What Would You Do?

[c0de]

So far, I've had about equal numbers of the two scenarios. I believe Nick A was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

That's wierd, everyone I asked agreed with you... hmm.... maybe we should swap friends...

That is an entirely different matter and changes the equation. You had set it up as if the train could not run out of steam- that either one girl or 200 people definitely died. In fact, when people attempted to be more creative in their response or their logic about what might occur, it was not allowed by the scenario you presented.

If the scenario is based on probability and unknown, then no, I would not pull the lever as I wouldn't have enough information. If the scenario is based on two definitively known results, either one or 200 people die, I choose to leave 200 people living.

So, this is news to me and if you're talking about probability, then no, I wouldn't pull the lever. Congrats- we now have no argument. LOL

Sweet... finally an agreement.

Maybe I should just shut up before things degenerate again.

I thought you were saying your higher order of ethics is to not harm others, to not kill others. That is why I made those points. If it is another set of ethics, then I am confused as to what they are. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Its basically the difference between the "virtues" outlined by Benjamin Franklin, and those outlined by Luther and Calvin. While Franklin's "virtues" are only as "virtuous" as they are beneficial (in material terms), a virtue from the point of theology is "good" primarily because it is commanded by God (i.e. its transcendence), not because of its utility.

If you have not read Weber's The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism, I highly recommend it. I just read it last week so all of this stuff is fresh in my mind.

The example of the early Christians is irrelevant unless there is historical evidence that the reason they stayed was a belief in fate, as opposed to some other ideological reason. They may have stayed because they felt called to heal others, after Christ's example, because Christ's teachings emphasize compassionate, selfless action, etc. None of that has much to do with fate.

I think if they were willing to die following Jesus's (PBUH) example, then its a fair guess that they probably took his preaching about the afterlife pretty seriously as well yea??

People who do not believe in the afterlife might be less likely to offer up their lives for a cause, but without statistical evidence, it remains an assumption and not a fact.

"pffft.... Facts are meaningless. You could use "facts" to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer J. Simpson

While most people who believe in fate may believe in an afterlife (again, not sure any statistical work has been done there), it is not true that most people who believe in an afterlife necessarily believe in fate.

True... I'll give you that.

Therein lies a significant logical problem. If you had said that people who believe in an afterlife or a God are more likely to stay behind and care for people, I'd say I'd like to see evidence, but would agree it is a logical hypothesis. But I fail to see what fate has to do with anything, which is a second order assumption about how God and the universe operates.

Furthermore, I would not say that belief in an afterlife or God makes people behave more ethically than those who do not have these beliefs. There are many ethical atheists willing to die for social causes. Many of my colleagues put their lives at risk to do their research in order to try to assist oppressed people- and nearly all are atheist. In fact, I meet many people who believe in an afterlife and still don't do much to help anyone.

I know, thats why I am not really building a case, or justifying anything based on a belief in fate. It is just a personal hypothesis I have... I wish I had some statistics, but I dont think any studies on this have been done (blame the sociologists).

I'm trying to understand your principles. I don't think feeding people in a famine goes against a principle of action to alleviate suffering, but it does go against a concept to let fate work without our intervention.

Let me put it this way: we are commanded to do good by God. So feeding the poor is a duty. As long as that duty does not contradict another principle (such as do not take innocent life) we have to carry it out.

I am responding to a worldview that allows for fate to dominate possibility. If your principles are otherwise- that is, you are arguing that any action that is in accord with one's principle to do good but not evil, according to a particular moral code, should be taken and otherwise, it should not- then I agree my example is invalid. If you choose to make the argument that we should not go against fate, then I would say- why is fate any more respected in one scenario than another?

I see your point, and the fault is my own. I will clarify by saying that my point does not have anything to do with "letting fate run its course" in the case of killing the girl or any of these scenarios. I was not justifying my actions by using fate.

Just because I believe in fate, does not mean that I will let people starve because I think that "it is written for them to die" (lol) Take the example of the Reformation, the Calvinists thought that everything was pre-destined too right? But this did not make their followers lazy. In fact, it provided more fuel for dilligence in their everyday life then anything else could have. Because you have to prove your faith through action. Although, the Islamic perspective is not exactly matching that of Calvin's idea of pre-destination (there is no eternal damnation).

So it is left to us to judge another's heart and if we feel the person is criminal, we are free to kill him/her, but if we feel the person is innocent, then we should not?

How should we make this judgment?

But in the scenario you set we are not judging anyone's heart. A person is committing genocide, so he is treated accordingly. He could be doing it for some very lofty purposes, he might even think he is doing God's work... But his actions are what we judge, not his intentions (so... the ends do not justify the means, kinda thing again)

 

[path_of_one]

That's wierd, everyone I asked agreed with you... hmm.... maybe we should swap friends...

Sweet... finally an agreement.

Maybe I should just shut up before things degenerate again.

Enjoy it while it lasts, eh? LOL

Its basically the difference between the "virtues" outlined by Benjamin Franklin, and those outlined by Luther and Calvin. While Franklin's "virtues" are only as "virtuous" as they are beneficial (in material terms), a virtue from the point of theology is "good" primarily because it is commanded by God (i.e. its transcendence), not because of its utility.

If you have not read Weber's The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism, I highly recommend it. I just read it last week so all of this stuff is fresh in my mind.

I've read it, and I understand what you're getting at now. I think, though, that part of the issue I'm pressing is that people can have disagreements over virtues even when both of them think of virtues in the Luther-Calvin sense. That is, while most religions agree on the basics, they disagree about the details of these virtues.

Thou shalt not kill is in most religions, but what does it mean? What about war? What about self-defense? What about abortion? And so on. The "devil" is in the details- in the interpretation.

I think if they were willing to die following Jesus's (PBUH) example, then its a fair guess that they probably took his preaching about the afterlife pretty seriously as well yea??

I don't see what his preaching about the afterlife has to do with fate. An argument can be made for pre-destiny using the scriptures (as has been done before on the Christianity forum), but then the scriptures can also be used to argue against pre-destiny. To be honest, you can use the scriptures to argue for or against almost anything.

But at any rate, I wasn't saying that they didn't believe in his teaching about the afterlife. I was saying that doesn't necessitate any belief in fate.

"pffft

.... Facts are meaningless. You could use "facts" to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer J. Simpson

Let me put it this way: we are commanded to do good by God. So feeding the poor is a duty. As long as that duty does not contradict another principle (such as do not take innocent life) we have to carry it out.

When two duties contradict, or two principles contradict, what then? I'm just curious. I have no idea where this is going.

I see your point, and the fault is my own. I will clarify by saying that my point does not have anything to do with "letting fate run its course" in the case of killing the girl or any of these scenarios. I was not justifying my actions by using fate.

Just because I believe in fate, does not mean that I will let people starve because I think that "it is written for them to die" (lol) Take the example of the Reformation, the Calvinists thought that everything was pre-destined too right? But this did not make their followers lazy. In fact, it provided more fuel for dilligence in their everyday life then anything else could have. Because you have to prove your faith through action. Although, the Islamic perspective is not exactly matching that of Calvin's idea of pre-destination (there is no eternal damnation).

Spiffy. That really helps- I understand what you're saying now. Confusion has ceased.

But in the scenario you set we are not judging anyone's heart. A person is committing genocide, so he is treated accordingly. He could be doing it for some very lofty purposes, he might even think he is doing God's work... But his actions are what we judge, not his intentions (so... the ends do not justify the means, kinda thing again)

The problem with judging another person's actions is what standard to use. I'm not saying we should have moral relativism (quite the opposite, I have certain standards I think should be universal) but rather, that I also recognize the problem that my standards aren't necessarily other people's standards. Different cultures define what is right and wrong differently, and in the case of univeral human rights, or certain universal moral standards of any sort, it's bound to trample on someone's cultural tradition.

You take slavery, for example. I'm against slavery and I think it violates people's basic human rights. But I recognize this is a form of bias, a form of putting my own standards above those of other people whose culture may find slavery acceptable.

There is a spectrum of this, and on the one extreme end you have acts that are so despicable that nearly every person on earth would agree they warrant social judgment and condemnation. On the other extreme you have stuff that makes people uncomfortable from another culture but can be easily argued to have nothing to do with morals. For example, some American women think Muslim women are oppressed by wearing the veil and seek to liberate them from this "injustice." But Muslim women have a different interpretation of why they wear the veil and how it intersects with women's rights and freedoms.

I have my ethical standards and they are tied to my faith and spiritual journey. But I am honest about the struggle I have to tease apart these standards from my cultural ideas about morality as well, and the conflict that exists between universal moral standards and cultural diversity.

 

[c0de]

Thou shalt not kill is in most religions, but what does it mean? What about war? What about self-defense? What about abortion? And so on. The "devil" is in the details- in the interpretation.

Agreement even on apriori stuff does break down at some point... Its like symmetry in real life, versus a mathematical fractal. The concept of the fractal is perfect in theory, and completely infinite (transcendent), but it never really gets translated into real life.

But that only fair, I think, and its even good in a way. Because if the infinite could be translated completely into the finite, what use would we have for the afterlife?

I don't see what his preaching about the afterlife has to do with fate. An argument can be made for pre-destiny using the scriptures (as has been done before on the Christianity forum), but then the scriptures can also be used to argue against pre-destiny. To be honest, you can use the scriptures to argue for or against almost anything.

But at any rate, I wasn't saying that they didn't believe in his teaching about the afterlife. I was saying that doesn't necessitate any belief in fate.

The same is true for Muslim dialogues on the issue... "fate" is a thorny issue. This is why I try to keep my personal views on it away from such discussions, cuz they are very... unrestricted... but they always creep in for some reason.

When two duties contradict, or two principles contradict, what then? I'm just curious. I have no idea where this is going.

... you seem to be (instinctively) going in exactly the right direction i.e. pinning me in a corner, making it increasingly hard to answer...

I will say that there is a pre-defined hierarchy of virtues/principles that must be guarded. Of course, thats easy with the big obvious questions.... but like always, symmetry breaks down when you get to scenarios like the ones we have been discussing. The devil is definitely in the details... yes, but I will not use that excuse and back away. I will admit that I chose to give priority to one principle over another on purely fallacious grounds.

To be honest, the reason I settled on the answer I did was purely because of an anti-utilitarianistic, anti-rational bias. This is why its hard for me to justify the choice I made, because its based on an irrational instinct which tells me: its a slippery slope (yea, I know thats a fallacy, but instincts aren't logical).

However, this position is not completely outside of reason (i.e. its still crazy, but not insane). Chief among them being the certainty that rationality will always be flawed. It will always get tainted by our own greed/envy/whatever. So if I choose to start making such decisions based on the calculations of the "greater good" and start compromising by allowing an evil action to precede (or become the cause) of a future good... then that is a slippery slope. Nothing good (in my opinion) can come of it. Its irrational, yea... but its because of "rationality" that we are where we are today.. and every indication is that it will keep going in this same direction. That, to me, is the real insanity.

Weber ended his essay with a quote from Goethe that I think is applicable here... it basically sums up my entire rant above (hmmm... maybe I should have just typed this instead): "Specialists with spirit, sensual without heart, this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved" ...

You take slavery, for example. I'm against slavery and I think it violates people's basic human rights.

whaaaat? no way.. you're crazy!

But Muslim women have a different interpretation of why they wear the veil and how it intersects with women's rights and freedoms.

i think they just like dressing up like ninjas... (lets not overcomplicate stuff)

I have my ethical standards and they are tied to my faith and spiritual journey. But I am honest about the struggle I have to tease apart these standards from my cultural ideas about morality as well, and the conflict that exists between universal moral standards and cultural diversity.

Hey as long as you're no moral relativist, its all good

 

[path_of_one]

Agreement even on apriori stuff does break down at some point... Its like symmetry in real life, versus a mathematical fractal. The concept of the fractal is perfect in theory, and completely infinite (transcendent), but it never really gets translated into real life.

But that only fair, I think, and its even good in a way. Because if the infinite could be translated completely into the finite, what use would we have for the afterlife?

... you seem to be (instinctively) going in exactly the right direction i.e. pinning me in a corner, making it increasingly hard to answer...

I will say that there is a pre-defined hierarchy of virtues/principles that must be guarded. Of course, thats easy with the big obvious questions.... but like always, symmetry breaks down when you get to scenarios like the ones we have been discussing. The devil is definitely in the details... yes, but I will not use that excuse and back away. I will admit that I chose to give priority to one principle over another on purely fallacious grounds.

To be honest, the reason I settled on the answer I did was purely because of an anti-utilitarianistic, anti-rational bias. This is why its hard for me to justify the choice I made, because its based on an irrational instinct which tells me: its a slippery slope (yea, I know thats a fallacy, but instincts aren't logical).

The problem is, for some, pulling the lever would be anti-rational and illogical, but it would be instinctual. Such is the diversity of human life.

For my own part, I try to never make a decision purely based on being anti-something else. I find it is a stronger foundation to be pro-something than anti-something. But that's just me.

Chief among them being the certainty that rationality will always be flawed. It will always get tainted by our own greed/envy/whatever.

I would say the exact same thing about our instincts/intuition. Just because it comes from the gut and not the head, doen't make it perfect. That's tainted too with our own desires and fears.

Its irrational, yea... but its because of "rationality" that we are where we are today.. and every indication is that it will keep going in this same direction. That, to me, is the real insanity.

Really? I do not think we very frequently make rational decisions at all. Humans are primarily emotional decision-makers. That works pretty well in small groups but fairly lousy in big ones. This is partly why people need to see the "Feed the Children" commercial to decide to send cash to feed kids. If they were rational, they would think "Some of these kids could cure cancer one day. Maybe we should make it a priority to make sure they live. It's worth giving up my ipod nano and Starbucks to do this." Of course, you can also reach the same conclusion by a very strong commitment to charity and the value of living beings. But most people seem to be able to think they have such commitments without really doing anything about it. Their emotions tell them they'd be happier to buy the ipod nano than to send money to charity. Without development of a compassionate awareness, people seem to be neither particularly emotionally bound to others nor particularly rational. A dangerous combination.

i think they just like dressing up like ninjas... (lets not overcomplicate stuff)

 

[shawn]

Wow....tracks that lead to a cliff?????
Both alternatives suck.
But harm reduction is a good concept, so it would be do whatever it takes to keep the train from going over the cliff.

 

[path_of_one]

Wow....tracks that lead to a cliff?????

Yeah, I think we can blame whoever engineered that one.

 

[Saltmeister]

Yeah, I think we can blame whoever engineered that one.

Oh please. Let us not hold c0de responsible for this one. You have to ignore the propaganda being dished out by your country's government and get the facts straight.

The cliff wasn't there yesterday.

The tracks led to what used to be a city of 1 million people. There was a huge earthquake and the entire thing went down. The city and its 1 million people, houses, railways and roads were all destroyed. It wasn't a landslide. Engineers 10 years ago discovered that there were 80,000 cubic kilometres of hollow space under the city. The earthquake shook the foundations of the ground under the city, the stress was too much and the ground under the city just collapsed.

The tracks leading to a cliff weren't a man-made path to disaster. It was a natural one waiting to happen.

c0de shouldn't have to be made a scapegoat for this disaster.

The facts I have stated here can be backed up by the info at the following web site.

www.a-cliff-that-appeared-out-of-nowhere.com

 

[c0de]

Path + Shawn + Salty



@ Path

The problem is, for some, pulling the lever would be anti-rational and illogical, but it would be instinctual. Such is the diversity of human life.

For my own part, I try to never make a decision purely based on being anti-something else. I find it is a stronger foundation to be pro-something than anti-something. But that's just me.

No I wasn't saying the decision itself is based on an instinct. But the belief in a fallacious position is instinctual. And the only reason I say it is "instinctual" is because it can't be logically justified because of the "slippery slope" fallacy. (even though it is totally rational when you think about it and apply a little imagination... which is why philosophy is mostly useless).

Really? I do not think we very frequently make rational decisions at all. Humans are primarily emotional decision-makers. That works pretty well in small groups but fairly lousy in big ones. This is partly why people need to see the "Feed the Children" commercial to decide to send cash to feed kids. If they were rational, they would think "Some of these kids could cure cancer one day. Maybe we should make it a priority to make sure they live. It's worth giving up my ipod nano and Starbucks to do this." Of course, you can also reach the same conclusion by a very strong commitment to charity and the value of living beings. But most people seem to be able to think they have such commitments without really doing anything about it. Their emotions tell them they'd be happier to buy the ipod nano than to send money to charity. Without development of a compassionate awareness, people seem to be neither particularly emotionally bound to others nor particularly rational. A dangerous combination.

(lol) yea, I know (I was being sarcastic, notice the quote marks around the word "rationality")... That was my bad though... I forget sometimes that I am typing (and how thats different from talking...)

Point being: Were in agreement that there is no real rationality in most human decisions. All those who profess a "rational" basis are ultimately only making the calculations which fit their own selfish agendas. But I am applying that here and saying that this is why the ends should never be allowed to justify the means... Because its a slippery slope.




@ Salty + Shawn

You know, I dont really remember what the original scenario was (lol)... i know it had a train... I dont even think it had a cliff... oh no wait!! I remember now! Okay, the original scenario was that there is a street car and its headed down a street rite... and its coming at a junction, and on one track there is a single car stuck on the tracks, and on the other there is like another streetcar. Its headed towards the oncoming streetcar, and you have the option of switching the tracks so that it hits the single car instead....

or something like that....

.. it was like a year ago man, gimme a break... (or a kit kat bar...)

 

[path_of_one]

LOL- so, many pages later we find that no one really knows the scenario, though Salty has the most creative storyline and response; that because the scenario is now thoroughly confusing, none of us would do anything; and that human beings are poor at rational thinking. Hee.

Oh, and that despite fairly different religious backgrounds, C0de and I agree that the ends doesn't justify the means, but we may have different ideas about assessing those ends and means. Which gets back to the point of human beings struggling with rationality and our diversity illustrating the near impossibility of fully defining anything in a way that reaches solid agreement. Yet, it also makes it hard to reach solid disagreement, so in that way it has a purpose.

Seriously, this was an interesting thread for all its twists and turns.

 

[Vajradhara]

umm... pardon my naivety... but couldn't you just pull the brake lever and stop the train before it hit the end of the track? why does it have to be switched? this sounds like a plot for Speed 5, Tracks of Doom!

in a serious vein, the question as posed in the original scenario presupposes a level of foreknowledge that i simply do not possess. i cannot know if everyone or anyone will die and, if i do know, then my decision has already been made and any sort of free will is moot.

metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

umm... pardon my naivety... but couldn't you just pull the brake lever and stop the train before it hit the end of the track? why does it have to be switched? this sounds like a plot for Speed 5, Tracks of Doom!

in a serious vein, the question as posed in the original scenario presupposes a level of foreknowledge that i simply do not possess. i cannot know if everyone or anyone will die and, if i do know, then my decision has already been made and any sort of free will is moot.

metta,

~v

Hey V,

I thought about a better way to phrase it:

Suppose you had a choice which forced you to commit a sin in order to bring benefit to a bunch of people, would you commit the sin?

 

[wil]

Hey V,

I thought about a better way to phrase it:

Suppose you had a choice which forced you to commit a sin in order to bring benefit to a bunch of people, would you commit the sin?

I saw the video...of this thread...

 

[Postmaster]

Personally I don't think committing a sin to meet the ends is ever a valid reason.

 

[c0de]

I saw the video...of this thread...

but... its still in theaters ... (never figured u for a pirate Wil, tsk tsk)

 

[Postmaster]

maybe hes friends with the producer hehe

 

[c0de]

maybe hes friends with the producer hehe

lol, now that, is a real "friend with benefits" : p

 

[17th Angel]

Personally I don't think committing a sin to meet the ends is ever a valid reason.

You sure about that? Think hard...... Seriously....

Code: Choose your next words about pirates wisely!! THEY COULD BE YOUR LAST! ARRRGH!!!! JIM LAD!

 

[c0de]

Code: Choose your next words about pirates wisely!! THEY COULD BE YOUR LAST! ARRRGH!!!! JIM LAD!

 

[Postmaster]

@ Alex P

No im not lol... In a hostile situation I think it can be reasonable.

 

[Postmaster]

@ at C0de

too right lol