What Would You Do?

[Dream]

There is no death, just the ending of a body. The child most likely put herself in that position as that was part of her destiny.

But it is my destiny to be at the lever, that is why her fate rests in my hands. It is not straightforward fate if the choices of destruction are observed. Shall I really take destiny into my own hands?

 

[Snoopy]

@ Snoop
I guess the only "philosophy" which I respect is Occasionalism.... Maybe because it is a sort of anti-philosophy.

ooh not heard of that so thanks

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/occasionalism/

is it an occasional respect?

if you've got any books on the subject do you keep them on an occasional table?

sorry, just been for a run and I'm a bit mental.

s.

 

[c0de]

if you've got any books on the subject do you keep them on an occasional table?

Occasionally, yes (lol).

 

[path_of_one]

I guess part of my question, which no one has answered, is how is non-action not also action? If, through non-action, we cause death (because we knew a way to do otherwise), how is that different from action itself?

Everyone hesitates to pull the lever because they think that if they do nothing, they really do nothing and "their hands are clean." I think that's false. If you know that by doing nothing, the other 200 die, your non-action is, in fact, action. Now, if you didn't know, or were just guessing, that is a different scenario... but that is not the scenario we are given here.

And, if the girl sees "with horror" you turn the train on her... you'd think she'd get the heck off the track. In fact, why wouldn't she get off the track anyway? I mean, if she's close enough to the train to not have time to go 3 feet... she's close enough that you can warn her to get off the track before pulling the lever. It all makes no sense unless she's tied to the track. I mean- she has as much (actually more) chance to get off the track and survive than the people in the train have to leap from a moving train and survive. The whole thing is non-sensical in its parameters.

Anyhoo...

@ C0de

Of course, science deals in probabilities, but how else to make decisions? Yes, I use intuition but I can't do that in hypothetical situations... You plan for the 99%, not the 1%.

That aside, under what circumstances would a human being not have a choice in their feelings and thoughts? How does another being control one's own feelings, thoughts, and consciousness? Even if one is mentally ill, from my perspective there is some greater choice in that matter- perhaps not one you made recently, but in the scheme of your spiritual life, which is much wider than this brief one here... Nothing in the self is permanent, and yet the self is lasting. Eh, I'm probably getting too much into the weeds for everyone. Everyone wants a nice, easy feel-good answer about saving the girl and allowing 200 to plunge to their death.

I'm really curious, because I have always noted that these were my own choice, no matter the external circumstances. And that is what I mean by creative response.

My body and current life is precious, but it is just a vehicle for the real me. There is a substantial element, to me, that my intent matters behind my action/choice, but whether or the girl or the 200 die... they will continue on into the next life. So it's really about my intent, and not about death, per se.

My point in this whole conversation is that if you have knowledge that would change things, the choice of non-action *is* action. It is the choice that makes it action as opposed to "fate" or whatever, not pulling the lever. If you fail to pull the lever, you just killed 200 people. And while you say "Oh, they can jump off the train" well, so the girl can jump off the tracks (and I would wager, a whole lot easier). Making choices is a form of human action. Passivity does not mean non-action.

 

[Dream]

My point in this whole conversation is that if you have knowledge that would change things, the choice of non-action *is* action. It is the choice that makes it action as opposed to "fate" or whatever, not pulling the lever. If you fail to pull the lever, you just killed 200 people.

Yes, inaction is an action, however there are some scenarios such as bombing of abortion clinics which make me wonder how useful this reasoning can be. The people who bombed those clinics said they were saving lives, ending murder, & upholding the sanctity of life. We prosecuted them as mass murderers, because they killed or attempted to kill the staff of those clinics. They thought they were doing the right thing. We said they broke the law. To them, the law punished them for pulling the lever and saving the train. To us, there was no lever. The problem is upholding the value of human life, so maybe we ought to say either choice is correct. Otherwise, might we not inadvertently set a price on a life?

 

[Postmaster]

I guess part of my question, which no one has answered, is how is non-action not also action? If, through non-action, we cause death (because we knew a way to do otherwise), how is that different from action itself?

Everyone hesitates to pull the lever because they think that if they do nothing, they really do nothing and "their hands are clean." I think that's false. If you know that by doing nothing, the other 200 die, your non-action is, in fact, action. Now, if you didn't know, or were just guessing, that is a different scenario... but that is not the scenario we are given here.

And, if the girl sees "with horror" you turn the train on her... you'd think she'd get the heck off the track. In fact, why wouldn't she get off the track anyway? I mean, if she's close enough to the train to not have time to go 3 feet... she's close enough that you can warn her to get off the track before pulling the lever. It all makes no sense unless she's tied to the track. I mean- she has as much (actually more) chance to get off the track and survive than the people in the train have to leap from a moving train and survive. The whole thing is non-sensical in its parameters.

I just assumed the girl was stuck on the track maybe she wasn’t. I can see what you’re saying I agree that non action is also an action... 200 lives are better than 1 and with this I agree. Yes many things in life are worth something and measured and we live on this everyday. But I feel in this scenario that it’s more important to stick to principles. The little girl is on a track that should not have a train running down it, whether she knows this or not isn't the matter (with it being alittle girl she probably doesnt know), to me the fact that the train never intended to go down that path way means the girl should decide whether to be scariced, but since in this scenario we can't ask or move the girl, we must respect her basic human rights and also respect that this is out of our own control also. Imagine having a wealthy family member and imagine your direct family will inherite the money when they die. However you have 10 family members with a terminial illness that can only survive through expensive treatment. And imagine that your wealthy family member won't pay.

 

[nativeastral]

I have voted not taking any action thus the little girl survives. The people in the trian have a chance to jump out.

depends on how fast the train is going?, most passengers are 'oblivious' until just before the 'event'.

Recent neuroscience is now saying we are more unconscious than conscious ie the body/synapses act before we are aware of the fact [of the act]; especially in moments like these, unreflection and immediacy.
[see melvyn Bragg bbc radio 'in our time' on 'materialism i think].

I guess the "philosophy" which I respect most is Occasionalism, which started in the Islamic Near East.... But I have problems with this approach as well, because occasionalism is a dualist philosophy, and I am a monist/idealist... maybe there is a way to reconcile monism with occasionalism.... I'll ponder on it.

is that like the acquisition thesis of the ash'arites in that 'anything other than god is made up of atoms and accidents, atoms being the 'bearers' of accidents'; so age old dualism predeterminism/freewill, necessary/contingent? I know this is what kalam grappled with...
have you read M.Fakhry 'short intro to islamic philosophy theology and mysticism [quote from] which may help in the quest of reconciliation...?

This is like the Euthyphro dilemma 'is x morally good because g-d wills it or does g-d will it because it is morally good?'

are there absolute morals?

 

[Postmaster]

depends on how fast the train is going?, most passengers are 'oblivious' until just before the 'event'.

Recent neuroscience is now saying we are more unconscious than conscious ie the body/synapses act before we are aware of the fact [of the act]; especially in moments like these, unreflection and immediacy.
[see melvyn Bragg bbc radio 'in our time' on 'materialism i think].

Yep I probably would have pulled the lever, it took me a couple of days to contemplate that it's actually best not to. But i can't be too sure what i'd have done in that situation. I'm hoping I wouldn't have. At least now I know what to do or maybe I don't lol.

 

[c0de]

@ Path

The question (for me) is not about the girl, or the train. I am making no calculation which weighs one number of lives against another number. Moreover, my intention is not to save, or sacrifice life.... It is to conform my actions according to an ideal, a principle (which I have no hope of actually emulating perfectly, and this is my dilemma). This is why distinctions between "action" and "non-action" are not relevant for me.


@ Native

I think there might not be much of a reconciliation between Ashrite occasionalism and my views, because the occasionalists still believe in free-will... Even though I agree with Ghazali's argument that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire. And as for your question, in my view: X is good, because God wills it, not because there are absolute morals independent of God's definition of them.

 

[nativeastral]

hi code
spoken like a true theist! and dilemma of emulating perfection in an imperfect world [ie us]. Ghazali's turned to sufism when neither revelatory nor philosophical reason realized the truth for him didn't he?

 

[c0de]

Well, actually, he turned to Sufism because of revelatory reason, which he found opposing the prevailing philosophic logic of his time... I found an article which contains the account of his progression in his own words: Imam Ghazali on Sufism and the Reality of Spiritual Inspiration

 

[nativeastral]

hi code
in your opinion of todays young muslims [though l know there is wide variations worldwide and notwithstanding the precedence of the word of the quran,hadith and sunnah]- are they more likely to accept/read/practise sufism than their parents did, ie are they more 'modern' and 'liberal' in their beliefs so as to rate sufism more highly, or is it still considered a 'wrong' approach ie too much identification/union rather than obedience/submission to orthodox teachings? just wondered whether mysticism is getting more popular in Islam today or not.

 

[c0de]

you don't wanna hear my cynical views on such subjects man... (trust me). I have learned that it's best to keep my "negativity" (as my friends call it) contained... (lol)

 

[Postmaster]

What kind of mysticism do sufi experience? I hear mysticism and sufi mentioned alot.

 

[Postmaster]

Personally I think its over rated.

 

[c0de]

Sufi Mysticism = The attempt to discover knowledge of the inner meanings of revelation (and therefore, of life.)

 

[Postmaster]

Thanks. I always held that mysticism was absolutely external. Hense the word mysticism. Must have something to do with my Christian background. I think Sufism is more focused on social mysticism though? That’s the kind of hunch I get?

 

[nativeastral]

l think its about realizing the divine within and in All rather than separating the creator from creation, therefore the problem for institutionalised religions who require a mediator authorised for this task; apart from sikhism but even they ended up with some kind of hierarchy of sorts.

 

[path_of_one]

@ Path

The question (for me) is not about the girl, or the train. I am making no calculation which weighs one number of lives against another number. Moreover, my intention is not to save, or sacrifice life.... It is to conform my actions according to an ideal, a principle (which I have no hope of actually emulating perfectly, and this is my dilemma). This is why distinctions between "action" and "non-action" are not relevant for me.

I understand- you are operating off a very different worldview in this matter than I, so it is natural that your focus in the situation is different. I am curious- what is the ideal?

I think what throws me in this situation is the aspect of foresight, which of course usually humans don't have. If we have foresight and *know* either 1 or 200 will die, that is a different situation than normal life, where we don't know.

I don't think it's very apt as a proxy measure for war decisions, for example, but I do think it is more situationally similar to pandemic planning, which I'm currently pondering.

To put it briefly-

A pandemic hits a major city. You know that if you quarantine the affected area, the mortality rate within it will be quite high. If you don't, the affected area may not suffer such high rates, but most likely, the entire country and perhaps world will experience a much higher rate of mortality.

If you are the pandemic planner and have to make a decision, what do you do? Quarantine or not?

These are the real-life situations where no matter what, people will die. And someone does have to make the decisions of where and when. I suppose people can just abdicate that responsiblity, but is this passivity really moral? It really just shoves the responsibility off onto someone else. Kind of like how supporting capital punishment makes you as responsible for a person's death as the executioner. Our choices force someone in society to act, and are choices are action. That God gave us the capacity to make these decisions, to calculate, to reason... this is part of the gifts we were given. Who is to say we are not part of people's destiny when we are put into their lives with the capacity for change and for knowledge?

 

[Postmaster]

l think its about realizing the divine within and in All rather than separating the creator from creation, therefore the problem for institutionalised religions who require a mediator authorised for this task; apart from sikhism but even they ended up with some kind of hierarchy of sorts.

That means accepting bad as being divine too.. Which defies us seeking the divine.