Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[SaStrike]

Consistent. The 5 people always died for me. I'm not killing someone. Unethical.

People dying by unfortunate circumstances is god's fault not mine.

[vulcanlogician]

I like that you have principles that you stand beside, SaStrike. Even if I decided differently.

[SaStrike]

The thought experiments are not equivalent. In the trolley scenario , you have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the death(s). In the organ scenario, you don't have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the deaths. What you have is control over one solution to the problem that may or may not be better than the problem. Nowhere in the organ scenario is there any responsibility to decide. 

To whomever chooses "consistent", that is disturbing, but in line with the morality one can glean from a totally naturalistic/deterministic worldview--which is to say an entirely subjective morality.

I don't agree. Pulling the lever to guide a train towards a person is murder. So is removing organs of a person (In order to save 5 people). You're not a surgeon so the surgery option seems a bit harsher than pulling a lever. But basically the same thing. Both scenarios have 5 people about to die (without interference). And one person which is getting killed by YOU.

How anyone can get inconsistent is a bit puzzling. You change "destiny" and kill people only when it's as easy as pulling a lever?

---

Ok nvm it's been discussed.

[vulcanlogician]

Who cares if it's "been discussed"? If you have something to say, discuss it more!

---

I think you have something valuable to add, Sa.

[SaStrike]

Ok

I personally would pull the lever to save the lives, but I would NOT conduct the organ transplants.

I agree that the thought experiments are not equivalent, but I disagree as to why. In both scenarios, there is a force which threatens the lives of five people. In both scenarios you can either NOT ACT which will result in the death of five people-- or you can ACT which will save five people but BECAUSE YOU ACTED one person will die. Why do you think you have "control and responsibility" in one situation and not the other? I would say in BOTH situations you have responsibility and (limited) control.

If you are going to argue that you don't have responsibility in the organ scenario, what is it  essentially that makes it different from the runaway trolley?

When I used the word 'responsibility', I meant an immediate, personal decision to throw the lever or not, and therefore responsible for what outcome happens. There is no escape from this responsibility because either way, you were the indirect cause of someone's death. 

In the organ scenario, there are no circumstance that make it your responsibility to decide something because inaction will not make you an indirect cause of someone's death. If you feel you have a responsibility to find a solution, then those feelings are a result of reasoning from a very specific moral system, not of the circumstances.

When I used the word 'responsibility', I meant an immediate, personal decision to operate or not, and therefore responsible for what outcome happens. There is no escape from this responsibility because either way, you were the indirect cause of someone's death. 

In the trolley scenario, there are no circumstance that make it your responsibility to decide something because inaction will not make you an indirect cause of someone's death. If you feel you have a responsibility to find a solution, then those feelings are a result of reasoning from a very specific moral system, not of the circumstances.

[vulcanlogician]

When I used the word 'responsibility', I meant an immediate, personal decision to operate or not, and therefore responsible for what outcome happens. There is no escape from this responsibility because either way, you were the indirect cause of someone's death. 

In the trolley scenario, there are no circumstance that make it your responsibility to decide something because inaction will not make you an indirect cause of someone's death. If you feel you have a responsibility to find a solution, then those feelings are a result of reasoning from a very specific moral system, not of the circumstances.

It's nice to hear someone speak up for that one guy on the track instead of going on about how the five people matter more.

[SaStrike]

It's nice to hear someone speak up for that one guy on the track instead of going on about how the five people matter more.

I guess neither matters more, we all die anyway. I was just trying to show it could be consistent. But if some people can convince themselves that sometimes it's ok to kill one innocent person for the greater of mankind as a whole then that's fine too. If they genuinely thought they are doing the right thing then can't blame them. It is a dilemma after all.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Vulcan
Thought you might enjoy the springboard, it seemed relevant.  Since, in context here we may not discussing an inconsistency of a system, as your poll suggests, but a possible misapplication of an unsuitable system to a particular portion of any given hypothetical.  

In the same vein, perhaps you -don't- prioritize them..or can't..at least not if you want a full and accurate picture of the moral field?  Not if you want to make a fully informed moral appraisal (such as a declaration of moral desert).  

So what do we do?  Well, we don't let a doctor do that, but we do seek to more efficiently address the needs of those on the transplant list, and we consider him to be a well meaning but ultimately flawed moral agent.  We don't take the organs back from whomever he has placed them into nor do we feel that they share shame in the act or that it;s a bad thing they;re alive and the other guy is dead.  We seek recompense for the victim insomuch as we can but simultaneously we don;t make a big show of hanging the doctor from the yard arm like we might with some serial killing asshat who just played doctor.  All of this is made possible by acknowledging multiple currents to any full moral appraisal and it;s difficult to see how our response could be improved by ignoring or diminishing the others in favor of any single one.  None of them are competing for space, it's more an issue that..without them all, there is empty space.

Now, it may be that in some specific scenario one occupies more space than the other, but what general rule could be made about all scenarios when we're discussing unique situations with their own specifics?  The comparative virtue of a person who commits genocide hardly seems relevant.  Pol Pot's nephew describes a gentle man.  Going the other way with it...the KKK pickets the Westboro Baptist church from time to time.  

How would you prioritize, if you were looking to make suggestions?

[Catholic_Lady]

It's nice to hear someone speak up for that one guy on the track instead of going on about how the five people matter more.

I guess neither matters more, we all die anyway. I was just trying to show it could be consistent. But if some people can convince themselves that sometimes it's ok to kill one innocent person for the greater of mankind as a whole then that's fine too. If they genuinely thought they are doing the right thing then can't blame them. It is a dilemma after all.

You're not killing an innocent person in the trolley scenario. You're changing the tracks so that the least amount of people are killed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Allowing vs doing.  It may be that we're inventing the dilemma entirely.  Since we're not actually asking about the morality of any of these given acts, but how they modify desert for the actor in question.