarding scale is relevant.  But, again, that's just my take on it.  So, by all means, correct me where I might be wrong. 

[scn]

Just to clarify, I'm not questioning your desire to discuss philosophy.  I'm questioing the relevance of this line of thought as I do not follow it.  I am confused as to what is really being discussed.

 

Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.

 

No, I'm not concerned with wartime ethics per se.  I only have mentiened several wartime examples because drafting people is the quintessential, commonplace, real-world example of the ethical dilemma I'm trying to resolve, namely:

 

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.

 

This is what is being discussed.  This is what I seek clarity around.

 

The trolley problem is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of an industrial accident.  Firing a gun through an innocent to thrwart an aggressor is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of self-defence.  The self-driving car software algorithm is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of consumer product design.

[scn]

Going to war is the same thing just on a larger scale but philosophy cares about the principle not the scale

 

I also hew to principle in ethics.  Which is one reason why I'm not ready to accept the principle you are advocating.  Namely that aggression against a victim immunizes the victim from moral responsibility for harm to other innocents he causes via his response to the aggression.

 

According to this principle, must one not condone throwing a bomb into a crowd of innocents harboring an aggressor about to attack?  And must one not condone its modern day real world equivalent, dropping a bomb onto a building full of innocents harboring a murderous terrorist?

I think Walter Block makes a good case for answering these type of problems here https://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

 

He proposes the idea of negative homesteading and if you apply it to these type of scenarios the answer is clear.

 

Thanks so much for posting this link.  I love how Block grasps the fundamental nature of the issue and tackles it head on.  I find Block's notion of negative homesteading, i.e. you can't pass on your aggression problem to other innocents, to be more consistent with the NAP as I interpret it.

[yagami]

I also hew to principle in ethics.  Which is one reason why I'm not ready to accept the principle you are advocating.  Namely that aggression against a victim immunizes the victim from moral responsibility for harm to other innocents he causes via his response to the aggression.

 

According to this principle, must one not condone throwing a bomb into a crowd of innocents harboring an aggressor about to attack?  And must one not condone its modern day real world equivalent, dropping a bomb onto a building full of innocents harboring a murderous terrorist?

 

Lets take this in steps. Person A held a gun to the head of person B. Person A tells person B you must shoot one person in a crowd of 100 people. Would you say that person B is morally responsible for his actions?

 

If your answer is no then let me ask you this. At what number of people would person b have to shoot in order to be held morally responsible?

 

This should make it clear as to why personal preference and scale has no place in philosophy. It is of course much more tragic the more people that are killed but Philosophy is a science as personal preference has not place here. I know you said you are knew to this but this is not just my opinion. This is as known in the world of philosophy as gravity is known in the world of physics.

 

If you dont agree with the argument you need to point out where the logical inconsistency is. Just because you say you have a problem with this doesn't change anything. You can say you dont agree with condoning someone throwing a bomb into a crowd but if you cant actually make an argument as to why then you are just stating your personal preference and not a philosophical principle.

 

Also one last question do you believe there is any circumstance where taking the life of someone else would not hold you the taker morally responsible? If so please explain why and under what principle do derive such a conclusion.

[dsayers]

If somebody steals a piece of paper from you, it's not justifiable to shoot them in the head. The restitution outweighs the debt to such an extent that the restitution creates a debt itself.

 

Similar is the example of "Go kill 1,000 people or I will kill you." This is not a credible threat due to the scale. Simply put, a person could not kill 1,000 people and claim it was out of fear. So while the person issuing the threat is definitely guilty of immorality, so would the person who killed 1,000 people.

[scn]

Lets take this in steps. Person A held a gun to the head of person B. Person A tells person B you must shoot one person in a crowd of 100 people. Would you say that person B is morally responsible for his actions?

 

If you dont agree with the argument you need to point out where the logical inconsistency is.

 

Cool, let's do that.  I wouldn't have started this thread if I had definitive answers to the trolley problem and its ilk.  But I will argue against your assertion of moral immunity for victims' actions impacting innocents.

 

B is responsible for his actions.  Because B very much has a choice.  The choice is either to keep his arm down, weapon holstered, and be killed by A or to engage his arm, draw his weapon, and kill an innocent 3rd party.  Yes, being killed by A is a really crappy option for B.  I sympathize for B's pain.

 

But B has no basis upon which to claim a moral right to kill another innocent person.  Even if B is being victimized.  B's end is legitimate: self-preservation against aggression.  But his means, employing violence against another innocent, cannot be justified by that end.

 

B's right of employing violence in self-defence applies only with respect to violence toward the aggressor and no other.  Only the aggressor has renounced his regard for the principle of property rights and non-aggression by virtue of his aggressive act. 

 

To argue others may be killed by B is to imply that the lives of innocents can be sacrified against their will as a means to defend one's own life.  Such a claim violates the fundamental meaning of property rights and self-ownership which recognizes that exclusive control over one's own property and body is not subject to violation by others for any reason.  No matter how much it may benefit them.  Including saving their lives.

 

Yet defense of his own property rights are the very basis upon which B claims moral sanction to kill.  Thus such a claim is self-contradictory.  B cannot morally kill innocents.  He must not will his hand to grasp his gun and point it at an innocent.  He must not will his finger to pull the trigger.

 

Murray Rothbard captures this nicely:

 

 

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

 

In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

 

Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for awhile and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute: it holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathize with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel, by violence if necessary.

 

---Murray Rothbard, "War, Peace, and the State"

[wdiaz03]

...There shouldn't be anything left to discuss.

 

Lets take this in steps. ...

 

You seem to remain engaged in the discussion for someone who thinks there's nothing left to discuss. Have you looked at Block's approach to this issue?

 

 

On a general note, since certain amount of down votes will cause a person's posts to no longer be displayed and also directly affect someone's reputation on the forum, I think we should think twice before down voting a post. It seems to me ( I could be wrong) that this feature is being abused and used as a form of censorship. Down votes should be used for posts that are disrespectful, abusive, etc. I have not seen such thing in this thread yet posts that people disagree with are being down voted.

I have tried to correct this by using my vote as I normally do throughout the forum, I encourage like minded individuals to do the same.

Sorry to sidetrack with this but I felt it needed to be said.

[David Ottinger]

Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.

 

No, I'm not concerned with wartime ethics per se.  I only have mentiened several wartime examples because drafting people is the quintessential, commonplace, real-world example of the ethical dilemma I'm trying to resolve, namely:

 

 

This is what is being discussed.  This is what I seek clarity around.

 

The trolley problem is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of an industrial accident.  Firing a gun through an innocent to thrwart an aggressor is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of self-defence.  The self-driving car software algorithm is an exemplar of this dilemma in the form of consumer product design.

 

So, is the person thrust into such a position an aggressor? 

[scn]

So, is the person thrust into such a position an aggressor? 

 

I don't know.  That's the $64,000 question.  It depends on how one defines aggression and how one attributes responsibility for aggression under circumstances forcing property rights into conflict.

[David Ottinger]

Well, someone cannot be a victim and an aggressor at the same time.  So, if the premise sets up such a scenario, is it not the question that is flawed? 

[Josh F]

So you and Josh F argue choice must be free of any coercion whatsoever to carry any moral weight.  I find this principle problematic.

 

It implies Vietnam draftees are blameless for killings committed because they were coerced under threat of imprisonment for several years.  What if it were just imprisonment for several months?  Or just imprisonment for several days?  Or a fine of $50?  Is proportionality to play a role or does any bona-fide act of coercion render a victim blameless for any of his associated uses of violence?

 

Although it would be cleaner, I'm trying to avoid simple hypothecial examples to avoid incessant accusations of bringing up unrealistic ethical dilemmas.

 

So for another real world example, Nazi concentration camp prison guards gassing Jews are blameless for their actions because they were just conscrpted soldiers following orders under pain of imprisonment themselves had they disobeyed?  Ditto the senior Nazi officers who would have been strung up with piano wire had they disobeyed Hitler?

 

Or to get back to my previous examples that were not addressed, a man defending himself against an aggressor can blamelessly employ violence to do so even if it kills innocents?  For example, shoot through an innocent if its the only way to stop an aggressor?  Or throw a bomb into a crowd of innocents containing an aggressor?  Such a man is blameless because the aggressor has removed this man's freedom of choice?

You're confusing law with morality.  On the soldier in Vietnam question remember: morality, again, has no commands.  There is no part of ethics which discuss specific penalties.  With the Nazis, remember the argument about free choice and being under duress.  Germans unwilling to collaborate with the Nazis were murdered.  

 

You're also switching blame for morality.  I think this tactic of yours is coming to light.  When one set of words and terms creates a coherent understanding you just add a new word into the list. Turning free choice into any choice, turning moral arguments into issues of blame.  

 

I understand your arguments, I promise you I do, you don't have to repeat them.  In fact, I think I could make a stronger case for you: in that all people are under the threat of violence within a statist system already, and therefor without free choice and without being the initiators of aggression, can one really say anyone is immoral in our system?

 

Would one hold a slave responsible for killing another slave?  

 

And while I don't have an answer for that question philosophically, I think the question itself speaks to something important.  That we're born into a cycle of violence and aggression that requires deep thought and difficult action to overcome.  

[MysterionMuffles]

I was going to link this video to a certain time, but I would highly suggest you listen to the whole thing. This is one of my favourites because it has undone the illusion for me that these 8 questions really have anything to do with bettering the world.