4 ms·

The question's origins are philosophical but the answer is rooted in biology. The answer is this: morality is not a rational set of rules. It appears this way

The question's origins are philosophical but the answer is rooted in biology. The answer is this: morality is not a rational set of rules. It appears this way but that is an illusion. The illusion feels so real that many people believe morality is 100 percent learned and attempt to codify it into a logical framework. The existence of this moral dilemma of the fat man is proof that morality is not consistent nor is it learned and that all attempts at codification are in vain. Morality at its essence is a set of random competing instincts making us feel certain things are "right" and other things are "wrong". Usually these instincts are aligned but certain edge case situations cause our moral instincts to become at odds. The moral dilemma of the fat man is one such edge case. We have one instinct telling us that thou shalt not directly kill or push the man off the bridge. We have another instinct telling us there's a logical numbers game of saving more people if we push the fat man. When those two instincts are at odds it causes this moral dilemma. We will not push the fat man but we will pull the lever. The logical consequence is the same but our instincts lead us to prefer one over the other. These instincts were not created to make sense. They were evolved via natural selection in the plains of prehistoric Africa. For survival humans never needed a logically consistent set of rules to survive... they dont even need to understand the rules. They just need a set of behaviors that will help them survive. And in the end that is all morality is. Just a set of random behaviors that exist because of natural selection. Many people are actually vehemently against this reality. They wish to think of morality as a higher plane of thinking with internal logical consistency. They are wrong. Morality is an arbitrary set of inconsistent rules that directs human behavior for the sole purpose of survival. All else is illusion. This question of the fat man exists because we misunderstood an aspect of reality. We misinterpreted the true nature of what morality is and we thus asked an irrelevant question thinking that it's some sort of deep philosophical mystery.

jddj 3y ago
> Many people are actually vehemently against this reality. They wish to think of morality is a higher plane of thinking with internal logical consistency. They are wrong. Morality is an arbitrary set of inconsistent rules that directs human behavior for the sole purpose of survival. All else is illusion. I agree, but the number and calibre of modern thinkers who have objective moralism leanings is interesting. I suspect that it's because if you give up objective moralism you also risk giving up some amount of power/influence/purpose.
- corethree 3y ago
  Unlike other instincts like hunger and pain, the moral instincts is tightly integrated with our conscious decision making process as well. So it's harder for humans to see it as distinctly as hunger or pain. Hunger and pain manifests itself as urges separate from the concept of "me". But morality and "me" feels to be one and the same so it's harder for people to believe that it's just something akin to your hunger instinct. Examining the moral conflict helps segregate the concept of morality as separate as we are able to then identify the logical inconsistencies within our own moral framework.
ralferoo 3y ago
> When those two instincts are at odds it causes this moral dilemma. We will not push the fat man but we will pull the lever. I think you've actually got close to the issue, but obscured it by referring to the action as "directly kill". The real issue, as I see it, isn't to it's the choice of killing to save, it's about being complicit in that person's death. By choosing to do nothing, your conscience is clear because although you might have saved some people from dying by taking action, you haven't done anything to cause the death. I think most people would still feel morally guilty for not acting, however if you had chosen to kill someone, even if it saved others, you could be found legally guilty for murder if it went to court. Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. For instance, the variant with the plane that's lost power and is going to crash somewhere, the pilot choosing to go to somewhere less populated isn't choosing to kill anyone, they're trying to minimise risk by aiming for somewhere that's generally less populated. By going for a less populated area, there's more chance that they might be able to even avoid any ground deaths, and even better, more likely they could find somewhere where the landing might be gentler and minimise on-board deaths too. But in any case, even if this went to court, it'd be manslaughter rather than murder, because there weren't any individuals that he had identified and decided that their deaths were acceptable. Personally, I'm not sure I'd even pull the lever knowing that it would take someone's life because for me the moral guilt of participating in one innocent person's death would be worse than the moral guilt of not saving a larger number of other innocent people's deaths. It'd be a different situation if it was a choice of e.g. one armed person and 5 potential victims, but even then I don't think I would be able to choose to kill the aggressor and would only take action if there was a non-lethal option for incapacitating them that didn't put me at great risk of also becoming a victim. Obviously, the real solution if there was sufficient time, is to summon the police and let them take the moral and legal decision and consequences for it.
- corethree 3y ago
  >Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. No the point isn't to probe your value system in this way. There are two points to this. 1. The first point is to show inconsistency and irrationality within morality itself. It's to show how random and arbitrary these moral instincts are. 2. Given how consistent the choice is across populations it shows that our moral system is biological. An irrational and inconsistent set of instincts that is biological and genetic as the situation has the same response across different cultures. From these two points, the final point is ultimately that there is no point. Morality is an arbitrary set of biological instincts like hunger or pain. There is no overarching deeper philosophical meaning. Your wasting your time trying to probe the depths of morality just like if you tried to find the deeper philosophical meaning behind your hunger instinct. Pointless. It reduces morality to nothing. It is an instinct like hunger... Nothing more.

jddj 3y ago

> Many people are actually vehemently against this reality. They wish to think of morality is a higher plane of thinking with internal logical consistency. They are wrong. Morality is an arbitrary set of inconsistent rules that directs human behavior for the sole purpose of survival. All else is illusion. I agree, but the number and calibre of modern thinkers who have objective moralism leanings is interesting. I suspect that it's because if you give up objective moralism you also risk giving up some amount of power/influence/purpose.

corethree 3y ago
Unlike other instincts like hunger and pain, the moral instincts is tightly integrated with our conscious decision making process as well. So it's harder for humans to see it as distinctly as hunger or pain. Hunger and pain manifests itself as urges separate from the concept of "me". But morality and "me" feels to be one and the same so it's harder for people to believe that it's just something akin to your hunger instinct. Examining the moral conflict helps segregate the concept of morality as separate as we are able to then identify the logical inconsistencies within our own moral framework.

ralferoo 3y ago

> When those two instincts are at odds it causes this moral dilemma. We will not push the fat man but we will pull the lever. I think you've actually got close to the issue, but obscured it by referring to the action as "directly kill". The real issue, as I see it, isn't to it's the choice of killing to save, it's about being complicit in that person's death. By choosing to do nothing, your conscience is clear because although you might have saved some people from dying by taking action, you haven't done anything to cause the death. I think most people would still feel morally guilty for not acting, however if you had chosen to kill someone, even if it saved others, you could be found legally guilty for murder if it went to court. Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. For instance, the variant with the plane that's lost power and is going to crash somewhere, the pilot choosing to go to somewhere less populated isn't choosing to kill anyone, they're trying to minimise risk by aiming for somewhere that's generally less populated. By going for a less populated area, there's more chance that they might be able to even avoid any ground deaths, and even better, more likely they could find somewhere where the landing might be gentler and minimise on-board deaths too. But in any case, even if this went to court, it'd be manslaughter rather than murder, because there weren't any individuals that he had identified and decided that their deaths were acceptable. Personally, I'm not sure I'd even pull the lever knowing that it would take someone's life because for me the moral guilt of participating in one innocent person's death would be worse than the moral guilt of not saving a larger number of other innocent people's deaths. It'd be a different situation if it was a choice of e.g. one armed person and 5 potential victims, but even then I don't think I would be able to choose to kill the aggressor and would only take action if there was a non-lethal option for incapacitating them that didn't put me at great risk of also becoming a victim. Obviously, the real solution if there was sufficient time, is to summon the police and let them take the moral and legal decision and consequences for it.

corethree 3y ago
>Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. No the point isn't to probe your value system in this way. There are two points to this. 1. The first point is to show inconsistency and irrationality within morality itself. It's to show how random and arbitrary these moral instincts are. 2. Given how consistent the choice is across populations it shows that our moral system is biological. An irrational and inconsistent set of instincts that is biological and genetic as the situation has the same response across different cultures. From these two points, the final point is ultimately that there is no point. Morality is an arbitrary set of biological instincts like hunger or pain. There is no overarching deeper philosophical meaning. Your wasting your time trying to probe the depths of morality just like if you tried to find the deeper philosophical meaning behind your hunger instinct. Pointless. It reduces morality to nothing. It is an instinct like hunger... Nothing more.