Thank you Bob (and thanks also for explaining how to link to people).

Very interesting :up:

As always: a great conversation Leontiskos, and I look forward to our future encounters! :smile:

:up:

What I find particularly interesting is the notion that not getting involved is equated to commiting the act. — Tzeentch

If it feels good to hear this, you're welcome:

Silence is not violence.
You can be without, rather than with or against.
Not acting is literally not acting. It is incoherent to assign blame because of inaction. The laws around this is utterly absurd and make no sense. Importing obligations on members of society to endanger themselves is fucking WILD my guy, and this is based on the idea tha tnot acting is at least some way toward committing hte act.

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. "Well, I would have helped" is usually a lie.

Death is inevitable. I’m not going to actively intervene and take responsibility for the death of the one person who might have lived. Besides, what real choice am I given? The train will follow its own course, and the outcome isn't determined by my selection of a track but by the natural progression of events. If you want to frame this in mathematical terms, you must recognize that this is not a simple equation of choosing between 1 and 5 lives. The probabilities and ethical weight aren't balanced, and I’m not the one who sets those outcomes in motion.

Hey, welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around, because I like the substance of your first post.

The train will follow its own course, and the outcome isn't determined by my selection of a track but by the natural progression of events. — EyE

It follows the course you allow it to, methinks; it isn't a deterministic process in which you cannot intervene; you can choose such that two different outcomes are possible.

If you want to frame this in mathematical terms, you must recognize that this is not a simple equation of choosing between 1 and 5 lives. The probabilities and ethical weight aren't balanced, and I’m not the one who sets those outcomes in motion. — EyE

I think the point of the thought experiment is that the two outcomes are indeed not weighted equally according to consequentialist reasoning. You are choosing between losing five lives or saving four. Not acting to save the four lives is a choice.

Furthermore, if you aren't responsible for the lives lost for not switching the tracks on the basis that you didn't actually start the train down the tracks (which I think is what you are saying), then who is? Do we just trace the chain of causes backwards until someone took an action that you would consider direct enough to cause the loss of life and impose responsibility there?

It sounds like you are making the claim that determinism leaves no room to explore a thought experiment on the basis that the ethical actor didn't create the scenario, and therefore is exempt from any sort of ethical imperative or responsibility. Is this correct?

Sure, there is room for you to get involved but ultimately the decision you are making is whether you would sacrifice 1 life to save 5. That's not to say if there wasn't someone on that second track I wouldn't pull the lever because of "fate" haha, but at least then I can entertain the choice.

ultimately the decision you are making is whether you would sacrifice 1 life to save 5. That's not to say if there wasn't someone on that second track I wouldn't pull the lever because of "fate" haha, but at least then I can entertain the choice. — EyE

Why might you switch the track if doing so would save the five lives without resulting in a death?

I'm not sure at the moment. Death can come at anytime and if someone wants to invoke it they have the agency to, but not in this situation. So I guess by switching that track I honour their ability to choose.

Death can come at anytime and if someone wants to invoke it they have the agency to, but not in this situation. So I guess by switching that track I honour their ability to choose. — EyE

So, for you at least, the important thing to consider here is the freedom to choose when and where one dies, and for what. That is 100% not what I expected you to say. It is an interesting take on it.

How would you apply this view on freedom in situations where it is not so cut and dry, though?

For instance, what if the lone person on one of the tracks had the ability to redirect the train such that it would kill the five? The lone person's choice over when and where they want to die could lead to five other people losing that choice. Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? And if so, why? If you don't impose some means of valuing and weighing freedoms against each other, I think we run into a problem that is almost intractable when we zoom out. Or at least I couldn't solve it.

*It would be six choices preserved if the lone person decided not to redirect the trolley because by definition, they would be honoring their own choice to die when they want, and this choice would allow the five on the other track to still choose when and where they die. Thus, the freedom of everyone is preserved in a selfless act. And don't say the lone person could've just stepped off of the tracks.

Sorry if I'm straying too far from the traditional trolley problem.

I just want to point out before I answer your question that their isn't 6 choices. When you sacrifice someone it means to kill them when they weren't predestined to die. You seem to look at this in a "I could have killed you if I wanted to but I didn't therefore I saved you" kinda of way. Which is unethical to say the least :lol:

The lone person's choice over when and where they want to die could lead to five other people losing that choice. — ToothyMaw

If somebody wanted to sacrifice 5 people to save themselves...that's none of my business :lol:.
Seeming that the only way to stop them would be to sacrifice them myself I'd be doing the same thing.

their isn't 6 choices — EyE

Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? — ToothyMaw

When I say six choices would be preserved, I'm saying that the choice of when and where one dies for five people are preserved if the person on the lone track sacrifices themselves. I'm not saying that there are six different choices the lone person on the track could make to kill only one person on the other track, if that's what you think I'm saying.

When you sacrifice someone it means to kill them when they weren't predestined to die. You seem to look at this in a "I could have killed you if I wanted to but I didn't therefore I saved you" kinda of way. Which is unethical to say the least :lol: — EyE

I'm a little confused by this. I'm talking about the choice of the lone person on the tracks to willingly sacrifice themselves to save the five on the other track. If they chose to do so, then they would be honoring their own choice with regards to when and where they die, and for what, which is the thing you said makes saving lives important. It might be a choice made under duress, but it is still a choice; it isn't like we don't already know that one's idea of what is right and wrong can interact with whatever idea one has in one's head of the circumstances under which one might intentionally end one's life without robbing them of agency. But this point is less important than your answer to the question I asked you in my last post.

I have no idea how predestination fits into this except insofar as sacrificing oneself might prevent one from dying in the ideal way one might want to. So, with regards to this sort of ideal death, what I said earlier doesn't really apply, although it isn't clear whether you are talking about that, or just the condition of having the agency to be able to intentionally end one's life when and where one wants.

I see now that my last post wasn't particularly well-written. If I need to clarify something, just say so.

*It would be six choices preserved if the lone person decided not to redirect the trolley because by definition, they would be honoring their own choice to die when they want, and this choice would allow the five on the other track to still choose when and where they die. — ToothyMaw

This is logically correct.

So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it.

why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. — EyE

If my logic is correct as you say, then if the lone person does not pull the lever, then the ability for six people to choose how they die is preserved or honored. I'm saying that the lone person on one of the tracks is the one pulling the lever, not me, to potentially save themselves, at the cost of the other five people on the other track. I should have made that clearer when I proposed the modified thought experiment.

Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE

Can you expound on this? I think you are on to something, but it sounds a little circular.

If my logic is correct as you say, then if the lone person does not pull the lever, then the ability for six people to choose how they die is preserved or honored. I'm saying that the lone person on one of the tracks is the one pulling the lever, not me, to potentially save themselves, at the cost of the other five people on the other track. I should have made that clearer when I proposed the modified thought experiment. — ToothyMaw

Lol I mean't the original trolley problem as in the one they gave us in the beginning.

Yeah, I realized that we must have been talking about two different things. Oof.

The way the trolley problem is classically set up missed two important points. First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. Second, at the time the lever is pulled (or not pulled) the exact consequences of action or inaction is not known with certainty by the bystander. Thus the answer is "it doesn't matter", do whatever strikes you in the moment, you're not open to logical criticism either way.

First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. — LuckyR

And I suppose that if a child that cannot swim is shoved into the pond, you are also not responsible for the outcome of the child drowning even if you could've jumped in and saved them.

Most people recognize that inaction can be wrong even if they don't directly cause the relevant bad outcome they could have prevented - in fact so wrong that they might break a rule against killing to prevent the outcome. Thus, I think that the point of the thought experiment, as presented in the OP, is that at some threshold of loss of life, most people will take a life to save more lives. But I don't think anyone is saying that the person who might pull the lever is literally responsible for all those deaths if they don't pull it.

Second, at the time the lever is pulled (or not pulled) the exact consequences of action or inaction is not known with certainty by the bystander. — LuckyR

You are getting lost in the details; this isn't a substantive criticism. In the OP it just says you allow five people to die, or directly kill one person to save the five. There is nothing about it being "runaway" or whatever you might remember from the classic formulation of the problem, which could probably be modified to deal with these concerns.

Thus the answer is "it doesn't matter", do whatever strikes you in the moment, you're not open to logical criticism either way. — LuckyR

You very much are open to logical criticism. If you don't choose to kill one person to save a net four lives, or five, or six, or three hundred, you clearly care less about horrific consequences and more about not breaking rules, which might be considered myopic. One might even argue that you must do bad things for good consequences sometimes.

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.

Anyone is free to sacrifice themself. Fine if the one says, "Throw the switch! Better I die so many can be saved!"

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people. — Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases?

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.

Anyone is free to sacrifice themself. Fine if the one says, "Throw the switch! Better I die so many can be saved!" — Patterner

What if we raise the stakes to ridiculous levels where the fate of the world rests on running over the guy on the tracks?

What if we raise the stakes to ridiculous levels where the fate of the world rests on running over the guy on the tracks? — RogueAI

If doing nothing means everyone dies, and throwing the switch means only he dies, then saving everyone but him isn't sacrificing him. His fate want changed.

Hey, what's the movie from decades ago when a terrorist executed a woman in (possibly) Times Square. Her fiance wasn't getting much help from the authorities, so he worked and worked, eventually tracking the guy down. Turns out the guy was CIA. They decided to execute a random person publicly, so he could convince the terrorists that he was on their side, and he could infiltrate them. DAMN!

Let's suppose aliens come down and tell us that we're all going to wiped out unless we give the aliens any death row convict. If we do that, we'll all live. If we don't, we'll all die, except the death row convict. What should we do?

We should fight the aliens to the death. Not only because it's wrong to sacrifice people (Did we learn nothing from Omelas?), but also because we would be their bitches from them on.

If you make the scenario something like they are impossible to resist, maybe they are doing this from a light-year away, but we know they can back up their threat, then we die as humans. Captain Pike said:

Giving up our values in the name of security is to lose the battle in advance.

Do we want to live like that, sacrificing another person every time they tell us to? When they demand multiple? When they demand our children instead of death row convicts? Sounds like the Hunger Games. The galactic community would speak of the pathetic humans, and they'd be right. Better to die defiant and with our humanity.

Good points!

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.
— Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases? — ToothyMaw

No.

We live in societies, with laws. The point of it all is to ensure our rights and freedom, and make our lives better. Not take our freedom, quality of life, or our very lives.

But. Since we want to live in these societies, it can't always go the way we want. There are also responsibilities. As they say, freedom isn't free. There are times when we have to do what we have to do for the society. Regardless of the risk.

Obviously, this trolley thing is not that kind of situation.

I’m coming in late here, so apologies in advance if this has already been discussed somewhere in the preceding 14 pages - but at the risk of adding yet another dimension to this good discussion it should be pointed out that there is already a real life aspect here: namely self driving cars. There are numerous hypothetical situations, here’s one:

You`re alone in a self driving car going 55 mph down a two lane road. All of a sudden another car filled with people pulls out in front of you and stalls (maybe it’s driven by a person or maybe there’s a mechanical failure). We’ll assume the technology is sophisticated enough to tell that there is more than one person in the other car. Your self driving car cannot swerve around it because there’s another car coming the other way. The only options are to plough into the stalled car or or to swerve off the road down a steep hill and over a cliff. Your self driving car has air bags and other safety equipment so if your car crashes into the side of the stalled car you will survive with minor injuries but the occupants of the other car will be seriously injured and possibly die. On the other hand if your self driving car chooses to serve off the road then likely you will die.

How should the programmers of the self driving car handle this situation? Beats me.

They shouldn't put it on the road until they get that fixed!

Yeah, I realized that we must have been talking about two different things. Oof. — ToothyMaw

So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE

Lol so what are your thoughts on this now.

Let's suppose aliens come down and tell us that we're all going to wiped out unless we give the aliens any death row convict. If we do that, we'll all live. If we don't, we'll all die, except the death row convict. What should we do? — RogueAI

We should fight the aliens to the death. Not only because it's wrong to sacrifice people (Did we learn nothing from Omelas?), but also because we would be their bitches from them on. — Patterner

maybe they are doing this from a light-year away, but we know they can back up their threat, then we die as humans. — Patterner

You would sacrifice all of humanity because you personally believe not even one person should ever be forced to sacrifice their life? Even in the situation that they would be executed anyways? I mean, clearly we should draw a line with the aliens, and if they cross that line, we do indeed fight them to the death. But should it really lay where you claim it should?

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.
— Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases?
— ToothyMaw
No.

We live in societies, with laws. The point of it all is to ensure our rights and freedom, and make our lives better. Not take our freedom, quality of life, or our very lives.

But. Since we want to live in these societies, it can't always go the way we want. There are also responsibilities. As they say, freedom isn't free. There are times when we have to do what we have to do for the society. Regardless of the risk. — Patterner

Let's say the aliens do indeed come to Earth and demand a death row inmate for some known or unknown, potentially nefarious reason. Let's say the world leaders listen to you and refuse to capitulate because of their high-minded stance on never sacrificing a person unwillingly. A bunch of people's sons and daughters are then drafted to fight in a war against these far more technologically advanced aliens. Many millions of them die. While they would indeed now be defending our freedoms and lives, this would not have happened if not for adherence to an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule.

Let's say that we fight back the aliens, against all odds, and they decide to negotiate with us, demanding the United States' entire foreign aid budget as a sort of tithe in exchange for peace. This might directly result in millions of deaths but will stop the war. Alternatively, we keep the money and fight until every last human is dead. Should we accept the terms of the agreement?