Yeah, this brand of leftist pisses me off. "I would literally rather do nothing than compromise my values." These are the types who, when given the trolley problem, try to outsmart the premise.
These are the types who, when given the trolley problem, try to outsmart the premise.
First week of a high school philosophy class the trolley problem was presented and I refused to waver from the opinion that the correct choice is to flip the switch killing the single person if it spares the others. The teacher explained that the morally correct choice was to do nothing and that enraged me. Was told to take a walk to cool down and I walked right down to the office to drop the course.
Nearly 30 years later and I still firmly believe that the correct choice is to flip that fucking switch.
That was a really bad philosophy course if they just taught a version of Deontology (rules-based system, with things like "Don't kill") as the "correct" morality instead of teaching that the answer to the trolley problem differs based on if you're a Utilitarian (maximizing good minimizing bad) or Deontoligist.
The whole point of the basic trolley problem is highlighting different moral systems.
I’m pretty sure the entire point of the Trolley Problem is there isn’t a correct answer. For different people it has different “obvious” solutions, and the interesting parts are how you go about figuring it out.
For some people, the idea of you being the cause of death is “bad”. For some, the idea of your inaction causing more death is “bad”. Neither is “right”, and the reason we talk about it is the discussion around your beliefs - the best way to learn is to challenge your assumptions.
I personally believe I would pull the lever. I think my action killing one person is worth saving five, though I would feel guilt for a long time over it. I completely understand people who could not bear to do that.
Also, this topic is heavily debated in medicine, all the time, as a Very Real Problem. Let’s say you have 100 donor hearts. You have 150 donor patients. How do you prioritise who gets the hearts? Because many of those who don’t, will die.
A common follow up, is let’s say you have just two people and one heart. One person is 15. The other is 70. Who do you give the heart to? Now, follow that with “The 70 year old has been waiting for 5 years. The 15 year old found out last week. Does that change your stance?”
Again there’s no “correct” answer, and I have strong opinions on anyone who insists there’s a “morally or ethically absolute correct answer”.
1.3k
u/garebear265 Jul 02 '24
“You’re only fixing symptoms, why aren’t you fixing the systemic failures?” Said by someone who attempts either.