Trolley Problem

[L2R]

i can list the pros and cons of both options in my sleep. what else is there?

maybe i am missing something, or maybe it's just too obvious. i dunno, man. but let's go at it line by line...

How has it not been explained?

no value has been explained that isn't just a cut and paste saying that it is relevant (somehow).

We're talking about the trolley situation and the doctor scenario right?

the former does not have enough information to make a sound decision, the latter i'd stop the doctor from killing the bystander since there would be a chance to procure the organs through donations without the need for the sacrifice.

"some clever" people? That's really an understatement.

no one has even named anyone yet. i'm assuming that there is basis to the claims that there is value in such questions, but just saying that others like it isn't good enough to explain the value itself.

Also, its not a simplistic choice, simplistic only on the surface. If you think its simplistic I think you should give more thought to it. You could write quite a bit about just the trolley situation alone

a creative writer can write quite a bit on anything.

plus there are many other variations on that specific thought experiment, each giving a slightly different scenario, and thus (sometimes) different expected solutions.

I have no doubt that there are. I still see no value in seeing things in b&w terms.

How does the trolley situation encourage uncreative and ill informed decision making?

NOTHING is that simple. To train people in dealing with complex dilemmas in such a dualistic fashion is to blind them from reality which is not so simple. It is this mentality that I see in MDOA's non violent resistance thread justifying taking rash decisions to hurt others.

Its a thought experiment man. I really do think you're missing the fundamental idea behind all of this..

What does the objective to this "thought experiment"?

 

[Vader]

What does the objective to this "thought experiment"?

As with all ethical thought experiments it is intended to stir up our moral intuitions. Once we know what our intuitions are we can go about trying to develop a consistent normative theory that fits them. That's what ethics is all about surely?

 

[L2R]

If we were to take into account every possible option the question becomes unanswerable.

no one can know everything, but the more one knows the better the rationality and other considerations.

If you can't decide the right course of action in such a simplified, binary situation, what chance do you have of tackling a real world ethical decision?

one does not relate to the other.

The problem has a real world application in that, having determined what our intuitions concerning the morality of killing people vs. letting people die, we can apply these principles to more complex, realistic scenarios.

As many time as this has been repeated in this thread, no one has been able to explain HOW such decisions have any relation to the complex reality.

And if this thought experiment is pointless, are all others?

If one fruit is poisonous, are all others? Do you even hear what you are saying?

 

[L2R]

As with all ethical thought experiments it is intended to stir up our moral intuitions. Once we know what our intuitions are we can go about trying to develop a consistent normative theory that fits them. That's what ethics is all about surely?

my intuition is to kill one to save three.

so how is this knowledge meant to benefit me or anyone else?

 

[Vader]

If one fruit is poisonous, are all others? Do you even hear what you are saying?

The claim that thought experiments are simplified models which do not relate to reality seems to apply equally to all thought experiments. If the trolley problem is pointless then it must have some quality that useful thought experiments do not. I was hoping you could elaborate on the nature of the distinction.

As many time as this has been repeated in this thread, no one has been able to explain HOW such decisions have any relation to the complex reality.

The idea is that, having decided the principles which would lead us to one decision or the other in the idealised scenario, we can apply these principles to more complex scenarios. We should act in a consistent manner across ethical situations, so if we are willing/unwilling to kill to save life in the trolley problem, we should preserve this rule in real life situations. If we act according to different rules in similar situations then our morality is arbitrary.

 

[Syd_Barret]

Impacto, I really think you're just attempting to be difficult at this point.


You really want me to get a list of people that have employed thought experiments?
You do your own homework.

The question of the value of this thought experiment and others has been covered now at least a couple times.
Yerg gave a great explanation.

Resource distribution was already covered earlier in this thread. How is that not a real world application ?


"
Quote:
We're talking about the trolley situation and the doctor scenario right?
the former does not have enough information to make a sound decision, the latter i'd stop the doctor from killing the bystander since there would be a chance to procure the organs through donations without the need for the sacrifice.
"
Again, you miss the fundamental idea.
There are no 3rd options my friend.
There are times in life, where once is faced with just a similar situation, choice a or b.

"
I have no doubt that there are. I still see no value in seeing things in b&w terms."

Again, you miss the fundamental idea, the thought experiment is shown to illustrate the the choice of which group to kill is not an easy one, at all.
If it were black and white THERE WOULD BE NO DILEMMA!!!
As you have seen, some people chose to kill group a, or b.

 

[Vader]

my intuition is to kill one to save three.

so how is this knowledge meant to benefit me or anyone else?

Now you know that your intuition is that it is acceptable to kill in order to save life. Then we apply this, say, to triage situations. Where killing/letting die is an everyday ethical decision. If it's acceptable to kill the guy in the trolley problem, is it acceptable to kill the unwitting organ donor? If not, why not? There must be some crucial difference in the scenarios if the action is different. If not, then you have established an inconsistency in your ethical theory. You can then go away and examine and revise the underlying assumptions that lead to this self-contradiction. On identifying the faulty beliefs and modifying them, you will have improved your moral belief system with the aid of thought experiments.

 

[L2R]

The claim that thought experiments are simplified models which do not relate to reality seems to apply equally to all thought experiments. If the trolley problem is pointless then it must have some quality that useful thought experiments do not. I was hoping you could elaborate on the nature of the distinction.

incorrect. you are connecting dots that aren't there. i am only commenting on this thought experiment.

The idea is that, having decided the principles which would lead us to one decision or the other in the idealised scenario, we can apply these principles to more complex scenarios. We should act in a consistent manner across ethical situations, so if we are willing/unwilling to kill to save life in the trolley problem, we should preserve this rule in real life situations. If we act according to different rules in similar situations then our morality is arbitrary.

also incorrect. the scenario as posed in the original question is not idealised in the slightest. it's absurdity to a very high degree. therefore it does not apply to reality.

You really want me to get a list of people that have employed thought experiments?
You do your own homework.

If there were at least half a compelling case in here for the validity to such "experiments" i just might do some of my own research. but all i've seen are "it's relevant" or "you don't get it" explanations.

Now you know that your intuition is that it is acceptable to kill in order to save life. Then we apply this, say, to triage situations. Where killing/letting die is an everyday ethical decision. If it's acceptable to kill the guy in the trolley problem, is it acceptable to kill the unwitting organ donor? If not, why not?

I have answered why not twice already.

There must be some crucial difference in the scenarios if the action is different. If not, then you have established an inconsistency in your ethical theory. You can then go away and examine and revise the underlying assumptions that lead to this self-contradiction. On identifying the faulty beliefs and modifying them, you will have improved your moral belief system with the aid of thought experiments.

there is a huge difference. the situation is more realistic, and as such one can use the information given in the doctor scenario for a better decision.

Impacto, I really think you're just attempting to be difficult at this point.

Difficult only since neither of you appear to really understand the application of these experiments.

 

[Vader]

incorrect. you are connecting dots that aren't there. i am only commenting on this thought experiment.

But your criticism is not specific to this thought experiment. Many thought experiments are "absurd" in their nature. If we are appealing to ridicule, I could equally call the idea that I might be a brain in a vat, or that some being with a perfect knowledge of the state of the world exists absurd. This doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

[L2R]

But your criticism is not specific to this thought experiment. Many thought experiments are "absurd" in their nature. If we are appealing to ridicule, I could equally call the idea that I might be a brain in a vat, or that some being with a perfect knowledge of the state of the world exists absurd. This doesn't mean they aren't useful.

now if either of you can explain HOW this particular question is useful, i'd be a happy chappy.

 

[Vader]

Now you know that your intuition is that it is acceptable to kill in order to save life. Then we apply this, say, to triage situations. Where killing/letting die is an everyday ethical decision. If it's acceptable to kill the guy in the trolley problem, is it acceptable to kill the unwitting organ donor? If not, why not? There must be some crucial difference in the scenarios if the action is different. If not, then you have established an inconsistency in your ethical theory. You can then go away and examine and revise the underlying assumptions that lead to this self-contradiction. On identifying the faulty beliefs and modifying them, you will have improved your moral belief system with the aid of thought experiments.

Sorry to repeat. And please don't come back with "but I'd get the organs elsewhere". The whole point is that you imagine, for the sake of argument, that this is impossible.

 

[L2R]

but then the problem i have is that the morals and ethics we live by have evolved from and are based in complex realities. to remove the complexity from the reality, the morals and ethics are then not applying to contexts for which they are made. this make either decision equally irrelevant. i could flip a coin and justify the outcome. you might as well ask me my favourite colour.

 

[L2R]

thanks for the chat. i'll review this thread at another time when i'm not so drunk.

 

[Vader]

Our ethics are indeed evolved from and based in complex realities. This means that they are often complicated, elaborate, and in some cases self-contradictory. A case like this removes some of the complexity of the real world so that evaluating our ethical system becomes easier. If your morals are inconsistent concerning such simplified cases, they are certainly going to be inconsistent in the real world. They provide a helpful means for us to identify inconsistencies in our thought.
Another valuable feature is that these thought experiments provoke interest and intuitive reactions much better than abstract discussion of the issues. I feel that thinking about ethics like this, at least initially, is more engaging than a dry discussion of the morality of using others as a means to an end and the inherent value of life.

 

[Syd_Barret]

thanks for the chat. i'll review this thread at another time when i'm not so drunk.

Ughhh
*sigh*

It does explain a lot of things in this thread though

 

[L2R]

upon separating myself from the discussion with some time and a whole lot of sobriety, i don't see my concerns as being unreasonable.

i still maintain that ethics do no apply in simplified universes, and that such questions hold no value in real world decision making processes.

 

[jam uh weezy]

My tax dollars have killed far more than that. This question is irrelevant.

 

[L2R]

now don't become de-cents-itized!

 

[Vader]

i still maintain that ethics do no apply in simplified universes, and that such questions hold no value in real world decision making processes.

Does the question hold no value even in identifying inconsistent beliefs? It's an example of the Socratic method in action. Simplified models are necessary in all fields of intellectual endeavour, from economics to physics to ethics. They allow us to isolate what is interesting from what is not in real world situations. If you have a fully developed normative theory, it shouldn't be too difficult to state what, according to that theory, is the moral course of action in a thought experiment such as this.

 

[L2R]

Does the question hold no value even in identifying inconsistent beliefs?

None that i can see. The simplified models reduce information, variables and options, therefore there is little chance of inconsistency outside the thinkers ficklness.

It's an example of the Socratic method in action.

What does that even mean?

Simplified models are necessary in all fields of intellectual endeavour, from economics to physics to ethics. They allow us to isolate what is interesting from what is not in real world situations.

Now you may have read this somewhere, and possibly from a reputable source too (this benefit of the doubt I'm happy to extend), but I've yet to see any explanation as to how this may be. Come on, man. Use some critical thinking on the subject and substantiate your point of view.

If you have a fully developed normative theory, it shouldn't be too difficult to state what, according to that theory, is the moral course of action in a thought experiment such as this.

It isn't difficult at all, but is it beneficial to do so, that is my question.

In the original question, the only variables are:
1) no action = 3 people dead; or
2) action = 1 person dead.

The negatives of the former are the three deaths and the guilt from the lack of action.
The negatives of the second option are the death and the guilt of action.

Considering the amount of sorrow and loss as a result of more deaths exponentially increase with each, it is clear that the thing to do is to divert the trolley.

this means nothing in the real world. no such problem can exist in the real world. does that mean that i think it is justifiable to harvest human organs with unwilling participants to save a great number of people? hell no, it doesn't. that is because the real world is vastly more complex and contains a greater number of variables, such as voluntary donors, other treatments and the actual limited extension of life for the organ recipients.
in all real world ethical problems there are varying extenuating circumstances which may sway the decision one way or another. no amount of simplified theory is going to give all similar instances with a definitive (and consistent) ethical stance. actually, to even endeavour for this end, that is to reduce the consideration of cases on the individual scale, is far more unethical than any option in these simplified scenarios.