Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[SteveII]

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.

That is an oversimplification which misses the mark by a long shot. 

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.

[SaStrike]

It's a human trait. Humans brought their traits along when they invented and maintained a religion (christianity for example).

A religion is not some external factor. It is part of the human worldview. How can you claim it as separate lol. Humans didn't base their ethics on a religion, the religion was based around human ethics (partly at least, majority of Christian history is quite disturbing). But I'm referring to the parts that the mindless masses are to obey.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Our value, in that case, does not properly belong to us, but to god.  It is only by some similarity that we have it, and if we were not "made in his image"...whatever the hell that means..we would not have it.

Meanwhile, your notion that whatever value we have would not be intrinsic in a naturalists worldview is absurd.  It may not be god value, a value that depends upon and apes whatever god is or whatever value god places in us....but so what?  

I do think that we have intrinsic value, and because it's intrinsic -to human beings-..it has fuck all to do with gods even if there were gods...which there aren't.

[Magilla]

The two don't seem to be on completely even footing.

In the trolley one it seems like an evil act has been done to 6 people, your job is to minimize the causalities, in a practical situation like that you'd be calling the police or at least thinking of how to save that one persons life on the track after the lever has been pulled, you'd pull the lever to save the 5 people, then your goal, no matter how futile, would be to save the 1 person on their own.

In the surgery scenario you're actively killing someone and harvesting their organs, that seems to eliminate any chance of their possibly being intentions to save everyone's life.  

. . .

I agree. In the surgery example, there is no equivalent of a trolley heading towards the unfortunate organ donor, except one manufactured by the doctor, on a track manufactured by the surgical team, (more or less).

[DLJ]

...
That is an oversimplification which misses the mark by a long shot. 

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.

What an excellent post! Thank you.

I'm working on an hypothesis of the 'Evolution of Contextual Morality' (contextual as opposed to intrinsic) and was struggling to articulate the logical errors made by the Intrinsicists (new word).

This post is going to be very useful for me as you've summarised the errors almost completely.

Cheers.

[SteveII]

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.

Our value, in that case, does not properly belong to us, but to god.  It is only by some similarity that we have it, and if we were not "made in his image"...whatever the hell that means..we would not have it.

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

Meanwhile, your notion that whatever value we have would not be intrinsic in a naturalists worldview is absurd.  It may not be god value, a value that depends upon and apes whatever god is or whatever value god places in us....but so what?  

I do think that we have intrinsic value, and because it's intrinsic -to human beings-..it has fuck all to do with gods even if there were gods...which there aren't.

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.

---

It's a human trait. Humans brought their traits along when they invented and maintained a religion (christianity for example).

A religion is not some external factor. It is part of the human worldview. How can you claim it as separate lol. Humans didn't base their ethics on a religion, the religion was based around human ethics (partly at least, majority of Christian history is quite disturbing). But I'm referring to the parts that the mindless masses are to obey.

Your opinion is irrelevant to my point--which was that a Christian ethical framework deals with these questions differently due to a significant difference in the view on the value of human life (and why). You can't have a discussion and learn something about the other side if all you want to do is tell the other person they are wrong,

[SaStrike]

Our value, in that case, does not properly belong to us, but to god.  It is only by some similarity that we have it, and if we were not "made in his image"...whatever the hell that means..we would not have it.

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

Meanwhile, your notion that whatever value we have would not be intrinsic in a naturalists worldview is absurd.  It may not be god value, a value that depends upon and apes whatever god is or whatever value god places in us....but so what?  

I do think that we have intrinsic value, and because it's intrinsic -to human beings-..it has fuck all to do with gods even if there were gods...which there aren't.

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.

---

It's a human trait. Humans brought their traits along when they invented and maintained a religion (christianity for example).

A religion is not some external factor. It is part of the human worldview. How can you claim it as separate lol. Humans didn't base their ethics on a religion, the religion was based around human ethics (partly at least, majority of Christian history is quite disturbing). But I'm referring to the parts that the mindless masses are to obey.

Your opinion is irrelevant to my point--which was that a Christian ethical framework deals with these questions differently due to a significant difference in the view on the value of human life (and why). You can't have a discussion and learn something about the other side if all you want to do is tell the other person they are wrong,

Completely missing the point. In your previous post you claimed that "western human ethics are based on/influenced by christian values, which is why humans have intrinsic value"

This is your opinion, with no evidence and is contradictory. Firstly, eastern (basically all over the world actually) humans have intrinsic value there too (christian influence not included). Human traditions and ethics have been passed down and written into christianity (not the other way round) is all I'm saying.

What I'm asking is for an explanation or proof of your claims. Explanation for why 1) Human morality far out-dates christianity. 2) christianity has CHANGED ethics wise as humans around the world have changed. I get humans can change and grow, so they can change their minds. But explain why christianity has changed its mind on certain topics. (God was wrong?) First versions and the history, of christianity has been appalling.

[SteveII]

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

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.

---

Your opinion is irrelevant to my point--which was that a Christian ethical framework deals with these questions differently due to a significant difference in the view on the value of human life (and why). You can't have a discussion and learn something about the other side if all you want to do is tell the other person they are wrong,

Completely missing the point. In your previous post you claimed that "western human ethics are based on/influenced by christian values, which is why humans have intrinsic value"

This is your opinion, with no evidence and is contradictory. Firstly, eastern (basically all over the world actually) humans have intrinsic value there too (christian influence not included). Human traditions and ethics have been passed down and written into christianity (not the other way round) is all I'm saying.

What I'm asking is for an explanation or proof of your claims. Explanation for why 1) Human morality far out-dates christianity. 2) christianity has CHANGED ethics wise as humans around the world have changed. I get humans can change and grow, so they can change their minds. But explain why christianity has changed its mind on certain topics. (God was wrong?) First versions and the history, of christianity has been appalling.

Okay.

This is what I said:

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, Eastern philosophies gave us the India caste system and totalitarian governments all over Asia right up until the 20th century. There is still significant human rights struggles in that part of the world as a result of millenniums of cultures that did not value any notion of "inalienable rights" just because you were a person. Plain and simple, these cultures, as a whole, did not believe humans have intrinsic value.

Second, you bring up "morality far out-dates Christianity". That is not my point at all. I discussing a narrow concept as it relates to human value and used a very specific word for a reason. Intrinsic. My position is that you cannot evolve or reason to intrinsic value. As I said above to Khem: ...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.

Modern western natural human rights are directly linked to Christian thinking so much so that the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you think that humans have evolved intrinsic value, that is an affirmative position and as such, if you wish to make the point, requires you to have logical reasons to believe so.

[SaStrike]

First, Eastern philosophies gave us the India caste system and totalitarian governments all over Asia right up until the 20th century. There is still significant human rights struggles in that part of the world as a result of millenniums of cultures that did not value any notion of "inalienable rights" just because you were a person. Plain and simple, these cultures, as a whole, did not believe humans have intrinsic value.

Second, you bring up "morality far out-dates Christianity". That is not my point at all. I discussing a narrow concept as it relates to human value and used a very specific word for a reason. Intrinsic. My position is that you cannot evolve or reason to intrinsic value. As I said above to Khem: ...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.

Modern western natural human rights are directly linked to Christian thinking so much so that the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you think that humans have evolved intrinsic value, that is an affirmative position and as such, if you wish to make the point, requires you to have logical reasons to believe so.

Thanks for the clarity.

Eastern philosophies and western philosophies were BOTH flawed in the past, I agree with the point you're making that western philosophies have a slightly more "moral" system in place in 2018 (subjective though).

But now that's a shift of the burden of proof. If you state god is the reason for western humans developing that way, if you make the assumption that intrinsic value cannot be obtained from evolution, it needs to be backed up.

Immediately i can think of some things wrong with your theory though: why did humans "develop" this intrinsic value? Why not be created that way from the beginning? Wasn't america built on europeans looking for religious refuge? Where was the value for human life when america was "built"? Was it an empty land when the europeans got there? Anyway there just too much flaws in your theory to mention. But please no burden shifting.

[SteveII]

First, Eastern philosophies gave us the India caste system and totalitarian governments all over Asia right up until the 20th century. There is still significant human rights struggles in that part of the world as a result of millenniums of cultures that did not value any notion of "inalienable rights" just because you were a person. Plain and simple, these cultures, as a whole, did not believe humans have intrinsic value.

Second, you bring up "morality far out-dates Christianity". That is not my point at all. I discussing a narrow concept as it relates to human value and used a very specific word for a reason. Intrinsic. My position is that you cannot evolve or reason to intrinsic value. As I said above to Khem: ...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.

Modern western natural human rights are directly linked to Christian thinking so much so that the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you think that humans have evolved intrinsic value, that is an affirmative position and as such, if you wish to make the point, requires you to have logical reasons to believe so.

Thanks for the clarity.

Eastern philosophies and western philosophies were BOTH flawed in the past, I agree with the point you're making that western philosophies have a slightly more "moral" system in place in 2018 (subjective though).

But now that's a shift of the burden of proof. If you state god is the reason for western humans developing that way, if you make the assumption that intrinsic value cannot be obtained from evolution, it needs to be backed up. 

Immediately i can think of some things wrong with your theory though: why did humans "develop" this intrinsic value? Why not be created that way from the beginning? Wasn't america built on europeans looking for religious refuge? Where was the value for human life when america was "built"? Was it an empty land when the europeans got there? Anyway there just too much flaws in your theory to mention. But please no burden shifting.

There are two issues that I am talking about at the same time. 

1) A main difference between a Christian-based ethical system and an naturalistic one is that only the Christian system gives humans intrinsic value. I explained how Christianity does this (imago dei) and why a naturalism does not. If you disagree with this, then you are saying that there exists an argument that does give us some type of evolved intrinsic value and therefore have the burden of proof. 

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).