4 ms·

> Questions like that are where serious moral discussions begin. I don't think moral discussion should focus on unpleasant edge cases. More interesting and use

> Questions like that are where serious moral discussions begin. I don't think moral discussion should focus on unpleasant edge cases. More interesting and useful is how to handle more common situations.

andrewcooke 17y ago
people focus on edge cases because when you start with different common cases and extrapolate them, they contradict each other. the edges cases illustrate the contradictions, but they are firmly rooted in common situations - if they weren't, why bother with them? for example, it's common to ask whether someone would divert a train onto another line, knowing it would kill someone, to save some larger number of people. that's interesting because two heuristics we use in common cases are (i) avoid doing something that would harm another and (ii) minimise the amount of suffering. in that case it's not that anyone thinks it's particularly useful to discuss trains because trains are such fascinating things in themselves. instead, it's an interesting case precisely because it shows how starting from two common rules can give contradicting answers.
- ThomPete 17y ago
  The only thing the contradictions show is that moral is relative and contextual.
  - foldr 17y ago
    If that's true, that would be a pretty strong and interesting conclusion -- I don't see why you'd qualify it with "only".
- fnid2 17y ago
  I never really thought that was a hard question. Of course I'd divert the train.
  - foldr 17y ago
    It's a hard question because there are other people who are equally sure that diverting the train would be the wrong thing to do.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  The trouble with all of these questions is simply that they are designed to force a big contradiction - and whatever answer you give the questioner usually has an "aha but....." ready for you. The issue is that these problems are never "real world" and so are irrelevant to any actual discussion. Contradictions are, clearly, problematic - but only if we are going to face them. Until then they are just interesting diversions (pretty much like all of capital-E Ethics) I'm not sure there is a real world problem that is completely morally insoluble.

andrewcooke 17y ago

people focus on edge cases because when you start with different common cases and extrapolate them, they contradict each other. the edges cases illustrate the contradictions, but they are firmly rooted in common situations - if they weren't, why bother with them? for example, it's common to ask whether someone would divert a train onto another line, knowing it would kill someone, to save some larger number of people. that's interesting because two heuristics we use in common cases are (i) avoid doing something that would harm another and (ii) minimise the amount of suffering. in that case it's not that anyone thinks it's particularly useful to discuss trains because trains are such fascinating things in themselves. instead, it's an interesting case precisely because it shows how starting from two common rules can give contradicting answers.

ThomPete 17y ago
The only thing the contradictions show is that moral is relative and contextual.
- foldr 17y ago
  If that's true, that would be a pretty strong and interesting conclusion -- I don't see why you'd qualify it with "only".
fnid2 17y ago
I never really thought that was a hard question. Of course I'd divert the train.
- foldr 17y ago
  It's a hard question because there are other people who are equally sure that diverting the train would be the wrong thing to do.
ErrantX 17y ago
The trouble with all of these questions is simply that they are designed to force a big contradiction - and whatever answer you give the questioner usually has an "aha but....." ready for you. The issue is that these problems are never "real world" and so are irrelevant to any actual discussion. Contradictions are, clearly, problematic - but only if we are going to face them. Until then they are just interesting diversions (pretty much like all of capital-E Ethics) I'm not sure there is a real world problem that is completely morally insoluble.