Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

Value is subjective but nevertheless we have this value that cannot be separated from us because of who assigned us the value.

You are not describing an intrinsic value, then.  Simple as that.

In addition, made in the image of God is full of meaning including free will, ability to reason, emotions, ability to have meaningful relationships, a sense of morality, a sense of justice, a sense of aesthetics, a sense of self-sacrifice, a desire for meaning/purpose, etc. 

Oh, is -that- what that means?  At least we cleared that up (we didn't clear that up)...but it's not like it matters.  The value you're describing is not intrinsic to human beings. You can believe in that value all you like, but it would probably help to understand what sort of value that is, otherwise you'll keep saying silly things...and who wants to do that when flogging their Totally Not Silly™ beliefs?

Then tell me, at what exact point in evolutionary history did we move from the law of survival of the fittest to that of having intrinsic value that supersede the process that got us to that point and HOW exactly did that work? It sure seems that by definition, you cannot evolve intrinsic value.

Are you asking me when we began to express that understanding?  By at least 40-50k years ago...just a -tad- bit earlier than any christ stories. Full modernity.

Meanwhile, I;m still here, still a hard naturalist, and I still advocate for intrinsic value that's...well...intrinsic. You can continue to say silly things...but that won't make them any more true or less silly than the first time you said them.

Sure, christian thought had an influence on western society. A greatly retarding influence. It was only through and after the dissolution of that influences authority and a return to pre-christian values and thinking that the western world began to look like the western world you know. You;re entitled to your own beloiefs (not a christian value, since we're on the subject)..but you are not entitled to your own facts (also something that christianity has issues with).

You believe that we have god value.....I contend that, no, we don't have god value, we have intrinsic value. A value properly belonging to us, and nothing to do with fairy tales. I think it's unfortunate that people refer to your misapprehensions and then conclude..on account of how hilariously wrong -you- are...that we don;t have a sort of value you neither believe in nor advocate for. Isn't that ironic, and isn't it nice that there's a creature in the world...capable of recognizing irony? Otherwise it would all be wasted.

[vulcanlogician]

First, a definition:

Intrinsic (from Mirriam Webster)
adjective
belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing 
Synonyms: built-in, constitutional, constitutive, essential, hardwired, immanent, inborn, inbred, indigenous, ingrain, ingrained (also engrained), innate, integral, inherent, native, natural

Foundational to Christian ethics is the sanctity of all human life. This is rooted in the belief that humans have intrinsic purpose and value because we are made in the image of God (Imago Dei). There is no intrinsic value of humans under a naturalist worldview. The distinction can be seen in your two scenarios and the ensuing discussions on them.

In the trolley scenario, acting or not acting are both choices with no clear moral superiority (even based on a Christian ethical model). In fact, I think the deciding factor as to whether someone does pull the lever is bravery to face the personal consequences. The "what-if" discussions on value to society of the lone man have nothing to do with it because the ethical foundation of Imago Dei and the entailing intrinsic value is way more important than utility. 

In the transplant scenario, taking an otherwise innocent life is morally objectionable based on the belief that all life has intrinsic value and we don't have a right to set that aside for some other purpose (even saving more lives). And again, any "what-if" discussions on the utility of those involved is irrelevant. 

I think that even most atheist in western society believe that individuals have intrinsic value (just for being human). This is not a conclusion from their worldview--but the influence Christianity has had on the culture for a millennium. That is one reason why people say the US was founded on Christian principles--because a lot of our views on freedom have to do with this issue.

First things first--you struck a nerve with US being founded on Christian principles:

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” – John Adams.

I'm sure you could find quotes from the founding fathers speaking from a contrary position, but I started with that because I like grandstanding. During the middle ages, through the Renaissance, and well into the Enlightenment, many in Europe held the belief that absolutist monarchy was ordained by God. It is easy to open up a Bible and find where Paul justifies this mindset. Nothing in the Bible explicitly endorses the liberal notions found in our constitution. Most of our distinctly "American" ideas come from John Locke: inalienable rights; a balance of power between legislative, judicial, and executive branches; separation of church and state--and so on.

It's funny how Christians claim credit for classical liberalism when the fact is, Christianity ruled Europe from the dark ages to the Renaissance and there was nothing but monarchy. Not long after religion started to lose its grip, ideas of a free and democratic society began to spring forth. It would be a post hoc fallacy for me to claim that the waning influence Christianity was therefore responsible for the emerging liberal views, but the fact remains, it makes it harder for Christians to argue the inverse. I'll give you this: John Locke was a Christian--so you have that. And any confirmed non-deists who were involved in drafting out constitution were probably Christian too.

The issue really is murky, though. I concede that point. Perhaps Christians do deserve credit for stamping out slavery in Europe. And Quakerism (aka "HERESY!") did have some influence on our founding fathers. Martin Luther King Jr. (who I consider just as fundamental to the American identity as any founding father) used Christian principles in his fight for justice. But again, King's morality was more like Quakerism than typical protestantism, even though he was a Lutheran minister.

***

I think the trolley problem transcends religion. As long as you value human life (one way or another) it's going to matter whether you pull the switch or not. 

My comment about obedience and conformity is simply what I gathered from observing some evangelicals and listening to what they had to say. You have to admit, you've heard Christians go on about "obedience." Usually the fundies and evangelicals-- not so much mainlines and Catholics. Look at it this way. The first stage of moral growth emphasises obedience and moral growth. In the mind of a child at this stage of moral development, there is no difference between doing the right thing and avoiding punishment.To emphasise a moral outlook centering around punishment and reward (instead of principle/mutual benefit) might inhibit healthy moral growth.

Now, you could argue that the golden rule is a good maxim... it's based on mutual benefit and reciposity. (Higher level morality according to Kohlberg.) Plus that, many-- if not most-- Christian adults are fully-developed moral beings. Obviously, Christian values don't necessarily hinder moral development. I admit that, but at the same time I have serious problems with Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc. beating the drum of obedience and conformity. In the final analysis, secularism wins again. Because a secular person can take any given religious principle (like inherent value of human life) and adopt it without running the risk of simultaneously adopting a bunch of backwards garbage.

[Whateverist]

2) I think it is clear that Christian thought has had a significant impact on the development of western ethics and I contend that our inclination that humans have intrinsic value is based on this impact and not reasoning from any atheistic worldview. I think the impact part of this idea is self evident. The second part can be countered with a reasoned argument to my 1).

Christians are people and western people can contribute to the development of western ethics. The question is whether their xtian-ness is an obstacle they must overcome to make a meaningful contribution, or, if their being xtian actually improves western ethics somehow. In most things xtian thinking which begins with weird assumptions which must be woven into every thought seem only to cause cognitive dissonance. But it is an open question whether wrestling with that difficulty makes you smarter or just dulls your vision.

[bennyboy]

Haven't read anything in last 10 pages.

Just checking in to see if the fat person body count is increasing or not.

[SteveII]

Value is subjective but nevertheless we have this value that cannot be separated from us because of who assigned us the value.

You are not describing an intrinsic value, then.  Simple as that.

I am if the the value comes from the purpose for which we were made. 

Then tell me, at what exact point in evolutionary history did we move from the law of survival of the fittest to that of having intrinsic value that supersede the process that got us to that point and HOW exactly did that work? It sure seems that by definition, you cannot evolve intrinsic value.

Are you asking me when we began to express that understanding?  By at least 40-50k years ago...just a -tad- bit earlier than any christ stories.  Full modernity.

Vague. I asked HOW. Did we always have value and we just discovered it one day? What separates us from any other organism in this question of value?

[DLJ]

...
Value is subjective
...

Yup.  Specifically it's a combination of Preferences, Perceptions and Outcomes.

The abilities to discern and perceive and the desire for outcomes could be said to be intrinsic.

...
Then tell me, at what exact point in evolutionary history did we move from the law of survival of the fittest to that of having intrinsic value that supersede the process that got us to that point
...

At no point.  It didn't happen.

...
HOW exactly did that work?
...

It didn't.

...
It sure seems that by definition, you cannot evolve intrinsic value.

Correct because there's no such thing.

...
What separates us from any other organism in this question of value?

Nothing.  But it could be argued that we have smarter software.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am if the the value comes from the purpose for which we were made. 

Still missing wildly.  God value by way of utility is still not intrinsic value.  I get that you believe that this is the sort of value we have.  I'm simply pointing out that it's not intrinsic value, and that it's a good thing we have intrinsic value, since..if we needed god value by similarity or utility...we don't have any of that.

Vague. I asked HOW. Did we always have value and we just discovered it one day? What separates us from any other organism in this question of value?

We're not really sure how it is we reached full modernity.  We'd been anatomically modern for some time by then.  For all we know we'd thought as much for far longer, but didn't express it in a way that would be well preserved for us to find today.  Nothing "separates us" from any other creature with intrinsic value, at least on the question of value.  That's sort of bound up in what it means to have an intrinsic value.  We may be different in how we express it, or even in the understanding of the concept - though I note that you're not really much different from a beetle on that count....but, otherwise, nada.

In any case, it may be that one day we simply "discovered it" sure. There are a great many things whose value we never fully understood, even though we had always known of them. This is never more apparent than in the utilitarian value of things. Notably, and in context..one of the ways that we can see that by full modernity we had an encompassing sense of the value of human beings is in the shiny trinkets and baubbles we began to deposit with the dead. Those people saw a value in those things, but they never understood that those things had far greater value than they posessed as trinkets and baubbles. We wouldn't know that until recent (and living) memory.

Similarly, it may be that christians such as yourself only see a utilitarian god value in human beings...but I hope that someday christians as a demographic discover what some of us already know..that we have intrinsic value, wholly apart from and greater than the plans of various ghosts and djinn regardless of their existence.

[SteveII]

First, a definition:

Intrinsic (from Mirriam Webster)
adjective
belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing 
Synonyms: built-in, constitutional, constitutive, essential, hardwired, immanent, inborn, inbred, indigenous, ingrain, ingrained (also engrained), innate, integral, inherent, native, natural

Foundational to Christian ethics is the sanctity of all human life. This is rooted in the belief that humans have intrinsic purpose and value because we are made in the image of God (Imago Dei). There is no intrinsic value of humans under a naturalist worldview. The distinction can be seen in your two scenarios and the ensuing discussions on them.

In the trolley scenario, acting or not acting are both choices with no clear moral superiority (even based on a Christian ethical model). In fact, I think the deciding factor as to whether someone does pull the lever is bravery to face the personal consequences. The "what-if" discussions on value to society of the lone man have nothing to do with it because the ethical foundation of Imago Dei and the entailing intrinsic value is way more important than utility. 

In the transplant scenario, taking an otherwise innocent life is morally objectionable based on the belief that all life has intrinsic value and we don't have a right to set that aside for some other purpose (even saving more lives). And again, any "what-if" discussions on the utility of those involved is irrelevant. 

I think that even most atheist in western society believe that individuals have intrinsic value (just for being human). This is not a conclusion from their worldview--but the influence Christianity has had on the culture for a millennium. That is one reason why people say the US was founded on Christian principles--because a lot of our views on freedom have to do with this issue.

First things first--you struck a nerve with US being founded on Christian principles:

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” – John Adams.

I clearly said "principles" and not "religion".

I'm sure you could find quotes from the founding fathers speaking from a contrary position, but I started with that because I like grandstanding. During the middle ages, through the Renaissance, and well into the Enlightenment, many in Europe held the belief that absolutist monarchy was ordained by God. It is easy to open up a Bible and find where Paul justifies this mindset. Nothing in the Bible explicitly endorses the liberal notions found in our constitution. Most of our distinctly "American" ideas come from John Locke: inalienable rights; a balance of power between legislative, judicial, and executive branches; separation of church and state--and so on.

The idea that absolutist monarchy can be supported by Paul over any other form of government (which is needed to carry your point) is silly. We are discussing how the Bible clearly supports the notion that humans have intrinsic value. 

It's funny how Christians claim credit for classical liberalism when the fact is, Christianity ruled Europe from the dark ages to the Renaissance and there was nothing but monarchy. Not long after religion started to lose its grip, ideas of a free and democratic society began to spring forth. It would be a post hoc fallacy for me to claim that the waning influence Christianity was therefore responsible for the emerging liberal views, but the fact remains, it makes it harder for Christians to argue the inverse. I'll give you this: John Locke was a Christian--so you have that. And any confirmed non-deists who were involved in drafting out constitution were probably Christian too.

Again, we are discussing where the notion of intrinsic human value comes from. My point is that this is a core understanding in Christianity. Western civilization has been under the influence of Christianity of 1500 years--including every philosopher for 1000 years being Christian and more than half the other 500. This same notion did not evolve anywhere else. The math is simple. 

The issue really is murky, though. I concede that point. Perhaps Christians do deserve credit for stamping out slavery in Europe. And Quakerism (aka "HERESY!") did have some influence on our founding fathers. Martin Luther King Jr. (who I consider just as fundamental to the American identity as any founding father) used Christian principles in his fight for justice. But again, King's morality was more like Quakerism than typical protestantism, even though he was a Lutheran minister.

***

I think the trolley problem transcends religion. As long as you value human life (one way or another) it's going to matter whether you pull the switch or not.

Perhaps the basic trolley problem does. But any of the variations (fat man, cure for cancer guy, etc.) and the transplant scenario are very much affected by your view on HOW you came to value human life.

My comment about obedience and conformity is simply what I gathered from observing some evangelicals and listening to what they had to say. You have to admit, you've heard Christians go on about "obedience." Usually the fundies and evangelicals-- not so much mainlines and Catholics. Look at it this way. The first stage of moral growth emphasises obedience and moral growth. In the mind of a child at this stage of moral development, there is no difference between doing the right thing and avoiding punishment.To emphasise a moral outlook centering around punishment and reward (instead of principle/mutual benefit) might inhibit healthy moral growth.

I think most atheists who complain about Christians following a list (and some Christians) fail to distinguish between some list and the reasoning behind the list. Moral reasoning might start with a list, but even children go on to learn the "whys" of a list. 

Now, you could argue that the golden rule is a good maxim... it's based on mutual benefit and reciposity. (Higher level morality according to Kohlberg.) Plus that, many-- if not most-- Christian adults are fully-developed moral beings. Obviously, Christian values don't necessarily hinder moral development. I admit that, but at the same time I have serious problems with Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc. beating the drum of obedience and conformity. In the final analysis, secularism wins again. Because a secular person can take any given religious principle (like inherent value of human life) and adopt it without running the risk of simultaneously adopting a bunch of backwards garbage.

Again, if there are reasons behind a list, the insistence on following a list is a result of those reasons. In the case of protestant Christianity, it is not usually the case the reason is because some authority says so.

[GrandizerII]

Again, we are discussing where the notion of intrinsic human value comes from. My point is that this is a core understanding in Christianity. Western civilization has been under the influence of Christianity of 1500 years--including every philosopher for 1000 years being Christian and more than half the other 500. This same notion did not evolve anywhere else. The math is simple.

The same notion (of intrinsic human value) did not evolve anywhere else? LOL, talk about biased and selective observation.

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion of intrinsic value clearly doesn't come from christianity, if the notion that you're expressing is the christian notion of value..Steve...regardless of where it did or did not originate from elsewhere.

You're calling a pile of shit tulips, and on the back of that, claiming that your religion came up with tulips. That's just fucking ridiculous.