Trolley Problem

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:22 pm So is that what you think the extent of my philosophical background is?
The extent of your background is that you are a philosopher, not a scientist.

You are a user/consumer of knowledge, not a creator/inventor of knowledge.

Which makes you incompetent in matters of "understanding" anything to any degree of sufficient depth and breadth.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:49 am
Just what do you think my background in philosophy is, by the way?
You have given a list of philosophers you read which you did not agree with totally.
Most of them are from the classical analytic era.
So is that what you think the extent of my philosophical background is?
Obviously I can only infer from whatever evidence is available from you.
Yup!
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:47 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Yup! »

The trolley problem is not a right or wrong, is more like which one has the least consequence to the mind. Or guilt.

Take an example of a psychopath (psychopath can be defined as good or evil depending on persons intentions) they are cold, calculating and very analytical. To someone like that the answer is easy and wouldn’t hesitate for an instant.

Change the path to kill just one person instead of five. No guilt, no shame, no regret. Just a cold and calculated decision. Is it tragic? yes but is just straight up analytical no feelings involved period move on with your life, wipes his hands of the ordeal.

When feelings get involved that is when things become torturous. Is the avoidance of feeling guilty, shameful and doubting yourself.

Bottom line assuming the decision is justifiable and exempt from punishment of some kind. Can you live with yourself. Is the decision going to cause distress to your mind and will society approve of your decision?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:41 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
You have given a list of philosophers you read which you did not agree with totally.
Most of them are from the classical analytic era.
So is that what you think the extent of my philosophical background is?
Obviously I can only infer from whatever evidence is available from you.
And so the way you'd actually answer this question instead of repeatedly stalling is by reporting what you've inferred.
pianovoracious
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:32 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by pianovoracious »

I maintain a neutral stance on consequentialism, neither offering support nor condemnation. My observation centers around the absence of ascertainable moral facts, irrespective of where one seeks them.

Take, for instance, the argument for 'morality-proper': the notion that preventing a problem is preferable to solving or 'curing' it, often encapsulated in the folksy adage, "prevention is better than cure." While this perspective resonates in numerous situations, the assertion that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'better than' alternative tactical or strategic approaches for concluding the Pacific War remains subjective. The question arises: better for whom, and can prevention ever be worse than the cure?

The supposed moral fact, the premise that humans ought not to kill humans, is brought into question. It is suggested that this proclamation is divorced from considerations of moral rightness and wrongness, framed merely as a matter of adhering to programmed instincts. However, an assumption is made, sans justification, that humans should indeed follow their programming — a notion seemingly detached from discussions of rightness and wrongness, perpetuating a circular line of reasoning.

At its core, there lies an ever-present moral judgment, belief, or opinion — a facet that moral realists and objectivists are reluctant to acknowledge. This is the crux of why morality, whether consequentialist or otherwise, defies objectivity and remains inherently subjective.
Post Reply