Philosophy discussion
Thought Questions
>
The Trolley Problem
date
newest »
newest »
Mark, it strikes me that if it were inherently subjective, that it could neither be taught nor learned. Since people actually do learn ethics, and learn it from others, there must be something about it that is not simply subjective. I also would like to say that I'm a little bit bemused by Chris' disappointment that a discussion on a philosophy board did "not in the end lead anywhere." Go figure.
Duffy,you're right of course. I did not mean "entirely" subjective, I meant ethics will always retain an element of subjectivity. I actually think there are some ethical principles on which all moral agents can agree, but I feel this common ground only goes so far.
For example, I am convinced that those who administer a "stoning" as a death sentence enshrined in sharia law do not feel that they are acting "unethically".
I cannot speak for others so I can only refer to my own ethical principles - I do think stoning somebody represents unethical behaviour. Let us suppose my view is shared by a large number of people (whoever they may be). Then the ethical common denominator on which this group agrees is not binding for those who do the stoning.
And I do not think the supporters of stoning think they are acting unethically but do the stoning anyway. I think their ethical code permits, indeed demands, the stoning.
So what now? Clearly if this interpretation is correct, there are two groups who do not agree on a fundamental ethical tenet, and yet each group believes they are acting ethically. What is the common denominator on which they both stand? There may be one, but if there is, it would need to be defined in a way so general to be meaningless for all "practical" purposes.
That is what I meant when said "ethics will retain an element of subjectivity".
I've got a few observations on what you have said, most of which I agree with.First, even if we arrived at universal agreement on something like stoning, that would not remove what you see as its "subjective" taint. More people joining in a consensus does not shift the basis of the consensus to objective.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by a "fundamental ethical tenet". Since I don't know what you mean by it, I will refrain from further objection on it.
Third, between the stoners and the sober people, there may be a way to convert. But I have strong doubts on whether that sort of conversion is ever accomplished by an appeal to reason. (I suppose in some cases it might be, but they are probably very rare.) People learn their morals in a different way than they learn, for example, math. And as I've suggested before, practical attempts to turn morality into a kind of calculus tend to lead to monstrous results, in my opinion.
Finally, its been my experience that the people who think they are most "rational" about morality - the Utilitareans, the Communists, and the Randians - are all the most people who are least willing to consider opposing views when it comes to a moral debate, because they already "know" what's right.
I'm left wondering why we argue so much over which option, out of two repugnant options, is least heinous?
Charles wrote: "I've never liked the examination of "lifeboat problems," in ethical discussions. This is one of those. How many times does this come up in real life? Has it ever? I suspect it's purely hypothetical..."Probably not many. But, see Michael J. Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? where he gives a similar real life example (pp. 24-7). The major difference is that in the trolley problem the results are known in advance.
I think that the choices have different levels of moral responsibility because the driver of the trolley is a direct participant, and the person on the bridge is a bystander. I have not given the problem any more thought than this, only having read about it (not for the first time) last night in the book mention in message 51.
Cliff wrote: "In 1967 the English philosopher Philippa Foot proposed an ethical problem involving a runaway trolley which – if not interfered with – would barrel down the left fork of a track (where five people ..."The Philosophy of Broader Survival (the philosophy of the future) gives the ultimate answer: Your action will be based on the question, "How does each prospective course of action affect the securing of enlightened higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe?" If you do not have time to deliberate, you simply go in gut instinct, and that will hold you in court.
Either this is irrelevant or you are changing the problem...
Yes I am. I am aware you are not supposed to do that in case studies, but my point is that the problem as presented is an impossible choice. I can either change the parameters of the problem, or, if we agree that is not allowed in the context of a case study, conclude that I cannot interfere (my interpretation, not meant to be a general solution that I think has to hold for everybody).
I don’t see that making the decision whether it is right or wrong to throw the switch requires you to decide the value of anyone's life.
Must admit I don't quite know what to do with this comment. The "value of life" idea is your concept, and I agree it makes sense. But nobody can know what another person's subjectively felt "value of life" is. Your uncle is an example of a man of courage who decided, for himself, that he'd rather end his life than wait for it to end.
But I do not think it would have been right for somebody else to step in and make this decision for him. And I do not feel that there are any grounds on which such an act would be acceptable, for example the idea that his organs could be used to save others.
Anyway. I feel we (you and me, Chris - I cannot speak for anybody else, of course) are going round and round in circles now. For my part, the problem has not been clarified. I still do not see any objective ethical benchmarks, and remain convinced that ethics is inherently subjective. This bothers me, but I think the only possible answer is to deal with this subjectivity as responsibly as we can, and think of ethical issues on a case-by-case basis. Many thanks, Chris, for sharing your point of view and responding to my contributions. All the best, Mark.