Three moral dilemmas

[Economist]

Then why do you attempt to “disallow” analyses that you don’t like?

It is not that I don’t like them. They are violations of the rules of the game. Thought experiments are all based upon a certain ground rules, and they are not supposed to be modified. In the trolley scenario you cannot introduce new possibilities, like changing into a superman and save the people on both tracks. In that specific example you only have two options, either let the trolley mow down the five INNOCENT people, or flip the switch and kill the one, also INNOCENT person. No extra “tricks” are allowed.

According toe Catholic ethics you are not allowed to act against INNOCENT people. But in this case, both options will kill INNOCENT people. So both action and inaction will lead to the death of INNOCENT people.

And since not all evil acts are equal, you are expected to choose which is the “lesser of two evils”.

 

[whatistrue]

Part of the fundamental issue here, as I see it, is that you are using tools related to the study of ethics to make a point to people who are thinking in terms of morals. In the moral system most here subscribe to, acting to harm anyone, innocent or not, without just cause (such as defense of self or others) is immoral. Inaction can be immoral depending on several other factors which are not necessarily included in your scenario. On that basis, your claim that inaction is equivalent to action appears ludicrous. We are not playing the same game you are and therefore your rules seem irrelevant to us. And with that, I am done with this particular topic.

 

[Gorgias]

If ALL the options (including the non-action) involve committing “evil”, then you cannot choose NOT to commit evil. That should be obvious. DUH!

Fair enough. But, in this case, the assertion is that choosing not to commit an evil act is not an evil choice. DUH! right back at’cha, brother!

Your basic assumption that “one is ONLY allowed to defend against an explicitly malevolent person” is simply wrong.

Where did I say that?!? You’re putting words in my mouth, I’m afraid.

Is that the ethical system you advocate?

Nope. It’s the straw man you’ve constructed.

It is not that I don’t like them. They are violations of the rules of the game.

Who says that you get to make the rules?

 

[Gorgias]

And there is nothing “just” about equal punishment for unequal deeds.

It appears unjust only because your measuring stick is warped. You’re attempting to compare “eternity” to “temporal”, and are using a temporal standard to do so; that’s an invalid calculus.

Now, maybe your solution is that missing a mass for frivolous reasons is equally severe to the deeds of someone committing genocide.

I’ll give you another chance to think about it: in both cases, the person is willingly severing his relationship to God. That is equally evil in both cases.

But in that case the word “justice” is a meaningless word salad. You can’t avoid it

No it isn’t, and sure I can. Your understanding of what Divine Justice means is what’s “word salad.” I am neither bound by your mistaken notion, nor must I argue from it. You’re on your own, there. On the other hand, God’s Justice proceeds from free will: God allows anyone who chooses to sever their relationship with Him to do so; He does not take away the ability to choose, and He does not remove the consequences. That is ‘just’.

But in that case you exclude yourslef from rational consideration.

Nah. I just exclude myself from your take on ‘rationality’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… The problem is that “justice” is supposed to be one of attributes of God. And there is nothing “just” about equal punishment for unequal deeds.

The deeds may be unequal in your eyes, but how do you set yourself up as judge of what deed is more sinful? Someone else may look at the same situation and decide differently than you. Do you just assume that anyone who does not agree with your judgement must be irrational?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This reminds me of the people in Germany who were aware of the cattle cars carry Jews through the night and knew with fair certainty that they were not going to the Danube on holiday, but to their deaths. Yet they did nothing. That inaction was certainly not praiseworthy, and perhaps displayed a good deal of cowardice. We are all called to stand up for truth, and sometimes that results in martyrdom. It certainly was a holy act for those this did stand up to this evil at the cost of their fortunes and sometimes their lives.

However we should be careful about applying a one-size-fits-all yardstick to their morality. There are degrees of cooperation with evil. Silence in the face of fear for one’s own life would likely not be a mortal sin. Perhaps it would be a source of shame and regret. But I would not condemn each and every person who failed to act.

However the dilemmas discussed here have not been exactly of that sort, so they require a different analysis. I think in the case of immediate action where there is no time to think or weigh choices, any choice made by instinct in good faith is morally acceptable. Only when we can truly process what we are about to do can our choice make us morally culpable.

 

[Economist]

But, in this case, the assertion is that choosing not to commit an evil act is not an evil choice.

If every possible act is evil, then you cannot choose a non-evil act. Simple.

Where did I say that?!? You’re putting words in my mouth, I’m afraid.

Not verbatim, but that was the essence. So I will summarize it for you.

Causing harm (not balalnced by greater good) to an innocent person can happen several ways.

1. Someone intentionally attempts to cause that harm.
2. Someone unknowingly (and therefore unintentionally) attempts cause harm - by ACCIDENT.
3. Someone, who is insane attempts to cause harm.
4. A non-human being is the causative agent which would cause harm, if “allowed”.

These are all the possibilities. You accept that in option #1 it is permitted to perform a necessary (but not excessive) defense, even if it leads to killing. Presumably in option #4 the same is allowed (you are allowed to shoot a charging lion). However in option #2 and #3 you SEEM to deny this. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and will see if you can present a rational analysis for them. And the principle of self-defense is not narrowed down. It means prevention from a harm.

Nope. It’s the straw man you’ve constructed.

Every time when there is no argument the “straw man” or “red herring” is presented. If you had a rational argument, you could have presented it.

Who says that you get to make the rules?

These “games” are much older than either one of us. The rules have been created. Your answer is at least “uncharitable” or worse.

 

[Ender]

It seems that one of the major assumptions in trolley-style scenarios is that one can choose to not-choose, and that not-choosing exempts one from responsibility for the consequences, whatever they are. While I agree that one can choose to not commit a physical act, there is no such thing as not choosing.

These imaginary dilemmas offer two options: choose A and one person dies; choose B and many people die. There is no option C - choosing not to act and do nothing is in fact option B. Posed this way it seems more difficult to argue that option B is the moral choice and A the immoral one.

If every possible act is evil, then you cannot choose a non-evil act.

That ever possible act may be harmful does not mean that every possible act will be evil.

 

[Ender]

This is the Kobayashi Maru solution: change the nature of the problem so the dilemma disappears.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In the case of the Kobayashi Maru, the purpose of the test was not to see if the subject could find a way that “solved” the problem, but to examine the character of the subject as he struggled to win in a situation that turned out to be unwinnable. In that case Kirk’s response was counter to the purpose of the test, as they didn’t get to evaluate his character under those trying circumstances.

We might encounter unwinnable situations in life too, and perhaps God is in the role of Starfleet Command, testing us to see how we respond. The point is not to “win” the game as we understand it, but to let God see if we are faithful or not. Perhaps the order for Abraham to slaughter his own son, Isaac was another Kobayashi Maru exercise in which God tested him and he passed.

 

[Ender]

Let me try again:

Your choices are (A) throw the switch, or (B) don’t throw the switch. It would seem the only possible option (C.) is to pretend the situation doesn’t exist. How do you choose neither to do or not to do something?

 

[Economist]

Please spell it out for us, what would that action be?

 

[Ender]

No, I want a direct answer to a specific question. Every situation presents us with the same choice: act or not act. There may be a great variety of actions we can choose, but that initial choice always exists, and there are no other options. We may choose to act, or we may choose to not act; no third option is even imaginable. My “worldly options” represent nothing more or less than the reality of the actual world in which we live. What option is there other than doing something or doing nothing? Acting or not acting?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

They are violations of the rules of the game

It’s still a stupid game for stupid people.

 

[Economist]

It’s still a stupid game for stupid people.

So the universities employ stupid ethics professors to teach the stupid students.

 

[Ender]

Again, no. My comment is generic and always applicable to every situation. In any situation what can you do other than act or not act? What alternative is there? I have in fact not made any comment on whether the switch in the trolley dilemma should or should not be thrown, I have simply described the most basic choice: act or not act. Why are you unwilling to recognize that in the trolley situation you have chosen to not act?

 

[Economist]

As soon as you will be charged with establishing the curriculum for the ethics classes, you can decide what though experiments will be included, and which ones will be left out. For the time being they are included.

 

[Ender]

First, I don’t “want” you to act in any particular way; what I want is clarity, and that starts with recognizing what is and is not possible. You say you choose to act. Fine, as I said, there are only two options: to act or not to act. In the same way there are only two options with regard to the switch: to throw it or not to throw it. You may choose to do other things as well, but for the switch itself there are only those two options: throw it or don’t throw it. Which one do you choose?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but for the switch itself there are only those two options: throw it or don’t throw it. Which one do you choose?

I choose to switch to the other track at first, and then when trolley gets to the divide in the tracks, I will quickly switch it back to the original position. Since the front wheels have already passed the divide, this will cause the trolley to derail and stop and save everybody.

 

[Economist]

I choose to switch to the other track at first, and then when trolley gets to the divide in the tracks, I will quickly switch it back to the original position. Since the front wheels have already passed the divide, this will cause the trolley to derail and stop and save everybody.

Anything to change the problem, because the solutions are unpalatable.