- The <paper> I cited earlier represents my position. I am actually going to move on from this thread. I think you will have a more fruitful conversation with some of the other posters in this thread. Take care.

(To answer your last question: I would make the same decision whether or not the situation was "rigged.")

No: I was commenting on what a consequentialist would have to commit themselves to. They would have to claim that sometimes it is morally right (or at least permissible) to kill an innocent human being. — Bob Ross

I see.

I read the paper. Liked it. Agree with it. Think I am speaking in line with much of it.

Much better example of the situation with the tyrant killing five unless you kill one. Avoids the whole ridiculous omission versus commission discussion too. Brings in intent, agency, and duty in much more express and clear way than the stupid trolley.

But I guess you are above all of this, with your intellect surpassing my caricature of an honest conversation. Fairly unjust way to treat someone don’t you think?

Well we are using absurd in different senses I feel. You're using absurd in a sense to express your moral disagreement while I am using it in the more existential sense. As I said, regardless of the moral view on the issue I think its kind of an incredible thought letting the entirety of human existence die at what is comparatively such a tiny cost. Then with the human race gone, morality has gone with it - what was the point of upholding that moral decision then! I guess you might view that outcome differently if you believed in the afterlife and God. I guess justifying the killing of an innocent by saving the human race could be absurd for you in this existential way also if you were inclined to believe the justification was justified in this scenario - saving the world being a choice you would make even though you thought it was wrong because of the killing of an innocent.

If you stick to the raw, initial facts first, before moving this into more layered situations and questions - what do you see as the moral issues? — Fire Ologist

Its about killing innocents to save more people. If just sticking to the initial facts, I feel like the only reason to not make a choice is that you object to the idea of not killing innocent people, and that is indistinguishable from having msde a choice - to not pull the lever.

Its about killing innocents to save more people. If just sticking to the initial facts, I feel like the only reason to not make a choice is that you object to the idea of not killing innocent people, and that is indistinguishable from having msde a choice - to not pull the lever. — Apustimelogist

That sums it up. It highlights the distinctions between people dying, and people killing people.

But it leaves no room for a distinction between people killing people, and murder.

It asks us to adjudge ethics between people dying, and people killing people, where I think ethics comes into play where killing is distinguished from murder.

I would let the whole world get destroyed; assuming hitler, notwithstanding his past egregious transgressions, is innocent in the actual trolly incident. You can substitute whoever you want in there, it will make no difference to me: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being (and by innocent I mean in the instance which they may be getting killed), no matter who they are.

Would I want to kill Hitler? Would it emotionally feel like a good choice? Yeah. Is it morally right? Absolutely not.

I can appreciate what you are conveying insofar as it is morally counter-intuitive to the untrained mind; but I think one can appreciate my position more, even if they disagree (ultimately), when they have to build out their own consistent normative ethical theory.

:up:

I would let the whole world get destroyed — Bob Ross

No, you wouldn't.

Lol. I guess we will never know for certain......and I am surely not going to argue with you about what you think are my ethical commitments.

Lol. I guess we will never know for certain......and I am surely not going to argue with you about what you think are my ethical commitments. — Bob Ross

I probably shouldn't have said that, but deontologists annoy me. If the axe murderer comes looking for your friend, you're going to tell him the truth about where he's hiding? If the Nazi's want to know where the Jews are, we're supposed to tell them them the truth? Because we should value the truth so much? No. When the chips are down, nobody acts like that.

I am not a deontologist: I am a virtue ethicist. I just happen to think that rights are inherently deontological; and consequentialism utterly fails at accounting for them properly.

If the axe murderer comes looking for your friend, you're going to tell him the truth about where he's hiding?
If the Nazi's want to know where the Jews are hiding, we're supposed to tell them them the truth? Because we value the truth so much?

No in both cases, because both people that I would be lying to have forfeited their "right" (although I know there isn't a legal right to it) to be told the truth because they are actively trying to violate someone else's rights.

This is the same with self-defence: I am not advocating that it is always wrong to kill people. I am advocating that it is wrong to kill innocent people; and it is wrong to lie to innocent people. See what I mean?

No. When the chips are down, nobody acts like that.

Some people do and, although I disagree with them if they tell the truth to a Nazi or the axeman, I respect the courage, authenticity, and spine that it takes to stand by what one believes and not coward out.

:up:

I think I forgot to read these bits:

So “not blameworthy”, but worthy of a judgment of “worse ethically.” Hmm. — Fire Ologist

Well I don't think its necessarily a black and white issue.

If you are forced to either kill one or five people, with seconds to choose, and you had no interest in killing anyone at any point, and you can’t be held blameworthy for the outcome, how is the decision you do make better or worse ethically? I would say the decision (should you decide to risk participation in this death trap) is a practical one, not an ethical one. Less death is practically speaking a better outcome. Why ethically? — Fire Ologist

I think the only reason less death is a better outcome here is because we are speaking ethically. There is no practical benefit in the scenario from less death. We want less death because we think that not killing people or perhaps saving lives is some kind of moral goal. I still think you can have ethical scenarios about killing regardless of whether you put the label of murder on it. Death is bad and reducing it is an ethical issue because we think that is the right thing to do.

morally counter-intuitive to the untrained mind — Bob Ross

I'm not sure this is about training but preferences. Some people think saving the human race is pretty reasonable thing to do and I am sure many would-be survivors would agree. That said, killing an innocent person isn't really right. Then again, saving humanity is a right thing to do on its own, and benefits people (at least under some opinions, because I think that the belief that humanity is bad and a creator of suffering is also kind of a reasonable view in some ways) so surely its fair to say there is both good and bad in the choice? I would say it seems to be a similar case in your morality too where people can forfeit their right to life and its okay to kill them in self-defence or if they are not innocent. You permit bad things for an end. Sure, you would say they are justified in a special way, but then there are probably some people who are even stricter than you are on when it is permissible to kill.

I think the only way a consequentialist can consistently go is to deny that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being: they would have to say that sometimes that is true, and sometimes false.

I agree with you, but you seem to be unaware that many do just that.

Sure, and people get math problems wrong all the time, too. That doesn't mean anything with respect to the question at hand. Suppose you are on a math forum and they are discussing a math problem and you say, "Ah, well it seems that you have arrived at the right answer, but people get the wrong answer all the time. Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to arriving at an answer." This is an ignoratio elenchus at best, unless it is being proposed as an argument for mathematical (or moral) relativism.

I'm using "wrong" to mean: violates one's moral code, not a final conclusion after considering all possible points of view (including but not limited to morality).

Thus in that context your math problem analogy and your similar commentary, is, alas oversimplified to the point of uselessness. Math problem answers are, of course judged on a single axis: rightness. Human decision making is a complex process involving many, many variables, of which moral code adherence is but one. For example, one could conclude that if someone goes through the trouble and expense to build a sidewalk along their lawn for others to tread upon and a Don't Walk on the Grass sign, that it is a violation of someone's moral code, ie it's morally wrong to walk on their grass. I don't disagree with that analysis. Yet considering the quantity of moral wrongness (miniscule) and other (nonmoral) factors, I have routinely cut across lawns, as I suspect you have.

because both people that I would be lying to have forfeited their "right" — Bob Ross

Could you say the person standing on the track has forfeited his life? I mean, we all know to stay off the trolley tracks. Does that person have any duty to the trolley driver to stay off the tracks and avoid being killed?

I am advocating that it is wrong to kill innocent people — Bob Ross

Couldn’t you say the person on the tracks who wasn’t tied down, has forfeited his innocence?

I’m a huge proponent of virtue ethics. I don’t think anyone could ethically participate in the trolley problem because it wreaks of killers and to kill five or one people because they would then be participating in an immoral scenario.

But if we were stuck on that train and knew there was no trick, no murderer behind the scenario, this was just a horrible accident about to happen, then are you killing anyone or is the trolley killing the people?

A plane is going to crash in a city. The only way to reduce the destruction and death is to quick land on that baseball field with kids playing. It’s either two teams and some fans die, or probably fifty or one hundred or more people everywhere else. But to land in the field one has to commit five intentional moves and aim the nose of the plane at the pitcher and land quickly before anyone can run. Since the pilot has to essentially pull the lever to land on the baseball field, is he wrong because it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent people? Should he just chug past and see what happens, or does he have any duty now thrust in his lap to kill as few people as he can?

That said, killing an innocent person isn't really right. Then again, saving humanity is a right thing to do on its own, and benefits people (at least under some opinions, because I think that the belief that humanity is bad and a creator of suffering is also kind of a reasonable view in some ways) so surely its fair to say there is both good and bad in the choice?

If killing an innocent person is wrong, then you can’t do: period. You can’t turnaround and permit yourself to do it in instances where you could avoid a bad outcome or create a better outcome—that would be akin to saying that some immoral acts are morally permissible, which is a manifest contradiction.

I would say it seems to be a similar case in your morality too where people can forfeit their right to life and its okay to kill them in self-defence or if they are not innocent.

The difference is that the trolley problem posits that all victims are innocent.

You permit bad things for an end.

I don’t. I will not permit anyone to kill an innocent human being for any end; because it is wrong.

Sure, you would say they are justified in a special way, but then there are probably some people who are even stricter than you are on when it is permissible to kill.

That’s true: some people believe killing any life form for whatever reason is wrong; but I disagree.

It is an avenue worth exploring, but I simply disagree with it. Usually, they will agree that in-itself killing an innocent person is wrong, but there may be contexts where it is right. What they don't realize, is they are committed by my view if they even admit just the former.

To admit that killing an innocent person is morally permissible, is to lack a proper moral compass; just as much as a person who thinks rape is morally permissible. The nature of the act dictates, quite obviously, that it is wrong.

Could you say the person standing on the track has forfeited his life? I mean, we all know to stay off the trolley tracks. Does that person have any duty to the trolley driver to stay off the tracks and avoid being killed?

That’s a great question. Firstly, the trolley problem stipulates all else is equal; so we cannot consider that in the original hypothetical. However, it is worth exploring as an addendum.

Secondly, yes, I think we can blame people for obvious negligence; so if you are stipulating that a person was informed clearly that they should not be on the tracks, that they have the freedom to easily move off of the tracks, they refuse with no good reason to be on the tracks, and the other five people (on the other tracks) do not have the freedom to move nor are they being negligent; then, yes, I would pull the lever because I am no longer killing an innocent person.

But if we were stuck on that train and knew there was no trick, no murderer behind the scenario, this was just a horrible accident about to happen, then are you killing anyone or is the trolley killing the people?

I guess I am not following this one: whether or not someone orchestrated the trolley dilemma, has no bearing on if you are about to kill an innocent person to try to save five other innocent people.

Since the pilot has to essentially pull the lever to land on the baseball field, is he wrong because it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent people? Should he just chug past and see what happens, or does he have any duty now thrust in his lap to kill as few people as he can?

He should never intentionally kill innocent people: even to avoid a bad outcome. He should keep flying, and try to find a place to land where he is not intentionally sacrificing innocent people.

Now, there is an interesting discussion, from Anscombe, about the difference between intentionally killing someone and doing something which has a statistically likelihood or certainty of killing an innocent person. I am still chewing over that part, so I can’t comment too much; but I am guessing @Leontiskos can probably inform us better on that.

The only way to reduce the destruction and death is to quick land on that baseball field with kids playing. It’s either two teams and some fans die, or probably fifty or one hundred or more people everywhere else. — Fire Ologist

This is very interesting. Much more ambiguous as to whether this is a "kill 5 kids to save 1000" or "To save 1000 you must do a certain move which itself has risk of almost certainly killing kids."

If killing an innocent person is wrong, then you can’t do: period. You can’t turnaround and permit yourself to do it in instances where you could avoid a bad outcome or create a better outcome—that would be akin to saying that some immoral acts are morally permissible, which is a manifest contradiction. — Bob Ross

I think a question is whether someone can be justified in doing something they think is generally morally impermissible because there is a benefit which is morally right.

Maybe one factor is that we tend to talk about moral claims in terms of absolutes which are context-independent - "killing is wrong" - but realistically, everything happens in a context and some contexts really test the limits of those principles. I'm inclined to the view that maybe we create these rules as a way of simplifying the moral process even though realistically, things aren't so simple in some contexts.

By emphasizing the absoluteness of these things we get some weird contradictions like in these examples. On one hand you say "If Killing an innocent person is wrong you can't do it". But then on the otherhand, can you not easily make a claim something like "Saving the human race is right and you should do it.". And there we have a weird contradiction. Both I think are strong valid moral claims that when you ignore context would say are almost imperative. In general, I would say most people would think saving the world is a hugely important imperative - so compelling that so many stories and films are based on this concept, and perhaps it is a large part of the basis for the climate-crisis fixation. Is there a single absolute way of valuating these claims and comparing them? I really doubt it. Its not obvious.

I think the scenario of killing one life vs. saving humanity is not really representative of the intention of either of these absolute claims which come head to head in direct contradiction. We can wonder whether the fact these claims seem incompatible is because the contexts they tend to occur in don't overlap. In our typical world, it seems pretty reasonable, unproblematic, imperative to put the preservation of innocent life at the top of the list with nothing to push it away or threaten that position. Similarly, saving the world usually implies either accidents or "evil" agents that arguably could justifiably be killed if there were no other way. Thinking about that, that isn't even so clear though; for instance, one might say if Hitler was going to destroy the world, we must stop him! If killing him was the only way, then maybe that would be justified. But arguably the table can be turned in the sense that to stop Hitler you probably would never need to actually kill him unless he was a very powerful entity that needed to be brought down personally. But he is a normal man. Once you had him in captivity, he can't do anything and arguably many would say you shouldn't kill him but try him in court and put him in prison (others may say death penalty though). On the other hand, it is almost necessary to kill lots and lots of men in battle to save the world in this case even though they are arguably much more innocent than Hitler. They fight because they are forced to, to feed families, because they are brainwashed by propaganda.

But I digressed a bit. Maybe it is still fair to say that generally these concepts regarding saving humanity and the preservation of an individual human life have primacy in different contexts which don'ttend to conflict. But a question is whether if it was more normal for these contexts to overlap, we would find it more permissible to kill an innocent life to save humanity. Do we not already do this with regard to animals? Other innocent living things we kill to survive? And these sentiments have been changing in the western world as it seems people are becoming more and more considerate of animal welfare, and in a world where harming animals on a daily basis is something people generally do not need to do. At the same time, even most vegans probably don't look upon meat eating people in the same way they would look on a murderer or someone who enabled murder. Realistically, we have caveats and context-dependencies in how we treat these moral absolutes. Either that or they are not as absolute as we think. Realistically there are some scenarios where avoiding contradiction is not possible.

I don’t. I will not permit anyone to kill an innocent human being for any end; because it is wrong. — Bob Ross

But killing is wrong, period! You are permitting a bad thing! Your moral position is more lax than someone who believes it is wrong to kill at all! For instance, what you say here from another posy just above:

"I think we can blame people for obvious negligence; so if you are stipulating that a person was informed clearly that they should not be on the tracks, that they have the freedom to easily move off of the tracks, they refuse with no good reason to be on the tracks, and the other five people (on the other tracks) do not have the freedom to move nor are they being negligent; then, yes, I would pull the lever because I am no longer killing an innocent person."

Actually seems pretty brutal. Now obviously I completely get this reasoning and it is very pragmatic, but it seems that this pragmatic pull [b[does[/b] seem to be something that was already in place in the scenario. What does no good reason even mean here? If they believe the track is a sacred religious site is that a good reason? What if they just feel extremely passionate that they have to sit on this track for no good reason through no fault of their own, is that any different? What does innocent mean here? Surely, if this was just a man on a regular rail track you would not run him over and you would say he had not necessarily forfeits his life... or would you? Clearly there is no clear delineation of the context for forfeiting someone's life here. The forfeiting doesn't precisely depend on what that person has done but on the presence or absence of 5 victims. If the person doesn't forfeit their life when there are no victims then what makes them forfeit their life just because victims are present? Its not clear from your paragraph whether the forfeit is because the victims are there period or they shpuldn't be on the track, period. Maybe you can just stipulate that but then I guess this brings up the idea that it is not entirely clear what innocent means, how arbitrary that might be or what degrees of non-innocence mean the forfeit of life or not. From the perspective of someone woth a stricter view of the permisibility of killing, this may seem very lax and context-dependent.

that would be akin to saying that some immoral acts are morally permissible, which is a manifest contradiction. — Bob Ross

No more or less an absurdity than allowing the world to die to avoid culpability - leading to a world where no people existed and morality was meaningless. I said before maybe someone who believes in God or an afterlife would have a different view but I do not believe in an objective fact of the matter about moral truths. Morality arises in social interaction out of biology. So when society is gone and everyone is dead, then morality is pointless and doesn't exist. I think there is also an interesting question of whether someone letting the world burn to uphold their moral integrity could be seen as selfish and immoral in some sense. You refuse to killin ocent people but at the same time you find it reasonable to not get involved or attempt to intervene in a world where other people kill people. You could try to prevent other deaths but generally people think it is fine to not so this. So when someone allows the world to be destroyed, it is because they want to avoid a bad thing happening or is it because they want to avoid their own culpability? Some see it as admirable to sacrifice their own life for the good of others. Would someone sacrifice themselves in terms or moral culpability in the same way? Is the need not to be blamed greater than other's wellbeing? I'm not necessarily entertaining these things very seriously and the last thought seems to de-emphasize the innocent life at stake in order to look at the motives of the agent. But it is interesting how seemingly you can be very flexible with how you frame moral issues to emphasize one thing or the other. And perhaps that is the very reason why deontological positions are attractive, even useful.

but I disagree. — Bob Ross

Yes, ultimately in some respects its all turtles going round and round. Sometimes people disagree just on intuition though I think all moral discussion depends on at least some shared values through which we can persuade. But then again, if there are situations when consensus simply does not exist, then its even more difficult. Some moral situations are by their nature insoluble in any way that is totally satisfying. I doubt anyone is totally satisfied with the trolley problem even when they commit to one correct choice.

Edit: In bold, doesn't changed to does

I agree there is an absolute law that killing an innocent person is never permissible.

The reason killing an innocent person is wrong is because of the unique value of each person.

New hypo: a whole bunch of innocent people are dying, dropping like lemmings off of a cliff. You can’t save them all but you are given a choice and tools (big net and a helicopter) that can save one or save five of them. All will surely die without you, it’s just a choice of whether you take the bigger net and helicopter to save five, or the little one.

Is there a duty to take the bigger net because it is wrong to kill an innocent person? No. You aren’t the cause of any of the deaths so you are not culpable for any who are not saved.

I think the same reasoning may apply in the inverse with the trolley. Whether you pull or do not pull the lever, you aren’t responsible for any of the deaths. You are not responsible for the death of the person alone on the tracks if what you were doing was trying save as many lives as possible to address a situation that was otherwise beyond your control.

That also means that you wouldn’t be responsible for not pulling the lever either - just choosing the smaller net during a time of crisis.

Hmm, thinking about it, I thought the baseball example was more ambiguous but thinking about it more I'm just thinking that I don't think this would be allowed to happen in a real life scenario. There would be rules that a flight could not land like this in some kind of populated area regardless. Maybe not as ambiguous at all in this particular case at least. Albeit I do wonder what the fallout or public opinion on this would be if some pilot landed a plane and saved 800 people but inadvertantly killed a baseball team.

Whether you pull or do not pull the lever, you aren’t responsible for any of the deaths. — Fire Ologist

I feel like there is a funny kind of "paradox" in itself here in the sense that in that if I had the mindset that I was not morally responsible for the outcome, it would be extremely easy for me to just pick saving more people in the trolley example. If I did not pick the 5, then I would still feel guilty and feel like I did something wrong by saving less people than I could have. But then if I felt bad about not saving 5, I would probably also feel bad about killing the 1 and then its back to feeling that moral responsibility (I guess the net example doesn't have this particular point though). I think it would be impossible for me not to feel some even under the circumstances you lay out.

I'm using "wrong" to mean: violates one's moral code, not a final conclusion after considering all possible points of view (including but not limited to morality). — LuckyR

Then you're using it dishonestly or equivocally, for not only is that not what the word means, it is also not what the word means to your interlocutor. Ergo: you are involved in a very low-level begging of the question of moral relativism.

Depends on many things. If, as depicted, it would be a relatively quick death, then I would base my decision on 'who', rather than amount. If it were my family member who was the other one, or a prospected greater good, I'd eliminate the majority; in such a case where the majority would experience major pain, and the other one not so much, I would save the majority and lose my family member. If we're asking what's the moral reason, there can only be one right answer.

And that's only because you're pulling the lever.

Now, there is an interesting discussion, from Anscombe, about the difference between intentionally killing someone and doing something which has a statistically likelihood or certainty of killing an innocent person. I am still chewing over that part, so I can’t comment too much; but I am guessing Leontiskos can probably inform us better on that. — Bob Ross

The debates over double effect get pretty tricky. I touched on some of that in <this post> from another thread.

Suppose a pilot runs out of fuel over a large music festival and his airplane will crash somewhere in the festival no matter what he does. The pilot has a duty not to kill, but he also has a separate but related duty to cause as few deaths as possible in the event where he cannot avoid causing deaths (whether or not we decide to call this "causing of death" killing). So the good pilot will land in the area with fewest people to minimize injury and death.

The question arises: did the pilot intentionally kill (or injure) the people in that area? I think not. This is what I would call a legitimate case of double effect, where the pilot's decision is morally sound even though he knows it will result in the death of innocents. It is an easier case on account of the necessity involved: given that the pilot literally has no choice but to cause the death of innocents, the consequent death of innocents cannot be imputed to his free actions. Nevertheless, he does have a choice over how many innocents die, and this choice is morally imputable to him. Some might reasonably argue that this falls short of an authentic case of double effect insofar as the act with the double effect (or side effect) is involuntary (i.e. the act of landing the plane, which is not strictly speaking a choice at all).

(This is all reminiscent of the Tom Hanks film, based on a true story, "Sully.")

Folks argue over double effect, but a common moral principle which double effect presupposes is the principle that one cannot do evil that good may come. This intersects with the trolley scenario via the difficult question of whether the evil effect is a means to the good effect. The lever-pullers often involve themselves in what I (and Anscombe) might call "intention games" where they profess to have intended one outcome but not the other, despite the fact that both outcomes are certain.

As a parallel to the airplane scenario, folks who pull the lever tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity, similar to the pilot. Those who do not pull the lever do not tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity. The key is that they view omissions differently. The former think that to omit pulling the lever is the same as intentionally killing the five (or is at least as intentional as the parallel commission), whereas the latter think that the omission is not intentionally killing the five, and is certainly not as intentional as the commission.

I read the paper. Liked it. Agree with it. Think I am speaking in line with much of it. — Fire Ologist

:up:

So the good pilot will land in the area with fewest people to minimize injury and death. — Leontiskos

Isn’t there an argument that by pulling the lever you are landing the trolley in the area with the fewest people?

Under a general duty to cause as few deaths as possible in the event (one) cannot avoid causing deaths”?

The exigent circumstances remove all intent to kill anyone from the actions taken by the person on the trolley or the pilot.

Isn’t there an argument that by pulling the lever you are landing the trolley in the area with the fewest people? — Fire Ologist

Sure, as I said in the same post:

As a parallel to the airplane scenario, folks who pull the lever tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity, similar to the pilot. — Leontiskos

As a parallel to the airplane scenario, folks who pull the lever tend to see themselves as being in a state of necessity, similar to the pilot. — Leontiskos

So, now factoring in intent, if one refuses to pull the lever because one will never willingly kill an innocent person, they are acting morally; and if one pulls the lever because they see the necessity of reducing death, they are acting morally.

Correct?

He should never intentionally kill innocent people: even to avoid a bad outcome. — Bob Ross

I have a potentially interesting question for you Bob. Lets say it wasn't some other person, but yourself. You are presented with the following choice:

If you voluntarily choose to die, the world is saved.
If you decide not to die, the world dies and you die as well.

The thing is, you are an innocent person are you not?

How do you rationally reconcile the conflicts that arise from this scenario and your decision?