off topic but i never fuken understood this problem. Like literally. your action can save 4 people, what’s the reasoning behind not pulling the lever being a morally valid choice as much as pulling it?
Yeah at its core this is the discussion it’s intended to bring about. How action or inaction translates to culpability based on available information. It maps really well onto so many social issues.
how? do nothing and your inaction has killed more people. Pulling the lever effectively means saving three people, i can’t see an angle from where that is a controversial position to hold
That’s a valid solution to the trolley problem and not an uncommon one, minimizing deaths is virtuous even if it can’t be reduced to zero. Now you can reframe the question with additional variables and see if the answer still holds. Ie “what if the people below are felons and the individual above is a child?” Now the question is how merit or prospect affects the value of a life instead of considering quantity alone.
Someone who opts for inaction may argue that knowledge of the scenario in the first place doesn’t prescribe responsibility for this exact reason, there can be no end to the variability of the matter such that a moral decision can be determined and enacted in a reasonable frame of time. If you are going to terminate responsibility at a threshold of knowledge, why not at the beginning?
Whether or not either of these perspectives is correct is a discussion that can fill volumes.
off topic but i never fuken understood this problem. Like literally. your action can save 4 people, what’s the reasoning behind not pulling the lever being a morally valid choice as much as pulling it?
I think the moral “dilemma” is supposed to be
It’s stupid, but I think that’s the idea
Yeah at its core this is the discussion it’s intended to bring about. How action or inaction translates to culpability based on available information. It maps really well onto so many social issues.
how? do nothing and your inaction has killed more people. Pulling the lever effectively means saving three people, i can’t see an angle from where that is a controversial position to hold
That’s a valid solution to the trolley problem and not an uncommon one, minimizing deaths is virtuous even if it can’t be reduced to zero. Now you can reframe the question with additional variables and see if the answer still holds. Ie “what if the people below are felons and the individual above is a child?” Now the question is how merit or prospect affects the value of a life instead of considering quantity alone.
Someone who opts for inaction may argue that knowledge of the scenario in the first place doesn’t prescribe responsibility for this exact reason, there can be no end to the variability of the matter such that a moral decision can be determined and enacted in a reasonable frame of time. If you are going to terminate responsibility at a threshold of knowledge, why not at the beginning?
Whether or not either of these perspectives is correct is a discussion that can fill volumes.