3 ms·

Involvement in the world isn't voluntary; actions have consequences, some people prefer some consequences to other consequences. In your case you value maintai

by frig 17y ago

Involvement in the world isn't voluntary; actions have consequences, some people prefer some consequences to other consequences. In your case you value maintaining an unsullied self-image over assisting 5 people in mortal peril, and would prefer if other people saw your choice the same way. But you're right (I've met people who were familiar with the people involved here): the intuition is that the stronger the perceived interpersonal relationship between you and the unlucky bloke the less likely you are to flick the switch, but teasing out exactly how much relationship is needed to make the moral intuition flip is tricky business.

petercooper 17y ago
In your case you value maintaining an unsullied self-image over assisting 5 people in mortal peril, and would prefer if other people saw your choice the same way. "Maintaining an unsullied self-image" is largely what personal moral codes are about. If I actively killed someone, I would find being a murderer harder to cope with than being a witness to the death of a larger number of people. I think this is a purely moral standpoint, whereas "killing one to save the five" is the result of people playing a "numbers game." I think this is demonstrated by the opposing results of the "push the fat man off the bridge" dilemma - once you change the mechanism from a lever/switch to actually pushing a dude off a bridge, people's sense of morality comes rushing back.
- yalurker 17y ago
  This reminds me of a philosophy class I had in college, where we discussed action vs inaction, and the responsibilities of each choice. I'll skip the lengthy description of all the views, but the short version is that there do exist very compelling arguments that if you choose inaction, you are just as responsible for that outcome as you would be if you chose action. As applied to the trolly problem, the point is that the "take action" vs "do not take action" is a false dilemma. Choosing not to act does not absolve you of responsibility or remove you from the problem. You may have feelings otherwise, but it is a rational argument.
- frig 17y ago
  This is the argument of the ages, no? I would say moral codes are about trying to use your agency to do good, not bad; there's no obvious reason why "doing good" would always and everywhere equate with "easy to cope with". You claim you're not doing a #s game but I think I can prove that you are, even if you're not yet aware of it. Consider this alternative scenario: the trolley is hurtling towards the 5 men as before and you've got the option of throwing a switch; what's new is that this time the switch moves the train into an empty railyard, saving the five lives at no one's expense. The #s game is removed and it's just a case of: do you think yourself morally obligated to throw the switch and save the lives, or not? Careful here.

by frig 17y ago

petercooper 17y ago

In your case you value maintaining an unsullied self-image over assisting 5 people in mortal peril, and would prefer if other people saw your choice the same way. "Maintaining an unsullied self-image" is largely what personal moral codes are about. If I actively killed someone, I would find being a murderer harder to cope with than being a witness to the death of a larger number of people. I think this is a purely moral standpoint, whereas "killing one to save the five" is the result of people playing a "numbers game." I think this is demonstrated by the opposing results of the "push the fat man off the bridge" dilemma - once you change the mechanism from a lever/switch to actually pushing a dude off a bridge, people's sense of morality comes rushing back.

yalurker 17y ago
This reminds me of a philosophy class I had in college, where we discussed action vs inaction, and the responsibilities of each choice. I'll skip the lengthy description of all the views, but the short version is that there do exist very compelling arguments that if you choose inaction, you are just as responsible for that outcome as you would be if you chose action. As applied to the trolly problem, the point is that the "take action" vs "do not take action" is a false dilemma. Choosing not to act does not absolve you of responsibility or remove you from the problem. You may have feelings otherwise, but it is a rational argument.
frig 17y ago
This is the argument of the ages, no? I would say moral codes are about trying to use your agency to do good, not bad; there's no obvious reason why "doing good" would always and everywhere equate with "easy to cope with". You claim you're not doing a #s game but I think I can prove that you are, even if you're not yet aware of it. Consider this alternative scenario: the trolley is hurtling towards the 5 men as before and you've got the option of throwing a switch; what's new is that this time the switch moves the train into an empty railyard, saving the five lives at no one's expense. The #s game is removed and it's just a case of: do you think yourself morally obligated to throw the switch and save the lives, or not? Careful here.