Stefan, answer the trolley problem

[yagami]

I think the discussion has moved a little away from the original question. In the case of the trolley problem there is no force involved at all here (unless you want to add a magical force that compels you to make a choice). If there is no force then walking away from the situation is not immoral at all. That's like saying it's immoral to not pay for a poor persons healthcare. If you are forced to make a choice through some magical force then you cant be held up as immoral because there was no choice involved.

 

No offense but I can now see why Stephan doesn't answer this question anymore. I did enjoy talking about this topic but I cant imagine having to go through this every time a new person wants clarification. Especially when it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. As long as we focus on what is going to have the greatest impact on society that we can do the most about problems like this will be the absolute least of our problems.

[MysterionMuffles]

It's so abstract up the ass that it doesn't benefit the world in any way to solve it, let alone try to...

 

It's another lifeboat scenario that is unlikely to happen and has no real bearing on reality or ethics in any empirical realm. 

 

Kill five people or one? Then to complicate it further, you can also add characteristics to the potential train track splatter...it's just the ultimate leading question. Who would you rather kill? Well there's your problem: youre killing no matter what, therefore evil no matter what you do.

 

These kinds of questions are easy to construct just to distract people from more tangible moral questions. For instance, here's my own trolley problem.

 

You are Spiderman and Dr. Octopus, with his tentacles, is holding two train carts: in one pair of tentacles, a car contains 10 people, while the other pair of tentacles holds a car containing Mary Jane. Dr. Octopus, from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge, drops these two train cars into the river below, and after a long epic battle with him, you only have strength enough to sweep in and catch one of the carts from falling into the freezing river. Hell, let's put it this way: you're the Spiderman who requires web cartridges instead of the one who has infinite web that actually comes from his wrist. Since you're out of web cartridges, you can't easily physically catch one car and then create a web to catch the other free falling car. All you have left is enough strength to go underneath one and catch with your super human strength before plumetting to a freezing death.

 

Who do you save? Mary Jane, the love of your life OR do you save the cart of 10 civilians? Let's say these 10 civilians are just your average Joe, who would contribute nothing to the world. Easy choice, go for someone who actually matters to you. However, what if those 10 civilians are potential inventors of incredible technology or medical advances? Now you have a dilemma don't you? You don't want to let these future doctors/inventors or the 2nd coming of Christ to die because you were too selfish as to save one person who's insignificant to the world, but very much so significant in your immediate world, now do you?

 

If you were Spiderman, who would you guys save?!

scn: why is this question so important to you?

[Culain]

When people give me these lifeboat scenarios that have no use, I try and offer suggestions of lifeboat scenarios that many of us experience on a regular basis.

 

"You're at a large and important family dinner and you share different religious beliefs than the rest of your family, assuming your family is devoutly religious and you are not (or believe differently) and they ask you to perform a ritual such as prayer that you do not support, will you perform the ritual to conform and appease them or will you refuse?"

 

Questions like this are truly lifeboat for us, for often we feel extreme terror at the thought of not conforming. I'd rather offer these types of question to people as because it's something they'll likely face in their life and these actually do work as mental preparation. If people choose a conforming type of choice I can tell that they do not feel respected by their peers and then we can talk about that lack of respect. If they choose the non-conforming option I ask them if they've tried it before and the results of that decision, did it strike hostility or did the family give a mutual level of respect back?

[shirgall]

"You're at a large and important family dinner and you share different religious beliefs than the rest of your family, assuming your family is devoutly religious and you are not (or believe differently) and they ask you to perform a ritual such as prayer that you do not support, will you perform the ritual to conform and appease them or will you refuse?"

 

 

Response: "I've talked with each of you about how religion poisons everything, and now you are using it to disturb what could be an enjoyable pleasant dinner conversation. Please don't. You know how I feel about this."

[Justin]

Morality requires a free choice. In this scenario, there is no free choice. Someone is definitely going to die, whether it be one or 5, as are the typical numbers mentioned. Therefore, you can choose to minimize the destruction from a utilitarian perspective, but since utilitarianism is not necessarily a valid moral viewpoint (it's subjective as to what is actually a better outcome for a situation, society, etc.) then the question is not really one of morality but rather aesthetics.

 

The question of morality would be the same if a shooter said to you, "I'll give you the choice. If you say nothing, I'll shoot 5 people. If you say 'don't shoot anyone,' I'll just kill your friend, who isn't a part of the original 5." In this other scenario, the choice isn't really yours either. Someone is going to die anyway. Morally speaking, your choice is arbitrary--it's not up to you whether anyone dies. The only thing you can attempt to do is lead the outcome to something you subjectively prefer.

 

The only difference between the shooter scenario and the trolley scenario is that there is a moral actor who we can pin all of the blame on in the shooter scenario--and it's also much more obvious that no one would blame you for either choice. There is no moral actor we can pin the blame on in the trolley scenario. This erroneously leads people to believe that this is a moral dilemma, whereby when you put a person actor as the cause of the tragedy and not random happenstance, the moral agency clearly falls on that actor.

 

Therefore, this is not a moral dilemma. Like others of have said, this is mental masturbation to get us to stop talking about real morality when we should be talking about things we actually have control over.

[Culain]

Don't forget that in the trolly scenario 'Someone tied those people to the tracks.'

[Gavitor]

Oh boy what a fun topic...

 

I'll answer your question.

 

I use my psychic powers to save everyone from dying.

 

Or if you prefer god intervenes striking everyone involved with lightning.

 

Regardless of the answer one thing will always be the same.

 

Time has been wasted.

[Sal9000]

These kinds of questions are easy to construct just to distract people from more tangible moral questions. For instance, here's my own trolley problem.

 

 

Let me counter that with:

 

 

The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

[yagami]

Let me counter that with: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

The key word in your "counter" is "should". No one here is trying to tell people what to do. It's just a matter of perspective. If your goal is the world a better place then in my opinion it would be more efficient to solve other more impactful problems. If you find this problem worth solving go for it. But as I explained in a previous post this is actually an unsolvable problem.

[JamesP]

I think the claim is considerably stronger than "there are more important problems in the world."

 

At least, the claim I put forward is that this scenario just doesn't happen! Or, in the cases where you might have to choose between killing the workers and killing some poor slob who wandered onto the tracks, it's a question of practical safety measures you put in place *before* it ever happens to avoid anyone having to be placed into such a terrible situation.

 

In short, it's not a moral question. It's not that there are more important questions of morality to consider, it's that it does not even fall into the same category, so please stop treating it like it is.

[shirgall]

Let me counter that with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

 

This is an example of The Fallacy Fallacy, which is presuming a claim is wrong because a fallacy was used to support it.

 

The claim is "There are more important problems to spend our limited time on." Just because this is the Fallacy of Relative Privation doesn't mean it is not true.

 

Sorry you got downvoted, Sal9000.

[Sal9000]

Moral dilemmas (Trilemmas, Polyleammas) are not meant to be solved. They are used in class or elsewhere to test theories and to see if you understood a moral theory. They are like the Kobayashi Maru test (before Kirk cheated). It is not about the right answer (there is none) but how you argue. Kohlberg made use of them, when he proposed his theory on how moral levels develop. 

Sorry you got downvoted, Sal9000.

 

No problem.

[JamesP]

Moral dilemmas (Trilemmas, Polyleammas) are not meant to be solved. They are used in class or elsewhere to test theories and to see if you understood a moral theory. They are like the Kobayashi Maru test (before Kirk cheated). It is not about the right answer (there is none) but how you argue. Kohlberg made use of them, when he proposed his theory on how moral levels develop.

 

Ah, see, there's the problem. This is not a philosophy class.

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

Saw this picture, reminded me of this thread, decided to post it here:

[Jer]

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.

You'd be better off spending your time debating how to win the lottery because it's a lot more likely and definitely more fun

[TheAuger]

The "answer" to the trolley problem may be "I don't know the 'correct' choice" or "how could you know the correct choice" (without more specific information [e.g. Is your daughter one of the people tied up on one particular track?]). Nebulous questions tend to get nebulous answers.

 

As I understand it, the real question is "by what criteria/ethical principles would you decide to pull/not pull that lever?". But without more situational information, during a real or supposed event, how could you possibly chose?

 

Isn't it a bit invidious to require or demand a specific answer to such a nebulous hypothetical question?

[Bel Rick]

The answer that there is a right choice in the trolley question is what makes it's valid question supporters so stupid and retarded.

Clearly there is no right choice.

Mostly because as anyone will tell you, the person pulling the lever does not know the people they would save, Hitler's or Samaritans?
Were the 5 people tied up seeking to murder all life on earth and the other single person trying to save it?
Was the single person dying of cancer?

Claiming that there exists in this scenario a right answer/choice is extremely arrogant therefor, retarded.

[yagami]

The answer that there is a right choice in the trolley question is what makes it's valid question supporters so stupid and retarded.

 

Clearly there is no right choice.

 

Mostly because as anyone will tell you, the person pulling the lever does not know the people they would save, Hitler's or Samaritans?

Were the 5 people tied up seeking to murder all life on earth and the other single person trying to save it?

Was the single person dying of cancer?

 

Claiming that there exists in this scenario a right answer/choice is extremely arrogant therefor, retarded.

I disagree. The reason this is an invalid question is because the "correct choice" would mean one of your choices is moral and the other is immoral. It would be no more moral to kill the person with cancer than it would be to kill a healthy person. The argument could be made that killing the 5 people who were planing to kill everyone is doing so in self defense but that really isn't the issue. The question really is centered around is it better to kill one group of people not violating the NAP or another group of people not violating NAP.

 

At the same time as someone rightly pointed out above someone tied these people to the train tracks so they are to blame in the end. Walking away isn't immoral because that would be the equivalent of me saying not paying for your life saving surgery is immoral. So since there are no immoral choices there are no correct answers.

 

Another reason this question is invalid is because there is no such thing as positive morality. There is no such thing as something that is moral. There are only things that are immoral and things that are not immoral. So when the question ask what is the correct choice the question automatically thrust itself into utilitarianism. This just means which choice gives you the most utility. We can say choice A and choice B are both not immoral to chose but we cant take that giant leap to saying one choice is moral and the other isn't.

 

One last thing please dont call people retarded or stupid here. Maybe to an experience philosopher this stuff is very clear but many people are just curious. Your strong words were just a little off putting to me.

[MysterionMuffles]

^solved!

[powder]

well done Yagami!

[growler76]

I've been following this thread over the past month, and I just want to say that while agree that this was something Stef should probably not waste his time with, I'm very grateful for everyone that has participated in this discussion.  While some may think it's not a worthwhile exercise, I've found it to be very helpful to me as far as how to approach such questions.

 

Also, if this comes up again, now we can just link to this thread. 

[ClearConscience]

Although I don't know for sure whether Stefan would agree with this response, I do think it fits his moral framework as far as I understand it.  I will also note that it is my own personal answer to the Troll Problem, so any criticism of my response can be levied directly at me if you feel compelled.

Essentially, you are put in a position where you can either choose to watch helplessly as five people are run over by a train and killed, or you can choose to watch helplessly as one person is run over by a train and killed.  That is your position.  So which do you choose?

Since we are denied all information about the quality of persons being executed, this is fundamentally a math problem.  Five people dying is worse than one person dying.  Because of this, you pull the lever and helplessly observe one person being run over by a train instead of helplessly watching such horrible things happen to five people.

That being said, at no point can you consider the lever-puller to be morally responsible for the death of the one person, or through lack of action, the death of five people.  Whoever is responsible for placing you, and the victims, in that situation is morally responsible for their fates.

I mention this because it could be argued that NAP and UPB would yield a response where you cannot pull the lever, because then you are responsible for the death of one person, whereas by doing nothing, you remove yourself from all responsibility entirely.  I disagree with this view; not the argument itself, but the idea that the combination of the NAP and UPB create a complete, tenable, moral framework.

The NAP and UPB, as I understand them, make no comment on moral obligation.  As a moral agent, I believe you are required, when all knowledge of quality and individual liberty are held constant, i.e. all of the people on the tracks are there against their will and none of them are mass murderers or the most righteous people ever (it's totally unknown), that you are required to make a decision of accounting.

To demonstrate this point even further, suppose the train was heading toward five people on a track, and a lever would divert the train to a track that had zero people.  Essentially, you could save five people's lives at no cost.  According to UPB and the NAP, by letting the train plow into the helpless, innocent people, you have done nothing wrong.  I disagree, because I believe there was a more virtuous, a more righteous, action that was open to you, that you refused.   Although inaction may not be vial or evil, it isn't the most righteous action, which makes it the incorrect action.

 

I disagree. The reason this is an invalid question is because the "correct choice" would mean one of your choices is moral and the other is immoral. It would be no more moral to kill the person with cancer than it would be to kill a healthy person. The argument could be made that killing the 5 people who were planing to kill everyone is doing so in self defense but that really isn't the issue. The question really is centered around is it better to kill one group of people not violating the NAP or another group of people not violating NAP.

 

At the same time as someone rightly pointed out above someone tied these people to the train tracks so they are to blame in the end. Walking away isn't immoral because that would be the equivalent of me saying not paying for your life saving surgery is immoral. So since there are no immoral choices there are no correct answers.

 

Another reason this question is invalid is because there is no such thing as positive morality. There is no such thing as something that is moral. There are only things that are immoral and things that are not immoral. So when the question ask what is the correct choice the question automatically thrust itself into utilitarianism. This just means which choice gives you the most utility. We can say choice A and choice B are both not immoral to chose but we cant take that giant leap to saying one choice is moral and the other isn't.

 

One last thing please dont call people retarded or stupid here. Maybe to an experience philosopher this stuff is very clear but many people are just curious. Your strong words were just a little off putting to me.

 

I completely disagree with what is written here. You may think that Yagami solved the question, but his answer would be to your own, and his own, detriment if you actually applied his solution to your life.  Allow me to demonstrate.

 

Suppose we approached the problem from a Rawlsian original position, behind a veil of ignorance.  This will force you to choose principles impartially and rationally.  

There are 7 agents involved.

 

#1-#5) tied to the left track

#6) tied to the right track, and

#7) who is positioned at the lever.

 

Now suppose you and 6 other people, selected at random (likely total strangers), are in a room and presented this problem.  You are told that each of you will be placed in one of the respective roles, at random, but you must choose what action the lever operator will take now, rather than once the roles are officially confirmed.

 

That means nobody in the room knows what position they will have in this scenario, however they must define what the lever opporator will do prior to acquiring knowledge of their own personal position.  In this regard, we are asking what the UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR is of the lever operator.

 

The correct answer for every individual involved in this experiment is to vote that the lever operator should pull the lever.  If you think the lever operator shouldn't pull the lever, then your chances of survival, prior to the experiment being executed, is 2 out of 7.  However, if you think the lever operator should pull the lever, then your chances of survival, prior to the experiment being executed, increases to 6 out of 7.  It is a FACT that the universally preferable behavior, behind a veil of ignorance, is to pull the lever.

So at the end of the day, the moral and rational thing to do is to pull the lever, and everybody would agree in a Rawlsian original position.  To not pull the lever is an irrational decision based in fear of false accusations of moral blame.  Pulling the lever does not make you responsible for the death of anyone.

[wdiaz03]

I disagree. The reason this is an invalid question is because the "correct choice" would mean one of your choices is moral and the other is immoral.

 

Following your argument can't I replace "moral" with "non-immoral" and make this a valid question?

 

 

...The question really is centered around is it better to kill one group of people not violating the NAP or another group of people not violating NAP.

...

 

I don't think this is the case. The question seems to be "should you do nothing, and let x die, or do something and KILL y" with different variants of the problem to make the killing y more direct or indirect.

 

...

At the same time as someone rightly pointed out above someone tied these people to the train tracks so they are to blame in the end. Walking away isn't immoral because that would be the equivalent of me saying not paying for your life saving surgery is immoral. So since there are no immoral choices there are no correct answers.

...

 

For these reasons there are variations where the people happen to be walking on the tracks.

 

...

So when the question ask what is the correct choice the question automatically thrust itself into utilitarianism. This just means which choice gives you the most utility. We can say choice A and choice B are both not immoral to chose but we cant take that giant leap to saying one choice is moral and the other isn't.

 

Why automatically? When doing nothing is consistent with NAP theory as Walter Block pointed out. If one is to follow this principle then all the variants can be solved constantly. This problem is meant to test people principles and as you pointed out it revolves around making people fall into an utilitarian trap but one is not forced to.

 

...

-One last thing please dont call people retarded or stupid here. Maybe to an experience philosopher this stuff is very clear but many people are just curious. Your strong words were just a little off putting to me.

 

I completely agree with this point. Many people in this threat have jumped in with their views of "This is a waste of time" "This is impossible" "Stefan said that this is a diversion from bigger issues"...etc. Maybe so.

But why not just state that view to the people involved here and move on and ignore the thread? why the strong views and attacks?

Let the OP "waste his time" after you have politely pointed it out to him.

Hasn't Stefan also said that one must do what they think is best until convinced otherwise? "Go help Ron Paul..." "Go talk to your parents..." etc. I say let him and the others involved here find closure and I invite the other to explore why they have felt such a strong aversion to this issue.

[yagami]

 

Although I don't know for sure whether Stefan would agree with this response, I do think it fits his moral framework as far as I understand it.  I will also note that it is my own personal answer to the Troll Problem, so any criticism of my response can be levied directly at me if you feel compelled.

 

Essentially, you are put in a position where you can either choose to watch helplessly as five people are run over by a train and killed, or you can choose to watch helplessly as one person is run over by a train and killed.  That is your position.  So which do you choose?

 

Since we are denied all information about the quality of persons being executed, this is fundamentally a math problem.  Five people dying is worse than one person dying.  Because of this, you pull the lever and helplessly observe one person being run over by a train instead of helplessly watching such horrible things happen to five people.

 

That being said, at no point can you consider the lever-puller to be morally responsible for the death of the one person, or through lack of action, the death of five people.  Whoever is responsible for placing you, and the victims, in that situation is morally responsible for their fates.

 

I mention this because it could be argued that NAP and UPB would yield a response where you cannot pull the lever, because then you are responsible for the death of one person, whereas by doing nothing, you remove yourself from all responsibility entirely.  I disagree with this view; not the argument itself, but the idea that the combination of the NAP and UPB create a complete, tenable, moral framework.

 

The NAP and UPB, as I understand them, make no comment on moral obligation.  As a moral agent, I believe you are required, when all knowledge of quality and individual liberty are held constant, i.e. all of the people on the tracks are there against their will and none of them are mass murderers or the most righteous people ever (it's totally unknown), that you are required to make a decision of accounting.

 

To demonstrate this point even further, suppose the train was heading toward five people on a track, and a lever would divert the train to a track that had zero people.  Essentially, you could save five people's lives at no cost.  According to UPB and the NAP, by letting the train plow into the helpless, innocent people, you have done nothing wrong.  I disagree, because I believe there was a more virtuous, a more righteous, action that was open to you, that you refused.   Although inaction may not be vial or evil, it isn't the most righteous action, which makes it the incorrect action.

 

 

I completely disagree with what is written here. You may think that Yagami solved the question, but his answer would be to your own, and his own, detriment if you actually applied his solution to your life.  Allow me to demonstrate.

 

Suppose we approached the problem from a Rawlsian original position, behind a veil of ignorance.  This will force you to choose principles impartially and rationally.  

 

There are 7 agents involved.

 

#1-#5) tied to the left track

#6) tied to the right track, and

#7) who is positioned at the lever.

 

Now suppose you and 6 other people, selected at random (likely total strangers), are in a room and presented this problem.  You are told that each of you will be placed in one of the respective roles, at random, but you must choose what action the lever operator will take now, rather than once the roles are officially confirmed.

 

That means nobody in the room knows what position they will have in this scenario, however they must define what the lever opporator will do prior to acquiring knowledge of their own personal position.  In this regard, we are asking what the UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR is of the lever operator.

 

The correct answer for every individual involved in this experiment is to vote that the lever operator should pull the lever.  If you think the lever operator shouldn't pull the lever, then your chances of survival, prior to the experiment being executed, is 2 out of 7.  However, if you think the lever operator should pull the lever, then your chances of survival, prior to the experiment being executed, increases to 6 out of 7.  It is a FACT that the universally preferable behavior, behind a veil of ignorance, is to pull the lever.

 

So at the end of the day, the moral and rational thing to do is to pull the lever, and everybody would agree in a Rawlsian original position.  To not pull the lever is an irrational decision based in fear of false accusations of moral blame.  Pulling the lever does not make you responsible for the death of anyone.

 

I disgree on a few of grounds. For starters you are assuming that you are forced to make a choice. If you are forced to make a choice then morality doesn't apply. What I said earlier is that you can choose to walk away. This is the equivalent of not paying for life saving medicine.

 

There is also no such thing as a moral choice. There is immoral and not immoral. There is no positive morality. That being said I think we both can agree that there is no immoral choice here. So the only thing we are left with is a not immoral choice. Not immoral choices can be the more rational choice, the more irrational choice or just a random choice. But you certainly cant make that leap in logic as you did and say that one choice is moral. You are trying to equate morality with rationality. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

You also take the situation and completely change what is happening. If I had the choice to cure myself of a life threatening illness and all I had to do is poke you gently in the shoulder I would probably do it. But if you dont want to be poked then I am doing something immoral. You cant then say well if the shoe was on the other foot everyone in the world would do the same thing therefor it is universally preferable and immoral. The only thing you can assume from this example you gave is that every single person is willing to take a chance that they aren't the one that is going to die. You cant make the leap and say everyone is willing to kill or be killed.

 

This would only be the case if you say that everyone is a willing participant. If they have no choice but to choose then the person forcing them is to blame and the participant is not committing an immoral action.

[wdiaz03]

 

....

So at the end of the day, the moral and rational thing to do is to pull the lever, and everybody would agree in a Rawlsian original position.  To not pull the lever is an irrational decision based in fear of false accusations of moral blame.  Pulling the lever does not make you responsible for the death of anyone.

 

 

I would invite you to look into Walter's Block paper posted earlier.

 

The fact that all will choose to pull the lever to maximize their chances does not make it moral. The question is should there be consequences for pulling the lever afterwards. If one is dying of thirst most people if not all will choose to steal a bottle of water. But the question is should they be held accountable afterwards. I would choose to steal the water and survive and take my chances in court. So in your example all will choose to pull the lever but the person pulling it should be held responsible.

[yagami]

Following your argument can't I replace "moral" with "non-immoral" and make this a valid question?

 

You will have to give me a specific quote. But I do believe you can replace not immoral with moral in most if not all cases. Im not so experienced and bold as to make that universal statement. But at the same time I cant really think of any situation where it wouldn't apply.

 

I don't think this is the case. The question seems to be "should you do nothing, and let x die, or do something and KILL y" with different variants of the problem to make the killing y more direct or indirect.

The only reason I mentioned this is because if you know that one person is planning on killing others or yourself then ensuring his death would certainly be acceptable. I just didn't want to argument to be muddied by a random X factor like that.

 

 

For these reasons there are variations where the people happen to be walking on the tracks.

I stand by my earlier assertion that you are not obligated to do anything given this variation.

Why automatically? When doing nothing is consistent with NAP theory as Walter Block pointed out. If one is to follow this principle then all the variants can be solved constantly. This problem is meant to test people principles and as you pointed out it revolves around making people fall into an utilitarian trap but one is not forced to.

I say automatically because the "correct choice" is really meant to mean moral choice. As I already pointed out there is no moral choice only not immoral and immoral. So I can decide to choose to do nothing in which case lets say group A dies. Or I can choose for group B to die. Im thinking about this problem more and I think I actually want to change my answer slightly. I dont think it is immoral walk away but at the same time I think it would be immoral to set actions in motion that would endanger a group of people that would otherwise not be harmed. To me this actually seems like a violation of NAP. What do you think?

[dsayers]

If a behavior is not binding upon another person, it is amoral (it lacks a moral component).

 

If a behavior IS binding upon another person and violates their property rights, it is an immoral behavior.

 

If a behavior is binding upon another person and does NOT violate their property rights, it is a moral behavior.

 

The conclusion that there is no such thing as a moral behavior is an irrational one. By that, I am referring to the fact that for any claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be NOT Y. To say that behaviors can be immoral is to denote that they have the capacity to be moral.

[wdiaz03]

... Im thinking about this problem more and I think I actually want to change my answer slightly. I dont think it is immoral walk away but at the same time I think it would be immoral to set actions in motion that would endanger a group of people that would otherwise not be harmed. To me this actually seems like a violation of NAP. What do you think?

 

I agree, To be consistent with NAP theory this would be the acceptable answer, As Block points out it would be immoral to pass on the "Bad luck" of the 5 people on the path of the train to the innocent person on the other track that otherwise would not be harmed. If one applies this principle consistently then regardless of the variations one would arrive at the same conclusion.

[ClearConscience]

I disgree on a few of grounds. For starters you are assuming that you are forced to make a choice. If you are forced to make a choice then morality doesn't apply. What I said earlier is that you can choose to walk away. This is the equivalent of not paying for life saving medicine.

 

There is also no such thing as a moral choice. There is immoral and not immoral. There is no positive morality. That being said I think we both can agree that there is no immoral choice here. So the only thing we are left with is a not immoral choice. Not immoral choices can be the more rational choice, the more irrational choice or just a random choice. But you certainly cant make that leap in logic as you did and say that one choice is moral. You are trying to equate morality with rationality. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

You also take the situation and completely change what is happening. If I had the choice to cure myself of a life threatening illness and all I had to do is poke you gently in the shoulder I would probably do it. But if you dont want to be poked then I am doing something immoral. You cant then say well if the shoe was on the other foot everyone in the world would do the same thing therefor it is universally preferable and immoral. The only thing you can assume from this example you gave is that every single person is willing to take a chance that they aren't the one that is going to die. You cant make the leap and say everyone is willing to kill or be killed.

 

This would only be the case if you say that everyone is a willing participant. If they have no choice but to choose then the person forcing them is to blame and the participant is not committing an immoral action.

I really don't understand your first point of contention at all.  Everything you do, or do not do, in life is a choice and nobody can ever force you to make one choice over another.  The only exception to this is, for instance, if somebody put you in a remote control robotic metal suit and was able to physically control your body, or conversely if somebody placed you in chains to restrain you from doing a particular action.  In the case of the lever operator, there are no restraints, there is no metal remote controlled suit.  There is only a person acting of his/her own free will.

 

Your second point is an unsupported assertion.  There is such a thing as a moral choice.  The example that I provided, where the lever operator had to choose whether to do nothing, which resulted in 5 deaths, or pull the lever that would divert to a track that was clear, resulting in zero deaths, easily demonstrates that the option of doing nothing is less moral than the option of saving 5 people's lives.  No, we can not both agree that there is no immoral choice.  I don't look at it as black and white as you do... There is a most correct choice, and then there is a less correct choice.  The less correct choice is to do nothing.

 

I absolutely did not change what was happening.  All I did was give people an objective reference frame of the situation.  That is not changing the situation.  Once the thought experiment begins, and everybody has their positions defined to them, what is the moral coarse of action?  By removing people from their subjective positions, the original position - behind the veil of ignorance, allows you to easily see the correct choice to make.  This whole talk of a life threatening illness is a red herring, but nonetheless, it is immoral for the person being poked refrain from allowing the sick person to poke him.  The moral action of the person who is to be poked should be to offer their shoulder willingly without the sick even needing to ask.  However, if the person who is to be poked behaves immorally, and withholds his shoulder, it is perfectly moral to poke the shoulder by force.

 

This hard-nosed concept of property rights is dogmatic.  It is just as dogmatic as any religion, and it leads to horrific consequences, specifically in the realm of political philosophy.  But like I said, this is a red herring and it is taking us way off subject.

 

I only agree with you last statement in reference to the people on the tracks.  The fact of the matter is that we, as people, walk into moral dilemmas all the time.  Nobody forced the lever operator into this situation, because as you already pointed out, the lever operator can walk away from the situation at any time. They absolutely are not forced to be in that situation, PERIOD.  However, to walk away and run from the situation is immoral.  It is immoral in the sense that it is the incorrect course of action, objectively.

 

I would invite you to look into Walter's Block paper posted earlier.

 

The fact that all will choose to pull the lever to maximize their chances does not make it moral. The question is should there be consequences for pulling the lever afterwards. If one is dying of thirst most people if not all will choose to steal a bottle of water. But the question is should they be held accountable afterwards. I would choose to steal the water and survive and take my chances in court. So in your example all will choose to pull the lever but the person pulling it should be held responsible.

The fact that all would choose to pull the lever does make it moral.  See, I can make baseless assertions too.  The question has absolutely nothing to do with retributive justice.  It is a red herring.  We are not talking about what institutional policy should be enacted as a consequence for each respective decision.  The question is, what action should the lever operator take.  That is the question of morality.  Your question is a question of justice.

 

That being said, to answer your question regardless of its irrelevance, there should be no institutionally inflicted upon people for making decisions under stressful circumstances... ever... because when people are under extreme stress, duress, fear, anxiety, etc. they act irrational.  This is all people.  I don't care how moral, how intelligent, how wise, or how mentally tough you are.  Furthermore, inflicting suffering on a person for their past actions fundamentally serves no one.  It only serves as a deterrent, and like I said, when under the previously stated conditions, a deterrent is meaningless and rendered completely and utterly ineffective 100% of the time.

[ClearConscience]

I agree, To be consistent with NAP theory this would be the acceptable answer, As Block points out it would be immoral to pass on the "Bad luck" of the 5 people on the path of the train to the innocent person on the other track that otherwise would not be harmed. If one applies this principle consistently then regardless of the variations one would arrive at the same conclusion.

I fully agree with this comment, assuming we hold the NAP as true.  However, I've also demonstrated that this contradicts UPB.  Isn't that a problem?  Don't you have that sense of cognitive dissonance?

 

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 propose that the NAP has exceptions.  I propose that, when a person is acting immorally, in egregiously enough manner, it is moral to use force against that person,  What's interesting is that the NAP already has an exception built into it from the outset, so it's not like I'm suggesting something completely radical.  The NAP clearly states that you may use force against somebody who already initiated it, i.e. you may use force against somebody who is behaving immorally already.

 

I would simply extend this beyond simply the use of force.  Morality goes being merely force and coercion.  Moral obligation exists.

[powder]

If a behavior is not binding upon another person, it is amoral (it lacks a moral component).

 

If a behavior IS binding upon another person and violates their property rights, it is an immoral behavior.

 

If a behavior is binding upon another person and does NOT violate their property rights, it is a moral behavior.

 

The conclusion that there is no such thing as a moral behavior is an irrational one. By that, I am referring to the fact that for any claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be NOT Y. To say that behaviors can be immoral is to denote that they have the capacity to be moral.

I am not getting this.  If I am flying a kite, this behavior is not binding on another person and it is amoral.  If I take someone else's kite without consent (stealing), it is binding on another person and violating their property rights, so it is immoral.  So what kind of kite transaction or behavior would be considered moral?  

[dsayers]

The example that I provided, where the lever operator had to choose whether to do nothing, which resulted in 5 deaths, or pull the lever that would divert to a track that was clear, resulting in zero deaths, easily demonstrates that the option of doing nothing is less moral than the option of saving 5 people's lives.

 

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.

 

This hard-nosed concept of property rights is dogmatic.

 

"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.

 

They absolutely are not forced to be in that situation, PERIOD.  However, to walk away and run from the situation is immoral.

 

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.

 

That being said, to answer your question regardless of its irrelevance, there should be no institutionally inflicted upon people for making decisions under stressful circumstances... ever... because when people are under extreme stress, duress, fear, anxiety, etc. they act irrational.

 

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.

 

Moral obligation exists.

 

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

 

I am not getting this.  If I am flying a kite, this behavior is not binding on another person and it is amoral.  If I take someone else's kite without consent (stealing), it is binding on another person and violating their property rights, so it is immoral.  So what kind of kite transaction or behavior would be considered moral?  

 

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.

[Ken Cotton]

I do not understand the question. Isn't this just a simple triage situation where you divert the train to kill the single individual? Barring any additional details of course, like the 5 people being convicted killers/sex offenders and the single person being an innocent. That would immediately flip the choice around so that killing the 5 is preferable.

 

There doesn't seem to be a lot of philosophy to this question. If you choose to be a non-active element and take no action either way, then you are likely to be fired unless you say you were frozen with fear or confusion. If you are at the trainyard as part of the greater mechanism of the yard and organization you are expected to fulfil certain functions. One of the basic functions of a person working in a place, especially a dangerous place like a trainyard, is the capacity to make meaningful decisions in times of emergency.

 

 

I do not think that any hermit style Libertarian or such would ever face this dilemma, or at least, they wouldn't face it with any fascination toward the lives of those on the tracks. If you are a wandering person who doesn't really associate with people and you happen across this situation, you could easily just shrug it off as a weird anomaly. Hey, you might even proceed to loot the bodies because you have no emotional attachment to the people involved. Sure, there's an instinctual level of connection to other human beings, but a life of solidarity and brutality in nature can dull those reactions.

 

Now, if you're a wage slave, you probably have some basic outline of what to do in emergencies drawn out for you. "You work here for X hours and get paid Y, these are your basic responsibilities." You also probably have a fairly good understanding of what your boss likes and doesn't like. If your boss likes the single person on the track a lot, and you know that, then you know that within the context of the trolley person its preferable for you to kill the 5 people. Universally Preferable Behaviour becomes Universally Predictable Behaviour, because without the context of a greater organization everyone acts in their own best interests. No one can fault the person for their choice because its the same choice they all would have made, because their job and purpose in the yard is to benefit their employer at the expense of their time and energy.

 

 

In the end the trolley problem is an unlikely but relatively simple problem. It's one that can get hours of thought, but in context affords only seconds to solve. The trolley problem is less a problem to solve and more a test of one's personality.

[dsayers]

Isn't this just a simple triage situation where you divert the train to kill the single individual?

 

Triage is where the need outweighs capacity and manifests by neglecting those who are done for and/or would be a less efficient use of time. To flip the switch is to actively get involved in a situation that doesn't require involvement. Active participation is not comparable to inaction.

[yagami]

I really don't understand your first point of contention at all.  Everything you do, or do not do, in life is a choice and nobody can ever force you to make one choice over another.  The only exception to this is, for instance, if somebody put you in a remote control robotic metal suit and was able to physically control your body, or conversely if somebody placed you in chains to restrain you from doing a particular action.  In the case of the lever operator, there are no restraints, there is no metal remote controlled suit.  There is only a person acting of his/her own free will.

 

Your second point is an unsupported assertion.  There is such a thing as a moral choice.  The example that I provided, where the lever operator had to choose whether to do nothing, which resulted in 5 deaths, or pull the lever that would divert to a track that was clear, resulting in zero deaths, easily demonstrates that the option of doing nothing is less moral than the option of saving 5 people's lives.  No, we can not both agree that there is no immoral choice.  I don't look at it as black and white as you do... There is a most correct choice, and then there is a less correct choice.  The less correct choice is to do nothing.

 

I absolutely did not change what was happening.  All I did was give people an objective reference frame of the situation.  That is not changing the situation.  Once the thought experiment begins, and everybody has their positions defined to them, what is the moral coarse of action?  By removing people from their subjective positions, the original position - behind the veil of ignorance, allows you to easily see the correct choice to make.  This whole talk of a life threatening illness is a red herring, but nonetheless, it is immoral for the person being poked refrain from allowing the sick person to poke him.  The moral action of the person who is to be poked should be to offer their shoulder willingly without the sick even needing to ask.  However, if the person who is to be poked behaves immorally, and withholds his shoulder, it is perfectly moral to poke the shoulder by force.

 

This hard-nosed concept of property rights is dogmatic.  It is just as dogmatic as any religion, and it leads to horrific consequences, specifically in the realm of political philosophy.  But like I said, this is a red herring and it is taking us way off subject.

 

I only agree with you last statement in reference to the people on the tracks.  The fact of the matter is that we, as people, walk into moral dilemmas all the time.  Nobody forced the lever operator into this situation, because as you already pointed out, the lever operator can walk away from the situation at any time. They absolutely are not forced to be in that situation, PERIOD.  However, to walk away and run from the situation is immoral.  It is immoral in the sense that it is the incorrect course of action, objectively.

 

The fact that all would choose to pull the lever does make it moral.  See, I can make baseless assertions too.  The question has absolutely nothing to do with retributive justice.  It is a red herring.  We are not talking about what institutional policy should be enacted as a consequence for each respective decision.  The question is, what action should the lever operator take.  That is the question of morality.  Your question is a question of justice.

 

That being said, to answer your question regardless of its irrelevance, there should be no institutionally inflicted upon people for making decisions under stressful circumstances... ever... because when people are under extreme stress, duress, fear, anxiety, etc. they act irrational.  This is all people.  I don't care how moral, how intelligent, how wise, or how mentally tough you are.  Furthermore, inflicting suffering on a person for their past actions fundamentally serves no one.  It only serves as a deterrent, and like I said, when under the previously stated conditions, a deterrent is meaningless and rendered completely and utterly ineffective 100% of the time.

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.