7 ms·

In the end, what you are asking comes down to some form of the "Trolley Problem" [0]. The critique towards the Trolley Problem can be directed towards your (ver

In the end, what you are asking comes down to some form of the "Trolley Problem" [0]. The critique towards the Trolley Problem can be directed towards your (very) hypothetical scenario as well: > In a 2014 paper published in the Social and Personality Psychology Compass, researchers criticized the use of the trolley problem, arguing, among other things, that the scenario it presents is too extreme and unconnected to real-life moral situations to be useful or educational. I can't say, how I would react in a given situation. I don't know, if I could torture/kill one (or a few) for the survival (or a better chance of survival) of a larger group. Because in the end one would have to ask were to draw the line. From a strictly utilitarian point of view killing one person to secure the survival of two others is a net positive outcome. But it feels morally more than wrong. Where to draw the line. 1 against 50? Against 1000? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

adamsmith143 5y ago
> From a strictly utilitarian point of view killing one person to secure the survival of two others is a net positive outcome. But it feels morally more than wrong. Well of course all sorts of definitive truths feel unintuitive or wrong to humans, perhaps that's just a limitation of our brains. From this utilitarian pov the net positive outcome is the morally correct one.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Is there something like a "definitive truth"? Being an atheist, I would say, that this is an overly simplistic view. But that would be my personal take on that. Utilitarianism isn't a rational choice. What if - in my extreme example, one of the two surviving people would have been Hitler? Or even less dramatic, still contrived: What if the person being killed would go on and invent a cure against cancer? You can't predict the future and these contrived examples only show, that (probably) every theory/philosophy can be brought to its knees by going to its extreme conclusions. So how to quantify "value"? How do we calculate the consequences of our decisions? We can't imho.
  - adolph 5y ago
    > Is there something like a "definitive truth"? There is math, right? 2 > 1? > What if the person being killed would go on . . . Don't worry about it. If they would cure cancer, redux hitler, etc, they will even if not seen here. Flip your coin; accept the result; one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
    - sdoering 5y ago
      > There is math, right? 2 > 1? Ahhhhh I see. No need for many wise people discussing implications of actions and values for hundreds of years. Just throw in 4 words, 2 numbers and 1 logical operator. Eureka: Philosophy is solved. > one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse. Your solution seems to be "religion" providing consolidation. I could absolve myself with the "Many worlds interpretation" into thinking that I don't need to care for the consequences of my actions and "accept the result". The same way I can be absolved by a priest and still imagine myself joining the nice people in "heaven". For me personally it sadly just doesn't work that way. In my worldview actions (or inactions) have consequences. Being an adult made me realize that I have responsibilities. And that I need to accept that I need to take these serious. One example: If I step out of my door tomorrow and find a little crying baby on my doorstep with no one else in sight - while not at fault for the situation - I would still be responsible for this little human being. At least until there is a solution that relieves me from said responsibility. Until such a moment I need to step up and act. The same for if I refrain from killing one person to rescue hundreds/thousands (or even just two), the consequences of my actions are my responsibility. They weigh on my consciousness. The same if I decide to rescue others by acting and torturing/killing someone. If I act in self-defense or the defense of others ("Notwehr" and "Nothilfe" in German) I am still responsible. I might be acquitted in court. But I still need to step up and defend myself in court. I am responsible for my actions as well as for my inactions. The latter just is more easy on our consciousness (at least that is what psychology tells us).
      - adolph 5y ago
echelon 5y ago
Another one to ponder, Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" [1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om... [2] Full short story: https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/emily.klotz/engl1302-6/readings/the-ones-who-walk-away-from-omelas-ursula-le-guin/view https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/emily.klotz/engl1302-6/rea...
- Melatonic 5y ago
  Le Guin really is a treasure - this one always stuck with me as well

adamsmith143 5y ago

> From a strictly utilitarian point of view killing one person to secure the survival of two others is a net positive outcome. But it feels morally more than wrong. Well of course all sorts of definitive truths feel unintuitive or wrong to humans, perhaps that's just a limitation of our brains. From this utilitarian pov the net positive outcome is the morally correct one.

sdoering 5y ago
Is there something like a "definitive truth"? Being an atheist, I would say, that this is an overly simplistic view. But that would be my personal take on that. Utilitarianism isn't a rational choice. What if - in my extreme example, one of the two surviving people would have been Hitler? Or even less dramatic, still contrived: What if the person being killed would go on and invent a cure against cancer? You can't predict the future and these contrived examples only show, that (probably) every theory/philosophy can be brought to its knees by going to its extreme conclusions. So how to quantify "value"? How do we calculate the consequences of our decisions? We can't imho.
- adolph 5y ago
  > Is there something like a "definitive truth"? There is math, right? 2 > 1? > What if the person being killed would go on . . . Don't worry about it. If they would cure cancer, redux hitler, etc, they will even if not seen here. Flip your coin; accept the result; one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
  - sdoering 5y ago
    > There is math, right? 2 > 1? Ahhhhh I see. No need for many wise people discussing implications of actions and values for hundreds of years. Just throw in 4 words, 2 numbers and 1 logical operator. Eureka: Philosophy is solved. > one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse. Your solution seems to be "religion" providing consolidation. I could absolve myself with the "Many worlds interpretation" into thinking that I don't need to care for the consequences of my actions and "accept the result". The same way I can be absolved by a priest and still imagine myself joining the nice people in "heaven". For me personally it sadly just doesn't work that way. In my worldview actions (or inactions) have consequences. Being an adult made me realize that I have responsibilities. And that I need to accept that I need to take these serious. One example: If I step out of my door tomorrow and find a little crying baby on my doorstep with no one else in sight - while not at fault for the situation - I would still be responsible for this little human being. At least until there is a solution that relieves me from said responsibility. Until such a moment I need to step up and act. The same for if I refrain from killing one person to rescue hundreds/thousands (or even just two), the consequences of my actions are my responsibility. They weigh on my consciousness. The same if I decide to rescue others by acting and torturing/killing someone. If I act in self-defense or the defense of others ("Notwehr" and "Nothilfe" in German) I am still responsible. I might be acquitted in court. But I still need to step up and defend myself in court. I am responsible for my actions as well as for my inactions. The latter just is more easy on our consciousness (at least that is what psychology tells us).
    - adolph 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

Another one to ponder, Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" [1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om... [2] Full short story: https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/emily.klotz/engl1302-6/readings/the-ones-who-walk-away-from-omelas-ursula-le-guin/view https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/emily.klotz/engl1302-6/rea...

Melatonic 5y ago
Le Guin really is a treasure - this one always stuck with me as well