Trolley Problem (sf WW 1/2)

[Desmond]

Nonsense. You (the observer in the Trolley Problem) don't have to kill anyone; you can do nothing and let fate take its course. The five workers will die, but you didn't kill them.

It's a thought experiment which has occupied philosophers for over 50 years, e.g.

The trolley problem problem
Could There Be A Solution To The Trolley Problem?

Quite so. I've been binge watching The Good Place - great show - which has an episode on it.

[Scott Colliver]

You or anyone could kill some one just by driving - so should we all stop driving? Because of environmental problems i don't mind motor vehicles being phased out.

Killing someone in a motor vehicle accident is a compltely different to the type of killing we are talking about.

[Ian Murray]

You mentioned the trolley problem to try and get me to change my mind about killing people.

No I didn't

[Scott Colliver]

No I didn't

Then why?

[Ian Murray]

Then why?

To raise the moral dilemma conundrum for consideration by the forum. It's not all about you

[Scott Colliver]

To raise the moral dilemma conundrum for consideration by the forum. It's not all about you

I wonder why I might have thought it was directed at me?

Perhaps because it was a reply to one of my posts.

Of course it was directed at me, you are just playing silly games now.

[Scott Colliver]

It is pertinent to your eschewing of killing at war

Here you are Ian saying you posted the trolley problem because of my opinion on killing during war.

[Scott Colliver]

Is it worth killing one German soldier to save the lives of a thousand people in a concentration camp, for example?

No it is not worth killing one German soldier, it would be wrong to kill one German soldier.

[MichaelBaron]

No it is not worth killing one German soldier, it would be wrong to kill one German soldier.

what if he is out killing. In fact, Scott - what is your view on self-defence? is it acceptable?

[Scott Colliver]

what if he is out killing. In fact, Scott - what is your view on self-defence? is it acceptable?

No

[Kevin Bonham]

However I do not think that anything justifies killing no matter how many lives are wieghed against it. You could put the whole population of the earth against killing and the killing would still be wrong. The end, saving lives, just does not justify the means, killing.

The questions I'd ask at this point are:

* What do you mean by the word "wrong"?
* How do you decide whether something is "wrong"?
* Why doesn't the end, saving the lives of everyone, justify the means of killing someone who is going to kill themselves and everyone else anyway? The "means" is going to occur anyway. The choice is really between two ends, one of which is extremely bad.

It is simply not wrong, in general, for A to kill B when B is otherwise going to kill A without provocation - or even with provocation, unless extremely severe. Anyone who thinks it is has a strange idea of what "wrong" means.

That's not to say there is any moral obligation to kill in self-defence. It is a personal choice. Whatever decision a person might make should be respected.

Most "moral" decisions are like that. The unwarranted assumption that of any two choices one should be considered "right" and one "wrong" just results in people agonising themselves and feeling guilty, or being condemnatory and judgemental towards others, all for no reason. Better to save such emotions for cases with easier answers.

[MichaelBaron]

No

Then person attacked will get killed - will be a deadbody in the end of the day anyway, possibly more dead bodies.

[MichaelBaron]

No

Scott, and what if you are walking on the street and you see a male assaulting a female or a child? Is it acceptable to interfere? In my view, this is not only acceptable but essential!

[Scott Colliver]

The questions I'd ask at this point are:

* What do you mean by the word "wrong"?
* How do you decide whether something is "wrong"?
* Why doesn't the end, saving the lives of everyone, justify the means of killing someone who is going to kill themselves and everyone else anyway? The "means" is going to occur anyway. The choice is really between two ends, one of which is extremely bad.

It is simply not wrong, in general, for A to kill B when B is otherwise going to kill A without provocation - or even with provocation, unless extremely severe. Anyone who thinks it is has a strange idea of what "wrong" means.

That's not to say there is any moral obligation to kill in self-defence. It is a personal choice. Whatever decision a person might make should be respected.

Most "moral" decisions are like that. The unwarranted assumption that of any two choices one should be considered "right" and one "wrong" just results in people agonising themselves and feeling guilty, or being condemnatory and judgemental towards others, all for no reason. Better to save such emotions for cases with easier answers.

Kevin, thank you for your response. I will consider my answers to your questions and answer them at some time other than when I really should be in bed sleeping

[Scott Colliver]

Scott, and what if you are walking on the street and you see a male assaulting a female or a child? Is it acceptable to interfere? In my view, this is not only acceptable but essential!

Of course one should do something.