5 ms·

>That is a biased choice, not a logical one. Logical based off of the axiom from spock which is what I'm assuming is something we all agree on. Killing one is

>That is a biased choice, not a logical one. Logical based off of the axiom from spock which is what I'm assuming is something we all agree on. Killing one is better than killing many. We agree on this statement at least. Fault or no fault we can also agree doesn't have any real consequence. If someone died whether someone was at fault or not at fault doesn't change any actual outcome and is therefore illogical when you value human life as an axiom. That being said, a normal human being does not arrive at this logical conclusion so readily because human morality is not designed to have a moral answer to this question. What someone chooses in this moral paradox is not an indicator of brain damage or psychopathy. What happens is most people hit a sort of bump and are at first unsure what to choose. The purpose of this paradox is to illustrate paradoxical logic and raise awareness about how morality is not logical nor internally consistent. Your decision killed more people and absolved you of responsibility. The moral module of your brain does not evaluate this paradox into a final conclusion where you are perfectly comfortable with either decision. Likely what occurs is that you begin reasoning about the better solution and your logical brain picks a solution but, again your moral brain will never be fully comfortable with it. Lets change it even further. Let's say the train runs over a switch which triggers a nuclear bomb that will blow up a city killing millions. Now the logical outcome becomes more apparent. It becomes almost absurd not to push the person. We can make it even more uncomfortable. Let's say the fat person is nimble, simply pushing the person doesn't do anything because the fat person can simply move out of the way of the train. In order to keep that person on the tracks you have to Plunge a knife into his heart after you pushed him. Or let's change more parameters. Let's make it so you don't even see the train. There's just a lever 20,000 miles a way and you have the option to pull it to save millions or leave it to save one. Man slaughter to save millions. What choice do you make? The answer doesn't matter. The whole point of this paradox is to raise self awareness and to show how adjusting unrelated illogical parameters can sway your moral decisions. It exists to show that you have a seperate moral module in your brain that is an imperfect product of natural selection. The module was never meant to be logically consistent it was only meant to help you survive and interact with other people and society.

Supermancho 6y ago
> Logical based off of the axiom from spock which is what I'm assuming is something we all agree on. No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever. > Killing one is better than killing many. Again, this is misguided. There is a view that one choice is not better because of the method proposed (choosing for someone else). Although most people cannot articulate it, removing agency is the moral wrong, not the temporary value as a moral net good, ascribed to human life. > Lets change it even further. Let's say the train runs over a switch which triggers a nuclear bomb that will blow up a city killing millions. That's not the same moral question. Now you have 2 populations who are unwitting and without fault. Again, I would not propose to choose as a moral right. If I can wreck the train (which I think is an option), I would not do that either. Moral relativism is a child's view of the world (everyone's life has limitless potential) and a moral dead end and I do not subscribe to it. I retain that life is sacred, just not MORE sacred in aggregate. > Let's say the fat person is nimble, simply pushing the person doesn't do anything because the fat person can simply move out of the way of the train. In order to keep that person on the tracks you have to Plunge a knife into his heart after you pushed him. As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. > Or let's change more parameters. Let's make it so you don't even see the train. There's just a lever 20,000 miles a way and you have the option to pull it to save millions or leave it to save one. It should be clear, again, that I do not make the choice for another or a million others. That is my moral position.
- leafboi 6y ago
  > No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever. You're just getting pedantic. I don't care about your personal opinion, but the world agrees logically saving 10 is better than saving 1. Moral paradoxes like killing baby hitler isn't the point, it's just used to illustrate the point. I am not debating the paradox I am asking you to examine how your own brain resolves the paradox.... everyone has a different position on what to do. >Again, this is misguided. There is a view that one choice is not better because of the method proposed (choosing for someone else). Although most people cannot articulate it, removing agency is the moral wrong, not the temporary value as a moral net good, ascribed to human life. I'm not talking about whether something is moral or right or wrong. I'm taking a neutral view. I'm trying to explain another point but you're getting side tracked. You can use your logic and create your own little logical framework for judging what's right or wrong, I don't care about that, that's not what I'm talking about. >As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. Again I could care less about your morality or even mine. This is not the point. In general such a situation will make any normal human being at least pause before they make either decision. Here's what's going on with you. You have a moral framework you formulated by reasoning about all the logical rules and axioms. These axioms are arbitrary. You feel responsibility is more wrong then saving 10 million people or vice versa so you stick with that certain logic as a conscious choice. Other people may follow different logical rules, it's all arbitrary and what axioms you choose as the basis of your framework isn't interesting. Nobody cares, it's like saying your favorite color is blue and my favorite color is red. Arbitrary and not important. Also nobody cares about how strictly you follow your logical framework. You can violate it, you can be inconsistent and you can break your own rules or follow it like religion. Not important. This is not the message I'm trying to convey. Try reading my post again, it seems you missed my main point. >As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. I'm not calling you abhorrent. But the fact that appears abhorrent to you says something about your brain. This is the key point I'm talking about, read it twice: You follow a logical rule set but another part of your mind is telling you that the action appears abhorrent. This means that there are two modules in your mind telling you two different things. One part of your mind is telling you to follow the rules another part of your mind is telling you the action is abhorrent. Two modules: reasoning and morality. This was the point I was trying to convey that your brain is comprised of a logical conscious reasoning module and a moral module. That's it. In the end you choose to follow one of the modules. The whole story of the psychopath is just that the psychopath is missing the "moral" module. He can logically follow your framework but he cannot see how such an action appears abhorrent. >It should be clear, again, that I do not make the choice for another or a million others. That is my moral position. I could care less about your personal decision or someone else's personal decision. That is not what I'm talking about. I was responding to the original poster to prove to him that morality is an instinctual phenomenon because we can infer the existence of two modules in the brain: reasoning and morality. That's it.

Supermancho 6y ago

> Logical based off of the axiom from spock which is what I'm assuming is something we all agree on. No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever. > Killing one is better than killing many. Again, this is misguided. There is a view that one choice is not better because of the method proposed (choosing for someone else). Although most people cannot articulate it, removing agency is the moral wrong, not the temporary value as a moral net good, ascribed to human life. > Lets change it even further. Let's say the train runs over a switch which triggers a nuclear bomb that will blow up a city killing millions. That's not the same moral question. Now you have 2 populations who are unwitting and without fault. Again, I would not propose to choose as a moral right. If I can wreck the train (which I think is an option), I would not do that either. Moral relativism is a child's view of the world (everyone's life has limitless potential) and a moral dead end and I do not subscribe to it. I retain that life is sacred, just not MORE sacred in aggregate. > Let's say the fat person is nimble, simply pushing the person doesn't do anything because the fat person can simply move out of the way of the train. In order to keep that person on the tracks you have to Plunge a knife into his heart after you pushed him. As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. > Or let's change more parameters. Let's make it so you don't even see the train. There's just a lever 20,000 miles a way and you have the option to pull it to save millions or leave it to save one. It should be clear, again, that I do not make the choice for another or a million others. That is my moral position.

leafboi 6y ago
> No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever. You're just getting pedantic. I don't care about your personal opinion, but the world agrees logically saving 10 is better than saving 1. Moral paradoxes like killing baby hitler isn't the point, it's just used to illustrate the point. I am not debating the paradox I am asking you to examine how your own brain resolves the paradox.... everyone has a different position on what to do. >Again, this is misguided. There is a view that one choice is not better because of the method proposed (choosing for someone else). Although most people cannot articulate it, removing agency is the moral wrong, not the temporary value as a moral net good, ascribed to human life. I'm not talking about whether something is moral or right or wrong. I'm taking a neutral view. I'm trying to explain another point but you're getting side tracked. You can use your logic and create your own little logical framework for judging what's right or wrong, I don't care about that, that's not what I'm talking about. >As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. Again I could care less about your morality or even mine. This is not the point. In general such a situation will make any normal human being at least pause before they make either decision. Here's what's going on with you. You have a moral framework you formulated by reasoning about all the logical rules and axioms. These axioms are arbitrary. You feel responsibility is more wrong then saving 10 million people or vice versa so you stick with that certain logic as a conscious choice. Other people may follow different logical rules, it's all arbitrary and what axioms you choose as the basis of your framework isn't interesting. Nobody cares, it's like saying your favorite color is blue and my favorite color is red. Arbitrary and not important. Also nobody cares about how strictly you follow your logical framework. You can violate it, you can be inconsistent and you can break your own rules or follow it like religion. Not important. This is not the message I'm trying to convey. Try reading my post again, it seems you missed my main point. >As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly. I'm not calling you abhorrent. But the fact that appears abhorrent to you says something about your brain. This is the key point I'm talking about, read it twice: You follow a logical rule set but another part of your mind is telling you that the action appears abhorrent. This means that there are two modules in your mind telling you two different things. One part of your mind is telling you to follow the rules another part of your mind is telling you the action is abhorrent. Two modules: reasoning and morality. This was the point I was trying to convey that your brain is comprised of a logical conscious reasoning module and a moral module. That's it. In the end you choose to follow one of the modules. The whole story of the psychopath is just that the psychopath is missing the "moral" module. He can logically follow your framework but he cannot see how such an action appears abhorrent. >It should be clear, again, that I do not make the choice for another or a million others. That is my moral position. I could care less about your personal decision or someone else's personal decision. That is not what I'm talking about. I was responding to the original poster to prove to him that morality is an instinctual phenomenon because we can infer the existence of two modules in the brain: reasoning and morality. That's it.