http://www.strawpoll.me/10144467/r
For those unfamiliar with the setup: the trolley is set to run over the group of people. You can pull the lever and divert the trolley to a second track, saving the group but killing the man on the other track in the process. Do you pull the lever?
>>1096052
My answer is to punch the fucker who asked me this.
If that is not possible, I argue that the binary nature of this ethical quandry is so simplistic that it beggars belief, ie, are you implying I am a fucking sociopath?
>>1096081
I've had people defend the "doing nothing" option. it baffled me.
>multitrackdrifting.jpg
>>1096052
Trolleys are themselves violations of moral law.
>>1096052
I broker a profitable NAP between the trolley and the people on the tracks so that it will carry them instead of running them over, taking a hefty cut for myself.
>>1096104
You're baffled by common sense?
>>1096081
Wait, people actually answer "do nothing"?
Even I'd have gone full meme and throw stupid answers like "I teleport in front of the trolley, "Nothin' personnel, kid" and slice the trolley lengthwise with my folded a mirrion times razor-sharp katana" and then justify that with the fact that the ethical quandry presented is ridiculously binary that I'm allowed to answer in an equally ridiculous manner.
If the asker adds more shit, I up the ante.
>>1096052
I don't pull the lever.
Ethically speaking, I must preserve the rights and stake of this world to my family, my children, and my tribe. Killing those four frees up their resources for my people, much better than just killing the one guy.
>>1096104
yeah like judges and lawyers.
what the fuck do they know?
If you were a truly good person, the thought of actually pulling the lever and destroying that person would have never even crossed your mind.
Abhorrent.
As soon as you touch that switch, you cease to be a mere witness to tragedy and instead become it's agent.
>>1096165
You could take the time you could have spent pulling the lever to run up to the one other guy and stomp his brains out.
>>1096190
>mathematical values == moral value
Wew lad
>>1096124
Goddamn cager fucks
>>1096190
What is the value of a human life?
Who are you to decide that?
>>1096189
This.
----
There is a man with 5 organs that can save 5 separate lives. He is healthy and conscious, but removing the organs kills him. Do you kill him, against his will, for the organs to save the 5, or do you do nothing?
Literally the same.
>>1096218
A human life itself? Nothing. the happiness experienced by a person? Everything.
The only information given is that there are 5 people vs 1 person. if that one person is a mega genius doctor and the other 6 people are 60-year old meth addicts, those 6 people are dying.
It isn't about my personal tastes, it's about the person's ability to allow others to pursue their individual tastes.
>>1096198
Depends on the legal repercussions I suppose.
>ITT: Numbnuts who think there's ONE correct solution to every moral problem
>>1096228
Holy shit, you're really stupid, man. That's all I have so say.
>>1096189
Not acting is an action in itself. Not pulling the lever means you killed those 6 people. Don't fool yourself with a naive view of the world, you are accomplice to every bad thing you allow to happen and covering your eyes doesn't change it.
This is an unrealistic scenario. How is it supposed to map onto real world scenarios? It seems like it was created to justify a utilitarian outcome. Anything else would be indefensible, unless someone wants to carry the expense of taking a life or lives. In the real world, we have more options than this binary case. I say the whole thing is invalid.
>>1096247
>not acting is an action
0 is actually 1.
No actually means yes.
Dog is cat.
Good job, Kant, you retard.
>>1096256
So you think it's okay not to save a drowning child from a pond because not acting is not an action so it can't be unethical?
>>1096228
>the happiness experienced by a person?
What gives that value?
Who the fuck are you to decide that? What gives you the moral authority to make that decision for those people?
>>1096238
>dude, there's like multiple answers to 2+2
>truth is relative man, it's 5 or 7 depending on how you feel maaan
>people are in trouble in the world
>injustices are being dealt in the world
>innocents are suffering in the world
>You can make a change! You can help them!
But you don't because you are selfish just like everyone else. Everyone who says they would pull the lever are hypocrits UNLESS you are currently helping some random person in the world who you don't really care for. If you say you would pull the lever then you must give help to persons you don't know and who are currently being dealt injustices. If not then you are all lying hypocrites. A normal, healthy and sane person would not pull the lever, just as all of you are shitposting on /his/ right now instead of campaigning for better human conditions for child workers in Pakistan.
pull while it's on the switch so it derails, obviously.
>>1096266
Throwing a child into a pond hoping they will drown is evil.
Saving a child from that pond is commendable and good.
Watching is neither.
All moral obligations can be reduced to the simple requirement to refrain from evil action. Good action is laudable and deserving of reward, but never a moral requirement.
>Having trouble with the trolley eh?
>>1096303
So much fucking this.
>>1096256
I can define an action as the non-realization of the negative of that action. It's simple logic. "pressing the lever" and "not not-pressing the lever " or "not standing around"(if you admit those two as contraries) are equivalent.
The non-realization of an action is the action of the contrary action, it's just word play.
>>1096273
I'm a utilitarian, this viewpoint is as objective as you can get. It isn't about me as a divine arbiter, it's me presenting an answer to the question "what will maximize global happiness?" and there not being anyone else to contest my answer.
>>1096279
> dude, there's like multiple answers to 2+2
Nice one but there actually exist multiple answers to this equations depending of choice of axioms or number theory that you try to apply.
>>1096313
0 is 1+1-1
Yes yes is no no
Dog cow is horse cat
>>1096303
You had the choice of saving a child and doing something good but you didn't. Because of your action, the world is in both a worse position relative to the past and relative to the world where you chose the best option. How is this not evil?
>>1096313
>it's me presenting an answer to the question "what will maximize global happiness?"
Indisputable.
But you've failed to answer why global happiness should be the measure of moral action.
>>1096326
Wew lad
>your actions and inactions are beholden to the world's good
I believe in personal liberty, sorry, you fucking commie.
>>1096319
>there actually exist multiple answers to this equations depending of choice of axioms or number theory that you try to apply.
fine then smart ass
2+2 in base 10, within a single stable theoretical system
fag
By the way, you Utilitarian asshats still haven't responded to >>1096227
>>1096189
Read Eichmann in Jerusalem. Being a bystander is just as bad as being the fuck that caused the action. Unrelenting resistance is the only way
>>1096326
> How is this not evil?
You can do any other good thing. No need to do the most good. World slightly better than before you acted would be enough for you to be good.
>>1096353
>heres a claim
>instead of supporting it I'll tell you to buy a book
wew
>>1096227
By removing his organs against his will, you are turning him into a martyr who was sacrificed to save 5 lives.
By not removing his organs you are letting him turn into an asshole/guilt-wracked coward who watched 5 people die without volunteering to save them.
>>1096380
T O P K E K
Please wear a sign that says, "I would kill the unwilling donor" so I can strangle you in order to prevent you from ever harming another person's liberty and life, you authoritarian shitbag.
>>1096356
If it's possible for you to do the most good but you chose to only do half of it, then you are still responsible for the half that didn't materialize.
>>1096339
Worth can only exist in relation to consciousness, rocks by themselves cannot have any moral charge. Consciousness is split between emotions, concepts, senses and combinations of the three. Senses are the reconstruction of objects in the mind, therefore they cannot have an additional characteristic that wasn't there before. Concepts are the construction of objects that are not detected by the senses, they are just as barren, the difference being they aren't palpable.
Of emotions, they can all be constructed as happiness or unhappiness regarding concepts or senses stringed together to form a narrative, we can experience both to see happiness if good and unhappiness bad.
>>1096380
>By not removing his organs you are letting him turn into an asshole/guilt-wracked coward who watched 5 people die without volunteering to save them.
so what if he never actually saw them?
>>1096357
1. It's like modern phil 101 if you want to engage in more postmodern studies it's typically a good book to have read.
2. you can get it online for free.
3. I can explain the thesis, but Arendt does a way better job of explaining things and I don't want to muddle what she says.
The basic thesis is the same as the bystander effect, wherein being a bystander when events such as the killing of 5 people is just as bad as causing it since you didn't stop the action. Arendt blames a lot of the zionists for not stopping the holocaust.
At this point, from a deontological perspective at least, no matter what action you pursue, it will be immoral either way since it causes a cessation of the life of somebody who wanted to live, which basically means that you HAVE to resort to utilitarianism. That doesn't mean that people that pull the lever jack off to the greater good in every instance, it just means that cost-benefit analysis is good to have when we don't know how to compare equally immoral actions.
tl;dr pull the damn lever, it's not a good thing to do, but it's better than doing nothing.
>>1096395
> then you are still responsible for the half that didn't materialize
I could pay you more moneys doesn't counts as stealing a money from you. Everyone who made situation better is good already.
>>1096395
>rocks by themselves cannot have any moral charge
how do you know which bundles of atoms are conscious and which aren't?
how can you know another person is even conscious, or if they're just a zombie appearing to have consciousness?
>>1096415
>how can you know another person is even conscious, or if they're just a zombie appearing to have consciousness?
what's the difference?
>>1096406
But what if you're hitler and those are jews on the tracks?
>>1096406
>the same as the bystander effect, wherein being a bystander when events such as the killing of 5 people is just as bad as causing it since you didn't stop the action.
That isn't what the bystander effect is.
Please educate yourself, this is basic Psychology 101 stuff here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
>not stopping the holocaust
umm...
>the lesser of two evils
this jew thinks he's real fucking deep or some shit
>>1096415
That isn't a relevant question, it's a different problem altogether.
>>1096409
I disagree. If you consciously picked a choice that wasn't the ideal one, you're evil because the best solution was at your grasp, you brought unnecessary lack of good to the world which is equivalent to bringing evil into it.
I hadn't thought about Ethics in a long time, this is fun.
>>1096426
>what's the difference between an actual fish and a holographic projection of a fish that appears for all purposes to be a fish
>lololol this means they're the same thing!!!! XDXD
Indeed.
You can't tell the difference, can you?
What does this mean?
>>1096436
it's relevant only because the utilitarian has attempted to measure moral action by the relative consciousness value of it's affect.
>>1096449
If you can prove to me that I'm the only real consciousness in the entire world then to not be an egoist would be evil, yes.
>>1096392
You just advocated murdering that anon to save lives.
>>1096415
> How do you know which bundles of atoms are conscious and which aren't?
There are physical theories that allows to predict that like Integrated Information Theory. The better question is how we know that you can made an a some kind of free moral choice i.e. questions of modality.
>>1096436
> you brought unnecessary lack of good to the world which is equivalent to bringing evil into it.
It isn't. Giving your less money that I could isn't equal to stealing. Lesser good is a good option because situation better even if it isn't the best.
>>1096458
Why should I have to prove that you are the only conscious entity to simply assert that the impossibility of certain knowledge as regards the consciousness of other entities disqualifies conscious value as a measurement for moral action?
>>1096459
Yes, because he is willingly going to remove the liberties of others through choice. Not the same as any of the ethical issues presented in the thread.
Let's up the ante
Five nigs who violently raped your mother vs a man who will, unbeknownst to your mother but magically known to you, will rape her in the future.
>>1096052
Don't do anything
>>1096489
It literally doesn't change the situation at all.
>>1096489
Oh and the nigs have also threatened to kidnap her and rape her again, but you don't know if they will
>>1096489
>... Dad? Is that you?
>>1096489
Is other man a nigger too?
>>1096461
>Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory#Axioms:_essential_properties_of_experience
this is fucking retarded, they're just saying that the hard problem doesn't exist because consciousness must be a material property
>The better question is how we know that you can made an a some kind of free moral choice i.e. questions of modality.
I agree, the issue of free will is far and away the biggest moral question because the entire field depends on the assumption that we possess moral agency.
>>1096273
He is the one that can reach the lever. That is why he gets to choose.
>>1096518
>moral authority is derived from power
I disagree.
What would God do?
>>1096189
>truly good person
>soft cunt
pick one. courage is a virtue.
>>1096516
> consciousness must be a material property
Seems logical to me. Just say that everything real is physical and if you sure that conscious is a real thing try to find physical manifestations of it. If you think about it... Entire distinction between material and mental phenomena is pretty arbitrary one.
>>1096528
Nothing. He respects your free will.
>>1096313
>I can define an action as the non-realization of the negative of that action. It's simple logic.
It's a rationalization, it's goal is to absolve you of your moral pains.
Why is this a dilemma? If you value human life, you should pull the lever. If you don't, watch the fun ensue. It's not that hard, fuckers. I could come up with a better ethical dilemma in five minutes while waxing my carrot.
>>1096525
Descriptivism>prescriptivism.
>>1096534
>everything real is physical
that's kind of a hard thing to prove.
>Entire distinction between material and mental phenomena is pretty arbitrary
Agreed, the same thing can be said of material and non-material.
Suppose the base substance is consciousness, and materiality is just a property of that consciousness. Does this not solve the hard problem?
>>1096482
>he is willingly going to remove the liberties of others through choice.
You are imposing on his liberty to save people, by killing people - by killing him, so you can save people.
>>1096440
If you can't tell the difference, you will act like they are the same.
That's just how it is.
>>1096559
>muh feels
>linguistic deconstruction of moral claims
literally sophism
>>1096491
That twist.
>>1096477
Just because you can't know (not that I actually support this point of view) the truth values of prepositions doesn't mean you can't come up with arguments.
>>1096578
>If you can't tell the difference, you will act like they are the same.
Not if you know you can't tell the difference, especially when there are lives in the balance.
Should a blind man pull a random life and death switches to try and save people if he knows he's blind?
Of course not, he might kill people by mistake and do a great deal of harm because of a misguided sense of agency.
They all have the right to life.
There is no moral conundrum. Mental stress and scarring are guaranteed and it's not easy emotionally or mentally but it is easy logically.
Do you take action by pulling a lever and violating the right to life of one person in exchange for upholding the right to life of five people.
Do you still take action by taking no action and violate the right to life of five people in exchange for upholding the right to life of one person.
You're still taking action regardless.
Afterwards, you'll either say to yourself a. I killed a person or b. I killed five people.
The ones claiming that doing nothing is right are the ones that are wrong. Doing nothing is still an action affecting the outcome, and you will beat yourself up over it for the rest of your life. You'll still do the same for the other option too, but for the sake of the question there is no deep, "ebinly brofound whoa dude u kant reduce ppls lives 2 numbers bcuz u take an action how can u dcide" because you're taking an action regardless. With all of that said, literally the only thing you can do in that situation IS consider numbers.
>>1096588
Not when those arguments assume complete knowledge of the truth as a basis for complete moral agency.
>>1096255
This. It serves no purpose but to promote utilitarianism. It isn't a valid scenario for philosophical thought.
>>1096613
>take action by not taking action
lol
>>1096440
If there is no way to tell the difference, there is none.
>>1096581
>my opinions are better
>watch me defend my opinions with more opinions
I like your strawman. How is mine?
If you won't press that lever, I don't think you are any more or less guilty than the guy that will.
This one is easy. I would flip a coin. Tails doesn't flip a switch. Head does flip a switch.
>>1096639
>If there is no way to tell the difference, there is none.
A blind man cannot tell the difference between the color of two pieces of paper, therefore there is no difference between them?
Positivists need to get a fucking grip, omniscience is outside the realm of mere human possibility.
>>1096613
wew lad
You didn't address any arguments, you just provided a long-winded and ordinary utilitarian argument. Absolute trash.
>>1096607
>Should a blind man pull a random life and death switches to try and save people if he knows he's blind?
>Of course not, he might kill people by mistake and do a great deal of harm because of a misguided sense of agency.
If the odds are even, pulling the switch or not pulling the switch are equivalent and it doesn't really matter what he does.
For all I know everyone but me is a philosophical zombie - what does it matter to me? I won't know better and that idea is sketchy. I'll make decisions based on what I find to be more likely, whether I'm wrong or right. I just know I will, and I know you will too - I suppose one of us may make a decision for inertia.
>>1096626
You have two courses of action.
Passive action
Active action (there has to be a better phrase in English).
You actively kill 1 person or passively kill 5.
>>1096392
If you could take 1 life to stop him from saving 5 lives by taking 1 life, saving one life and taking 6, would you you do it?
>>1096669
If everyone is blind then yes. There is no difference.
>>1096702
>he thinks action == inaction
>>1096719
wat
>>1096702
>Passive action
what is this dank meme
>active action acts actively
some of these words are redundant
>>1096052
Tough puzzle t b h. I'd let the train run over the five, and use the lever as a club to kill the other guy. Only fair solution imo.
>>1096491
Funniest shit I've seen today.
>>1096722
Have you ever had to actually decide whether to do something or nothing?
>>1096052
I push the fat man.
>>1096720
>everyone in the world is blind
>therefore light doesn't exist
You're denying the existence of the physical world outside what our sensory perception is capable of perceiving.
And that's retarded.
Positivism is retarded.
>>1096745
>passive action
passion?
>>1096774
>our free will comes in our ability to ignore the imperative to act
You think your conscious self-restraint doesn't rely on underlying automatic, subconscious processes?
You once read that choices are made some microseconds before people become aware of their own decisions and declared yourself an expert on neurosciences and philosophy of mind, yes?
>>1096796
ass
>>1096730
IF YOU COULD TAKE 1 LIFE TO STOP HIM FROM SAVING 5 LIVES BY TAKING 1 LIFE, SAVING ONE LIFE AND TAKING 6, WOULD YOU YOU DO IT?
>>1096702
That's it really: is it worse to actively kill one man or to passively kill five? I would say that your involvement in a scenario lies on a spectrum between complete passivity and absolute activity.
>>1096759
Ah sorry, I think you misunderstood, it was my fault. I was using the blind man as an analogy. I'm talking about knowledge gained by our currently available methods. Which is basically science. All other forms of knowledge gathering are flawed and unreliable in comparison. The blind man represents the limits of our knowledge gathering capabilities.
In other words, If, using all our scientific resources currently available to use we cannot determine a difference between two objects, then there is (for all intents and purposes) no difference.
>>1096811
>You think your conscious self-restraint doesn't rely on underlying automatic, subconscious processes?
Possibly, I don't claim to know how consciousness works. The difference is that I am aware of my restraint, it is something I feel in control of, whereas the urge to act simply arises in my consciousness seemingly from nowhere, it is the product of pre-conscious and subconscious processes only.
FUCK DON'T KILL ME MAN FUCK DON'T DO IT
vs
HELP US! HELP US!
>>1096857
>If, using all our scientific resources currently available to use we cannot determine a difference between two objects, then there is (for all intents and purposes) no difference.
We can't assert that there is no difference, all we can reasonable assert is that we cannot tell the difference.
>>1096860
>the urge to act simply arises in my consciousness seemingly from nowhere
Where does conscious experience arise from?
>it is the product of pre-conscious and subconscious processes only
Are you saying your conscious experience does not feedback into your subconscious processes? Are you incapable of auto-instruction?
>PLEASE DONT KILL ME PLEASE PLEASE
vs
>KILL HIM KILL HIM OUR LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIS
>>1096890
True. But in lieu of pragmatism we say that there is no difference. Having a dedicated agnostic perspective is unrealistic and circular.
>>1096918
>But in lieu of pragmatism we say that there is no difference.
To the self-aware blind man who takes it upon himself to determine which colored slip of paper is the correct color in order to make a life and death decision for 6 people, the significance of his markedly arrogant meddling becomes rapidly more apparent.
>>1096894
>Where does conscious experience arise from?
From the interplay of innumerable preconscious neural agents, it's an emergent phenomenon.
>>1096894
>Are you saying your conscious experience does not feedback into your subconscious processes? Are you incapable of auto-instruction?
No and yes, that "only" shouldn't have been on the end of that sentence, But when I will action, I speak the language of the self, which must be translated into the language of the body before my body can, in fact, act. And before it takes any one of the multiple steps it must take to translate my will to act into the reality of action, I, by which I mean my conscious awareness, get a veto option before my body begins to move. So even a self-directed action consists of physical movements conceived of by subconscious agents, that your active awareness can either passively allow or actively reject.
>>1096977
Well that's ok then :^)
This is why Kantian ethics are retarded. Moral laws and "rights" were created by Man to accomplish certain ends, namely, the achievement of his values. People who insist upon laws and regulations over living flesh, and moral abstractions over hard reality are deluded.
I can respect someone who chooses not to pull the level, if he has a good reason. But someone who doesn't pull it because he thinks "To pull it is evil" is an ignoramus.
"Evil" is a human concept we created to designate those we viewed as opposed to our interest, or who completely violated our values. Its an abstraction. Its all in our heads.
Meanwhile flesh, bone, and blood is screaming about to die.
My personal decision?
If I knew the guy on the first track, he lives no matter what. I don't pull the lever.
If the guy on the track is someone truly important, I probably save him over the five.
Otherwise I save the five.
Let's spice up things a little.
> You are a single man in first track
> There are five on other one.
> You can pull a trigger to save yourself over five people.
Would you?
>>1097017
I'm not a utilitarian, I follow a variant of Nietzschean ethics. I seek the greatest good for me, followed immediately after by the greatest good for my family and friends, followed immediately after by ambivalence and general goodwill to everyone else, except people I despise.
As far as I'm concerned, my only business in this lever situation is because I was clearly thrust into it and happened to be a bystander. If this was happening across town and I had to rush to go pull the lever, I would not.
I am very passionate about this problem. I fully believe that the issue is in regards to the protection of the train rather than the people. Firstly, one does not address the damage done to the steel and iron of the train. Is steel and iron not equal to flesh until we apply an ego to ourselves? Second, suppose the train is carrying vaccines for a town. If you refuse to make the choice to minimize the damage for all parties especially the train then a town may not be able to stop a disease out break. Your refusal to choose to minimize chaos has just killed a whole town.
Fuck the people, worry about the train.
>>1097045
Ok, I see the difference. Fair enough.
But you didn't answer the question. If you were tasked with killing someone and using his organs to save five would you? If you want to be consistent with your previous answer, I think you would need to answer yes.
>>1097065
I do not need to answer yes, in fact my answer is actually "Unless I know one of the five people needing organs, I probably wouldn't."
And the reason for that is, the only reason I would pull the trolley lever is because I happened to be there and saving four lives is trivially easy.
The surgery situation isn't a convenient accident, its a calculated action, and one that sets a dangerous precedent.
I wouldn't support harvesting organs because I don't want the State [or whoever is performing this ridiculous moral experiment] having the authority to treat me like spare meat.
>>1097065
Ah, man, I'd have to wash my hands for that.
And I'd never feel safe in an hospital again.
The lever is way easier.
>>1097117
Ok. Thank-you for your response.
>>1096052
>>1096052
i would not pull the lever...then make the person my slave...by refering them to the fact that i could and by everyone elses decision should have pulled the lever but did not...they now owe me a life debt. i will make this person my second in command of my underground army of /pol/ nazi sympathizers and will begin plotting our armies construction in sectret...when the time is right me and this person shall rise from the place we are hidden and go forth to crusade and conquer the world...we shall rebuild aschwitz and the like...the camps will be used however as cheap civilian slave labor and as a means of medical experimentation on the less cooperative subjects...through this method me and this person shall advance the worlds medical knowledge...make ourselves immortal and rule forever...my slave and me...heil hitler!
Okay I wrote a long reply but then my cat stepped on the 'close window' key so i'm not typing it again.
Basically my view in this is that criminal negligence is a crime against society. Moral or not, you have an obligation to society to act in the self-interest of man. Deliberately not acting, especially when it is shown that acting would inconvenience you in literally no tangible way at all, is punishable by society. you cannot function in society by "freezing up" when confronted by critical decisions. If you were to uphold your morals by not acting, the community would want someone else in your place instead.
Of course, you can critique the idea that any individual "owes" society, or whether it is a moral concern at all to break the expectations of society, but that's the way I see it. In a fast-paced situation i think my first thoughts would be a reflection of my place as a member of society rather than thoughts of the moral consequences
>>1097389
>>1096227
Depends on the person and how valuable the 5 people are.
If we claim that these people are all equal in terms of value and experience, pure merit that is...there is no option but to kill the man for the organs for the 5.
In a similar manner if I had to die for the sake of 5 who are each as an individual are worth the same as me it would be the most proper thing to do.
>>1096052
I do nothing to avoid implicating myself and also allow the trolley to do its part in reducing the population. The professions, histories, and connections of the people involved are of no concern to me and the world could do with less people.
>>1097532
How do you even go about weighing up the value of someone's life?
>>1097542
This. Look at the big picture guiz.
>>1096987
>But someone who doesn't pull it because he thinks "To pull it is evil" is an ignoramus.
Kantian ethics wouldn't say it's evil. It would say it's immoral.
Putting "evil" in there is simply a strawman, and anyone who uses the word evil ever in a moral discussion is an idiot.
>>1096227
Kill all 6.
>>1097588
Their intelligence via IQ, their education through the various means available, the amount of income and the like and the duties they perform.
There's plenty of ways to judge the value of someone, pick your poison.
Are there literally people who think you shouldn't pull the lever? At least do it because killing people is fun.
ITT: 4chan proves it is full of utilitarian "good of the majority" scum who are being dishonest if they don't identify as dirty communist shitlords.
Sadly, this is how most of humanity is. You're fucking scum.
>>1096052
I blow up the tracks between the car and the intersection and then sit down by the switch masturbating.
>>1096256
maybe he means that not acting still has consequences that you're not automatically isolated from on the basis that you "dindu nuthing"?
>>1096279
>morality and math are equivalent
>>1097720
I resent that.
I said I was gonna punch the asker due to how arbitrary the binary nature of that dilema was.
>>1097720
>4chan proves it is full of utilitarian "good of the majority" scum
Most of 4chan? Most of the world idiot. Ever modern state is built on utilitarianism.
If it wasn't, nobody would think it a good idea to gas Jews alive, or starve 45 million people alive in the Great Leap Forward. Both of which are events precipitated by certain people trying to make the world a better place for "the majority".
anyone got the Loss one?
>>1097720
>good of the majority makes you a communist
>>1097827
That's not what I said. Just because both words were used in the same paragraph doesn't mean I made that connection. You shit.
>>1096052
It's simple. Save the people you like better. Save the girl as long as she's a looker.
>>1097840
Yeah, cause she'll love you after she just witnessed you being responsible for 5 other people's deaths.
>>1097856
You underestimate how many women want to marry serial killers who are in jail for their crimes.
>>1097832
>being 15
>>1096227
No it's not the same at all. In this scenario, people will die. You choose if it's one person or if it's several people. It's that simple.
>>1097856
How do you know she wasn't one out of the five?
Besides, she'll love you cause of adrenaline and stress. Being chosen over five people must do wonders for the esteem.
>>1098190
>it's not the same
>explains that it's exactly the same
???
LOOP DA LOOP
O
O
P
D
A
L
O
O
P
>>1099222
Accelerate
>>1096104
i wouldnt pull the lever.
pulling the lever makes you responsible for killing that one person.
atleast by not pulling the lever i would have not been responsible for willingly choosing one person to save 5.
i wouldnt be able to live comfortably knowing i changed an event that ended someones life.
ITT: Autistics who wouldn't pull the lever desperately attempt to justify their philosophy degrees
Either way people are going to die, this is fact
>If you do nothing next to the lever you're directly responsible for not preventing the deaths of 5 people
>If you pull the lever you are responsible for killing someone who wasn't going to be killed however you saved 5 lives who were going to be killed
Pulling the lever is the better of two bad options
>>1096283
>You can solve the Worlds problems by pulling a lever right next to you
Thanks for that informative opinion you tit.
>>1099378
>philosophy degree
>being able to afford an internet connection
>>1096052
I turn, 360 degrees, and walk away
>>1100241
So... suicide?
>>1096283
being put in aagical situation where you can save 4 lives by pulling a lever literally next to you is not the same as solving the world's problems you humongous moron.
>>1096052
Are the people bound tight to the track?
Would it be possible to pull the lever and quickly untie the man on the other track? Maybe he isn't even bound to the track but merely incapable of moving. You could just quickly drag him off the track after pulling the lever.
How fast is the trolley moving? If it was moving so fast that you can't drag the man of the track, It wouldn't matter if you pull the lever because the trolley would have passed the diversion.
Perhaps, if you time it right, you could even bring the trolley to a halt.
>in4 multi-track drifting.
Also, the trolley doesn't look that big. You could just push it off the track. It doesn't seem like a real trolley anyways, perhaps an attraction for kids. Those people are way taller than the door.
>>1096052
>pull lever
>murder according to law
>don't pull lever
>no murder
wew, that was hard
>>1096052
pull it half way to drail the train and send it between them
It is not up to me to decide the value of human life
>>1100675
This to be honest
>>1099222
obviously the loop da loop
>>1100717
but muh multi track drift
>>1100717
>the autist that kills everyone on the train by trying to outsmart the situation
>>1096326
The child is literally Hitler.
Checkmate atheists.
>>1097012
Of course. I am the creative nothing.
>>1097012
Yes.
>>1096668
t. Two-Face
>>1101193
I'm a nazi. Checkmate, Merchant.
Does anyone have the roundabout of retribution?
>>1097012
Yes, without question.
If this is real life, I do nothing. For purely practical reasons if I pull the lever i'm a murderer by law and if I don't i'm not.
Morally is a bit more difficult.
This exercise really reveals the importance of decision making and incomplete information.
First of all, what is a correct moral decision?
A correct moral decision is participating in an action that logically is more likely to produce a result that either produces more good or less bad in the world, than another action logically would.
Now what good and bad is is a whole other discussion, but lets assume for brevity's sake you have a "normal" good/bad compass.
If you are behaving logically and you make a decision and an unseen variable changed the outcome to something worse than what was logically to be expected with the information you had, are you making a morally reprehensible decision?
No of course not, you had incomplete information and behaved logically with the cards you were given. You are not omnipotent, thus you do not have the perfect information to decide the true best answer to everything.
>>1103043
Now, in this scenario, we must assume that I am the man at the lever, we must assume that I know for sure the trolly will kill whomever it runs over, we must assume I know none of these people and I have no bias of age, race, religious orientation, IQ, or sex (or I am unable to determine any of this). We must assume I know exactly what the lever will do and the implications of me pushing the lever, but I do not know the implications of letting the one man live VS letting the five men live.
Now we must factor in time, if I have 10 seconds to decide, am I making a morally reprehensible decision? No of course not, I would decide whichever out of impulse and without the luxury of logic. For this to be an actual moral debate one must assume I have as much time in the situation as I have to reflect on it here.
In this situation because you have this amount of knowledge you have two actions to choose from, pull the lever and kill one person or leave the lever alone and kill five.
If you have however long you need to behave logically, and have enough information to logically conclude that lever push = 1 death, nothing = 5 death , then you become morally responsible for a decision.
Now this situation must come to pass, you are not the person who tied these people up, you are not the trolly driver, you are a variable with a very specific purpose and specific information.
With this exact amount of information, the logical decision is 1 is less dead than 5, and the lever push is the less bad choice.
Are you committing a morally reprehensible act by pushing the lever? No, of course not, you behaved logically with the information given, and made the decision that will logically produce the less bad in the world. There is nothing else that can be done, and the real blame is to be put on the person who put them there in the first place.
>>1101502
You mean this?
>>1096189
Not pulling the lever is not inaction, it is a voluntary action to let the five die.
Not kill them,
But let them die. You are not free of blame. If you fail to save a man choking in a restaurant, you are blameworthy for his death. Similarly, you are somewhat blameworthy for the death of the five if you do not pull the lever.
Think of this using the archangel view, or perhaps veil of ignorance. The one man would atleast be somewhat sympathetic, and the 5 would desire their own lives to be saved.
It is only constitent to pull the lever every time.
>>1103358
I'm a lever puller, but the "angel principle" is pants on head retarded
>>1103358
As is the implication that a man who can't save a choking man in a restaurant is blameworthy of his death
>>1103371
You have a duty to save people in danger.
Otherwise you are not repsecting your very humanity.
>>1103043
>>1103048
Wew lad
Great way to set up the definition of what is moral within a utilitarian ethic to prove your conclusion by your own definition and not actual reasoning.
0/10
>>1103373
[Evidence required]
>>1100675
What is criminal negligence?
>>1103374
Provide a logical alternative, and reasons why I am wrong in conclusion or framework.
>>1103371
>can't
No, only the man who wont.
>>1103373
Does the man know for sure he can save the other man?
>>1103378
Immanuel Kant - The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
>>1103392
Kant literally concludes that you shouldn't pull the lever.
What?
>>1103387
Oh jeez, I've gotta type this out, might be a while...
>>1103386
If he will not be endangered in doing so, it doesnt even matter. Trying itself is enough for your action to possess moral worth.
>>1103400
What if he obstructs a more helpful man from saving the choking man?
>>1103379
You are explicitly told that you can't untie anyone.
You will not be held accountable.
>>1103394
Kant literally concludes that you have positive duties to save others.
I usually hear that youd be using the one mans humanity as a tool, but I think Kant would agree that this is okay if we are protecting the humanity of many more. Humanity used for humanity is its proper usage. In this, utility can still fit within the framework of Kantian ethics.
>>1103406
Now youre just being trivial.
The more helpful man should obviously step in; he should try to enlist help anyway.
>>1103410
Kant is a deontologist who VERY CLEARLY would advocate inaction in the trolley problem. There's no debate here.
Doing nothing when one had the ability to act is still a conscious act just as pulling the lever is a conscious act.
Only moral option is to minimize death and pull the lever.
>>1103413
How is it trivial? i have not recieved enough information to make a logical choice.
Provide a more specific scenario
>>1103417
Wew lad, except I have the liberty to choose not to act and not acting is not immoral. You trying to impose your morality on me and saying my inaction is immoral is what is immoral.
>>1103415
Interpretation is ALWAYS half the debate (I can use caps too!). If you dont want to debate the interpretation, thats fine, but youre basically just giving up on the conversation.
>>1103429
What gives you the liberty to do so? If you have information to make a decision one way or the other, doing nothing is a choice
>>1103435
Honestly, my friend, I will concede nothing and give up the conversation. I've never met anyone who could fathom interpreting his ethical framework in a utilitarian perspective. They're literally taught as opposing viewpoints in ethics courses. There's no reason to argue this point.
>>1103429
>not acting is not immoral
Says who? Morality does not just apply to actions. Nonaction is still a state which can have a valence of moral worth.
>I have the freedom to not act
You also have duties to act. Freedom without duties is not worth anything.
>>1103439
>what gives you the liberty to do so
Read some Mill, my friend. He very clearly outlines the basis of the right to liberty and sovereignty of mind, even though he contradicts it with his utilitarian ethical framework.
>>1103443
>there literally taught as opposing viewpoints
Yes man I took Intro to Ethics aswell. That doesnt stop me from deciding on the value of each in my own right. Kantian ethics are deontological - utilitarianism is a practical system that has obly practical worth (not moral worth), but practical worth still is a lot in this world.
>>1103447
I may read it, but I didn't ask for a book recommendation, I asked YOU.
Why is it ethical to sit and do nothing when you see a little girl is drowning, and you have enough information to know you are the only person who can save her and she WILL die if you don't help, and that by saving her you arn't risking your life at all.
Will you argue that your freedom to do nothing makes it alright to watch her die
>>1096162
/thread
t. man without cognitive dissonance
This is why all morality is garbage, by the way.
>>1103387
This is a real awful case of false equivalence.
In reality, I do not harvest the organs, because it is murder to do so, and not to not.
Morally is the same answer, but a trickier solution.
As the man in this position I must assume I am a doctor, capable of harvesting the organs, and replacing them in the other patients. if not there would be no reason for the harvesting to be an option.
As a doctor my function to the community is to provide a service, that is to try my absolute best to provide proper medical care to every person that walks through my door.
This scenario assumes I know for sure the 5 will die and the 1 will live, and the harvesting will kill the 1 and definitely save the 5.
If I harvested the organs, I would break the trust that I have between every patient and myself, and the entire community to the ethics of doctoring. I would cease to be performing the service which I am required for, like a gamemaster who rigs the game for a player unknown to the others. I have no right to perform this breach of trust
At the trolley, I am not a professional lever puller with an obligation between myself and the community to allow the train to pass over the 5, I am an outsider with a very small function, kill 1 or kill 5. Very large difference with quite different variables to consider for a logical moral decision.
If I break the trust between myself and the community, and thus the nature of medical care and the individual, I am creating a world with more chaos than if the 5 die peacefully, as they would have had there not been a suitable donor.
Plot twist: you're the man who put all these people on the track.
What do you do now, faggots?
>>1103306
The correct answer is to not pull the lever
Since you can be safely assured the death of everyone on the track, you kill the blacks right away and give the jews time to contemplate their demise, since their IQ is higher they will be able to more aptly comprehend the terrifying nature of infinite nothingness, and you will produce slightly more non-white suffering than if you give the blacks more time.
>>1103556
Plot twist: the answer doesn't change if the goal of the exercise is still to find the most moral option
>I didn't get a homicide charge with it legal fags
>Why do I have 5 manslaughter charges
>>1103610
No court would convict that
No court
>>1103621
Why not? You were right next to a lever which would've prevented 5 deaths yet you didn't pull it.
>>1103621
British Law holds you accountable for not saving someones life.
>>1103643
If the jury gets the full story (that there was another man on theside track) no jury would EVER EVER convict. You would present them with an ethical quandary that has bothered philosophers for decades, it would not hold up in court.
>>1103650
I'm an american, I can't be bothered to learn the justice system of every country, if british law will condemn a man for attempting to remove involvement from this ethical dilemma then i'm glad I don't live there
>>1103602
It does if your morality is based on the act rather than the consequence.
>>1103043
>>1103048
>>1103539
>tfw still no discussion
I want to get BTFO, it's the only way I'll create a better moral system in my head and learn.
>>1103746
Spell it out for me, how does my past immorality effect my current decision making for what is moral NOW.
>>1096052
This is a pretty shallow problem.
It's utilitarianism vs duty ethics. Both which suck major dick
>>1103770
So what would you do?
>>1103769
Well, again, if your morality is based on the act rather than the consequence, by allowing either group to die, you are murdering them, as you are the entity that put them on the track anyway. But this is all a hypothetical spin on a hypothetical question with binary answers.
>>1096307
kek
>>1103813
Then it makes the lever push even easier to justify
>>1096227
Just because there's 1 or 5 people dying doesn't mean the situation is the same. I really hope shoddy analogies aren't how you determine the validity of your arguments.
>>1103669
>that has bothered philosophers for decades
I wish I was paid to wank over hypothetical bullshit.
>>1096491
Normally, I would consider myself a NoAction-Fag, but if the 4 people were people I could even REMOTELY relate to (brother's cousin's sister's niece's nephew), then I would deffo pull the trigger.
But then again, so would anybody else in my exact same situation.
>>1096489
>Pull the trigger
>Use their immobility to violently anal rape all of them while shouting things like "BIX NOOD" and "MUH FUGGA"
>Take picture and send to /pol/ with time stamp, address, and free plane ticket for two people who roll dubs
Fucking idiots don't even know how to play this game.
>>1096546
Every time you masturbate, you inseminate a poor, financially bankrupt young girl in her early teens who's studying hard to become a doctor or a lawyer or something. It would most certainly derail her entire life and make her miserable beyond recovery; not to mention the shame and backlash she would receive from both her parents and her peers. Would you still masturbate? Ever?
>Implying I don't already know the answer to this question...You sick FUCKS.
