Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

[TheStatutoryApe]

And that's why the trolley problem is better, imo, it takes away the 3rd party. It's all you: with one choice, you allow a bunch of people to die and with the other, you kill one person.

It's funny, I have never heard of the trolly problem but came up with a similar scenario while reading through the posts here. My idea was to take out the middle man. A train is out of control. Switch a track and make the train derail sooner, killing and injuring the people aboard, or allow it to continue on its path when it will derail anyway in another area where several bystanders are located. Mr. "button pusher" can no longer push the onus for the perceived necessity off onto someone else and Mr. "hands off" can not put the responsibility for maximum casualties on the head of some villain.
I also wanted to show Dave that there are real life situations where these sorts of decisions take place. A similar and far more common scenario is the soldier at a road block who must decide to shoot at a bus, carrying civilians and very likely a bomb aswell, rushing the road block where there are yet more persons who will die if the bus reaches them and blows up. Of course we wind up with a villain to blame again.

 

[superwolf]

I wouldn't (and didn't) say that you would be, but by proper application of the law you should be. Juries are composed of ordinary citizens, not lawyers and they don't always rule according to the law. Either way, though, you would, absolutely, lose a wrongful death lawsuit by the family of the person you killed.

I am forced to kill either 1 or 5.

 

[superwolf]

The utilitarian principle is rejected because it violates a person or peoples' individual rights

I'm an utilitarian and a social liberal. In the train problem, violating individal rights cannot be avoided. Therefore, it's better to violate one person's individual right than five.

Btw, individual rights are made by humans, and should't be included in a philosophical argument.

 

[Hurkyl]

We can invent a totally, absolutely vacuum-sealed scenario where there are absolutely two and only two choices, sure. But that has nothing to do with real life. Real life is where ethics apply.

We can't know what the right thing to do in a "real life" scenario if we don't already know the right thing to do in the idealized scenario.

 

[dilletante]

No. In one case, he is killing people, in the other case someone else is killing people. Open & shut.

As far as what will or won't happen, it would be immoral to take action basedd on the word of the mastermind who has already taken them hostage. Who is to say he won't blow them up anyway?

There are several things I disagree with here. One is the assumption that inaction absolves one of responsibility. Not everything is black and white, there are levels and degrees.

Suppose a car is speeding down a street towards a deaf pedestrian. You have time to take his hand and lead him to safety, or you can do nothing and rationalize that the driver of the car is killing him, not you.

Case 2. Suppose a deranged man enters a classroom and is gunning down students. You pass by and you happen to have a gun. You can do nothing or you can kill the madman. Can you conclude it is never morally right to kill another to save lives?

There have been many attempts to justify one solution or another by changing the problem. The problem states what WILL happen, leaving no room for assumptions like the madman may be lying.

There is some wiggle room in the problem as stated, though. Since the outcome is inevitable as stated, what if the passengers on one of the ships voted unanimously to sacrifice themselves to save the others? Would the captain of the other ship then be in the clear morally if he pushed the button? Or would it make no difference?

 

[Huckleberry]

I think it would be time for a late night swim. I'm used to being on a ship packed with explosives. Finding myself with a boatload of philosophers is much more frightening.

Come to think of it, this was exactly my impression when we were called to general quarters off the coast of Florida when we were told that Cuba shot down some U.S. aircraft and we just happened to be a few miles away. The people around me that were freaking out were far more immediately dangerous than Cuba.

This situation is nothing like reality. Rational thought is the last thing on most people's minds. I was at a mall when some punk around the corner pulled a gun and started shooting. People were running screaming down the hall to the exit in a crazed manner. Not one stopped to think that they should sacrifice themselves to stop the gunman from executing dozens. I guess there were no fat guys nearby to push at him.

I think I know why this question bothers me so much now. The life of the philosophizer is not in danger. Throw yourself off the philosophical bridge, or let the fat guy decide for himself what the value of his own life is in comparison to what will be lost.

This is just an excuse to rationalize the murder of innocent people. The choice here is between helping a psychopath kill 500 people or a psychopath killing 1500. Personally, I'd rather kill the psychopath, but since I'm not Batman I suggest everyone abandon ship because the button is going into the drink if I'm responsible for it. I'll have no part in killing any innocent people. (Even the criminals are innocent of this situation) There is no option for the saving of lives in this scenario, only the murder of less of them.

WWII is another example of what happens when people follow the orders and threats of madmen who value their own lives above others. No lives are saved as a direct result of war. Many more than are killed are lost in the process. I'm reminded of this when I talk to veterans who actually did make these kinds of decisions. My uncle still needs to take medication to prevent him from experiencing violent night terrors he picked up from Vietnam. But hey, believe whatever makes you sleep soundly at night because rationalizing these scenarios won't help in a real situation anyway. It's the traits inherent in a person's character that inform their actions in extreme situations, kind of like what Marines call muscle memory, except for the consciousness. Philosophers aren't cut out for the front lines so they stay home and think on the death of innocents, and make terrible movies with horribly contrived plots.

/rant

 

[superwolf]

Does the fat man on the bridge have more right not to be thrown down, than the five men on the railway have not to be overrun by the trolley?

 

[mheslep]

but since I'm not Batman ...

No you're not Huck, because, yes, I am The Batman.

 

[Huckleberry]

Are you seriously asking this?

Yes, the fat man on the bridge has more right not to be murdered than five men have to die in an accident, both legally and imo morally. The difference is in intent. Greater good my posterior unit. I have yet to see a definition of good that doesn't wrap around itself. It tries to justify an argument based on it's own authority with little to no basis in objectivity. I don't think goodness doesn't exist, but it is a subjective idea. You would want to throw the man off the bridge, or destroy hundreds of boat passengers, based on your own subjective reasoning of what the greater good is, regardless of whose lives it affects.

Even if some philosopher did manage to somehow push the fat guy from the bridge, and I have it on good authority that fat men are difficult to move against their will, I would credit the fat man as the hero. The philosopher would, and I think should, go to prison to live amongst his peers and become intimately familiar with people that also don't give a squat about his freedom. But more likely the fat guy, being more physically capable to do so, would just toss the philosopher over the side. On his way down he could think about how his own death will serve his own vision of what is good, and what a fine trolleystop he will make in the afterlife.

 

[Huckleberry]

No you're not Huck, because, yes, I am The Batman.

You're just in time. The Joker is blowing up boats and the Riddler is derailing trolleys. Help, the fat men are falling! I want to see some stately onomatopoeias in generously proportioned, electric text real soon. Which villian will you stop first? Heck, just tackle 'em both at the same time.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/funny_pages_20/images/2008/07/11/serie_bap_2.jpg
Sorry I couldn't get a better picture of you.

 

[superwolf]

Are you seriously asking this?

Yes, the fat man on the bridge has more right not to be murdered than five men have to die in an accident, both legally and imo morally.

Say it's not an accident, but that they have been tied there against their will.

 

[mheslep]

Clearly, Batman is not a utilitarian, he values all life, and self promotion.

Nic: Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man!
Batman: I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me.
Nic: What are you?
Batman: I'm Batman.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I think I know why this question bothers me so much now. The life of the philosophizer is not in danger. Throw yourself off the philosophical bridge, or let the fat guy decide for himself what the value of his own life is in comparison to what will be lost.

This is just an excuse to rationalize the murder of innocent people.

Philosophers aren't cut out for the front lines so they stay home and think on the death of innocents, and make terrible movies with horribly contrived plots.

/rant

Are you really attempting to discredit and deamonize philosophers for asking tough questions? Philosophers, in sum, do not derive pleasure from thinking of people dying or being executed. I have no idea what has lead you to have such an acute anger for people who enjoy exploring their own beliefs. Your argument is laden with fallacies and needs to be revised.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you really attempting to discredit and deamonize philosophers for asking tough questions? Philosophers, in sum, do not derive pleasure from thinking of people dying or being executed. I have no idea what has lead you to have such an acute anger for people who enjoy exploring their own beliefs. Your argument is laden with fallacies and needs to be revised.

I didn't get that impression at all. I think you're putting too much earnestness into his words.

Besides, he has a point. Many people here talk about saving 1500 lives versus 500. Easy to say from an armchair.

Everybody seems to think the solution is a no-brainer. All they're doing is counting numbers.

Nonsense.

But put a detonator in their hand, tell them there's 500 innocent people lashed to the business end, and see if they still think it's just numbers.

cuz if it is just a numbers game to these very real posters, I weep for our future.

 

[drankin]

If you're on the boat with 500, you better have fast fingers. *click*

 

[Hurkyl]

But put a detonator in their hand, tell them there's 500 innocent people lashed to the business end, and see if they still think it's just numbers.

A fallacy, and an obvious one at that. The difficulty one has in performing an action has no bearing on whether or not that is the morally correct action.

You're pushing the idea that you should ignore any difficult moral issues and simply take the easy way out.

 

[drankin]

From my armchair, it would be morally acceptable for either boat to detonate the other under the circumstances. But, I believe is also morally acceptable for an innocent person to kill another in order to same themselves. Liken it to self defense. I had to push the button or he was going to kill me.

 

[DaveC426913]

A fallacy, and an obvious one at that. The difficulty one has in performing an action has no bearing on whether or not that is the morally correct action.

You're pushing the idea that you should ignore any difficult moral issues and simply take the easy way out.

How strange that you see a weakness where I see a strength in the argument.

The point I'm making is that there is a very good reason for it being difficult. The reason is because it is morally reprehensible to kill people, let alone 500 of them. I brook no qualifiers on it that might offer various contrivances to supposedly make it morally justifable (like the assurances of a madman that he will kill you if you don't).

In my opinion, to kill or not to kill is the only moral issue here, and it brushes aside all this smoke and mirrors designed to make you think you're somehow "rationally" murdering 500 innocent people.

 

[Huckleberry]

Okay, now it's murder in both cases. You've introduced a second murderer to take partial responsibility for the scenario. It doesn't change the intent of the person doing the pushing. It just adds more murderous intent to distract from the first example.

If you keep pushing the boundaries you will eventually find a point where I would agree that I would push the guy, or press the button, or whatever. You would have to push pretty hard, and I would still think it was wrong. It would just be a matter of practicality over principle.

Note that I would consider this sacrifice of others against their will as practical in exceptional situations, not as ethically sound. So if you are making a case that it is ethically sound then I am still in disagreement. If you are making a case that if you raise the stakes high enough it can sometimes be practical, then I would have to agree with you even though I hate it. I generally don't accept philosophies that value practicality over principle. They tend towards a pattern of doing what is useful to them, and not what is good. But ask me what good means and I probably can't explain that to your satisfaction either. That's where the lines get crossed and what is practical to the authoritative agency becomes the definition of principle that they act upon.

I'm very wary of any scenarios that would force people into a situation where they would be complicit in the execution of some lives for others. It seeks a practical answer while eliminating options for principled ones. Wars can be practical. A principled war on the other hand, I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

edit - the sarcasm is mostly for my own amusement. I do think my point was pretty clear, but I was obviously ranting. Take what you want from it or ignre it completely as you see fit.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wars can be practical. A principled war on the other hand, I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

Just ask the defending side...

 

[superwolf]

Will it be immoral of the captain with 1000 passengers on his boat not to push the button?

 

[Huckleberry]

Just ask the defending side...

Oh, they're just sore losers who always got picked last at dodgeball. That's what happens when you lose at the numbers game.

 

[ephedyn]

I subscribe to the contractarian view. That the person responsible for the detonation, and the 1500 people, were to come together in some initial state prior to the ethical action, given the condition that they will be randomly put into this group of 1501.

With no premonition of which role they would end up with, and knowing it would be better than if all of them were to die together, these 1501 people would certainly agree that it is fair that the correct action of the person placed in charge of the detonation is to blow up those 500 in favour of 1000 - everyone would prefer a 1000/1501 survival rate to a 1/1501 survival rate if this dichotomy were to be forced upon them; this would be a minimax decision, and a pretty easy one to make.

Edit: Let me complete my point, though this conclusion will be trivial; hence, the option of killing 500 in favour of the lives of the other 1000 is ethically justified because that is simply a 'pre-contract'.

 

[junglebeast]

Two boats are with explosives and 1000 and 500 people respectively. Each boat has a detonator to the other boat's bomb. Both boats will be blown up in one hour unless one boat blows the other boat up first.

Will it be immoral of the captain on the boat with 1000 people not to blow the other boat up?

Morality is relative to a person's morals, which are derived from their experiences. Therefore there is no absolute answer to this question, because the answer depends entirely on the person answering...just as there is no absolute correct answer to the question, "where were you last night?"

You can ask the opinion of as many people as you like, but the only people who will answer the question absolutely are those who believe that the concept of morality was created by a God before mankind entered the picture.

 

[superwolf]

Morality is relative to a person's morals, which are derived from their experiences. Therefore there is no absolute answer to this question, because the answer depends entirely on the person answering...just as there is no absolute correct answer to the question, "where were you last night?"

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

Are you of the opinion that all moral values are equally valid?

You can ask the opinion of as many people as you like, but the only people who will answer the question absolutely are those who believe that the concept of morality was created by a God before mankind entered the picture.

As an utilitarian, I will give an absolute answer; yes, the captain should blow the other boat up. I hate it when people say that without being religious, you can have no moral standards.

 

[junglebeast]

As an utilitarian, I will give an absolute answer; yes, the captain should blow the other boat up. I hate it when people say that without being religious, you can have no moral standards.

To the contrary...every person has moral standards. This was implicit in my response, because a person's moral standards are defined by their answers to moral questions.

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

Morality is just a word that we humans made up to describe right and wrong. A person can either believe that human life evolved through random mutations, or that we had an intelligent creator who made us for a purpose. Without believing in an intelligent creator, it is a fallacy of logic to postulate that the word we created to refer to what a person thinks is right has any meaning beyond what we made it up to have. Because morality is a relative word, it can be applied in reference to any individual, or to the average ideals of any group of people. Of course, the larger and more diverse the group becomes the less accurate the average ideals will become at representing the collective opinion.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I didn't get that impression at all. I think you're putting too much earnestness into his words.

Besides, he has a point. Many people here talk about saving 1500 lives versus 500. Easy to say from an armchair.

Everybody seems to think the solution is a no-brainer. All they're doing is counting numbers.

Nonsense.

But put a detonator in their hand, tell them there's 500 innocent people lashed to the business end, and see if they still think it's just numbers.

cuz if it is just a numbers game to these very real posters, I weep for our future.

Men may construe things after their own fashion.

Anyways, I see where you and others are coming from. There is some legitimacy to the idea of to kill or not to kill, and though you cite that "everybody" counts numbers, far fewer people subscribe to the Utilitarian ethics. And for a reason I suppose- I understand that situations exceed 'numbers', and that killing is an act that runs deeper than the body count afterwards.

I simply thought that, under the original scenario given to us, I would rather have 1000 live than let all 1500 die. There was no option that allowed for the survival of everyone. If there was, I would have taken it instantly; I take no pleasure in planning the demise of people in my imagination, or in real life. Killing is not something I take lightly.

 

[superwolf]

Morality is just a word that we humans made up to describe right and wrong.

Which brings us to the question: "what is right and wrong?" If we didn't know, why the need for words to describe them? Without definitions, the words are superfluous.

When person A says "that is wrong", it may mean "that gives me a bad feeling".
When person B says "that is wrong", it may mean "that is contradictory to the Bible".
When person C says "that is wrong", it may mean "that does not maximixe happiness or minimize suffering".

I think there is no need to talk about what is right and wrong unless we point out a framework, for instance utilitarianism. Whether utilitarianism is a better moral system than all the others, cannot be proven.

 

[junglebeast]

Which brings us to the question: "what is right and wrong?" If we didn't know, why the need for words to describe them? Without definitions, the words are superfluous.

Ignoring all the other contextual definitions, right = in accordance with a moral code, and wrong = in discordance with the moral code. But it's all relative to the moral code. You're either comparing it to an individual's moral code, or the mean of the distribution of the moral values of a group of people, or some absolute standard that you believe to be greater than humans -- but in order to believe in the latter, it is implicit that it is the moral standard laid down by some creator, because there would not be any other higher standard that exists outside of humanity.

 

[DaveC426913]

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

When it comes to morality, yes it does. Morality is a human concept. Since there are 6 billion of us, there cannot be an absolute truth.