Morality poll

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its a nitpick on 1) but you seem to agree the basic point which is that we want the pilot to take the action that minimises life loss. In 2) we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course I agree, and as I'm struggling with this issue, I'm trying to figure out why. Your pilot example is a problem for me because it essentially throws out my argument for not throwing the switch.

What right does the trolley guy have to kill the one for the sake of the five? What right does the pilot have to kill those in a sparsely populated area for the sake of the populated area?

[ QUOTE ]
1) doesn't change in nature if some number of deaths is certain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it does in my mind -- to an extent. Unfortunately, not enough to make my argument valid at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to interject here and say the pilot example is distinguishable in that you are the pilot, and like it or not you are tasked with controlling the aircraft and thus responsible for where it lands. In the trolley example, you are presumably just some random guy who happens to be near a switch; you are not the operator of the trolley, and are not tasked with controlling it one way or another.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
thank you for recognizing my contribution toward helping you not suck.

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize. After re-reading the thread, and slamming a couple of stiff drinks, I must now agree that I did indeed suck. It was certainly not my desire, or intent.

I allowed chezlaw's evasive responses to get under my skin, and that fact was glaringly obvious in the arrogant tone of my subsequent posts.

So, actually, it's all chez's fault. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its a nitpick on 1) but you seem to agree the basic point which is that we want the pilot to take the action that minimises life loss. In 2) we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course I agree, and as I'm struggling with this issue, I'm trying to figure out why. Your pilot example is a problem for me because it essentially throws out my argument for not throwing the switch.

What right does the trolley guy have to kill the one for the sake of the five? What right does the pilot have to kill those in a sparsely populated area for the sake of the populated area?

[/ QUOTE ]
The moral right comes from the fact its what the people involved want (or at least what its reasonable to believe they would want). That's not saying that those who end up dying would chose to die but that before the fact people generally agree that with minimising deaths in these types of incidents.

Contrast that with the hospital example where before the fact people wont agree to minimising death by harvesting organs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) doesn't change in nature if some number of deaths is certain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it does in my mind -- to an extent. Unfortunately, not enough to make my argument valid at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the above clears up this problem.

chez

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its a nitpick on 1) but you seem to agree the basic point which is that we want the pilot to take the action that minimises life loss. In 2) we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course I agree, and as I'm struggling with this issue, I'm trying to figure out why. Your pilot example is a problem for me because it essentially throws out my argument for not throwing the switch.

What right does the trolley guy have to kill the one for the sake of the five? What right does the pilot have to kill those in a sparsely populated area for the sake of the populated area?

[/ QUOTE ]
The moral right comes from the fact its what the people involved want (or at least what its reasonable to believe they would want). That's not saying that those who end up dying would chose to die but that before the fact people generally agree that with minimising deaths in these types of incidents.

Contrast that with the hospital example where before the fact people wont agree to minimising death by harvesting organs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) doesn't change in nature if some number of deaths is certain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it does in my mind -- to an extent. Unfortunately, not enough to make my argument valid at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the above clears up this problem.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're talking about a societal externality issue (i.e. people implicitly "agree[ing]" with certain outcomes in related situations) that OP's problems don't even require. You can look at the problems as purely hypothetical, isolated incidents with no chance of being repeated or replicated in any way, and still distinguish between the two based on the fact that:

Situation #1 does not involve a person who is tasked with a duty to operate the trolley or do anything else for that matter; while
Situation #2 involves a doctor whose duty is to save people, not to harvest them.

If #1 involved the operator of the trolley, then it would be similar to the pilot example. If #2 involved some random guy from the other side of the globe who could magically kill a guy by pulling a magical switch thus assuring that 5 be saved, it would be another story.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the above clears up this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, all you're telling me is that morality is what the majority thinks it is. Is that your position?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're talking about a societal externality issue (i.e. people implicitly "agree[ing]" with certain outcomes in related situations) that OP's problems don't even require. You can look at the problems as purely hypothetical, isolated incidents with no chance of being repeated or replicated in any way, and still distinguish between the two based on the fact that:

Situation #1 does not involve a person who is tasked with a duty to operate the trolley or do anything else for that matter; while
Situation #2 involves a doctor whose duty is to save people, not to harvest them.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many views on morality, mine is entirely based on what people want or would want before the fact. Other views exist but views wont change the fact that the situations aren't similar.

Repetition makes no difference, nor in this case does the job of the people involved. If all the pilots die and a passenger has to steer then we would still want them to try to minimise death.

chez

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you're talking about a societal externality issue (i.e. people implicitly "agree[ing]" with certain outcomes in related situations) that OP's problems don't even require. You can look at the problems as purely hypothetical, isolated incidents with no chance of being repeated or replicated in any way, and still distinguish between the two based on the fact that:

Situation #1 does not involve a person who is tasked with a duty to operate the trolley or do anything else for that matter; while
Situation #2 involves a doctor whose duty is to save people, not to harvest them.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many views on morality, mine is entirely based on what people want or would want before the fact. Other views exist but views wont change the fact that the situations aren't similar.

Repetition makes no difference, nor in this case does the job of the people involved. If all the pilots die and a passenger has to steer then we would still want them to try to minimise death.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If the original pilot is dead, then any of the remaining passengers - assuming someone could even operate the aircraft, may choose to do so or not. If one does try to operate the aircraft, then he has effectively and voluntarily taken upon the duty of being the new pilot. Now, the degree of his duties and responsibilities may differ assuming that he isn't a trained/licensed pilot and may not know all the associated rules etc., and therefore if he screws up the landing he may not be subject to the same kinds of repercussions to which the original pilot may be subject. Still, it remains that he's voluntarily taken upon the duties, and for better or for worse, the ball's in his court. If no one volunteers to operate the aircraft, then it isn't the passengers' duty to minimize damage.

The distinction I'm talking about isn't about one's official "job" but rather about responsibilities which one in a particular situation assumes, either via express or implied assent.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not absolutely necessary that someone else get killed in the hospital situation - i.e. if there are organs already preserved from a previously dead person at hand, or if there is already another patient at the hospital who faces imminent death (assume a hopeless case) and has already agreed to donate his organs.

Sure, that would be changing the hypothetical, but I certainly can do that if you can also postulate that situation 1 does not require a person standing (or tied up, whatever) on the other track.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh, one more time, then I think I'm done. Yes, you're correct, that is changing the hypothetical, which is one of the main things I'm arguing against. If you contantly change the hypothetical and introduce new elements to it (preserved organs that were never mentioned before) you're basically destroying any rigor the discussion may have and making it next to impossible to make any definitive statements about the morality involved (this task is hard enough already).

Furthermore, I'm not changing the train hypothetical in any way by merely pointing out that the causal links are different than in the case of the doctor. I am not "postulating" anything. It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. Surely you can see that by merely observing this state of affairs I'm not changing diddly.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the above clears up this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, all you're telling me is that morality is what the majority thinks it is. Is that your position?

[/ QUOTE ]
No that's not right at all. I would hold this moral position even if everyone disagreed with me.

Edit; maybe that's not clear: I believe the right thing to do in these situations is a function of what people want. Other people may believe its about something else e.g they may follow some religous rule or catagorical imperative independent of what people want. Also many will argue its what people should want not what they do want.

chez

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not absolutely necessary that someone else get killed in the hospital situation - i.e. if there are organs already preserved from a previously dead person at hand, or if there is already another patient at the hospital who faces imminent death (assume a hopeless case) and has already agreed to donate his organs.

Sure, that would be changing the hypothetical, but I certainly can do that if you can also postulate that situation 1 does not require a person standing (or tied up, whatever) on the other track.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh, one more time, then I think I'm done. Yes, you're correct, that is changing the hypothetical, which is one of the main things I'm arguing against. If you contantly change the hypothetical and introduce new elements to it (preserved organs that were never mentioned before) you're basically destroying any rigor the discussion may have and making it next to impossible to make any definitive statements about the morality involved (this task is hard enough already).

Furthermore, I'm not changing the train hypothetical in any way by merely pointing out that the causal links are different than in the case of the doctor. I am not "postulating" anything. It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. Surely you can see that by merely observing this state of affairs I'm not changing diddly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely the death of *someone* is necessary for the organ transplant in #2. But the question - and the distinction I'm making - is whether the killing of someone is necessary in either #1 or #2. It is not, for the reasons I've stated previously (and quoted here). So once again, I say that I'm not changing hypothetical #2 any more than you are changing hypothetical #1 in this respect.

What seals the case for me doesn't even have to do with the necessity of killing (or lack thereof). It's about the duties and responsibilities that are either assigned to the person in question or which said person assumes.