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. — EyE

I don't have any thoughts on it, as I thought that that was the result of a misunderstanding. Do you mean what are my thoughts on the last sentence?

You would sacrifice all of humanity because you personally believe not even one person should ever be forced to sacrifice their life? — ToothyMaw

I think most people would sacrifice a person if the stakes were that high. However, the wisdom of the general rule that noone should be sacrificed for the greater good is also pretty intuitive.

The problem, from a deontological perspective anyways, is whether you can formulate a general rule or maxim that can account for particularly dire circumstances without undermining the force of the command for all other circumstances. In other words is it possible to draw an abstract and general line between the exceptions and the rule.

A consequentialist does not directly have this problem, the consequentialist does need to decide though how to integrate concerns about moral hazard and respect for the individual into their calculation.

? You've shown that you can make logical conclusions so why are you not applying it to the og question. The only real reason you've shown to kill 1 person to save 5 is because you wish to.

The problem, from a deontological perspective anyways, is whether you can formulate a general rule or maxim that can account for particularly dire circumstances without undermining the force of the command for all other circumstances. In other words is it possible to draw an abstract and general line between the exceptions and the rule.

A consequentialist does not directly have this problem, the consequentialist does need to decide though how to integrate concerns about moral hazard and respect for the individual into their calculation. — Echarmion

Yes, agreed. I myself always leaned naturally towards consequentialism, so the trolley problem has always been relatively straightforward to me. The OP is clearly trying to get at whether or not, or at what point, one will make this exception to the rule of not sacrificing people for the greater good.

That being said, a deontologist could create rules such that the protection of humanity in general takes precedence over the protection of individuals by nesting them. Asimov's Laws of Robotics did this in a simple and concise manner: his Zeroth Law, which says that no robot must harm humanity, supersedes all of the laws protecting individual humans or robots. But the challenge with this approach is resolving the unexpected conflicts that arise from people (or robots) applying the hierarchy of rules in situations far less straightforward than the trolley problem.



My response is that I would pull the lever and sacrifice one life to save more lives, although I think it is a little vulgar to speculate at what threshold. My reasoning is that sometimes good rules that generally apply (do not sacrifice people) need to be broken to effect good consequences, and that to do so is not wrong just for breaking said rules. To choose any alternative - in this case inaction - to pulling the lever is wrong because more people will die than if the lever is pulled. The decision procedure implied by what I just wrote, however, is only useful because the trolley problem is a contrived thought experiment and definitely isn't reflective of how I think we should approach moral problems in our daily lives.

Assuming that all forms of strategic bombing involve deaths of innocents, do you think it's always immoral? For example, suppose a well placed bomb in WW2 could wipe out the Nazi leadership but also destroy a school. Would the Allies have been wrong to do it?

Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance.

The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander".

As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem".

Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance. — LuckyR

Are you capable of reading? I granted your point about responsibility, saying that the person near the lever would not be literally responsible for the deaths of the people on the track:

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. — ToothyMaw

Neither was I saying that the bystander is responsible for the death of the drowning child. I was just trying to demonstrate that people often view inaction as being evil too:

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. — ToothyMaw

You clearly didn't take much time to read and understand what I was saying, as I literally say that they are not causing the bad outcome.

The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander". — LuckyR

I don't doubt this. I made no claims about the wording someone might use, and I think you are right. But the point of the OP is clearly focused on whether or not someone's desire to create better consequences might overcome their desire not to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander. Thus, he asks at what number of lives lost would one pull the lever.

As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem". — LuckyR

You are getting the fat man on the bridge vs. diverting the trolley via lever things mixed up with what is in the OP. Unless I'm mistaken the only paradox there is is that people will sometimes intentionally kill the person on the tracks via a lever but are mostly unwilling to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley because that seems more like intentional killing, when really both are clearly intentional.

a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox — LuckyR

Yeah, that's not really a paradox.

Patterner Assuming that all forms of strategic bombing involve deaths of innocents, do you think it's always immoral? For example, suppose a well placed bomb in WW2 could wipe out the Nazi leadership but also destroy a school. Would the Allies have been wrong to do it? — RogueAI

Yes. They would have been wrong. You don't kill children because of what their parents do. Find a better answer.

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? — ToothyMaw

I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money??

Let's say they aren't the most honest, moral beings running around. They certainly wouldn't have any credibility with me. So maybe they were faking, and only wanted us using up our time and resources on this useless task, then they resumed their attack after we gave them the money.

And are we really still managing to send out our foreign aid as we're battling against far more technologically advanced aliens for the gate of the world?

Let's say they demand the USA's entire foreign aid budget in pennies. Maybe they need the metal.

It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel.