The trolley problem

[Peter van Velzen]

[cut]I have tried to argue that the difference in this case is of importance. For two reasons.In real life the odds differ.[cut]

In some cases that may be so, but not always. There are situations where you have the choice between the options given in these examples. They can also be options forced upon a person. The choice then is again between saving the maximum number of people or saving the individual, no matter what the reason may be.
It's the option between two evils. Which is the lesser evil depends on the view you take.

The "landing in between" is not always an option I think.

I maintain that there are no situations in which you have the choice between the options presented in the examples, as these options depend on omniscience, which we lack, In real life therefor we have different options that are less clear cut. And our innate moral sense is formed to perform in real life. You may play around with your artificial omniscience as much as you like, but you will have to judge our moral attitude by their results in real life only. It is of little interest how much harm is done in these examples, but it matters a great deal how much harm would be done in real life situations. And in real life situations you never know the result of your actions in advance. Only in hindsight.

[HenkM]

You re an escape artist, Peter. Given the choices, what would you choose. To do nothing is also a choice, of course, but that has the result of a crash on the city.
You may also argue that it may crash on a church, or even cathedral, in which case not much harm is done.
You, the pilot, will be dead anyway.

I am no escape artist and may well fly the plane into a building. But real pilots would in actual circumstances try to evade buildings and put the plane down in an open area. Cities and villages contain roads and squares, villages are mostly surrounded by farmland of woods. Forcing the idea of a city a village and no roads squares parks or farmland, is really very artificial.

The pilot will in all instances mainly try and land somewhere where passenger or crew will have a higher chance of survival. That means the city will be evaded, But I wonder whether the fate of the people living there would be his main concern, as his responsibility is first of all passengers and crew.

Last but not least. You are not omniscient. Whether the pilot dies in the crash is not decided until after the crash. The pretense of the philosophizer that he can predict all possible outcomes, creates a universe in which we do not live. Thus the example becomes irrelevant for the universe in which we do.

It is a given, in the problem, that control (i.e. steering the plane) is very very limited.

The whole problem is artificial, Peter. As most such problems are. Like Schroedinger's cat.
Still ... similar 'choices' may occur from time to time.

Furthermore:
I do not believe that there s much difference between actually removing an obstacle (fat or otherwise) in order to prevent more casualties and pulling a switch. Because one must assume (know) that pulling a switch has (some) consequences. But that s me ...

[MoreTime]

I maintain that there are no situations in which you have the choice between the options presented in the examples, as these options depend on omniscience, which we lack, In real life therefor we have different options that are less clear cut. And our innate moral sense is formed to perform in real life. You may play around with your artificial omniscience as much as you like, but you will have to judge our moral attitude by their results in real life only. It is of little interest how much harm is done in these examples, but it matters a great deal how much harm would be done in real life situations. And in real life situations you never know the result of your actions in advance. Only in hindsight.

I agree that we are not omnicient and therefor are not able to see all concequences of our deeds, may they be good or bad. Therefor doing good for your religion can only be judged by your intent. An omnicient god can ask for no more, than for the (general?) inent to do good, even if you fail.

Back to the problem. I can think up many situations where the choices are very limited and there is no inbetween. Especially when the choices are forced upon you from the outisde (by people giving you the choice between 2 evils). I agree that even then the outcome can never be sure, but at that moment you have to make the choice.

You do not know for sure if all 5 people will be killed or even if the fat man will stop the train, maybe the train will derail in time or the driver will stop it. Your choice at that moment however is based upon these absolutes: the fat man dies or the 5 people do, what do you choose.

[Peter van Velzen]

You re an escape artist, Peter. Given the choices, what would you choose. To do nothing is also a choice, of course, but that has the result of a crash on the city.
You may also argue that it may crash on a church, or even cathedral, in which case not much harm is done.
You, the pilot, will be dead anyway.

I am no escape artist and may well fly the plane into a building. But real pilots would in actual circumstances try to evade buildings and put the plane down in an open area. Cities and villages contain roads and squares, villages are mostly surrounded by farmland of woods. Forcing the idea of a city a village and no roads squares parks or farmland, is really very artificial.

The pilot will in all instances mainly try and land somewhere where passenger or crew will have a higher chance of survival. That means the city will be evaded, But I wonder whether the fate of the people living there would be his main concern, as his responsibility is first of all passengers and crew.

Last but not least. You are not omniscient. Whether the pilot dies in the crash is not decided until after the crash. The pretense of the philosophizer that he can predict all possible outcomes, creates a universe in which we do not live. Thus the example becomes irrelevant for the universe in which we do.

It is a given, in the problem, that control (i.e. steering the plane) is very very limited.

The whole problem is artificial, Peter. As most such problems are. Like Schroedinger's cat.
Still ... similar 'choices' may occur from time to time.
Furthermore:I do not believe that there s much difference between actually removing an obstacle (fat or otherwise) in order to prevent more casualties and pulling a switch. Because one must assume (know) that pulling a switch has (some) consequences. But that s me ...

Try to tell that to the fat man please!

[Peter van Velzen]

Back to the problem. I can think up many situations where the choices are very limited and there is no inbetween. Especially when the choices are forced upon you from the outisde (by people giving you the choice between 2 evils). I agree that even then the outcome can never be sure, but at that moment you have to make the choice.

You do not know for sure if all 5 people will be killed or even if the fat man will stop the train, maybe the train will derail in time or the driver will stop it. Your choice at that moment however is based upon these absolutes: the fat man dies or the 5 people do, what do you choose.

No it is not. In real life we can not thoughtlessly accept what someone else tells us.
At least not if we are being moral.
That is the reason a god cannot be the basis of morality
We have to think for ourselves, or be a moral failure.

[HenkM]

Try to tell that to the fat man please!

He d be dead .....

[MoreTime]

Back to the problem. I can think up many situations where the choices are very limited and there is no inbetween. Especially when the choices are forced upon you from the outisde (by people giving you the choice between 2 evils). I agree that even then the outcome can never be sure, but at that moment you have to make the choice.

You do not know for sure if all 5 people will be killed or even if the fat man will stop the train, maybe the train will derail in time or the driver will stop it. Your choice at that moment however is based upon these absolutes: the fat man dies or the 5 people do, what do you choose.

No it is not. In real life we can not thoughtlessly accept what someone else tells us.
At least not if we are being moral.
That is the reason a god cannot be the basis of morality
We have to think for ourselves, or be a moral failure.

How come, could you expand on that? Does that mean that when we are given 2 choices that we do not think for ourselves? And how does that exclude a god-based morality?

[Peter van Velzen]

Try to tell that to the fat man please!

He d be dead .....

Again unjustified claim to omniscience
The man was a Japanese sumo-wrestler. Try to push him, and you yourself will land on the trolley's track.

[HenkM]

Try to tell that to the fat man please!

He d be dead .....

Again unjustified claim to omniscience
The man was a Japanese sumo-wrestler. Try to push him, and you yourself will land on the trolley's track.

True enough. So, you d be dead, and the train would ve stopped.

[Peter van Velzen]

No it is not. In real life we can not thoughtlessly accept what someone else tells us.
At least not if we are being moral.
That is the reason a god cannot be the basis of morality
We have to think for ourselves, or be a moral failure.

How come, could you expand on that? Does that mean that when we are given 2 choices that we do not think for ourselves? And how does that exclude a god-based morality?

The number of choices is irrelevant, The fact that you thoughtlessly accept that these are the choices and that you accept the described outcomes is what makes you a robot instead of a responsible person. Any moral rule that depends on the claims of an authority only is not really moral. Whether the authority's name is "Our great leader" or "God almighty" . That the choice in the problem still seems moral is because you think that you have something to decide, but in fact you serve only as a computer if you simply subtract 1 from 5. That is not even a decision. The decision is - in the fat man example - whether you are allowed to actively kill someone because you think more will be saved.
My answer to the example would be: "I will ask the fat man, if he is willing to jump".

In the example of the diving airplane I would put the airplane where the number of obstacles was the smallest. (that might be the village). with any luck my wife went to the city that afternoon,

[Peter van Velzen]

He d be dead .....

Again unjustified claim to omniscience
The man was a Japanese sumo-wrestler. Try to push him, and you yourself will land on the trolley's track.

True enough. So, you d be dead, and the train would ve stopped.

Alas I am only 65 kilo at most, so the trolley kills another 5.
If my weight was enough I should have jumped myself!

[HenkM]

True enough. So, you d be dead, and the train would ve stopped.

Alas I am only 65 kilo at most, so the trolley kills another 5.
If my weight was enough I should have jumped myself!

That s even another angle.

[MoreTime]

The number of choices is irrelevant, The fact that you thoughtlessly accept that these are the choices and that you accept the described outcomes is what makes you a robot instead of a responsible person. Any moral rule that depends on the claims of an authority only is not really moral. Whether the authority's name is "Our great leader" or "God almighty" . That the choice in the problem still seems moral is because you think that you have something to decide, but in fact you serve only as a computer if you simply subtract 1 from 5. That is not even a decision.[cut]

Very interesting, haven't thought of it like this before. So you are saying:

The philosophical experiment is not valid because you are not given the choice to be a moral person, but can only choose between 2 set variables, making you into a robot.

Following blindly what an authority tells you to do isn't moral either. So even a command like 'thou shalt not kill' is only partly useful. Sure it should be our aim not to kill, but it's not absolute since killing in self-defense is a different matter.

Given only 2 options is like having no option. Does that make all philosophical experiment nonsense?
Do you agree that an absolute imposed moral is therefor like a fascist state? In the religious books there is no motivation, only: this leads to that. Why Jesus was so popular is because he made things more human by proposing a third option where religious zealous only gave him 2 options. Sad thing is that he was not consequent and joined the zealous himself by threatening with hellfire in case of disbelief...

[Peter van Velzen]

.
If my weight was enough I should have jumped myself!

That s even another angle.

Indeed I saved that one, though I had already thought of it.
Real fat people should conclude that pushing the fat man is not the best option, as - by jumping down themselves - chances of landing correctly in front of the trolley would increase.
Only thin people should consider pushing the fat man. . .

It is surprising how often false bifurcation happens to philosophers.

[Peter van Velzen]

The number of choices is irrelevant, The fact that you thoughtlessly accept that these are the choices and that you accept the described outcomes is what makes you a robot instead of a responsible person. Any moral rule that depends on the claims of an authority only is not really moral. Whether the authority's name is "Our great leader" or "God almighty" . That the choice in the problem still seems moral is because you think that you have something to decide, but in fact you serve only as a computer if you simply subtract 1 from 5. That is not even a decision.[cut]

Very interesting, haven't thought of it like this before. So you are saying:

The philosophical experiment is not valid because you are not given the choice to be a moral person, but can only choose between 2 set variables, making you into a robot.

Following blindly what an authority tells you to do isn't moral either. So even a command like 'thou shalt not kill' is only partly useful. Sure it should be our aim not to kill, but it's not absolute since killing in self-defense is a different matter.

Given only 2 options is like having no option. Does that make all philosophical experiment nonsense?
Do you agree that an absolute imposed moral is therefor like a fascist state? In the religious books there is no motivation, only: this leads to that. Why Jesus was so popular is because he made things more human by proposing a third option where religious zealous only gave him 2 options. Sad thing is that he was not consequent and joined the zealous himself by threatening with hellfire in case of disbelief...

The so called moral dilemma's are mostly false bifurcations, Nevertheless people's answers to them gives us a clue to how morality really works. We have some rules of thumb that are based on what we will most frequently encounter.They are neither totally utilitarian, nor totally categorical imperatives, neither totally emotional nor totally rational. We use the base emotions they give us to come to a rational answer that satisfies as much of these emotions as possible. That doesn't bring the same result for everyone as we value both the reliability of our emotions as the reliability of our rationality different between one person and another. That is supposing we have exactly the same emotions and exactly the same rationality. Which - of course - is not the case to begin with.

Indeed religious zealous hardly differs from fascism, but please do not believe all the slander the Bible tells you about Jesus. He might have been a better than the books pictures him.
(if - of course - there was a real Jesus; Who can be sure?)