Stefan, answer the trolley problem

[wdiaz03]

...

It is universally preferable for the lever-operator to pull the lever.  See my proof 2 posts above.

It is a violation of the NAP to pull the lever.  See the quote above.

...

 

I will disagree with this proof, The 7 people might agree to pull the lever a priori to better their odds of survival.

once the roles are assigned only 6 people want the lever pulled. hence UPB time test no longer holds. also, At least one person

will not want the lever pulled, hence universality no longer holds.

 

You proof is not valid because you can't isolate a group "future possible lever operators" and conclude that since they all want to do X

it is UPB. with that line of reasoning won't all "future possible thief's" want to steal? making Stealing UPB.

[powder]

 

 

 

If I ask to borrow your kite and you consent, for me to take and make use of your kite is binding upon you. Your consent makes this a moral behavior. Same as if I buy it off of you or trade you for it.

I was of the impression that behavior could be either immoral, or not immoral, but not moral per se.  Like rape is immoral but consensual sex is not moral behavior, in the same way that agreeing to sell my kite to you is not moral.  I understand that actions can show integrity, courage, honesty and other virtues but that does not make them moral.  Do you mean that the behavior is subject to moral evaluation because it is binding?  

[dsayers]

I was of the impression that behavior could be either immoral, or not immoral, but not moral per se.

 

Not immoral is not specific. Both amoral and moral are not immoral. As I pointed out before, in order for the claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be not Y. Where a moral consideration IS present, not immoral IS moral.

 

Do you mean that the behavior is subject to moral evaluation because it is binding?  

 

The requisites for moral consideration are voluntary behavior (uncoerced) and binding upon another. If this is accurate, then consensual sex being the use of another person's property with their consent would indeed be classified as moral. I think this might sound strange because we've been inundated by those who wish to subjugate us that what they want for us to do is "moral." For example, they would say to you it's moral to feed the poor even though their plan for implementing this is predicated on the immoral act of mass theft. Even just as a prescription, it could not be classified as moral because it's an unchosen positive obligation.

 

Moral simply means the consistent application/observation of property rights. In consensual sex, I own myself and accept that my partner owns herself also. Whereas rape, while mechanically identical, is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Immoral means the self-contradictory, simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

[powder]

Not immoral is not specific. Both amoral and moral are not immoral. As I pointed out before, in order for the claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be not Y. Where a moral consideration IS present, not immoral IS moral.

 

 

The requisites for moral consideration are voluntary behavior (uncoerced) and binding upon another. If this is accurate, then consensual sex being the use of another person's property with their consent would indeed be classified as moral. I think this might sound strange because we've been inundated by those who wish to subjugate us that what they want for us to do is "moral." For example, they would say to you it's moral to feed the poor even though their plan for implementing this is predicated on the immoral act of mass theft. Even just as a prescription, it could not be classified as moral because it's an unchosen positive obligation.

 

Moral simply means the consistent application/observation of property rights. In consensual sex, I own myself and accept that my partner owns herself also. Whereas rape, while mechanically identical, is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Immoral means the self-contradictory, simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

I am not seeing the point of classifying behavior that is not immoral as moral, like lending you my kite.  it has something to do with the idea about there being the necessity for moral consideration (property rights), which you term as 'binding' - is that right?  So me flying the kite, which is not 'binding' on anyone else since it does not involve anyone else's property rights, is amoral.  as soon as my kite behavior involves an interaction with someone else and property rights (lending, selling) it becomes 'binding' and then is subject to moral consideration.  have I got that right?  

[ClearConscience]

Morality is not analogue. A behavior either violates property rights or it does not. "Less moral" is a meaningless phrase. Besides, in the scenario that is the topic of this thread, both tracks have people getting killed, which is the point of the exercise.

 

 

"Hard-nosed" is manipulative language. People who observe the effects of gravity or state that 2+2=4 are "hard-nosed," but this doesn't mean they are incorrect. Property rights is not a belief; It's an accurate description of the real world. If you are able to refute this, then do that as opposed to calling it dogmatic as if that's proof.

 

 

To say that inaction is immoral is to inflict an unchosen obligation upon somebody. This is in contrast to your claim that no force is present.

 

 

Doesn't this contradict your earlier claim of less moral? Whereas before, you were claiming that responsibility could be calculated, and that not being responsible is not possible since nobody can force anybody to choose a certain way, here you're claiming there is no responsibility.

 

If a person has unprincipled conclusions and doesn't accept the universality of self-ownership, then yes, their behaviors may be erratic when stress is introduced. We practice how we perform and we perform how we practice.

 

 

...where they are voluntarily created. Unchosen positive obligations are unethical.

 

 

If I ask to borrow your kite and you consent, for me to take and make use of your kite is binding upon you. Your consent makes this a moral behavior. Same as if I buy it off of you or trade you for it.

Morality is analogue. <--[This is an assertion]  You can do things that are immoral without violating property rights.  Emotional abuse doesn't violate property rights.  Emotional abuse is immoral. <--[This is justification of the assertion]  Could you please stop wasting my time with baseless assertions?  Thanks.

 

"Hard-nosed concept of property rights" is how I would describe the irrational conclusion that all of morality is exclusive to property rights.  I don't need to refute your idea of property rights = morality because you've never justified it... at all.  I can call it dogmatic and discard it, just like atheists do with religion.  There is no difference.

 

You are correct in saying that moral obligation is an unchosen obligation.  So what?  You can choose to be immoral, but you cannot choose what is moral and what is immoral.  That is objective.  I'm not sure I see your point here.  It certainly has nothing to do with the use of force.  You really should do some more reading before you espouse fallacious logic.  Maybe try to understand what I'm saying rather than immediately rejecting it simply because it challenges your previously held beliefs.

 

I never contradicted what I said before.  There is a moral gradient.  Also, I don't believe in punishing people for acting immorally under extremely stressful circumstances.  That's not a contradiction.  I find your language to be accusatory rather than explanatory.  Try to change that.  Stop trying to defend your previously held beliefs and instead try to explain how they are better than the moral theory that I'm putting forth.  Stop being combative.  Start being instructive.  Thanks.

 

How do you voluntarily create morality?  I don't think you even put forth 5 minutes to think about what you're saying, honestly.  Maybe you just don't know the definition of moral obligation.  It simply means that a person feels they must perform an action because it is prescribed for them by their set of values.  Now if we assume moral objectivism, we can say that an action is prescribed by an objective set of values that are unchosen... just like the laws of physics are unchosen.  Are the laws of physics immoral under your view?

[ClearConscience]

On my first point I guess I assumed what you were assuming. You dont mention there is the option of walking away. The reason I assumed this is because you seem to believe that people would rather choose to take the risk rather than walk away and take no risk. Your question states that you "must choose". If that is the case then you are being forced. You cant just will that part of the thought experiment away. That is a key part of what im trying to say. If I cant choose to not choose then I am being forced.

 

I dont agree with you that morality is anything more than binary. You are either immoral or not immoral. There is no such thing as more immoral. There is however more benifital or greater utility. But morality does not work on a sliding scale. I looked up the definition of morality for you and here is what I found: 

 

mo·ral·i·ty

məˈralədē/

noun

 

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

   synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

    

    

    

    

    

   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

     plural noun: moralities

     "a bourgeois morality"
   • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

     "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

 

As you can see no where do you see more right or more wrong ,Less right, more wrong, more good less good, more good , more bad ect. This is something that is well established in the world of ethics that morality is completely binary. It is possible to make a choice that gives you more utility than another choice but that doesn't make the choose more right because more right doesn't exist. Only more utility.

 

I felt like we were getting off topic when you brought up a different scenario ( although somewhat related) which is why I said you changed things. Something fails the morality test when you cant have the action done simultaneously by everyone. This is why rape murder and theft are considered immoral. It has nothing to do with whether everyone would rather rape steal or murder given the scenario you laid out. Even if everyone were to choose to do any of those things we would still consider them immoral. I really dont mean to come off as rude stuck up or a know it all but have you read UPB? This stuff is talked about extensively throughout the book. I cant imagine that after reading the book you would believe that UPB means what everyone would do if given the choice. That has nothing to do with UPB at all.

 

The scenario that I came up with was just something I came up with off the top of my head. The point of what I am trying to say is utility does not determine morality. In the example I gave I came up with the most harmless thing I could think of (poking someone) and I put that action up against something that would give you great utility (curing of a disease). You can replace whatever you want in those two categories but it doesn't really matter. The point is to illustrate that no matter how much you get from a particular action you cant violate someone's property rights and say your actions are not immoral. People in Africa rape virgins in the hope of curing aids. We obviously know that that wont work but given their level of knowledge they believe this will work. Do you believe their actions are not immoral due to lack of knowledge or do you believe their actions are immoral?

 

Your last point falling into the not an argument category. It adds nothing to the conversation and I'd rather you stick to arguments that move us foward.

 

Is this real?  Could Stefan please step in and talk to these people!  Because apparently rational thought can't get through to them. They need their celebrity to tell them what is true in order to accept it.  I want to talk to him... not these people!

 

Choosing to get up and walk away is a choice!  When I said that you must choose... THAT'S A CHOICE!  You either pull the lever or you walk away.  What other option is there?  To not pull the lever = walking away.  I'm face palming right now!  This is so simple.  It takes no thought whatsoever.  What is going on?!  I thought the youtube comment section was bad.  This is worse!

 

When you talk about choosing to take "the risk" what risk are you referring to?  The risk of pulling an arm muscle?  I seriously have no idea what is going on.  People are just rejecting what I'm saying on the basis of... "Property rights, the end".  What is this?

 

You may disagree with me on what I'm going to call a moral gradient, where things can be more good or less good, more bad or less bad, but you're wrong.  As you copy-pasted, morality is a SYSTEM OF VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCT.  You can value one thing more than another, right?  RIGHT?!  When you are trying different foods, it is possible to judge two foods to be good, but one to be better than the other right?  It's not that difficult to understand.  It's really not.  Try to understand it for half a second.  Think about it for 5 minutes.

 

I never brought up a different scenario!  I simply removed your irrational subjective bias.  That's what the original position is used for.  What I'm doing is philosophy.  What you're doing is forming opinions based in dogmatic beliefs and emotional reactions.  I changed nothing about the scenario.  If you can take your frame of mind away from your individual perspective, and be OBJECTIVE, then you will see that pulling the lever is the only objectively moral option.  The use of the original position is a tool to help you see it.  It is only a tool.  It is not changing the scenario AT ALL!

 

You claim that utility does not determine morality... PROVE IT! I happen to agree with you, but I seriously don't think you understand what a baseless assertion is... nobody here seems to understand that simply asserting something is true is pointless.

 

The last point that I made was an argument.  You don't even know what an argument is.

 

I will disagree with this proof, The 7 people might agree to pull the lever a priori to better their odds of survival.

once the roles are assigned only 6 people want the lever pulled. hence UPB time test no longer holds. also, At least one person

will not want the lever pulled, hence universality no longer holds.

 

You proof is not valid because you can't isolate a group "future possible lever operators" and conclude that since they all want to do X

it is UPB. with that line of reasoning won't all "future possible thief's" want to steal? making Stealing UPB.

You don't disagree with proofs.  The proof is either right or wrong, correct or incorrect.

 

You don't know what a prior means in philosophy, so stop using it.  We aren't talking about epistemology or justification for knowledge.  We are talking about morality.

 

That being said, if you mean to say that people's beliefs on whether to pull the lever change based on their subjective position within the experiment, then you are correct for most people... but most people are morally inept.  That's like saying racism is moral if you're white, but immoral if you're black... because white people benefit from racism whereas black people are harmed by racism.  If you're white, then you want racism to exist in the world.  If you're black, you don't want racism to exist in the world.

 

My position says that's retarded.  If you go to the original position, where nobody knows what race they will be once they leave the original position, then they will all choose for there to be no racism.  In this way, racism is universally unpreferable behavior... or simply the opposite of universally preferable behavior.  The original position is a tool to help you understand these moral issues, and it's utilized by virtual every shcolar alive today who is involved with constructing theories of justice.  You can disagree with it, but if you do, then you're wrong.

 

To your last point, I don't even know what you're saying.  I have never heard of a future possible thief.  I don't know what that means.  I have no clue what you're talking about.

[yagami]

Clearly you would like to hurl insults rather than have a debate with me. Clearly I made an assumption that was unfounded which was my mistake but you go off and insult me because of it instead of correcting me and putting forth your argument. As much as I was enjoying this debate I will not be continuing with someone like you. In the future try to leave the none arguments out of your post and keep the insults to yourself. 

[dsayers]

You are correct in saying that moral obligation is an unchosen obligation.

 

That is not what I said.

[ClearConscience]

Clearly you would like to hurl insults rather than have a debate with me. Clearly I made an assumption that was unfounded which was my mistake but you go off and insult me because of it instead of correcting me and putting forth your argument. As much as I was enjoying this debate I will not be continuing with someone like you. In the future try to leave the none arguments out of your post and keep the insults to yourself. 

I was frustrated.  What you read as insults were an emotional reaction by me.

 

That is not what I said.

 

I said inaction was immoral because the lever-operator has a moral obligation to pull it.  

 

You responded saying, "To say that inaction is immoral is to inflict an unchosen obligation upon somebody."

 

What did I miss then?  Help me understand your position and how it shows that my position is misguided.

[ClearConscience]

I'd like to introduce a new thought experiment, if that's okay.

Suppose there are 5 sick men who each need a distinct vital organ transplant in order to live.  Is it immoral for a doctor to take an innocent man off the street, against his will, remove five of his vital organs, transplant each one into the respective sick man, thus trading one life for five?

[dsayers]

Is it immoral... against his will

[ClearConscience]

 

Is it immoral... against his will

 

Therefore, prison is immoral.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'd like to introduce a new thought experiment, if that's okay.

 

Suppose there are 5 sick men who each need a distinct vital organ transplant in order to live.  Is it immoral for a doctor to take an innocent man off the street, against his will, remove five of his vital organs, transplant each one into the respective sick man, thus trading one life for five?

 

I'm not sure why I'm replying. I feel like I've avoided this thread on purpose for the past month. I'd like to go over two points.

 

1) What this theoretical circumstance doesn't address is why the five men are sick in the first place. As we know, up to 95% of diseases are self-inflicted by lifestyle choices. For example, you get cancer because you eat too many carbohydrates, just like you get fat because you eat too many carbohydrates. The research behind this has been demonstrated since the 1950s and 60s. Likewise, smoking is a risk factor for heart attacks, cancer, and pulmonary disease, which has been known since the 1960s. If these five sick people are essentially killing themselves slowly since the odds are that the illness is self-inflicted, why would we want to save them with the organs of healthy people, seeing that the healthful probably don't want to give up their organs willingly?

 

2) I am aware that this is often used as a model for a classroom discussion on utilitarianism, but it has no real world application outside the current statist paradigm. The reason for this is that it is illegal to sell organs on the open market. This creates a shortage of organs behind bureaucratic red tape, which would tend to cause the theoretical problem that is attempting to be solved in your post. How do we decide who needs the organs the most desperately without a price mechanism?

 

If you cut out the registered donor process, and allow people to sell their kidneys, you immediately fix the kidney shortage so there is no recipient waiting line or at least not a very long line. Also, if people are consciously aware of how much an organ replacement procedure will cost, perhaps they will use that information to weigh their own personal choices which will lower the incidence of self-inflicted disease. In this culture of Daddy Obama Cares for you, people have no incentive to change their lifestyle to be more healthy because everyone else will pay for it. This is what we call moral hazard.

[powder]

Therefore, prison is immoral.

 

yes it is immoral to harvest the organs of the healthy man against his will.  

 

not sure I understand your point here.  prison is immoral because it is against the wishes of the criminal being imprisoned?  It is against the will of the rapist for the person being assaulted to fight back.  

[J. D. Stembal]

Prison isn't voluntary, just as arbitrary organ harvesting isn't voluntary, so he is technically correct that prison is immoral. Who knows how he came to this conclusion?

[ClearConscience]

1) What this theoretical circumstance doesn't address is why the five men are sick in the first place. As we know, up to 95% of diseases are self-inflicted by lifestyle choices. For example, you get cancer because you eat too many carbohydrates, just like you get fat because you eat too many carbohydrates. The research behind this has been demonstrated since the 1950s and 60s. Likewise, smoking is a risk factor for heart attacks, cancer, and pulmonary disease, which has been known since the 1960s. If these five sick people are essentially killing themselves slowly since the odds are that the illness is self-inflicted, why would we want to save them with the organs of healthy people, seeing that the healthful probably don't want to give up their organs willingly?

Assume they are sick because of bad luck.  Believe it or not, and I do mean this... you may not believe me... but why they are sick doesn't matter.  Suppose that each man had a birth defect that made each respective organ weaker and thus needing the transplant.  If it helps, suppose the men needing transplants are actually 5 year-old children... because like I said, it actually doesn't matter.

 

2) I am aware that this is often used as a model for a classroom discussion on utilitarianism, but it has no real world application outside the current statist paradigm. The reason for this is that it is illegal to sell organs on the open market. This creates a shortage of organs behind bureaucratic red tape, which would tend to cause the theoretical problem that is attempting to be solved in your post. How do we decide who needs the organs the most desperately without a price mechanism?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the current statist paradigm."  The reason why it matters is because, if you can't rationally justify the idea that allowing five innocent children to die for the sake of one innocent man is moral, then there are all kinds of rights violations that are justified... including taxation.  That's just one of many.

 

If you cut out the registered donor process, and allow people to sell their kidneys, you immediately fix the kidney shortage so there is no recipient waiting line or at least not a very long line. Also, if people are consciously aware of how much an organ replacement procedure will cost, perhaps they will use that information to weigh their own personal choices which will lower the incidence of self-inflicted disease. In this culture of Daddy Obama Cares for you, people have no incentive to change their lifestyle to be more healthy because everyone else will pay for it. This is what we call moral hazard.

Suppose nobody is willing to donate.  Make that assumption now.

 

yes it is immoral to harvest the organs of the healthy man against his will.  

 

not sure I understand your point here.  prison is immoral because it is against the wishes of the criminal being imprisoned?  It is against the will of the rapist for the person being assaulted to fight back.  

That was the point.  It is not always immoral to force something upon another person unwillingly.  You can't simply say, "because it is against another person's will, it is immoral."  That is flawed.

 

Simply asserting that it is immoral to harvest the organs of a healthy man against his will is immoral is not an argument.

 

It is immoral not to harvest an innocent man's organs for the sake of five innocent men.  See, I can baselessly assert things too... and my baseless assertion at least falls on the moral side of accounting.  5>1

 

Prison isn't voluntary, just as arbitrary organ harvesting isn't voluntary, so he is technically correct that prison is immoral. Who knows how he came to this conclusion?

So according to your moral theory, locking up predatory psychopaths is immoral?  I don't know about you, but that sounds like a flawed moral theory.

[Libertus]

What you're asking is this:

 

Imagine a scenario, where all moral choice is removed from a situation. No matter what you do, any possible course of action is goind to be immoral. I'll provide no further details, and if you add any nuance or detail yourself, I'll change or amend the scenario so you can't possibly find an escape and I don't care how unlikely or even impossible such a situation is. Now tell me what your perfect moral choice would be in this given scenario.

Do you see a problem with this approach?

[ClearConscience]

What you're asking is this:

 

Imagine a scenario, where all moral choice is removed from a situation. No matter what you do, any possible course of action is goind to be immoral. I'll provide no further details, and if you add any nuance or detail yourself, I'll change or amend the scenario so you can't possibly find an escape and I don't care how unlikely or even impossible such a situation is. Now tell me what your perfect moral choice would be in this given scenario.

 

Do you see a problem with this approach?

You might be on to something, but apparently you said you aren't going to provide further detail, which simply means you are going to make an assertion and not provide any justification for it.  That's useless.

 

Here's another example that might be more closely related to the trolley problem.  Suppose all of the facts of the original trolley problem hold true, except there is a third track and an eighth person who is tied to the third track.  So now, the trolley is heading toward a three way split where it will either collide with five people, or if you hit the switch, one person, or if you hit the switch again, a different single person.

 

My justification for hitting the switch once still holds, but now the lever-operator is subjected to a choice between which one of two people will be allowed to die for the sake of the others.   This thought experiment tests the same moral principle of the previous experiment I suggested.

 

You, being the lever operator, have to make a choice.  To leave the situation is a choice... but leaving may be immoral.

[Ken Cotton]

You could always just close your eyes, spin around a few times, and hit one randomly. That seems like the fairest thing to do, in terms of abdicating the responsibility of informed decision making.

[Libertus]

Again, there's no moral choice left, so it's not a moral question anymore. He can't choose to not kill. It becomes a numbers game really quick, it's damage control and has nothing to do with morals.

[MysterionMuffles]

oh just let this thread die already 

[shirgall]

[shirgall]

Of course the reddit thread where I got the picture is downvoting my disdain for lifeboat problems.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2nl51n/an_ethical_dilemma/

[Leevan]

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. 

I don't see why the scenerio is an ethical problem. If you didn't exist, they all would die. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you decide. It's your choice.

[june]

Of course the reddit thread where I got the picture is downvoting my disdain for lifeboat problems.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2nl51n/an_ethical_dilemma/

maybe they are downvoting your arguments for your disdain of lifeboat problems?

 

for instance, where is the logic in claiming universal moral rules - which means rules that apply to all scenarios, contexts and times - and then refusing to entertain moral scenarios which fit under universality?

 

it's actually those who claim universality that are giving an answer to all lifeboat problems, before the lifeboat problems are asked. that's what universality means - that the claim applies to all scenarios and contexts. so i find it problematic for someone to claim universality and then shirk at the idea of defending their position

 

[Zerubbabel]

At one time in human development the question was very real. The question of course is a metaphor for scapegoating or sacrificing the innocent for the good of the group. Rene Girard develops this extensively. First the binding of Isaac ended human sacrifice, substituting animal sacrifice. Then Christianity ritualized the great once-and-for-all scapegoat of the innocent messiah. The urge, or thought, to sacrifice an innocent was satiated through ritual, supposedly. The principle of the value of the innocent -or the wrongness of the death of the innocent- became "prime."

 

Then we regressed to our new ideology of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" and the question becomes real again. Today principles, if used at all, have become merely ad hoc tools to achieve supposedly more happy ends. In subservience to this formula the statist justifies all sorts of injustices to the innocent in the name of the happiness of the greater number. Think of all the dissidents that got put on trains to the Gulags. THAT is a more relevant question than the trolley question ... that a few dissidents should die so that the many could live in the happy bliss of communism.

 

Here I would jump to Stef's championing of principled means over more-perfect ends in his Disappointment with the World.  In this I think Stef is reacting to our disappointment with our new utilitarian ideology which rejects principled means in favor of perfectly happy ends (utopianism)    

 

The trolley question becomes a paradox only as a consequence of accepting "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" as an unquestioned premise. Reject the premise. Join Stef as a Passionate Preacher of Principle, and the question becomes simple. I accept principled means, that ethical action is guided by principles and not anticipated ends.  I follow the principles without thought of what might happen as a result. In fact: Fiat justitia ruat caelum (Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.) I'm sorry that 5 are going to die in a horrible accident but I'm not going to sacrifice an innocent person. Let the utilitarian statists look deeply into the eyes of the fat man before they push him in front of the train. Then the answer to their ethical question will be etched in their own psyche. IMHO

 

.

 

. 

[shirgall]

maybe they are downvoting your arguments for your disdain of lifeboat problems?

 

for instance, where is the logic in claiming universal moral rules - which means rules that apply to all scenarios, contexts and times - and then refusing to entertain moral scenarios which fit under universality?

 

it's actually those who claim universality that are giving an answer to all lifeboat problems, before the lifeboat problems are asked. that's what universality means - that the claim applies to all scenarios and contexts. so i find it problematic for someone to claim universality and then shirk at the idea of defending their position

 

Because the arguments are designed to break universality, and you spend all of your time deconstructing that. The lifeboat problems are meant to limit your ability to react with all of the options normally under your command, to the point of them becoming ludicrous. If you act a person will die, but if you don't act more will die. There are no other choices. Is this realistic?

 

I do answer the problems with universal rules, but in the Short Attention-Span Theater of the Internet, and the very real possibility that I'll die of old age before changing someone's mind make it kinda fruitless.

[june]

Because the arguments are designed to break universality

"test" is a better word, in my opinion. they are designed to put a proposed claim to test, to see if it stands up to inspection

 

If you act a person will die, but if you don't act more will die. There are no other choices. Is this realistic?

is it realistic? arguably not. does it fit under universality (all scenarios, contexts and time)? yes, it does.

[shirgall]

"test" is a better word, in my opinion. they are designed to put a proposed claim to test, to see if it stands up to inspection

 

is it realistic? arguably not. does it fit under universality (all scenarios, contexts and time)? yes, it does.

 

And, I've answered it. It's not moral to act to kill the innocent. However, you are not compelled to act to prevent the death of the innocent, but you might be considered to be scum. End of scenario. Somehow when confronted with the trolley problem this is never enough.

[june]

And, I've answered it. It's not moral to act to kill the innocent. However, you are not compelled to act to prevent the death of the innocent, but you might be considered to be scum. End of scenario. 

i know you have already answered it. i said in my previous post that those who claim universality are answering all pertaining scenarios that can be, which means you have already answered every lifeboat scenario that can be proposed, before they have been asked.

 

people who ask lifeboat scenarios to universalists dont realise this and so tend to form their lifeboat scenarios in questions, which, obviously, does not make much sense when the person has already given an answer. like, if someone states their belief that "killing a human is wrong, universally, no matter what" it would be redundant to then ask "so is killing wrong in situation X ?"

 

 

 

Somehow when confronted with the trolley problem this is never enough.

yeah, thats probably because they disagree with the result of your universal answer. for instance, when you state: "You are not compelled to act to prevent the death of the innocent," some people would think it is wrong for a person to not save an innocent life when all that person needs to do is, say, lift their arm, or push a button - something of extreme minutiae. this is a fundamental disagreement though and it requires more conversing and inspection of underlying issues. i dont want to get into that though, so its good enough for me right now  

[J-William]

 

Since this thread is somehow still going, have another comic!