07-05-2011, 03:43 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Never thought I'd say this, but things are getting a little too concrete for me now. I don't read this as having anything to do with whether or not one is a "doer" or whether there is time enough to do something or nothing. As with suggesting that you couldn't really know what would happen, this is of no consequence to a philosophical discussion. The conditions of all this are set, to start with. When I urge concrete details, I mean consistent bases for moral decisions.
OF COURSE, carry on; I just find my own mind getting muddled as to what the moral arguments are, or even what to take seriously as argumentation. If that's out of place--let me know--that's cool. I'm just finding my way around still.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-05-2011, 04:12 PM | #62 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
Like you, I read the initial conditions for the thought experiment to be set at the outset by the original poster. I have tried to hew pretty closely to those initial conditions. Also like you, I'm curious as to what criterion people use for making their moral choices. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
07-05-2011, 09:38 PM | #63 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
asleep at the synthesizer Preferred Pronoun?:
crown prince of dirty disco Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the dollar bin
Posts: 1,392
Thanks: 2,082
Thanked 1,767 Times in 851 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
i read the initial post as a question of which is the right sided action
not a question of should an action be performed or not upon rereading my initial posts i should clarify i find both actions equally right and i don't see either as a wrong sided outcome given the facts in the initial scenario. i would hold the people at the tracks accountable/responsible for being active participants in their own fate. i am curious for those who find the utilitarian view so handily the right sided solution should the many have that much advantage when the outcome of the few in this case is so absolute? that is the one fact that keeps this a zero sum on both sides for me. |
07-06-2011, 02:49 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
That's good. Basically, "Is it a moral question?" (a Question of Ethics) I have to think about that.
As for the utilitarian interpretation, honestly it was the only moral theory I could think of that could be clearly applied. I would love to hear an alternative. (Well, I gave one alternative based on... let's call it "personal passivity," but it seemed weak and incomplete.) Though I know that this train thing is a standard scenario posed in the application of moral principles, I'm thinking now that your question about the essence of the question is worth considering. Now I think I will quit talking and go away and do just that. >:-) Thanks.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
07-06-2011, 07:18 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She, please Relationship Status:
Loved Up Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Western MA
Posts: 2,183
Thanks: 9,001
Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,556 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Given the very clear parameters of the problem set forth by the OP, I do view the ethical question as cut & dried: take action or do not take action. The bystanders' choice will have consequences either way.
The theoretical scenario reminds me of an actual situation I found myself in a few years ago - I was driving in rush hour traffic on a four lane divided highway, the traffic was moving very swiftly (70+mph) but each lane was very congested. I was southbound in the passing lane, when I saw the the wheels of the car next to me turn suddenly towards me. The driver did not indicate and did not look over his shoulder to ensure it was clear and safe to pass. I saw very clearly what was happening and I had a window of about 3-milliseconds to make a decision: Stay put and take the hit from the car coming in to my lane OR take defensive action and avoid the hit. Unlike the theoretical situation we were given, I did not know with any certainty the consequences of my decision. But what I did know was that there were a LOT of people very close to us on the road the only clear thought I had was "minimize the damage". I chose to take defensive action by pulling hard and fast to the left, I avoided the collision, and the other driver pulled himself back in to his lane. The cars closest to me were able to slow down and take their own defensive action to avoid becoming a part of the accident. Despite my very best efforts I was unable to regain control of my steering column and finally my car lost traction when it hit the gravel, rolled down the hill that divided north and south bound lanes, flipped over and crashed in a spectacular fashion. I still have no idea what would have *actually* happened had he sideswiped me at 70mph but I am pretty certain, based on the laws of physics, that it would have resulted in a multiple vehicle accident. I didn't make my decision because I have a hero complex or because I considered my own life more or less valuable than anyone else's. I made it because I had been given that millisecond of time when I could clearly see what was happening and had the ability to make a conscious active decision. I don't believe that fate or the hand of god had anything to do with one drivers' careless action nor with my decision making process. Making a decision and taking action was *to me* the right thing to do.
__________________
I am made of stars |
07-06-2011, 09:01 AM | #66 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
As far as the utilitarian case to be made, the answer is based upon it being *incidental* that the one person on the alternative track will die as opposed to using this person *for the purpose of stopping the train*. Let's change the parameters just a tiny bit, instead of flipping a switch which diverts the train imagine that you are standing on a bridge above the track. Again you see the train. Next to you is someone. If you push them off the bridge they will land on the switch which will divert the train but this will cause their death. Under those circumstances it would be wrong to push the person. Why the two different outcomes? Because in the original scenario, the death of one person on the alternate track is an unhappy side effect so it makes it zero-sum but still defensible. In the second scenario we are using the person as an *instrument* to achieve a desired end. In the first scenario we are not using the person as an instrument, he just happens to be a bystander who, unfortunately, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. We might regret his death but his death is not the instrument we use to achieve saving the five people. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 09:11 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Interesting distinction, but I don't see how that bears on a utilitarian argument for 5 > 1.
And, aside, but it just popped into my head: How would all that reflect on Dexter? Isn't he killing one to save many? Would certain moral principles sanction that, and do they hold water?
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
07-06-2011, 09:41 AM | #68 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
I base this off an old Ursula K. Le Guin story where there is a utopia but with a catch--in order for this utopia to exist one child must be spend his entire life locked in a basement with no human contact. In this case, the child is an *instrument* to some other end. *Because* the child suffers, we have a utopia. The child then is merely an instrument for the happiness of the greatest number. That is a trade-off that I would have a hard time finding morally defensible. On the other hand, in modern capitalist nations we have societies that are less equal than it is imaginable for them to be because there is a balance between freedom and equality. This is a trade-off that it is at least possible to defend morally, certainly in principle. Does that make sense? For me the crux comes down to whether we are using others as instruments to some end, which I do not think is defensible or if they are casualties of circumstance. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 10:16 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
I see the argument for a difference between collateral death and "instrumental death," but I don't know that it has any bearing in a utilitarian morality system.
Now I have only the rudimentary understanding of utilitarianism that most everyone has. I'm sure there's much more to say about it than "more good, more people" = "moral." I have to go look up Mills or whomever to see if the "instrument" type of issue is addressed. Hey, anyone know that book series "Philosophy and Lost," "Philosophy and House"? I bet there's a "Philosophy and Dexter."
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following User Says Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 10:22 AM | #70 |
Roadster Guy
How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
He Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,884 Times in 5,774 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858 |
I haven't read the thread, just the question.
I would certainly hit the switch. One dead or five dead. It is simple math for me. Or at least, this is what I think I would do and hope that I would have the guts to do. Less deaths and less lives ruined if I hit the switch. I am curious to see others' responses, as the length of the thread suggests to me that it is less of a black and white issue for some.
__________________
-Dapper Are you educated or indoctrinated? |
The Following User Says Thank You to DapperButch For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 11:15 AM | #71 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
The construction you illuminate above is, to my mind, one of the core weaknesses of a pure utilitarian philosophy (as opposed to utilitarianism modified by something else). Cheers Aj Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 11:28 AM | #72 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femmesensual Transguy Preferred Pronoun?:
He, Him, His Relationship Status:
Dating Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rio Vista, CA
Posts: 1,225
Thanks: 3,949
Thanked 3,220 Times in 757 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
Quote:
|
|
07-06-2011, 12:25 PM | #73 | |||
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
malapropist Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
single Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 2,169
Thanks: 6,367
Thanked 3,994 Times in 1,204 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Quote:
This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people? I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response. Quote:
Quote:
The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead. |
|||
07-06-2011, 12:49 PM | #74 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
To see why this is the case, consider the alternative. Let's say you flip the switch but the switch is broken and the train plows into the five people, killing them all. You made an attempt to save their lives but were thwarted by a mechanical failure. In that case, no one could say you were responsible because without foreknowledge that the switch was broken and without the means to fix the switch in a timely manner, there's nothing you could have done to prevent the switch from malfunctioning. On the other hand, if you could do something that would save the lives of five people and you chose not to, then would it not be reasonable to argue that your inaction constituted an action whose consequences are foreseeable? Again, it is the difference between driving drunk and killing someone and having a mechanical failure and killing someone. Is it possible that you could drive drunk and not kill someone? Yes, happens all the time. However, if you drive drunk and you kill someone it would be very difficult for someone to argue that it was not foreseeable that diminished capacity would not be a consequence of your drinking to excess. So I don't think that not pulling the switch actually gets you around the responsibility of causing deaths. If you were not fast enough to get to the switch, you couldn't be held responsible. If the switch fails, you couldn't be held responsible. If, however, you were within comfortable reach of the switch and you chose not to use it, given that the likely consequences are foreseeable you would be responsible for the deaths of five people. I understand that one consequence is because of your inaction but you had the means to effect a different outcome and you chose not to take that action and in doing so, you chose the death of five people. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 12:53 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
I "might could have" said "fate" as well as "God's plan" there. I was contrasting free will and destiny, and proposing that in a deterministic schema what you do may not really be your decision. I could have been clearer on that.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 12:57 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
AJ, I do think there's a diff between Semantics acting and not-acting. As it is, the "universe" has decided the train will hit 5. He is not adding to that forward impetus by doing nothing.
If he switches the track, he is intervening. He personally is aiming the train at the one. I want to say here though that I'm only claiming there's a difference in quality of the act. I think it's possible that by varying circumstances a new way, we can expose whether this is morally significant or not. I gotta' think.....
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 01:00 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
malapropist Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
single Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 2,169
Thanks: 6,367
Thanked 3,994 Times in 1,204 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Thank you for your replies, both of you.
I will have to think more on what has been said here, and one never knows, this discussion could one day be the salvation of five people on a train track. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Semantics For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 01:03 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
malapropist Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
single Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 2,169
Thanks: 6,367
Thanked 3,994 Times in 1,204 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Quote:
-Semantics (raised by Taoists) |
|
07-06-2011, 01:17 PM | #79 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,846 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
I remember this incident because my house was one of the houses that was spared. The pilot made a decision, there was no communication with the tower, but it's clear that the plane changed course so it was a deliberate action on the part of the guys at the yoke. In doing so he caused the death of eight other people. This is a very close analogy to the train scenario. In this case, the pilot did not use his aircrew as an *instrument* to achieve an end, given the nature of the situation there was no way for him to save his aircrew AND people on the ground. He did not intend the death of the aircrew, it was an unavoidable consequence of the only action he could take that would spare the lives of people on the ground. Using someone as a means to an end is very different. Staying with this example (and stretching the mechanics of flight to do so), let's say that the aircraft was simply too heavy and by tossing aircrew out he could keep the plane aloft long enough to circle back and land safely or carry out his mission. NOW he is causing the death of his crew and they are mere instruments for achieving the goal of lightening the load of his airplane. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-06-2011, 01:23 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Ugh. Under utilitarianism (in the shorthand way I know it), the second scenario is better. It just comes down to math: One more person is left living--the pilot.
Well, now, that's not very attractive as moral principles go. I think the using/letting-leave/instrument/agent/passive etc approaches are proving richer for thinking about the ethics. Of course, with that come the uncomfortable complications
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
|
|