/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4787022]

/lit/
I am sure you are familiar with Phillipa Foot's philosophical problem of the trolley heading towards five men on the tracks, yet you have the ability to change tracks and kill one man instead of the five. The brakes and horn are broken and their is no easy answer. Another similar problem is that of the mad surgeon who can sacrifice one healthy man to save five patients.

Is their any moral difference in the two circumstances?

[Anonymous No.4787038]

no

[Anonymous No.4787053]

Would anyone mind contributing a legitimate answer? Bump

>pls respond

[Anonymous No.4787054]

I solved the problem last night in the shower. All you need to do is flip the switch as fast as you can as to let chance dictate who live and who die.

[Anonymous No.4787060]

>>4787054
you didn't answer the question of morality, though.

[Anonymous No.4787062]

>>4787060
What question of morality? There's no morality in chance

[Anonymous No.4787065]

patients can still refuse the help in second model making his decision riskier

[Anonymous No.4787067]

>>4787062

There's morality in deciding to slap switch around like a retard.

[Anonymous No.4787075]

>>4787067
No there isn't. What books have you been reading?

[Anonymous No.4787086]

>>4787075

[Anonymous No.4787093]

>>4787065
or in other words with the train he has 100% of the guilt afterwards. so the train situation is theoretically nobler than patients. unless he keeps it secret from patients. then i think its identical.

[Anonymous No.4787104]

>>4787022
OP, in the case that you kill only one man with the train, can the others feel guilty about it etc.? Is that a fatcor too? Or is it just a matter of your perspective and just which is more just, without looking at the future concequences.

Also, yes, there is a big difference between the train and the mad surgeon, because in the case of the train, it's a stituation that is inescapable and without a slight chance of saving more people (for example all of them). Which isn't the same in the case of the mad surgeon, because someone could possibly prevent him from doing it, or finding an even better solution in the context of the real world. Also how do you define "mad"? As if he wanted to kill some people? Because then it is even more different than the train. Does he indeed want to save people? Then the real world doesn't create such cases when there isn't another solution.

[Anonymous No.4787125]

>>4787104
>>4787104
Feelings of guilt have nothing to do with morality.

The patients will die if they arent transplanted right away. He doesnt wish to kill anyone, but is willing, in that sense he is mad. We are talking philosophy, dont drag the real world into it.

[Anonymous No.4787158]

>>4787125
Well if you are truly moral there is no possibility that you kill anyone, even for a good purpose. So that means that you leave the other four die from a cause other than you.
But if you are not very moral, and that gives you the power to kill "with a good purpose" (who is to say what is good? think of Hitler), then you can kill the one and save the four.

[Anonymous No.4787174]

>>4787125
Also the surgeon example has one more crucial difference. You say "sacrifice one healthy man to save five patients". If one is healthy, then how is it the same with the train, in which they all have the same fait?
If you don't do anything, the healthy one will live.
If they all were going to die, then it would be equivalent.
But if one is healthy too, you have one more reason not to kill him.

[Anonymous No.4787177]

>>4787174
*fate

[Anonymous No.4787209]

>>4787158
You are arbitrarily ascribing the impossibility of murder to "true morality". I understand what you mean to say but I urge you to think this over. What is so special about killing that it may not be good even "with a good purpose"? Why are other actions not immoral even if they are done without good purpose?
>who is to say what is good? think of Hitler
Why should one think of Hitler? Because he did wrong? The reverse of good? Which good?
Your good. It seems you knew the answer all along.

We can agree instinctually on some goods but the notion that the "truly moral" has "not to kill" as a categorical imperative is soaked and rotten at its foundations.

[Anonymous No.4787218]

>sacrificing one healthy man to save five dying ones

that's like sacrificing one fertile young woman to save five withered spinsters

[Anonymous No.4787226]

>>4787218
Not if saving the five dying men would make them just as healthy as the one, and they are the same age. The withered spinsters have already had their share of life, and the young woman hasn't

[Anonymous No.4787233]

>>4787226

chances are if they're on the point of death right now, they won't recover to the same level as the one healthy guy is now

the man matters. it really is that simple. it's like this dilemma

[Anonymous No.4787238]

>>4787233
I'd press the red button because it satisfies my will to power more than the blue button.

[Anonymous No.4787257]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJQ-LZYAMBQ

[Anonymous No.4787270]

I choose to let the train run over the one man as opposed to the other five. Why? Because I could probably receive a larger amount of money and favour for saving the five others.

[Anonymous No.4787278]

>>4787270

>flip switch to kill the one dude
>train derails and runs you over instead

[Anonymous No.4787291]

>>4787022

The Chinese have answered this problem. They argue that it's best to not act since you can't tell the future consequences of your actions.

Those 5 men might go on to become professional rapists and genociders, maybe not worth saving.

You might divert the trolley one way and eventually it kills even more people later that day. You don't know the future.

[Anonymous No.4787314]

>>4787278
Or even worse...

[Anonymous No.4787383]

i divert the train
i dont need to justify my actions to anyone

[Anonymous No.4787387]

>>4787314
>or ever better
fixed for you

[Anonymous No.4787390]

>>4787291
>Anonymous 04/17/14(Thu)16:09 UTC-4 No.4787291
>>>4787022 (OP)
>The Chinese have answered this problem. They argue that it's best to not act since you can't tell the future consequences of your actions.
>Those 5 men might go on to become professional rapists and genociders, maybe not worth saving.
>You might divert the trolley one way and eventually it kills even more people later that day. You don't know the future.


Are they not then faced with stagnation as their act? This situation is an artificially created dichotomy between pulling the lever and not pulling it. In both cases, you act by giving assent to one or the other. The notion that "it is best not to act since you cannot tell the future consequences" is strange to me as it uses "best", which I am eager to see explicated.
The argument from their side seems to be summed up thusly: Do not move, because no matter what happens immobility will somehow allow you the sentiment of not being responsible for any poor consequence. Fade into the film and deny your causality.

Seems strange, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.4787430]

>>4787383
You'll have to answer to God's judgement whence your time comes.

[Anonymous No.4787447]

>>4787390

No it's pretty straight forward. You remove yourself from the situation and let the chips fall where they may.

It has nothing to do with you.

[Anonymous No.4788230]

>>4787447
>No it's pretty straight forward. You remove yourself from the situation and let the chips fall where they may.

If you find it straight forward you might be missing some of the content.

How does one "remove himself from the situation"? In doing this you would effectively assent to letting the five people die over the one.

Consider this: There are five men on one side and none on the other. The train will kill the five men if you do not flip the switch to change the route.
The thing to do according to your position would be to let the five men die. What if there were a million men on the rails?

The problem in this consequential uncertainty is that it brings us to this attempted dissolution of the causal self, but this dissolution of the causal self would literally break the fabric of causality, reason, the universe. It is not possible. It is your choice (let's avoid a determinism debate please) that will ultimately determine if you move or not.

This is the argument:
1. We cannot be certain of the consequences of our actions.
2. Therefore, we must not act.

Sadly, "not acting" is impossible. We will always act as causal agents, whether we choose to remain immobile or to behave chaotically.
The substantial question appears to be: how does one argue for immobility?
Not an easy task but I encourage a poster to take it upon himself.

[Anonymous No.4788320]

>>4787209
>>4787390
>>4788230

Does anyone else think this is Chopan? Asses are getting whooped.

[Anonymous No.4788337]

>>4788320
He left us. When you realize this board is an all-out dilettante brawl it's easy to get discouraged, no matter how hard you want to fight for reason.

[Anonymous No.4788685]

>>4787075

Of course there is. You're imposing randomness on a situation that had a fixed outcome. You become culpable for whatever happens. If you're going to interfere, just save the five people and don't act like a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.4788690]

>>4787238

>tfw you're one of the ten milion

[Anonymous No.4788705]

>>4788685
"You're asking that I make myself vulnerable and that I can never do. I have only one way to live. It does not allow for special cases."

[Anonymous No.4788872]

>>4788705
May I ask, if the debate is between saving one or saving five people, then why is there a dilemma?
(>>4787174 here)

[Anonymous No.4789033]

>>4788337
who is chopan? I am new

[Anonymous No.4789066]

>>4788685
>If you're going to interfere
Well I'm not interfering am I? They got themselves into that situation and all I'm doing is making them realize they shouldn't have tossed the coin in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4789079]

>>4789066
>Well I'm not interfering am I?

You are reducing the probability of one outcome from 100% to 50% and increasing the probability of the other from 0% to 50%.

The fact that you're unaware which will happen does not render you a morally neutral agent.

[Anonymous No.4789084]

>>4789079
If we assume that the outcome of death is always 100%, then my morality lies in equality.

[Anonymous No.4789093]

>>4789084
>my morality lies in equality

In order to establish equality you must set the odds of a switch at 5/1, not 50/50.

[Anonymous No.4789110]

>>4789093
Each individual has a 50/50 chance of dying. I don't see why I need to weigh it as 5/1

[Anonymous No.4789125]

>>4789110

Because either 5 will die or one will.

Can I play poker with you?

[Anonymous No.4789143]

>>4789125
I don't care how many people die, I just give them the chance to live or die.

[Anonymous No.4789152]

>>4789143
>I don't care how many people die

This is your moral dereliction, since 'not caring how many people die' is equally consistent with simply walking away. It's equally consistent with walking past a drowning man shouting for help, also.

[Anonymous No.4789158]

>>4789152
Walking away means I'm morally responsible for inaction. What I'm doing is giving everyone an equal chance to live.

[Anonymous No.4789162]

>>4789158

So you are endangering someone who was formerly in no danger. There is no possible self-consistent schema under which that is morally neutral.

[Anonymous No.4789168]

>>4789162
You put morality as not killing people when the scenario inevitably involves killing people/a person.

[Anonymous No.4789173]

>>4789168
>You put morality as not killing people

False, go back, re-read.

[Anonymous No.4789180]

>>4789173
I don't really care what you say at this point, since out of the two of us I'm the one who chose my morality while you just tried to think about results.

[Anonymous No.4789182]

>>4789180

I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.4789192]

>>4789182
>I win an internet discussion about a purely hypothetical situation in which my initial position, in a circular logic fashion, leaves no room for refutation or rebuttal

[Anonymous No.4789204]

>>4789192
>i tell lies about arguments i lost to try and save face

Hint: it never, ever works.

[Anonymous No.4789226]

>>4787022

>Phillipa Foot
>Saul Kripke
>Hilary Putnam
>Peter Singer
>Alvin Platinga
>Robert Stalnaker
>John Searle
>Robert Nozick
>Peter Unger

Is analytic philosophy some sort of club for people with really shitty names?

>Philippa Foot

[Anonymous No.4789248]

Listen alright.

If you as a moral agent find yourself in a situation where your actions have no possible way to affect the outcome of a situation, you are not able to be held morally responsible for the consequences of the events that would occur.

Take the situation of the train tracks. You find yourself in front of this lever which would run over fiver people, or one person. You have the ability to affect the outcome through your possible interaction with the lever, but it was not you who was responsible for the circumstances of this present situation. Whomever tied these men to these tracks is the one responsible, not you at the lever. If you had no part in the formation of the present circumstances, you should not be held responsible for any outcomes that would have been beyond your ability to control. Someone is going to die, whether it be one man or five, you cannot do anything to effect the outcome.

[Anonymous No.4789288]

>>4789248
>Someone is going to die, whether it be one man or five, you cannot do anything to effect the outcome.

You can decide which will be which.

[Anonymous No.4789293]

>>4789288
But you have no moral obligation to do so.

[Anonymous No.4789312]

>>4789293

This was covered earlier in the thread. There is no abstention: there is only pulling the lever or not pulling the lever. We don't get to choose what we're culpable for. Culpability is not an act of will.

[Anonymous No.4789328]

>>4789248
>>4789288
I think what you two are going to get at is "whoever tied those people up is a great deal more important than the chump who pulled or did not pull the lever"

[Anonymous No.4789395]

OP answer this >>4788872 please.

[Anonymous No.4789788]

Why not derail the car?

[Anonymous No.4789793]

>>4789226
Nozick and Unger are such faggots had lunch with them last week