Thread: Moral Dilemmas

It isn't a dichotomy, it's a choice.

It sounds like you're trying to justify your choice by rationalizing that it just isn't fair that you got stuck with being the one who had to make the choice. Because no matter what you do, you are deciding who lives and who dies. The idea that life should always be fair is something we've only been able to indulge in since modern society made things safe.

Originally Posted by Xei

When people are confronted with these questions, suddenly losing the ability to understand how analogies work and providing silly answers about obviously extraneous details or irrelevant things is so common that I can't help but wonder whether its symptomatic of some kind of deeply entrenched psychological phenomenon. It's very doublethinky. It's as if you've provided a computer with a logical paradox, and in response it intentionally overheats and spouts out some garbled nonsense, as some kind of emergency escape mechanism.

I agree with you, but is this aimed at anyone specifically, or just a general point?

In any case it's just the result of what seems to be an intuitive answer, and trying to justify it with post hoc rationalizations to avoid the cognitive dissonance of an opinion they can't explain.

A lot of people do seem to consider useless details in these dilemmas such as the "involvement" of a given party. In my case however, I'm fairly confident I've thrown away the extraneous information and kept the key facts, as well as a consistent approach that I feel I can articulate. Generally speaking, these issues boil down to intent, seeing as I don't believe that only the consequences matter.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It isn't a dichotomy, it's a choice.

It sounds like you're trying to justify your choice by rationalizing that it just isn't fair that you got stuck with being the one who had to make the choice. Because no matter what you do, you are deciding who lives and who dies. The idea that life should always be fair is something we've only been able to indulge in since modern society made things safe.

Fairness? I already said that people die regardless. But you still seem to think its my (right to choose) or my blame to decide whom. You say that I'm dodging the questions and not understanding the philosophical meaning.

I say you're the one who doesn't understand. A dichotomy means that there are only two choices, there is no such thing in real life. In these ridiculous philosophical questions its always KILL INNOCENT PERSON A OR KILL INNOCENT PERSON B and you are never given an alternative even if an alternative exists in reality.

The real aim of these questions is to figure out under what conditions is it justifiable to murder an innocent person, how many, and for whom. There is no such situation in real life except war. Clearly in war politicians decide which innocence and how many get to die and for whom. They made a choice but it was never their right. And its always morally wrong.



Maybe I'm confused, but the only trolley that I know of is a city trolley running in a densely populated area. It's noisy, looks like a bus, runs on a track and can stop on a dime.

So for the trolley I could literally choose either or because it literally makes no difference to me. If I choose to let the trolley stay on its course then thats 5 times the chance someone has half a brain and sees the trolley. If I choose to change its course then its being chanced on a hiker who has awareness of surroundings who will undoubtedly see and think 'holy fuck trolley'.

So there you have it. I'm willing to murder five and one!



Of course I'm more likely to just hit the emergency brakes.

I would initially think that moral questions framed in absolutes (as utilitarian-bait so often is) are not good thought experiments, and my answer not a proper moral consideration, because it is a categorical part of morality that we apply it to a world in which there are ALWAYS a million options. Its not particularly moral but actions like killing oneself, trying to crash the trolley etc may seem besides the point of the hypothetical examples you've provided - but my point is that these hypothetical examples are constructed in such a way to be purposefully morally challenging simply because morality is not actually a part of a world even close to the kind of one in which we only ever have two options.

The human experience and by extension what we might tentatively call the collective commune of experience exists in a really fucking strange and dark world. Things are strange, we do not know things, things challenge us. We have systems of morality, which are similar, at least in so far as basic ideas of self preservation and societal 'good'.

It might seem a bit unrelated, however I would argue that due to the unknown and complex-beyond-human-comprehension weirdness of the world: That when talking about something so INTRINSICALLY linked to and grown from the way that world is, like morality, you cannot but consider moral issues within the kinds of actual situations in which moral systems have evolved and become accustomed to. So the examples here, in which of each there are no more than a couple of strict action paths, is so far removed from the way we actually experience the world that it just does not work to then ham fistedly try to fit morality in

An analogy might be that of a 2 dimensional parallel universe, upon which we are trying to force strange, paradoxical, talk about what it would be like to be a 3 dimensional being within that universe. Its a categorical error, applying one set of systems and rules to somewhere they simply are not belonging.

If your examples are a motherboard- then morality is RAM which really is too big to fit. Maybe its DDR4 or something on a DDR2.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

There are two types of people in the world: those who accept dichotomies, and those who don't.

There Are Two Kinds of People in the World - Television Tropes & Idioms

False Dichotomy - Television Tropes & Idioms

An attempt of dichotomy that is actually a false dichotomy. Unless you were just joking around with that split view of what the world is, then wow.

Originally Posted by juroara

Fairness? I already said that people die regardless. But you still seem to think its my (right to choose) or my blame to decide whom. You say that I'm dodging the questions and not understanding the philosophical meaning.

But that's the thing, you're trying to find a golden mean, a middle road, which is, "I'm not obligated to make a choice" along with you admitting that "people die regardless." But then you make militant approaches of expressing morality, don't you find it a bit contradicting to state something like "people die regardless," which usually portrays apathy, and then go back to saying morality, which would contradict your obvious vibe of apathy with "people die regardless?"

Think about what you said more, we understand that people die regardless, but with that logic, it doesn't seem fitting for you to talk about morality and trying to justify the scenario with naivete.

To put it concise, even when you know people die regardless, it ends up being this way:

Even if you find a way to win with reasoning with morality, everybody still loses in some way (if we were to make better double-bind situations than OP's set of scenarios where we can't get out of the situation and be careless, especially if it might injure us mentally or physically).

The real aim of these questions is to figure out under what conditions is it justifiable to murder an innocent person, how many, and for whom. There is no such situation in real life except war. Clearly in war politicians decide which innocence and how many get to die and for whom. They made a choice but it was never their right. And its always morally wrong.

You just contradicted all you've stated just now when from before, you made the presumption that there's no such thing as a dichotomy in real life. You used example of a dichotomy with making war the only spectrum to where double-binds can occur (situations that have some backlash either way), and because you said, "except war," you're in a black and white mindset of it only being war that the conditions are apparent.

"If it's not war, then those conditions aren't possible." <--- That's what you're implying

Maybe you meant to discuss about something else, but I couldn't help but feel you were doing that.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

If your examples are a motherboard- then morality is RAM which really is too big to fit. Maybe its DDR4 or something on a DDR2.

Then I'll buy more RAM that can fit it all in and external hard drives just in case.

A dichotomy is two alternatives, each being the opposite of the other and mutually exclusive.

Juroara, you aren't being made responsible for anyones life in these situations, but for their death, which is a different thing. And yes, it sucks that that responsibility is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust on you randomly. But real life is messy sometimes, and does include unfair death and even unfair responsibility for other peoples' deaths sometimes. Complaining that it isn't fair does nothing - who is the complaint even aimed at? If it's God, then isn't that who set up the situation?

It seems you're looking for a way to totally absolve yourself of any guilt or self recrimination, when that isn't possible in this setup. And it doesn't matter if you think it's impossible in real life - actually it could conceivably happen. You're looking for technicalities, but that's just ignoring the intent of the questions. It's clear the setup is this - you have a switch that chooses who dies. Do you activate the switch, which means you caused someones death through your own agency, or do you do nothing in which case you cause someone's death through negligence?

You seem to be unwilling to face the possibility that such an event could ever occur. But this is a thought experiment! A hypothetical situation.

But then, I suppose people actually do answer when they twist and turn and look for every possible way out of it that absolves them entirely of any guilt. I can guarantee you, if this situation actually did happen to either of us, we'd be wracked with guilt for the rest of our lives, no matter which choice we made. We'd be telling ourselves things, things like you've been saying, but those would be salves, masks to cover the haunting guilt we feel regardless of whether the situation was fair or not. Hmm, now that I've said that, I suppose that's what it seems like you're doing - already working up your alibi that you'll tell yourself afterwards to try to alleviate the guilt. I admit - I would definitely do the same afterwards. but I'd still feel wracked by guilt.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You seem to be unwilling to face the possibility that such an event could ever occur. But this is a thought experiment! A hypothetical situation.

I sympathise with you, however morality is not hypothetical, and only makes sense in reality and the way things actually work. You can't make up any old impossible situation and expect something which is based entirely in reality to fit into that situation smoothly.

Morality is about the way we act in the world- and for me it is not about abstract rule following and the application of that to hypothetical situations. Its about judgement within situations based on practical wisdom and understanding of norms that lead to human wellbeing. An impossible situation is not the kind of one a good value judgement can be made on, because such judgements only make sense in context of reality and real judgements

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I sympathise with you, however morality is not hypothetical, and only makes sense in reality and the way things actually work. You can't make up any old impossible situation and expect something which is based entirely in reality to fit into that situation smoothly.

Morality is about the way we act in the world- and for me it is not about abstract rule following and the application of that to hypothetical situations. Its about judgement within situations based on practical wisdom and understanding of norms that lead to human wellbeing. An impossible situation is not the kind of one a good value judgement can be made on, because such judgements only make sense in context of reality and real judgements

Alright, to add on to what you were saying, I'll set up a moral dilemma that can actually be tangible in this reality, something that's so apparent, but usually ends up with people with a certain faith going back into the corner and not being able to find rationalization.

Disclaimer: I understand there are people with a medium of faith that acknowledge it as something true to them, but not necessarily true to others. This moral dilemma I'm setting up is simply those who acknowledge it as experiential truth, but then use the idea that because many people believe in their particular faith, that it is true (as in true because the majority of people believe IT IS SO)


And Joanna, you are free to answer this moral dilemma if you can, or anyone of a particular medium of faith who might fall under this spectrum of balancing experiential truth vs. objective truth with religion.

So here it is:



Now,

People of religion ultimately will have to conform to experiential truth, because due to the lack of consistent evidence that shows a probability of there being a God or supernatural entity, they can't use an argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum is:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Now, the moral dilemma here based on "what do you do, it's either this or that?" is this,

When a person with a medium of faith in general finds themselves engaging in an argumentum ad populum, that because the majority of people (or a large number) of individuals believe in their particular faith, they feel there's some truth to that. However, with argumentum ad populum, people are making propositions TO BE TRUE (absolute and objective), and because of this, the moment they use "because these people believe it's true, doesn't that reveal some truth?", they contradict their endeavor of it being experiential truth and are now trying to find objective truth in it.

Then they delegate the burden of there possibly being objective truth to a God or supernatural entity through these people, as if it makes the justification better. Or even to say they think logic is not necessary, because they revel into the thought that so many people beleive their faith, then it must be true. When it gets to a point where a person acknowledges there's contradictions in their religion, and they still try to reason because they use the argumentum ad populum as a trump card, but when those same people you have an attachment to that believe your faith, when they're all dead, nothing but corpses, who do you have now? Yourself obviously and your experiential totality.

When you only have just yourself and all there is to yourself (in terms of any possible state of consciousness you can engage in dreaming and waking life), when you acknowledge that experiential truth with religion of there being a God or supernatural entity, but now that you're at loss with the argumentum ad populum, what do you do now?


You have two options.

1. Admit that due to the lack of evidence for objective information of there being a God or supernatural entity, you can't use the idea that "If many believe so, it is so," so in the end, you are left with your medium of faith as experiential truth. Because now the people you use as justification of there being some truth (objectively) are dead and nothing but corpses.(And by objective information, there's no metaphorical, symbolic, or personal feeling/meaning attached when trying to verify a God or supernatural entity)

2. Admit that your medium of faith and how you consider it true to you is experiential truth, which means it doesn't necessarily have to be objective truth.


Either way, you end up admitting that because of the lack of evidence with objective truth in a God or supernatural entity.

And let me show you quick evidence of what people will do when they try to find a golden mean, or a middle road with this. And by the time you read this, you'll know this is a more practical double bind situation, or moral dilemma, than the scenarios OP presented.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

The thing is that even though I do believe that a belief in God is based on faith and not just on logic or empirical observations, and even though I believe that there is no knowledge without at least the potential for doubt, and I do believe that I can be wrong and probably am in some really important ways.

However, I also believe that God is real, that he is not a figment of my imagination, that I have personally experienced him with a sixth sense which I believe to be as real as my five senses even though I cannot prove it to anyone other than myself. And for me that is not just a feel good feeling but it is truth. I believe that God truely does exist. That I do not just believe in the idea of a God, but rather that there really is a God external to me as well as within me.

I am well aware that some of my beliefs are contradictory, and they are not logical but that does not mean that they are less valid. I believe logic is inadequate. I know that my beliefs are contrary to yours, and I do not wish to convert you to my beliefs, however I am very uncomfortable with some statements you make about my beliefs because I know that that does not accurately reflect what I believe. I believe that while we cannot verify the existence if God with anything but faith and conscience, but I believe that in spiritual matters faith and conscience are the sources of knowledge, and they can reveal truth, albeit a truth which is very personal. For me the word "objective" has mostly negative connotations, so no I do not claim that these spiritual truths are objective facts, though I do think they are as real as any other knowledge I have. Darn it! I don't think I can really explain this well to someone other than myself, but that is due to my limitations in communicating. I wish I could explain this better. Sometimes it is frustrating because these concepts are so complex and I feel like I am but a small child and novice in comparison.

This is what happens when a person tries to find a golden mean, justification where they acknowledge they are at loss of what to do now when trying to find objective truth with argumentum ad populum. No matter how much they go through in and out, left and right, up and down, into hell, coming out, repeating the process, due to the lack of objective evidence of there being a God or Supernatural entity, they are now in a double bind.

They are now in an unresolvable situation where the dichotomy is so strong, so apparent, so intense, that it makes them have a loss for words.

If there's anyone that can falsify this dilemma I set up, feel free.

Because when people engage a golden mean fallacy like this, it's because they're trying to take the third option (of there being subjective truth). But here's what's needed to make taking an alternative plausible:

1. Time
2. Resources
3. Knowledge

Take A Third Option - Television Tropes & Idioms

And even if a person makes a plausible logic, here's what plausible is:

plau·si·ble

adjective /ˈplôzəbəl/ 

(of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable
- a plausible explanation
- it seems plausible that one of two things may happen

Keyword being "seeming," which means it can be contradicted.



So. You're now in an unresolvable dilemma where you have to choose one action or the other, but either way, it's going to cause backlash for you.

It's #1 or #2 (from the scenarios I set up above), decide now.

The moment you try to find a golden mean or justification, you're still in a double bind (due to lack of evidence).

But if you can make consistent evidence apparent, then you can get yourself out of the double bind, but with what I stated above, based on the current situation with verifying God or a supernatural entity, the option is not there.


Even when you find a way to win, you still lose.

Win or lose. Interesting "dichotomy" isn't it? This is what a double bind situation (moral dilemma) can be.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

A dichotomy is two alternatives, each being the opposite of the other and mutually exclusive.

I answered my question the first time. I said that I wouldn't murder the innocent hitchhiker because five people are where they shouldn't be. You just don't believe me when I say that. The only thing that changes my decision is if I feel the hitchhiker has the best chance of awareness.

Its only negligence if there was no one else on the other track.

Give me real life past examples where anyone had to choose which group of innocence to kill.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

But that's the thing, you're trying to find a golden mean, a middle road, which is, "I'm not obligated to make a choice" along with you admitting that "people die regardless." But then you make militant approaches of expressing morality, don't you find it a bit contradicting to state something like "people die regardless," which usually portrays apathy, and then go back to saying morality, which would contradict your obvious vibe of apathy with "people die regardless?"

Think about what you said more, we understand that people die regardless, but with that logic, it doesn't seem fitting for you to talk about morality and trying to justify the scenario with naivete.

To put it concise, even when you know people die regardless, it ends up being this way:

Even if you find a way to win with reasoning with morality, everybody still loses in some way (if we were to make better double-bind situations than OP's set of scenarios where we can't get out of the situation and be careless, especially if it might injure us mentally or physically).



You just contradicted all you've stated just now when from before, you made the presumption that there's no such thing as a dichotomy in real life. You used example of a dichotomy with making war the only spectrum to where double-binds can occur (situations that have some backlash either way), and because you said, "except war," you're in a black and white mindset of it only being war that the conditions are apparent.

"If it's not war, then those conditions aren't possible." <--- That's what you're implying

Maybe you meant to discuss about something else, but I couldn't help but feel you were doing that.



Then I'll buy more RAM that can fit it all in and external hard drives just in case.

I haven't contradicted anything I've said. You're only assuming that when I say people die that this is a statement that I don't give a damn. It's a statement of reality that death is inevitable. But murder is a choice.

And I've also expressed why the trolley situation doesn't really work for me, trolleys have emergency stops. You want to put me in some sort of moral position where I have to choose between two innocents, then come up with situation that doesn't inherently have a third option.

Originally Posted by juroara

I haven't contradicted anything I've said. You're only assuming that when I say people die that this is a statement that I don't give a damn. It's a statement of reality that death is inevitable. But murder is a choice.

And I've also expressed why the trolley situation doesn't really work for me, trolleys have emergency stops. You want to put me in some sort of moral position where I have to choose between two innocents, then come up with situation that doesn't inherently have a third option.

When we know that people die regardless, don't you notice that we're actually going through a double bind in life in general with morality? We're constantly trying to justify and set up morality, and generally find ourselves using religion to sustain that without religion, that morality suddenly can't exist, or isn't tangible. Of course I'm putting you in a moral position between two CHOICES, not two innocents, because it can't be innocent when it makes you suffer either way. You're given an illusion of choice, but you still end up losing. Double binds give implication of choice, and it confuses the person to where they can't resist or find it difficult to respond to (when they try to find the middle road).

Because again, like the dilemma I set up, is that not something people are going through? Is that not a past example where people are forced between two choices with religion? When people who used to believe in a God or supernatural entity eventually deviate themselves from it?

Do you think where they're faced with choosing two choices because they realize either way, it's just experiential truth to them and not objective truth?

The moment you got intimidated when I "wanted to put you in some sort of moral position," you're justifying that because there's no third option (even if there was, it would be useless).

And again, you're just creating an echo chamber with this (I am as well because of your echoing). You still aren't going to answer the question without trying to find the third choice, even when the third choice clearly isn't there. Because all the choices you make in making alternative choices falls into the category "It's this, or that." At least in the context you provided. You don't have to be a person that doesn't "give a damn" with people dying regardless. It doesn't even matter if you have a just cause or that you're a perfect saint, or whatever. You made presumption of there not being dichotomies in real life, but the examples people have stated, and what I have stated, there are scenarios. We're talking the idea/concept of you making an absolute presumption of war being the only way double bind situations can occur.

Echo.
Echo.
Echo.

You are just echoing.

And I don't care about the trolley situation anymore, that scenario was just horrible to being with. Let's deviate from that and see others answer the dilemma I set up.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

A dichotomy is two alternatives, each being the opposite of the other and mutually exclusive.

Juroara, you aren't being made responsible for anyones life in these situations, but for their death, which is a different thing. And yes, it sucks that that responsibility is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust on you randomly. But real life is messy sometimes, and does include unfair death and even unfair responsibility for other peoples' deaths sometimes. Complaining that it isn't fair does nothing - who is the complaint even aimed at? If it's God, then isn't that who set up the situation?

I'm not complaining about fairness, I'm complaining that these situations of only two options make no sense, no sense in that I fundamentally don't even believe they exist.

It seems you're looking for a way to totally absolve yourself of any guilt or self recrimination, when that isn't possible in this setup. And it doesn't matter if you think it's impossible in real life - actually it could conceivably happen.

When people choose to kill any group of innocence for what ever justifiable reason, I still hold them accountable. Its not that I don't believe these situations can't conceivably happen, its that I believe the situation of only two choices never conceivably happens.

You're looking for technicalities

The technicality is my free will to think as I choose to think. Do I believe there is no way to save those 5 people without killing the 1 hitchhiker? Its because I believe there is a way to save the 5 people without killing hitchhiker that I can decide to not kill the hitchhiker. The technicality that you aren't accounting for is that I inherently don't believe in only two options.

I can't change the way I think for the sake a philosophical question.

You seem to be unwilling to face the possibility that such an event could ever occur. But this is a thought experiment! A hypothetical situation.

You're right, I don't really believe in any of these situations. A hypothetical situation still has to be believable of you are asking a moral question. That said - i did answer all of the questions, and I have considered the greater philosophical implications of those answers.

But then, I suppose people actually do answer when they twist and turn and look for every possible way out of it that absolves them entirely of any guilt. I can guarantee you, if this situation actually did happen to either of us, we'd be wracked with guilt for the rest of our lives, no matter which choice we made. We'd be telling ourselves things, things like you've been saying, but those would be salves, masks to cover the haunting guilt we feel regardless of whether the situation was fair or not. Hmm, now that I've said that, I suppose that's what it seems like you're doing - already working up your alibi that you'll tell yourself afterwards to try to alleviate the guilt. I admit - I would definitely do the same afterwards. but I'd still feel wracked by guilt.

I'm not trying to wipe myself of any guilt of the situation. I mean something very different when I say that you don't get to choose the timing of someones death, regardless if you've made a choice where you believe you did. But that's a different issue outside of this thread.

Okay-rewind a little bit.



I know you think that I'm somehow dodging the philosophical question on hand or that I'm not understanding the point of it. But philosophy doesn't exist just so random dreamers on some random board can babble all day long. Philosophy is potent. Its because I imagined that maybe this philosophy ISNT about a trolley, that the trolley and other examples are only metaphors - that I imagined the greater implications of what these questions really mean.

Firefighters decide who to save, at the risk of their own. They don't decide whose life to save based on morality, ethics or philosophy, but simply who they can realistically save given the situation. All else is literally out of their hands. No one can blame them if they failed to save someone. Blame the fire. Doctors also find themselves in situations on who to save, but like the fire, they aren't the ones killing these people.

Armies on the other hand decide who to kill. They use morality, ethics and philosophies to rationalize their decisions. Philosophy is potent.

None of the above philosophical questions were about which group of people to save.

All of these questions included one person who didn't need saving or intervention of any kind. This individual was perfectly safe, except from the human mind that rationalizes its justifiable to kill them to save someone else. Now do you understand why I see war as being the only real life example where this philosophy has been applied??

I detest this sacrificial collateral damage-philosophy. I really, really, really detest that mentality. And as far as I can see, this philosophical delusion has yet to hold any weight in life. It's always been wrong, and I don't mean wrong as in guilty for someones death. I mean it was WRONG to assume there was no alternative.

And its because this philosophy (that there is no alternative) has never hold true in the real world, that I consider it an intrinsically screwed up way of viewing reality. In fact its so far removed from reality that any philosophical questions positioning this philosophy as reality itself, first asks you to pretend that any alternative you can conceive of DOESNT EXIST.

What?

You can not think outside of a catch-22 from the same mentality that creates it.

But its even more insane to say that you're not even supposed to think outside the catch-22! A catch-22 itself is THE PROBLEM. We should be happy if people are able to poke holes a philosophical question that delusionally positions itself as having no alternatives. Not say "oh you didnt get it". No, they got it.

I answered and considered the philosophical questions, I'm sorry if it wasn't the answer or understanding you wanted.

PS-I'm a doctor who and naruto-fantard, lol. Go figure, they fill my philosophy.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

...

I don't even know why you people continue to argue with me as though I some how didn't follow along.

Read my first post. I answered all of the questions. Isn't that what you wanted? So whats your problem? You just don't like my answers? I didn't fit your model?

Even if you say there is no third choice you can't understand that the third choice was in my mind. You can't control that.

Oh no, I read that, I'm just going with OP that allowed us to create other moral dilemmas as well. I understand you answered it, but it wasn't that, it's just what you discussed before eventually answering it. I'm not pressuring you to do something else, you already made the choice, I was merely going by the logic you stated before the answer.

And I wasn't trying to control your thoughts or your decision, I was showing you a scenario where we're given the illusion of choice, which means I don't have to control you at all, I was going by the principles of a double bind situation that moral dilemmas give us. The key to having a moral dilemma is the person will ultimately have to find a golden mean, and you have every right to the privacy of sustaining control over yourself. I don't deny that, and if it seemed like I was trying to "control" you to make a choice, I wasn't doing that. It's just when I look at the logic people apply, it just shows there's confusion that comes with double bind scenarios.

I acknowledge your response, it's just the logic where you took the third option before is what's questionable. There's nothing wrong with analyzing and thinking for alternative options, but the scenarios are built to where unless you have the time, resources, and knowledge to sustain the third option, the choices you make ends up being useless. But anyway, just wanted to give an example you can relate to (with religion and how people convert from other faith to another or just deviates from them completely).

And the third choice being in our minds = experiential truth to us, and the scenario I built eventually makes one conform to the idea that they can't take other people's beliefs and create an argumentum ad populum. Just like the example I quoted from Joanna, it was proof of people feeling at loss of what to do now because they feel it's too complex (because they don't have adequate time, resources, and knowledge to explain things better).

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm not complaining about fairness, I'm complaining that these situations of only two options make no sense, no sense in that I fundamentally don't even believe they exist.

And this is why I was questioning why you felt they don't exist, you even admitted that you feel they fundamentally don't exist, but to be in an absolute thinking contradicts what you were trying to imply from before.

When people choose to kill any group of innocence for what ever justifiable reason, I still hold them accountable. Its not that I don't believe these situations can't conceivably happen, its that I believe the situation of only two choices never conceivably happens.

But it can happen.

The technicality is my free will to think as I choose to think. Do I believe there is no way to save those 5 people without killing the 1 hitchhiker? Its because I believe there is a way to save the 5 people without killing hitchhiker that I can decide to not kill the hitchhiker. The technicality that you aren't accounting for is that I inherently don't believe in only two options.

I can't change the way I think for the sake a philosophical question.

Exactly, because of how you apply free-will as being experiential truth, it's solely fit for that, because like before in other threads, people felt there wasn't really free-will at all. They even went to the point where it's a system we're in that have illusion of choice. So again, like the dilemma I set up, you're relying on experiential truth, but it doesn't sustain it potentially becoming objective truth.

You're right, I don't really believe in any of these situations. A hypothetical situation still has to be believable of you are asking a moral question. That said - i did answer all of the questions, and I have considered the greater philosophical implications of those answers.

The greater philosophical implications when you admitted that a self-destructive (sacrificial collateral damage) mentality with catch-22's and how you can't think out of them, and yet STILL attempted to find ways out of them makes your logic contradicting.

> Admits one can't get out of a catch-22 if using the same mentality that created it

> Still creates a philosophical implication even when aware that you can't get out of it because it's only going to leave you at loss of what to say

>Continues to state that war is the "ONLY" (absolute), and even makes a fundamental predisposition, and admits it, that you don't believe it's conceivably possible, even though there really are realistic examples.

I know you think that I'm somehow dodging the philosophical question on hand or that I'm not understanding the point of it. But philosophy doesn't exist just so random dreamers on some random board can babble all day long. Philosophy is potent. Its because I imagined that maybe this philosophy ISNT about a trolley, that the trolley and other examples are only metaphors - that I imagined the greater implications of what these questions really mean.

Yes, we acknowledge you answered the question and how you questioned the logic of the trolley incident, we get that. There's a difference between answering the question vs. answering the question, but still trying to make philosophical implications of something you feel you can't get out of because of its sacrificial collateral damage.

And because you showed a militant approach on how you can't get out of the situation, your answer didn't matter, because you were doing it so people don't think you're dodging the question. Your logic of being so disheartened by the logic behind it, and your apathetic response towards the double bind situation doesn't mean you can cop-out. You stated your logic beforehand, so if you answered with a response, you contradicted it.

Kind of like how people agree to disagree, they know deep down, they hate the logic, but they pretend to agree with a response, that's what you did.

I didn't need to control you for that, you made the unconscious decision to admit what you fundamentally believed.

Firefighters decide who to save, at the risk of their own. They don't decide whose life to save based on morality, ethics or philosophy, but simply who they can realistically save given the situation. All else is literally out of their hands. No one can blame them if they failed to save someone. Blame the fire. Doctors also find themselves in situations on who to save, but like the fire, they aren't the ones killing these people.

Okay then, with fire-fighters, they have situations they can't control, because fire is unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the fire-fighters, who should have decent knowledge in taking those risks (where they have to make the choice of saving someone under a burning set of planks and potentially dying in the process vs. having to get out there alive with the people that can be saved and leaving those that they can't reach to die).

The firefighter saves the people, but that other person dies, even with outside forces and their lack of moderating that, even when they find a way to win with saving people they could save, the parents or relatives of the person who died because they couldn't be reached are the ones that lose. The fire-fighter becomes guilty, the people being saved feel guilty because they wonder "what if I couldn't save?"

We all lose in some way. That's all we're trying to do with these dilemmas. Taking the third option is just not always possible, but we're not saying it's impossible, huge difference.

The same goes for the doctor, however, because when they're gambling with a person's life (they really are because it's a test of their abilities to work things around and hopefully save people), they are held accountable. Not accountable in the sense of punishment, but the level of guilt and the stain on their reputation if they can't save people in dire situations. It's the more they show they're not consistent, even if things are out of their control, people will deviate into finding fault mentally. They just won't go to that doctor anymore, which is why, even when the doctor is not responsible for the death due to things outside their internal locus of control, they lose either way (the loss is having a stain or blemish on their reputation of being a competent doctor).

Armies on the other hand decide who to kill. They use morality, ethics and philosophies to rationalize their decisions. Philosophy is potent.

When a soldier is assigned to kill people in a village, when they are battling through their own moral, ethics and philosophies with killing people without weapons and are defenseless eventually find themselves at a catch-22, and they must kill those people because they were assigned to, of course that's an example, but it's not the only example.

Armies "decide who" to kill because they built people (soldiers) who are trained with the idea that the mission is the only thing they can be sure of (of course, there are many concepts than just that). However, there are cases where the solider themselves has to resist from following an order because it's just challenges their sense of morale. War to you seems like the only way because people can be trained to have little resistance and follow an idea without questioning it. For you to assume war is the only reasonable and realistic example makes your intentions filled with naivete. Because with manipulation and control that double-binds can be sustained (but not the only way), there are other means of doing that, war is not the only real example.

All of these questions included one person who didn't need saving or intervention of any kind. This individual was perfectly safe, except from the human mind that rationalizes its justifiable to kill them to save someone else. Now do you understand why I see war as being the only real life example where this philosophy has been applied??

But war is not the only real life example, and that splits your worldview of:

War being the only real life example vs. anything not within war is not an example of a catch-22, double bind, or moral dilemma.

"Only" "Only" "Only" = absolute "only example" "Anything else that doesn't fit that spectrum is not that" "Only" "Only" How is your contradicting logic not apparent to you?

You set up a good idea with how catch-22s and double binds are horrible, but I am questioning how you're making a dichotomy of war being the only example of it. And then categorize that doctors or fire-fighters don't fall in that spectrum of experiencing hopelessness and powerlessness with double-binds, catch-22's, etc.


Another simple example are contracts, where people are liable to follow the fine-print. They can find loopholes, but a contract is a contract, and if they try to get out of it, they have to go through legal measures, but because they have to pay more just to get out of a situation, they just give up. It's a grid-lock, a catch-22. That didn't involve war now did it? Which means there are other real examples. I am simply tackling your fundamental beliefs of there not being a practical and real life example (other than war) of a catch-22, double bind, etc., not your response, to the scenarios.

I detest this sacrificial collateral damage-philosophy. I really, really, really detest that mentality. And as far as I can see, this philosophical delusion has yet to hold any weight in life. It's always been wrong, and I don't mean wrong as in guilty for someones death. I mean it was WRONG to assume there was no alternative.

Again, we know there are alternatives when we have time to analyze, but it's because of our lack of knowledge, time, and resources to explain things better (to try and make it plausible) makes it useless, because countless of people will try to justify it and become at loss of what to do now.

And its because this philosophy (that there is no alternative) has never hold true in the real world, that I consider it an intrinsically screwed up way of viewing reality. In fact its so far removed from reality that any philosophical questions positioning this philosophy as reality itself, first asks you to pretend that any alternative you can conceive of DOESNT EXIST.
What?
You can not think outside of a catch-22 from the same mentality that creates it.

Illusion of choice.

But its even more insane to say that you're not even supposed to think outside the catch-22! A catch-22 itself is THE PROBLEM. We should be happy if people are able to poke holes a philosophical question that delusionally positions itself as having no alternatives. Not say "oh you didnt get it". No, they got it.

Of course it's good for people to poke holes at the question, because the scenarios OP stated were impractical, but when people are trying to make something a bit more sensible than that, when you want someone to give past examples of where people are forced between two choices, that's what I was trying to present. We got over how you eventually made a choice, even though you knew the logic was self-degrading.

Questions like these should be standard for anyone wanting to enter the police, military, firefighting or medical fields, and they should be given verbally to see how long the person whaffles on over technicalities. Anyone who tries to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility should not be allowed to join.

Darkmatters, I agree that these kinds of questions should be standard issue for doctors and firefighters and police, only I would then throw out all candidates who did not cop out or did not at least struggle for a long time.

I distrust fanaticism so much, and I would not trust anyone in those important positions who thinks he knows what to do in every situation. Well, ok, maybe I would throw the doctor who considered killing a healthy person for organ donations under that trollley, and they definitely should not become a doctor. But in most moral dilemmas that life actually presents us (not invented ones but real ones) there is often no one right answer, morality is about shades of grey not about choosing sides. Of course, I probably feel that way because I used to once feel so strongly that there was right and wrong, and nothing in between, and I knew which was which, and if you disagreed with me, you were of course wrong - and that is how I thought about it when I was at school, so at that time I would not have had any problems with answering those yes/no answers. But then I changed, and I am no longer that person who could decide whether one life is more or less valuable than several or whether inaction is more excusable than action - oh, rest assured if I actually were in that situation, I would choose one or the other, but then I would be anguished over the choice I made, no matter which choice it was.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

But it can happen.

I believe the scenario can happen, but I don't believe that there's only ever two choices.

Exactly, because of how you apply free-will as being experiential truth, it's solely fit for that, because like before in other threads, people felt there wasn't really free-will at all.

Well thats great for other people. But I believe in free-will and I don't think its an illusion.

The greater philosophical implications when you admitted that a self-destructive (sacrificial collateral damage) mentality with catch-22's and how you can't think out of them, and yet STILL attempted to find ways out of them makes your logic contradicting.

You're not making any sense to me. Ive stated thinking outside the catch-22 is a good thing. I consider the philosophy that collateral damage is how you save lives is a catch-22?

Admits one can't get out of a catch-22 if using the same mentality that created it

Yes

Still creates a philosophical implication even when aware that you can't get out of it because it's only going to leave you at loss of what to say

I'm in the philosophy forum and I made a philosophical implication when the scenarios made no sense because in real life there is an alternative - trolleys have brakes. In other words, I skipped the scenario and got to the heart of the philosophical question that they all shared.

This philosophy forum sucks.

Continues to state that war is the "ONLY" (absolute), and even makes a fundamental predisposition, and admits it, that you don't believe it's conceivably possible, even though there really are realistic examples.

I am saying that war is the only example that I know of that utilizes this philosophy
-not that the philosophy that war uses is true?

Yes, we acknowledge you answered the question and how you questioned the logic of the trolley incident, we get that. There's a difference between answering the question vs. answering the question, but still trying to make philosophical implications of something you feel you can't get out of because of its sacrificial collateral damage.

ok

And because you showed a militant approach on how you can't get out of the situation, your answer didn't matter, because you were doing it so people don't think you're dodging the question.

That's how you feel. That doesn't mean that's what happened.

Your logic of being so disheartened by the logic behind it, and your apathetic response towards the double bind situation doesn't mean you can cop-out. You stated your logic beforehand, so if you answered with a response, you contradicted it.

I dont understand anything youre saying here

Kind of like how people agree to disagree, they know deep down, they hate the logic, but they pretend to agree with a response, that's what you did.[/B][/I][/U]

You're the one who hates my logic.

[quote]Okay then, with fire-fighters, they have situations they can't control, because fire is unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the fire-fighters.....The fire-fighter becomes guilty, the people being saved feel guilty because they wonder "what if I couldn't save?"[quote]

Yes.....The fire-fighter makes difficult choices. And no that doesn't make them guilty of anything. Your life is entirely your own, and so is your death. You'd live in a fairytale land if you think its anyone's responsibility to save you from a fire. Its NO ONES responsibility but thank God others are brave and compassionate and volunteer to do the unnecessary anyways.

That's the difference between my philosophy and yours.

I argued the scenarios have NOTHING to do with deciding who to save.

To get the firefighter situation to even relate to the scenarios, that firefighter would have to grab someone far away from the danger - toss them into the flames - so that the others can jump through the flames as the collateral damage dies. Now your fire fighter fits the scenarios.

We all lose in some way. That's all we're trying to do with these dilemmas. Taking the third option is just not always possible, but we're not saying it's impossible, huge difference.

And I accepted unavoidable loss. But you're asking people to believe that catch-22s are real in that you can't get out of them. I don't know why you want to accept that.

The same goes for the doctor, however, because when they're gambling with a person's life (they really are because it's a test of their abilities to work things around and hopefully save people), they are held accountable.

At the end of the day the doctor isn't accountable for anyones life. People die even if the doctor did everything he could do. People live even when doctors do a horrible job. People get angry and try to sue the doctor. But death is still not something doctors control. All they can do is slow it down to some extent, its still inevitable.

In other words, society is still a baby where we think other people can prevent our deaths AND that it is their responsibility to. Its not true. This is not apathy.

When a soldier is assigned to kill people in a village, when they are battling through their own moral, ethics and philosophies with killing people without weapons and are defenseless eventually find themselves at a catch-22, and they must kill those people

No they don't. A catch-22 is a catch-22 because its false. They choose to kill those people. They don't have to. That's why I don't support soldiers (oops)

But war is not the only real life example, and that splits your worldview of:

War being the only real life example vs. anything not within war is not an example of a catch-22, double bind, or moral dilemma.

You've completely misunderstood me. I am not talking about double-binds, catch-22s or moral dilemmas in general. I am talking about one type of catch-22. That collateral damage is how you save lives.

Again, we know there are alternatives when we have time to analyze, but it's because of our lack of knowledge, time, and resources to explain things better (to try and make it plausible) makes it useless, because countless of people will try to justify it and become at loss of what to do now.

If you want philosophy to be about the experience of hopeless loss then go ahead. I never got the point of philosophical emo-ism.

Philosophy as I see it is not something you babble about - but has exerts itself in the world as a real force. I'm concerned about real apathetic philosophies.

Darkmatters, I agree that these kinds of questions should be standard issue for doctors and firefighters and police, only I would then throw out all candidates who did not cop out or did not at least struggle for a long time.

Ah, so you want people who freeze up under stress to be responsible for the lives of others?

Haha - well, of course I'm not saying this one question should be the entire test!

But to be entirely clear, what I've been discussing is Juroara's refusal to take responsibility for her choices. She says people aren't responsible for other people's lives. I suppose there could be different ways to interpret that, but to me, if a person has to make a choice that either takes another person's life or saves it, that person is absolutely responsible for the choice they make! And if they try to say otherwise, that they can't be held morally responsible for their actions when other people's lives depend on them, then they're in denial of reality. If a politician enacts the draft and forces thousands of people to go to war where they face death and have to kill others on a daily basis, that politician IS responsible for doing that!! Saying he isn't is preposterous, at least in a moral sense, which is what we're discussing here. If he can honestly send thousands to their death and then wash his hands of the responsibility for what he's done, then he's a sociopath.

And I worry about a person who can say they believe they're not morally responsible for a life that they take, just because they feel it was unfair that they were forced into an instant decision.

And it shouldn't take anyone a log time to answer the question - in fact they only have seconds to make the choice in some of the situations. You make the choice instantly, it's a gut reaction thing. The deliberation is for afterwards, and it's only rationalization. What bothers me is if somebody seems like they want to tell themselves that they don't bear any responsibility even though they made the decision that ended someone's life. This is denial on a very profound level. Nothing you've said touches on this. I fact now that you've answered the question you answered it exactly like I did - you'd probably freeze up and let things happen however they happen, and then wrestle with the responsibility issues. The difference is Juroara seems to feel she won't have any responisibility issues to deal with because she says a person can't be responsible for taking or saving lives.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Anyone who tries to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility should not be allowed to join.

You really got that from my posts too?

Doctors don't hold themselves responsible for a person's death unless they know malpractice was a part of it. They have no choice but to have a detachment of their hard efforts. They can do everything right and everything can still go wrong. The medical world never holds them responsible for the unavoidable.

Asking people to be responsible for something that isn't theirs - anothers life-solves nothing. But places unresolved and unnecessary guilt. Which you are confusing for compassion.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry if I did!

But I wasn't talking about being held responsible, as in legally or by other people after the fact. I was talking about taking responsibility for your own choices. I think most doctors still feel pretty bad if a patient dies, even if they did everything they could and made no wrong choices.

edit: I didn't see the post above, I type too slow. Bad post timing then, sorry for the mess

I changed my response almost an hour before you made that last post, so most of it is completely irrelevant now.

But I will respond to this - nowhere in the OP does it say you're the driver of the trolley, it says you find yourself on a trolley and there's no mention of brakes, so they're not a factor. Either the brakes are out or you have no idea how to work them. There is only a switch which has only 2 positions. You can either throw the switch or not throw the switch, you actually have no other options. Of course you can do other things too if you want but they're utterly irrelevant. The whole point of the question is "do you throw the switch or not and why?" and that's all. It makes no sense to keep bringing up technicalities - all you're doing really is criticizing Dianeva's wording in the OP. The question can easily be re-worded to correct all the problems you've pointed out - is that what you're after?

Do you not understand the way a question like this works? You have to answer within the stated boundaries. In this case Dianeva should have probably mentioned that the hiker is stuck there and that you can't figure out how to work the brakes, but because she didn't doesn't change the parameters of the question. I've already said several times now that it's clear the switch is the only thing you can operate. This makes it a question purely about the moral issue involved, and to keep trying to find technicalities demonstrates that you're just not willing to deal with the question in the way it was intended.

And no, of course my goal isn't just to make you feel bad - I'm just amazed that you can't seem to understand the purpose of questions like this, that you think its relevant to keep pointing out that it's unlikely it would ever happen like this in real life, when as I've already explained several times now that's totally beside the point. It's a hypothetical question designed to whittle the alternatives down to only 2.

Think of it like a scientific experiment - it's set up to eliminate all variables except 1 - the switch. In this way it becomes focused strictly on the moral issue and nothing irrelevant to it. Do you object to experiments because it's unlikely in 'real life' things would be set up in such a clear-cut way?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Questions like these should be standard for anyone wanting to enter the police, military, firefighting or medical fields, and they should be given verbally to see how long the person whaffles on over technicalities. Anyone who tries to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility should not be allowed to join.

Really? So the guy who tries to think outside the box and come up with new solutions shouldn't be allowed to join, but the guy who just accepts automatically that they can't change things gets the job? Personally, I'd rather my police able to come up with new solutions to problems.