Trolley Problem (sf WW 1/2)

[MichaelBaron]

Of course one should do something.

That means - fighting is acceptable when there are no other options.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

The most elegant solution to the trolley problem is to use one of those shopping trolleys with the busted wheels that never steers in a straight line. In this scenario, the trolley probably would have already derailed itself from the tracks before its prospective victims succumb to its malice.

[Capablanca-Fan]

It was most pertinent of IM to raise the Trolley Problem. Since there is a real moral dilemma even when it's killing one innocent person to save five, there is less of an issue killing one would-be murderer to save a thousand innocent people.

The Trolley problem has come up in the vaccination issue. The Rona vax has a small risk, about a thousandth that of the Rona virus. Not getting a vax would be akin to leaving the trolley to kill five people, but making it a thousand. Encouraging vaccination might be like changing the path of the trolley.

[Patrick Byrom]

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!

And if you see a male assaulting a female in Afghanistan? Is it essential to interfere then?

[Patrick Byrom]

That means - fighting is acceptable when there are no other options.

I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.

[MichaelBaron]

And if you see a male assaulting a female in Afghanistan? Is it essential to interfere then?

Trolley approach is perfect for discussing it: 1) after we leave will abuse continue 2) will other males treat females better and 3) did we get involved to stop abuse of females or after september 11th?.
I would consider getting involved on one condition : we can stop abuse!

[MichaelBaron]

I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.

if someone is out to kill you/someone you are protecting and in possession of weapons it is becoming a matter of survival.

[Scott Colliver]

I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.

I don't believe Scott has expressed his view on fighting so I am talking out my arse.

[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.

Question 1:
Wrong means morally bad or incorrect.

Question 2:
I make it up in my own mind. I believe morallity is all subjective so whatever I decide is as good as whatever anyone else might decide is morally right or wrong.

Question 3:
I have decided killing is such a wrong act that it should never occur and everyone should do everything they can to stop killing. If everyone had the attitude that killing is not an option for them in their lives then there would never arise the situation where someone was put in a position where they have to decide whether to kill to save lives because no one would ever be killing.

[Patrick Byrom]

Trolley approach is perfect for discussing it: 1) after we leave will abuse continue 2) will other males treat females better and 3) did we get involved to stop abuse of females or after september 11th?. I would consider getting involved on one condition : we can stop abuse!

You didn't mention any of those qualifications in the original case. Do they also apply to intervening to protect a female being assaulted? And how do you make these determinations before you intervene?

[Patrick Byrom]

Note that Scott is considering the Trolley Problem (and related issues) from a different moral perspective than other posters. Most people here are adopting a utilitarian approach - what's the best outcome for the most people. Scott is taking a deontological approach - I have a moral code against killing which I have to follow regardless of the consequences. So arguing that not killing will lead to more people dying - although obviously true in a lot of cases - won't necessarily change his position.

[MichaelBaron]

You didn't mention any of those qualifications in the original case. Do they also apply to intervening to protect a female being assaulted? And how do you make these determinations before you intervene?

Other way around, I do not intervene in a foreign country unless I am absolutely clear what the objective of intervention is, that I am doing the right thing and that I am going to make a difference. Re seeing female on the street assaulted - it is a totally different matter as I am able to decide it for myself straight away.

[Patrick Byrom]

Other way around, I do not intervene in a foreign country unless I am absolutely clear what the objective of intervention is, that I am doing the right thing and that I am going to make a difference. Re seeing female on the street assaulted - it is a totally different matter as I am able to decide it for myself straight away.

But you can't possibly predict the outcome of your personal intervention - it may make no difference, or even make things worse. This is a general problem with utilitarianism, of course, perfectly illustrated in several episodes of The Good Place - which I highly recommend.

With Afghanistan, the objective was to prevent terrorist attacks on Australia, which is clearly a good thing (as it's very similar to your personal intervention case), and it was apparently successful. So, on your criteria, the intervention was justified.

[Ian Murray]

What's wrong with killing?

Is it ok to wage war? Is it ok to defend yourself against an attacking army? Ethics Bites asks if it's always wrong to kill. ...

[MichaelBaron]

But you can't possibly predict the outcome of your personal intervention - it may make no difference, or even make things worse. This is a general problem with utilitarianism, of course, perfectly illustrated in several episodes of The Good Place - which I highly recommend.

With Afghanistan, the objective was to prevent terrorist attacks on Australia, which is clearly a good thing (as it's very similar to your personal intervention case), and it was apparently successful. So, on your criteria, the intervention was justified.

That means now there will be terrorist attacks on Australia I assume...
btw, when was the last time Taliban attacked Australia (not USA or Europe but Australia).