• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Smartest person you kn(e)w

Forums New posts
Ethically, I see no one correct choice in the trolley problem. I see only a set of poor options presented to an innocent bystander, whose role in the drama is presumed to be only by virtue of chance.

We are also back to the age old dilemma of benefit for the one or few who may be deemed of higher value to society, vs benefit for society as a whole. The question has historically gone far beyond hypothetical in situations of modern warfare, where those in command of bombing operations during WWII and the cold war would sometimes wrestle with targeting options. Better to focus on militarily vital infrastructure, or simply break the enemy's will to fight by causing mass civilian casualties? Not equivalent , but related to the "Trolly Problem".

To my mind, our hypothetical lever puller is a victim of circumstance vs willful participant.

Or how about this--Our bystander pulls the lever, only to discover that our five restrained victims are, in fact, hoaxers who spring up and out of harms way at the last moment?

Now what? The bystander, acting on apparent information and in limited time, acted with
the best of intentions.
 
boomerang said:
Ethically, I see no one correct choice in the trolley problem. I see only a set of poor options presented to an innocent bystander, whose role in the drama is presumed to be only by virtue of chance.

We are also back to the age old dilemma of benefit for the one or few who may be deemed of higher value to society, vs benefit for society as a whole. The question has historically gone far beyond hypothetical in situations of modern warfare, where those in command of bombing operations during WWII and the cold war would sometimes wrestle with targeting options. Better to focus on militarily vital infrastructure, or simply break the enemy's will to fight by causing mass civilian casualties? Not equivalent , but related to the "Trolly Problem".

To my mind, our hypothetical lever puller is a victim of circumstance vs willful participant.

Or how about this--Our bystander pulls the lever, only to discover that our five restrained victims are, in fact, hoaxers who spring up and out of harms way at the last moment?

Now what? The bystander, acting on apparent information and in limited time, acted with
the best of intentions.
Click to expand...

Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also

Socratic circles
Psychotherapy
 
boomerang said:
Ethically, I see no one correct choice in the trolley problem. I see only a set of poor options presented to an innocent bystander, whose role in the drama is presumed to be only by virtue of chance.

We are also back to the age old dilemma of benefit for the one or few who may be deemed of higher value to society, vs benefit for society as a whole. The question has historically gone far beyond hypothetical in situations of modern warfare, where those in command of bombing operations during WWII and the cold war would sometimes wrestle with targeting options. Better to focus on militarily vital infrastructure, or simply break the enemy's will to fight by causing mass civilian casualties? Not equivalent , but related to the "Trolly Problem".

To my mind, our hypothetical lever puller is a victim of circumstance vs willful participant.

Or how about this--Our bystander pulls the lever, only to discover that our five restrained victims are, in fact, hoaxers who spring up and out of harms way at the last moment?

Now what? The bystander, acting on apparent information and in limited time, acted with
the best of intentions.
Click to expand...

Hypotheticals don't usually stand alone ... you move, hopefully with a purpose, from one to the next, to examine the argument in question ... so here, the first hypothetical, @Burnt State responded that pulling the lever would be an act of murder and not pulling it would leave the five to their fate or chance, but the problem there is how does not pulling it leave five to chance but pulling it amount to an act of murder instead of re-routing the chance to the one? The idea of chance there doesn't seem consistent.

So the second hypothetical got rid of the negative effects of a direct action but left the elements of choice and chance by having two levers but you can only get to one ... so the interesting question would be to see if someone would argue not to pull the lever in the first case and kill the five but then opt to pull the lever to save the five in the second case ... thus allowing the one to die, as originally objected to?

The other issue for me is that I see pulling or not pulling the lever both as a kind of action ... in the first hypothetical I don't see a way to escape the moral duty. And @Burnt State did respond that he would save the five if they were school children ... so I think that shows our ethical reasoning isn't necessarily rational or consistent (to any given standard) nor should it be.
 
Burnt State said:
Ok, if I feel that the 1 has a chance to escape, which I did not think was part of the hypothetical, then they get the train and my knife that I throw to them. Good luck, I yell over the approaching trolley.

Re: survivor guilt of the 1 - I can't accept the burden of someone else's weak Buddhism

Re: 5 children vs. the adult - the adult perishes and I explain to the adult's family why I valued the young lives over someone who already got to live a couple of decades or more.

Re: my kids or family on the track in the group of five - I kill the 1 and learn to cope with the shame and guilt of my selfishness. My family will help me get over it.
Click to expand...

What does "weak Buddhism" mean here?

It may seem silly but it was interesting to me that we didn't consider the after effects of the one as a survivor. Maybe he had wandered on their as a suicide or just carelessly, not seeing the harm and then he finds out someone made a choice to let the train continue and five people were dead ... I don't see any "burden" as a result ... but I bet some people would get angry at the one if he had no good reason to be on the tracks, certainly the loved ones of the five are going to feel something as a result, people generally do, even for no good reason.
 
The wisest person I knew was my Father he told me (though I have rarely taken his advice)When your right you don't need to argue and when your wrong you cant afford to.
 
smcder said:
The other issue for me is that I see pulling or not pulling the lever both as a kind of action ... in the first hypothetical I don't see a way to escape the moral duty.
Click to expand...

Encapsulated here is one of the thorniest ethical problems facing both the individual and the state. And I have a feeling there is not, and never will be, a definitively right or wrong answer. There is no inaction without abandoning compassion and civic duty. There is no action without some assumption of superior moral authority. A kind of double bind, I think.
 
Back
Top