My answer to the Trolley problem...opinions?

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION] also this hypothetical isn't making a claim to objective morality. It assumes it. So yes that part is a fundamental assumption, but not an unreasonable one. If everyone here is a subjectivist, I would consider that unfortunate, lol. But it could explain the confusion.....

 

[Erlian]

That's very interesting. I don't think I've encountered that view before. I've heard moral responsible adda product of intentions, but not with the spin of intentions the person would have had given enough information. And I could see how such a subjectivist view renders the trolley problem as.... not pointless as it can still be answered, but doesn't explore anything new about morality. Personally, I find that view of morality to be distasteful because I believe there to be a more objective truth. But at that point there's no way really to prove one view or the other.

I agree with the notion that there's an objective truth. Except we cannot ever measure or know it, thus it's largely irrelevant.
How does an objective truth make that view distasteful?

 

[Matt3737]

I can raise the example in physics of the spherical chicken again. That idea does not conform to the truth of reality but is still a reasonable question to ask.

We have very different views on what constitutes a 'reasonable question' to ask.

My answer still falls within objective morality when I state that whoever tied the people down is morally responsible for those deaths and that the listener's choice has no bearing on that 'morally objective' stance.

When you insist upon the listener's moral culpability, you cause your hypothetical to be inconsistent with moral objectivity. You are simultaneously insisting upon moral subjectivity and objectivity within the context of your hypothetical situation. It is inconsistent with regards to itself.

 

[dogman6126]

I agree with the notion that there's an objective truth. Except we cannot ever measure or know it, thus it's largely irrelevant.
How does an objective truth make that view distasteful?

I'm not so fond of subjective morality because it raises a host of questions in meta ethics. Such as if morality is subjective, then is it actually important? What is its actual role? Are humans neither good or bad? Is reality neither good or bad? And those are just a few questions. Really it just raises a number of uncomfortable questions in my eyes. It really is just a preference or belief.

 

[dogman6126]

We have very different views on what constitutes a 'reasonable question' to ask.

My answer still falls within objective morality when I state that whoever tied the people down is morally responsible for those deaths and that the listener's choice has no bearing oon that 'morally objective' stance.

When you insist upon the listener's moral culpability, you cause your hypothetical to be inconsistent with moral objectivity. You are simultaneously insisting upon moral subjectivity and objectivity within the context of your hypothetical situation. It is inconsistent with regards to itself.

Objective morality comes in different forms. Both utilitarianism and deontology assume an objective morality. My view is not inconsistent in that respect. It's simply inconsistent with your view of morality. So let's take a look at that. You don't think that a person who simply encounters some unfortunate situation set up by some criminal has a responsibility to act? We can say that, because a person is a rational agent capable of making a choice has a responsibility to make a choice and are then responsible for the choice that they make at least to some extent. So take the case of no moral tradeoff. Your walking by a track and 5 people have been tied down and the trolley is speeding to them and you see a lever that could turn to trolley onto a different track and save the 5 people, wouldn't you think you have a moral responsibility to flip the lever? And if you didn't flip the lever, wouldn't you be morally responsible?

 

[Erlian]

I'm not so fond of subjective morality because it raises a host of questions in meta ethics. Such as if morality is subjective, then is it actually important? What is its actual role? Are humans neither good or bad? Is reality neither good or bad? And those are just a few questions. Really it just raises a number of uncomfortable questions in my eyes. It really is just a preference or belief.

I like anything meta ^^

Is morality important if I don't believe in free will? Yeah I think it is.
Everything a human perceives is subjective. Subjective =/= unimportant.
The role of subjective morality in a world without free will is just like any morality. To create a guide for good actions and thus a good society. It is for the society to subjectively decide what they believe is good. Society does this based on their experiences, emotions and whatnot (not based on free will). Then after 'guidelines' have been created, people use those to do good deeds (still no free will, because based on guidelines). You can also skip the guidelines and judge every action subjectively on your own.

To me humans, reality or anything is neither good or bad. The concepts of good or bad are social constructs that we create to encourage or discourage certain actions.
Bring on more questions

You're allowed to have your preferences, but if I can answer your questions within 5 minutes I'm not going to follow you in those preferences.

 

[Matt3737]

It's simply inconsistent with your view of morality.

This is you making a claim for subjective morality rather than explicitly stating why my answer is objectively wrong.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I would not touch the switch and I would not push anyone on the tracks. I don't want to be responsible for someone else's bad decision making and won't involve myself in a situation that was bound to take a life no matter what. Why would I put that on myself by choosing what life to take?

 

[dogman6126]

This is you making a claim for subjective morality rather than explicitly stating why my answer is objectively wrong.

And I can't claim your view to be objectively wrong. Because it is not logically inconsistent. However, to accept your view, you have to "bite the bullet" and accept that you do not require a person to flip a switch in the example I provided, and you cannot hold them in any way responsible. At least with your current formulation. To me, I could not accept that view. I certainly think that a person has an obligation to flip the switch to save the five people tied down in my last post

 

[dogman6126]

I would not touch the switch and I would not push anyone on the tracks. I don't want to be responsible for someone else's bad decision making and won't involve myself in a situation that was bound to take a life no matter what. Why would I put that on myself by choosing what life to take?

An objective morality might say you have an obligation to act if you want to be a moral person. Not so much that you put the responsibility on yourself. I would say by being in the situation and being a rational agent, you have a responsibility to act morally. And if it is moral to flip the switch, then you have that obligation.

 

[SpecialEdition]

An objective morality might say you have an obligation to act if you want to be a moral person. Not so much that you put the responsibility on yourself. I would say by being in the situation and being a rational agent, you have a responsibility to act morally. And if it is moral to flip the switch, then you have that obligation.

I have no feelings about being moral according to other people's standards. I will serve myself, first.

 

[dogman6126]

I like anything meta ^^

Is morality important if I don't believe in free will? Yeah I think it is.
Everything a human perceives is subjective. Subjective =/= unimportant.
The role of subjective morality in a world without free will is just like any morality. To create a guide for good actions and thus a good society. It is for the society to subjectively decide what they believe is good. Society does this based on their experiences, emotions and whatnot (not based on free will). Then after 'guidelines' have been created, people use those to do good deeds (still no free will, because based on guidelines). You can also skip the guidelines and judge every action subjectively on your own.

To me humans, reality or anything is neither good or bad. The concepts of good or bad are social constructs that we create to encourage or discourage certain actions.
Bring on more questions

You're allowed to have your preferences, but if I can answer your questions within 5 minutes I'm not going to follow you in those preferences.

Lol, so far I've been working on my cell phone to answer these posts, but to answer this post you got me to get my computer out, hahaha. This response is getting juicy, lol. Right to the heart of some interesting questions of morality.

Firstly, I don't expect to convince you to change views simply because my arguments hinge on my own discomfort. However, I'm not sure your answers are necessarily satisfactory. Your answer accounted for each of my posted questions, but does that make them any less uncomfortable?
My first question is how you derive moral culpability without some notion of free will. To say acting morally is to say acting good which presupposes the possibility of acting bad. so if free will is taken to mean choice from among various alternatives, and you do not take that to be true, then where do you get morality from?
for the part of subjective =/= unimportant, I would agree with that. But it certainly does change the importance of the thing when switching from an objective stance to a subjective stance. Then the question is how has it changed, and I find that it changes to a lesser importance than it would be for an objective view. I disslike that.
Another thing, you said morality is based in the society. You drifted dangerously close to cultural relativism here. That being that what society sees as the moral act IS the moral act. This leads to problems when you consider different societies with different views. For example, its a tough pill to swallow to say that it might be morally ok to have an abortion in one country, but not morally ok to have an abortion in another country. This view turns the "morally ok" and "socially ok" into basically the same thing. That means that what is socially ok is never wrong. So that means that things like the ancient crusades or even the holocaust must have been morally ok.
You also said "skip the guidelines and judge every action subjectively on your own, but how does that make it moral? I would not want to take what I judge to be moral makes it a moral thing. What if I judge murdering an innocent child simply for the pleasure of murdering the child to be moral? I could derive that if I take my pleasure to be more important than the child's life.

 

[dogman6126]

I have no feelings about being moral according to other people's standards. I will serve myself, first.

you will serve yourself first? but at what point does the value of your ends/needs outweigh the value of other people's ends/needs? To answer this question is to establish a moral truth in your view of morality. Then if you take that to be an objective truth, it should apply to everyone in the same respect. then you would conclude that your view applies to others. So then you say you have no feelings about being moral according to other people's standards, but you would have a standard that applies to other people. That's hypocritical. The only way out of this is to take it to be a subjective morality, and even that sometimes applies to other peoples standards. So either you have to take your first statement as not being true, accept yourself as hypocritical, or accept a view of morality verging on anarchy. A kind of personal relativism.

 

[SpecialEdition]

you will serve yourself first? but at what point does the value of your ends/needs outweigh the value of other people's ends/needs? To answer this question is to establish a moral truth in your view of morality. Then if you take that to be an objective truth, it should apply to everyone in the same respect. then you would conclude that your view applies to others. So then you say you have no feelings about being moral according to other people's standards, but you would have a standard that applies to other people. That's hypocritical. The only way out of this is to take it to be a subjective morality, and even that sometimes applies to other peoples standards. So either you have to take your first statement as not being true, accept yourself as hypocritical, or accept a view of morality verging on anarchy. A kind of personal relativism.

I'll break it down for you:
you will serve yourself first? Yes.
but at what point does the value of your ends/needs outweigh the value of other people's ends/needs? In a situation where my life is not at risk but I have to choose someone else's life to put at risk, I will act in favour of myself and my needs if it means someone is going to die anyway. I choose to not take responsibility and feel zero guilt about that.
Then if you take that to be an objective truth, it should apply to everyone in the same respect. then you would conclude that your view applies to others. So then you say you have no feelings about being moral according to other people's standards, but you would have a standard that applies to other people. That's hypocritical. The only way out of this is to take it to be a subjective morality, and even that sometimes applies to other peoples standards. So either you have to take your first statement as not being true, accept yourself as hypocritical, or accept a view of morality verging on anarchy. A kind of personal relativism. WTF Are you talking about. I am not talking about an objective truth, I am talking about a decision I would make, and how I don't feel obligated to follow someone else's standards of morality and how they feel about how they would act in that situation and at no point have I stated anywhere that my decision or thought process SHOULD apply universally because it won't. Many people will make a decision to act in one way or another and someone's life will be given up because of it. They might crunch the numbers and decide based on that. That doesn't mean I will judge them as having been moral or not. It means I think they got themselves involved in a situation that they never ought to have had to face in the first place and now they have to live with the guilt of choosing to end someone's life which comes with a lot of consequences. I simply choose to not be involved at all.

 

[sprinkles]

Put flamethrowers on the front rocket launchers on the back and spinning saw blades on the wheels.

 

[Tin Man]

Again, the question isn't so much what you would do in reality. It's more work what morality requires you to do. You guys could claim this problem questions nothing of moral consequence for some of the points you guys have made, but then you would have to reject the idea of an objective morality. Then you must accept good and bad are no more unique than red and blue. Simple perceptions without an objectively correct nature.

I do reject objective morality. As you said, they are simply perceptions that change from culture to culture. There are certain values that remain consistent, but (IMO) this is only because societies would struggle to exist without some very basic boundaries.

 

[Erlian]

Firstly, I don't expect to convince you to change views simply because my arguments hinge on my own discomfort. However, I'm not sure your answers are necessarily satisfactory. Your answer accounted for each of my posted questions, but does that make them any less uncomfortable?
My first question is how you derive moral culpability without some notion of free will. To say acting morally is to say acting good which presupposes the possibility of acting bad. so if free will is taken to mean choice from among various alternatives, and you do not take that to be true, then where do you get morality from?

It's not any more uncomfortable to me *shrug*.
I believe there is no moral culpability.

Another thing, you said morality is based in the society. You drifted dangerously close to cultural relativism here. That being that what society sees as the moral act IS the moral act. This leads to problems when you consider different societies with different views. For example, its a tough pill to swallow to say that it might be morally ok to have an abortion in one country, but not morally ok to have an abortion in another country. This view turns the "morally ok" and "socially ok" into basically the same thing. That means that what is socially ok is never wrong. So that means that things like the ancient crusades or even the holocaust must have been morally ok.

Yeah, doh. The church initiated the crusades. The church was the source of most morality in that age. Crusades were morally right to that society. However we now conclude that this was not morally right. Society changed. How can we trust ourselves in finding objective morals if humanity made so many moral mistakes in the past? If the church used to say crusades were moral and we now conclude they weren't, how can we trust that future generations will agree with our morals? What makes our morals objective?

Morally ok is socially ok, yes. History clearly shows that. I'm pretty sure that crusaders or whatever atrocity-committers thought they were doing the right thing morally.

And yes, it's cultural relativism. However in my memory most cultural relativists are also pacifists in that they let others do what they think is culturally/morally right. I disagree with that. I can see that ISIS believe that what they do is morally right. I disagree with their morals and think it's a good idea to fight for our morals over theirs. So while from a neutral standpoint, their morals are equal to our morals, I think we should fight/oppose them (not necessarily physically) anyway. Because I and only I believe our morals are superior. History is changed by the victor. Evolution theory.

You also said "skip the guidelines and judge every action subjectively on your own, but how does that make it moral? I would not want to take what I judge to be moral makes it a moral thing. What if I judge murdering an innocent child simply for the pleasure of murdering the child to be moral? I could derive that if I take my pleasure to be more important than the child's life.

Yeah, that's what psychopaths do.


All the problems you give are a problem to objective morality, but not to subjective morality.
Morality is not one objective thing. It changes. It's socially constructed. Crusades were seen as morally right. Not anymore.
One guy can think abortion is morally wrong and another can say it's right. There is not one morality. Morality isn't objective.
Humans are incapable of perceiving objective things. Humans wouldn't be capable of creating objective morals. What else could? Some god or entity? If a god created objective morals, we wouldn't be able to perceive them as objective. Our perception subjectifies it. Just look at the gazillion different bible translations or branches of christianity, those are supposedly objective morals.

 

[Tin Man]

Put flamethrowers on the front rocket launchers on the back and spinning saw blades on the wheels.

That doesn't make any sense. Flamethrowers placed in the position of oncoming wind would mean either they would be useless or worse the flame would be pushed back onto the train and burn it. The rocket launchers should obviously be on the front. At high speeds, their accuracy would be very low but they would have enough force to overcome the outside pressure.

...I think.

 

[sprinkles]

That doesn't make any sense. Flamethrowers placed in the position of oncoming wind would mean either they would be useless or worse the flame would be pushed back onto the train and burn it. The rocket launchers should obviously be on the front. At high speeds, their accuracy would be very low but they would have enough force to overcome the outside pressure.

...I think.

If I wanted to be practical I wouldn't use a trolley in the first place. This is all about irony and spur of the moment sayings.

 

[Tin Man]

If I wanted to be practical I wouldn't use a trolley in the first place. This is all about irony and spur of the moment sayings.

Irony? Well madam (or sir or whichever gender you ascribe to), irony is the lowest form of wit. Tis just below the pun and the limerick. Good day to you.