Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

In fairness, both thought experiments arbitrarily limit a mountain of considerations that factor into our moral intuitons.  You even limited consequentialism to considering the numbers, also arbitrarily, and didn't notice in limiting it to numbers there was still a better solution contained and not ruled out in the case of the doctor.  Saving 6 for 1 instead of 5 for 1. Which was the only similarity between the two as proposed in the first place.

A consequentialist can, consistently, decide to save an important person over 5 randos, but also to save 5 randos over one rando, though.

[vulcanlogician]

You even limited consequentialism to considering the numbers, also arbitrarily, and didn't notice in limiting it to numbers there was still a better solution contained and not ruled out in the case of the doctor. 

I was just rushing through the explanation of how social status was the least of my considerations.

Poly had a good point though. I think most of "the masses" would take social status into consideration were the problem put to them that way.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, after all of this, how instructive does either thought problem seem with regards to practical moralities or even consistency in morality?  

I think it's kind of cool that we've gone through a "history of ethics" and even a history of these thought experiments in having the conversation - our shifting opinions and comments closely mirror how that played out in academia, lol. Basis established, thought problem proposed, modified, at some point found to be wanting or relying on arbitrary limitations of moral schemas. Agreed with, disagreed with, said to be entirely uninformative in principle, etc etc etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now, how would votes change if the lone person on the other tracks was a brilliant scientist that had just figured out a cure for cancer? Does that affect the moral decision?

What if the five on the mainline are noted authors, artists, and/or philosophers?

Wait, strike philosophers.

[shadow]

Hey, what if you just don;t like the guy, right? 

There are a few people I know who, if they were on the alternate track, would make the trolley problem far less of a dilemma. One or two, in particular, and there wouldn't even need to be five people on the main track for me to still pull the switch

Now here's an ethical dilemma for you, vulcan: one of the 5 people is someone you badly want splatted, the other 4 are innocent bystanders. Do you hate your enemy enough to sacrifice an additional 3 people to take him out?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What if the one on the side-track is your wife? Or mother? Or child?

You ain't gonna think at all, is my bet.

[bennyboy]

There are a few people I know who, if they were on the alternate track, would make the trolley problem far less of a dilemma. One or two, in particular, and there wouldn't even need to be five people on the main track for me to still pull the switch

Now here's an ethical dilemma for you, vulcan: one of the 5 people is someone you badly want splatted, the other 4 are innocent bystanders. Do you hate your enemy enough to sacrifice an additional 3 people to take him out?

Just pretend you're a drone.

[vulcanlogician]

There are a few people I know who, if they were on the alternate track, would make the trolley problem far less of a dilemma. One or two, in particular, and there wouldn't even need to be five people on the main track for me to still pull the switch

Now here's an ethical dilemma for you, vulcan: one of the 5 people is someone you badly want splatted, the other 4 are innocent bystanders. Do you hate your enemy enough to sacrifice an additional 3 people to take him out?

That situation really makes me think, "Who am I to kill the one guy just to save four other people?"

[The Grand Nudger]

There are a few people I know who, if they were on the alternate track, would make the trolley problem far less of a dilemma. One or two, in particular, and there wouldn't even need to be five people on the main track for me to still pull the switch

Now here's an ethical dilemma for you, vulcan: one of the 5 people is someone you badly want splatted, the other 4 are innocent bystanders. Do you hate your enemy enough to sacrifice an additional 3 people to take him out?

Can I haz?

Four people is hardly enough people to keep me from pulling the trigger.  We're really going to have to start talking in multiples of ten at this point.

[vulcanlogician]

So, after all of this, how instructive does either thought problem seem with regards to practical moralities or even consistency in morality?  

IDK about consistency, but I see thought experiments like these (and all of ethical philosophy in general) to be highly informative. As far as practical morality, the value is beyond measure. If anything, it shows people that there is more to ethics than obedience to certain societal mores.

Are you familiar with the work of Lawrence Kohlberg? He plotted a system of moral growth whereby people start with simple obedience, then move on to seeing morality in terms of societal conformity, and finally end up realizing that they must become an autonomous moral agent to be truly moral. Exercises like these are good for working that part of the brain which is necessary for high-level moral consideration.

So long as we have evangelicals pushing an ethics which resembles low-level moral iterations (ie obedience, conformity), it benefits a public discussion to talk about how best to be a fully developed autonomous moral agent.