Actions vs outcomes right? Like “I didn’t murder someone” vs “I did what would cause the least harm”.
I may be wrong but it seems like focusing on my own actions as the basis of morality is self-centered in nature. Whereas thinking about the outcome—how the people in the track are affected—is other-centered. Doing nothing seems to seek to avoid judgement of self at the cost of 5 lives. The other seeks to save 5 lives at the cost of actively killing one person.
Though, I suppose, one could wonder what terrible things the latter might choose to do to save many more.
I dunno’, I’d MUCH rather have someone in charge that knowingly saves five than cowardly allowing them to die… The person who can dismiss five deaths is FAR more likely to be a horrible piece of shit.
They’re saying if you are okay to pull the lever in ANY case, then you’re going to be trying to do math in EVERY case.
Some cases will be easy, but others will be hard. Which is fine - public safety isn’t easy, neither is hostage negotiation or combat or wherever this comes into play in real life.
Looks like it’s even earlier than that. But it puts a different spin on it if the one is a loved one. It’s not really a math problem. It’s an illustration of sacrifice.
I know it’s not a maths problem, that’s the entire point. Everyone always thinks they’re bringing so much wisdom in when they ask, “what about y?!” when the topic was x.
It can help illucidate an individual’s moral perspective, but it does not help anyone understand the value of human life who doesn’t already value human life.
Like when people say, “what if it was five murderers?!” Uhh, OK? Do I know they’re murderers? If not, I’d still think to spare them, obviously. Is the one person an even worse type of person than five murderers? I’ll merc him anyways.
The value of human life goes both ways, for many reasons. While the trolley problem is nice for splitting hairs on where someone sits, it doesn’t teach people how to care.
In my response, I personally believe someone who is willing to kill five strangers over one is likely to be the person with worse ethics. Changing the equation will of course potentially change which choice I think is the more ethical one. While I wouldn’t agree with someone who spared a loved one over five equivalent strangers, I would emotionally understand it.
Actions vs outcomes right? Like “I didn’t murder someone” vs “I did what would cause the least harm”.
I may be wrong but it seems like focusing on my own actions as the basis of morality is self-centered in nature. Whereas thinking about the outcome—how the people in the track are affected—is other-centered. Doing nothing seems to seek to avoid judgement of self at the cost of 5 lives. The other seeks to save 5 lives at the cost of actively killing one person.
Though, I suppose, one could wonder what terrible things the latter might choose to do to save many more.
I dunno’, I’d MUCH rather have someone in charge that knowingly saves five than cowardly allowing them to die… The person who can dismiss five deaths is FAR more likely to be a horrible piece of shit.
deleted by creator
Not really, because that is quite directly changing the question. Not all questions SHOULD have the same answer. That’s just extremist stupidity.
Oh I don’t think you disagree with them!
They’re saying if you are okay to pull the lever in ANY case, then you’re going to be trying to do math in EVERY case.
Some cases will be easy, but others will be hard. Which is fine - public safety isn’t easy, neither is hostage negotiation or combat or wherever this comes into play in real life.
Yeah I totally agree, well said.
From what I understand, this idea was first printed in 1967, concurrent to but separate from this essay.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/father-sacrifice-son-train-bridge/
Looks like it’s even earlier than that. But it puts a different spin on it if the one is a loved one. It’s not really a math problem. It’s an illustration of sacrifice.
I know it’s not a maths problem, that’s the entire point. Everyone always thinks they’re bringing so much wisdom in when they ask, “what about y?!” when the topic was x.
It can help illucidate an individual’s moral perspective, but it does not help anyone understand the value of human life who doesn’t already value human life.
Like when people say, “what if it was five murderers?!” Uhh, OK? Do I know they’re murderers? If not, I’d still think to spare them, obviously. Is the one person an even worse type of person than five murderers? I’ll merc him anyways.
The value of human life goes both ways, for many reasons. While the trolley problem is nice for splitting hairs on where someone sits, it doesn’t teach people how to care.
In my response, I personally believe someone who is willing to kill five strangers over one is likely to be the person with worse ethics. Changing the equation will of course potentially change which choice I think is the more ethical one. While I wouldn’t agree with someone who spared a loved one over five equivalent strangers, I would emotionally understand it.