Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Playergamer]

Here's my answer to the trolley problem.

Not actually mine, of course. But, yeah, I'm a hedonist, by your definition.

As for the titans, I don't believe they're evil, in part because I don't believe evil exists. Everyone believes they're making the world a better place, if not for everyone, then for their community, or just themselves.

((Also, nitpick, in the trolley problem and it's variants, it's supposed to be 5 people vs 1, not 40..))

[i2amroy]

For number 1 I would say that they were definitely ethically neutral, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to an extermination. If we don't survive ethics are useless after all.

(For number 2 I'd first like to note that you don't quite have your definition of Hedonism right, it's not that it's others vs. me, it's that rather then looking at net "good" like utilitarians do, they look at net "pleasure - pain").

As for number 2 I definitely rate myself as a Utilitarian with one exception, in that I hold the preservation of the self at a very top priority. This means that when you get down to it the ultimate level of "kill or be killed" is quite a bit different depending on which side of it you are involved on. From an outsiders point of view the "kill 1 to save 40" problem it is obviously the right choice to kill 1, but under the same moral system it is also the 1 person's job to fight as hard as possible to preserve their own life over the 40 others.

[Angle]

Yeah, I'd flip the lever. Fewer deaths is preferable.

I'll also note, #8 is rather silly. Nothing matters? To whom? I assure you, things matter to me. And the universe doesn't get to have an opinion.

[SirQuiamus]

2. I would flip the switch and accept whatever penalty is imposed for manslaughter. Utilitarianism is never a good idea in reality, but it always wins out in contrived examples such as this.

Never? It amazes me people are always so content to say "never" and "always". You call this situation contrived, but do you argue it could never happen in reality? Hell I've seen the reverse criticism more often: that Utilitarianism is always good in reality, but sucks in absurd hypotheticals (utopia powered by a forsaken child, the happiness monster, etc).

What I'm saying is that real-life moral dilemmas are not reducible to simple mathematical operations, such as 40 > 1 in this case. This scenario feels "contrived" because the people involved (including your alter-ego in the story) are reduced to their abstract humanity without any context. Who are they? And who are you, for that matter? What if we were talking about forty able-bodied people (who could easily jump off the tracks) and one disabled person in a wheelchair? The previous posters already started extrapolating on the context, because -- let's face it -- there are no abstract situations in real life. The calculations required by utilitarianism are easy to perform in imaginary thought experiments, but practical utilitarianism tends to obscure the individual differences which should be taken into account.

EDIT
Re: "Never" and "Always"

2. I would flip the switch and accept whatever penalty is imposed for manslaughter. Utilitarianism is never not a good idea in reality, but it always wins out in contrived examples such as this.

Does this alter the meaning of the sentence in any way? I think it's only slightly less emphatic, since "never" and "always" are otherwise completely meaningless words.

       

[Solymr]

Problem with that is that the world is a very complex net of relations, and it takes a lot of time to know all the possible implications of your actions.

If you take a lot of time trying to figure out the implications you won't make an action, which is why decisions have to be made with the data at hand.

Hell even your own action might have unpredictable results.

Example: what if the 40 people were criminals and the one person was a child?

[MagmaMcFry]

2. I would flip the switch and accept whatever penalty is imposed for manslaughter. Utilitarianism is never a good idea in reality, but it always wins out in contrived examples such as this.

Never? It amazes me people are always so content to say "never" and "always". You call this situation contrived, but do you argue it could never happen in reality? Hell I've seen the reverse criticism more often: that Utilitarianism is always good in reality, but sucks in absurd hypotheticals (utopia powered by a forsaken child, the happiness monster, etc).

What I'm saying is that real-life moral dilemmas are not reducible to simple mathematical operations, such as 40 > 1 in this case. This scenario feels "contrived" because the people involved (including your alter-ego in the story) are reduced to their abstract humanity without any context. Who are they? And who are you, for that matter? What if we were talking about forty able-bodied people (who could easily jump off the tracks) and one disabled person in a wheelchair? The previous posters already started extrapolating on the context, because -- let's face it -- there are no abstract situations in real life. The calculations required by utilitarianism are easy to perform in imaginary thought experiments, but practical utilitarianism tends to obscure the individual differences which should be taken into account.

You're talking about a lot of different thought experiments here, and they differ based on the information you have about those people. You are supposed to make a decision based on the information you're given.

In OP's thought experiment, you only know that there are 40 humans on one track and 1 on the other. You should have a simple yes/no answer for this one. You can't say "it depends", because there's nothing you know about that it could depend upon.

[SirQuiamus]

I have a simple yes/no answer and I already stated it.

2. I would flip the switch and accept whatever penalty is imposed for manslaughter.

I was given two numbers and I picked the smaller one. I can't see what you're getting at. 

[MagmaMcFry]

Okay then.

[Cheeetar]

1. Are the titans from 'Attack on Titan' evil? (They lack free will, but actively seek and kill people).

Spoiler alert, jeeze.

[Arcvasti]

The two major questions which started it (If anyone is interested) were:
1. Are the titans from 'Attack on Titan' evil? (They lack free will, but actively seek and kill people).
2. There is a train hurtling towards 40 people on tracks. You and you alone are within arms reach of a lever you can flip which will divert the train onto a different track, where one person is. Do you flip it?

1: They are not evil. To make an act evil, I believe it needs two things: 1: Agency and 2: Knowledge. If someone[As in the case of the Titans], commits an act that would otherwise be considered evil against their will, then that act is not truly their responsibility. In a similar manner, if one commits an act that would otherwise be considered evil without knowing it, it is not evil. For example, if someone dropped something off a skyscraper and it happened to kill someone, that would not be an evil act. Bloody stupid and irresponsible, yes, but not evil.

2: If that were to actually happen, I would probably end up not pulling the lever because I'm bad at crises. Since that's a stupid weaselly answer, I will discuss my position here.

EDIT: DAMMIT PRESSED THE POST BUTTON TOO SOON. I will edit in my argument in a few minutes, I promise.

The real question here is whether intentional suffering caused to one person is justified by the benefits to other people. Ideally, this would be an irrelevant question, but in this scenario, it isn't.

Many voices will praise you, Jean Valjean, many will bless you, but there is one man who will not hear them and will curse you in his darkness. Take good heed! The blessing will fall away before they are heard in Heaven, and only the curse will reach God!

The argument being made here is that, regardless of the good your action causes, the fact that you had to commit an evil act[In this example, killing someone] to bring it about means it is morally wrong.

I personally believe that to take into your own hands the lives of others and decide who lives and who dies is morally wrong in itself. Each person's life is their own, to spend as they please. So the dilemma could be resolved by asking the person on the tracks if they would mind sacrificing themselves for the good of others. The decision should be made by those who would suffer the consequences.

[Naryar]

Me personally i'm a hedonist right now. Don't have the will to become more ethical, or less ethical.

I try to take care of those that are important to me, though.

If I become more careful about ethics, I will probably build and follow my own ethics code, which should be something like this :

-Take care of the people that are important to you, be as fair and as understanding as you can to them. The others ? They don't matter.
-Act on your own free will. If this creates conflict and suffering, then so be it, however make a distinction between free will and simple impulses. Also respect the free will of others. (AKA: slavery, bondage, and general privations of freedom are very, very bad)
-Be honest, blunt if you have to but try to not offend people. Do not lie.
-Some acts are simply monstruous and it goes without saying you shouldn't do them. As I said, slavery and other privations of freedom, but also sexual assault, torture for fun... what else ?
-Theft breaks the bond of trust between buyer and seller and makes buyers less paranoid, so don't do it.
-Killing another being can be justified in case you are defending yourself, your loved ones, or your interests. However it should be done only if the offender shows intent to kill, or if you truly have no other choice. Also in cases of war and in cases of terminal disease/people who are by all means not people anymore, but war is another matter entirely. Also, about this abortion thing : The mother decides, as well as the father. It doesn't shock me if the mother decides to kill her newborn child if she doesn't want it/can't support it/the baby is obviously unfit for life, although yes you should abort as soon possible.
-Don't let moral beliefs or feelings get in the way of truth or logic.
-If you truly want something, act on it. Anything else is cowardice and bad for your spirit.
-Be Raoh, and live with no regrets. If you have any regrets (especially considering your loved ones) then express that regret and excuse yourself, then carry on.
-Do not complain if people do not live up to your expectations. People do not exist to live to them.
-What should happen is irrelevant. What DOES happen is.
-Do not be afraid to do necessary evil if it is truly necessary. However, seriously question your life choices if it starts to be unnecessary.

overall something like this : http://www.helloquizzy.com/quizzy/results?quizzyid=7688683909019023835&resultid=658312408 but less uncaring

[wierd]

I dislike pointed, false-binary choices like this.

There's a third option:  Derail the train, by pulling the switchtrack lever JUST as the train is entering it. The increased friction on the wheel will cause the train to derail.

[That Wolf]

So the option to watch one person die very horificly, or watch a train derail with people inside not guarenteed to die...
Its a hard one, i think I would let it derail. But I would want to pull the lever.
I cant feel bad either way, I never caused any of it to happen. But if I pull the lever then I caused somebodys death.

The titans are as evil as a I am.

[Naryar]

Yeah.

I would personally consider if the people on the tracks are important to me, and then make a decision.

If they are not, then let's go with killing only one person. After all, being responsible for one death will cause you less problems than being responsible for 50 of them.

[Tack]

It's called "something".

Let me get this straight.

I thought he was talking about the literal word 'Something'. In a world which is abruptly quantified, we'll lose our sense of ignorance, so we'll lose our sense of wonderment and curiosity too.
If we can no longer say 'Something's up', because we know Exactly 'what is up', then the world is a bit more stale.
Kind of along the lines of the first Matric utopia.

(For number 2 I'd first like to note that you don't quite have your definition of Hedonism right, it's not that it's others vs. me, it's that rather then looking at net "good" like utilitarians do, they look at net "pleasure - pain").

True, I just took my definition off the wiki, but they said that whilst it is pleasure vs pain, it's used mostly to look at things from a subjective viewpoint, re: My pleasure, My pain.

Spoiler alert, jeeze.

Ahh. Sorry.
But it's clear from episodes 1 and 2 that they're pretty darn mindless.

2. There is a train hurtling towards 40 people on tracks. You and you alone are within arms reach of a lever you can flip which will divert the train onto a different track, where one person is. Do you flip it?

More information is needed. My gut judgement tells me I'd decide based on arbitrary factors in the spur of the moment and justify it later. If I can have some information and some thinking time I'll come up with something more concrete.

I specifically gave that little amount of information to prevent sweeping speculations, and prevent people making choices based off big loopholes.
If your reply is literally 'I need more thinking time', then that's 40 people squished. If you think you'd decide based on arbitrary factors, then explore that. You don't exactly have time to flip a coin.

But we make the assumption that the 40 and the 1 are all able bodied, have no idea that the train is coming and no way to leave the tracks, and are relatively helpless to your whim.

Utilitarianism is not a good idea in reality, but it wins out in contrived examples such as this.

Good point. A pure utilitarian should technically be happy with killing a person if they are then given more money than that person could ever be 'worth'.
You can already see all of the loopholes and 'what ifs' and difficult-to-quantify things that are popping up.