I'm going to offer this to Christians as there is a Christian on one and five Muslims and/or Jews on the other. Now, use your Bible and tell me it's OBJECTIVELY moral.
Well, slavery is very different between different societies and cultures. What we perceive as slavery now is nothing like the ancients did, who often got their slaves from conquered nations or were more accurately described as indentured servants. However the treatment of slaves varied a LOT between the different cultures even at one time, even if the mode of acquisition was the same. Even today the concept of slavery is different than 50 years ago, think "wage slave." Random 2 cents.
If you push the guy,its murder, or manslaughter at least, if the fools on the line are not following good safety guidelines , and employing a lookout, they are responsible for their own deaths, SIMPLE! Answer, you do nothing.Everyone is responsible for his own safety.Answer, beter 5 fools die of their own stupidity than a single innocent byestander dies.
@FrankLightheart Ok, i will stand by and watch this ,and film it for you tube.The urge to do something ,regardless of its effectiveness indicates a lack of inteligent thought.My own primary instinct would be to shout a warning,has anyone thought of that?
@MrDeepwoodtickles Not when framed in the form of a math question, I suppose. In such a frame up the question becomes one or five.
But yeah, if you were actually in that situation it would be totally different. I'd never be able to bring myself to push someone else in the way or even jump and sacrifice myself. At which point I would have no other coarse but to shout frantically for them to get out of the way. By the same token, I wouldn't be ale to flip a switch to kill fewer men either.
@FrankLightheart The imaginary situation is that it's a huge guy on the bridge, who's mass would stop the trolley (you wouldn't have this ability yourself).
as far a slavery goes in the 1700 th 1800th hundreds most people accepted slavery as a form of labor. both the religious and the non-religious. i do not agree that slavery was commanded by God i think it was a political action by the ancient religious people who tried to justify it by saying God commanded it.
however every one of our ancestors are guilty of accepting slavery as a way of life. not just the religious.
@aaugoaa I don't think the argument was that we only had slaves because of religion. It was certainly seen as acceptable behavior to own slaves, which is probably why people put it in the Bible.
The point is that when we began realizing that slavery was wrong, it was the religious folks that resisted the most. Their Bible is inflexible and so they opposed equality on a religious basis, while the rest of the nation was willing to amend and improve their moral standing.
the trolley problem isn't that difficult. a moral decision is just what it is. if you make a decision to kill one person to save others then you made a moral decision and action to kill someone. the trolley would have killed those people without any action from you. i don't think it is true that most people would sacrifice the one person to save many. most people would feel a sense that they were powerless in this situation or desperately look for another course of action.
i expect it's coincidental that whenever i say i disagree with these patriarchal scientific nobodies my videos (which are totally unrelated to these matters) become suddenly unpopular. it can't be that people read what i say & do it out of spite, because they have nothing better to say, that would be quite sad don't you all agree
5:00 no is the trolley goers bad luck dont push the guy off of the bridge. not that i care about saving their lives its just bullshit you'd kill someone just to save some unlucky bastards.
I dont believe it would be proper to act at all choosing who lives or who dies regardless if they are murderers or family. Although rationalizing it would perfer to save the most lives regardless if they were criminals or family. The only exception to this would be a preference to save children over adults.
@Domzdream I would save the atheists so he can have a chance to know god, because the theists who is a convicted killer is already saved by the grace of god and is going to heaven anyways. Plus to prevent him from killing again that could ruin his salvation.
Well, the old christian in me would say that. Good thing that I'm an atheist. Seriously I would pick the one who is not a killer.
@Domzdream I was born catholic, I was heavily influenced by the seventh day adventist. And my love for science and learning have subjected me to a bad case of cognitive dissonance trying to resolve objective reality to religion, until the logical part of my brain wins out.
@emancoy I would save the atheist, regardless of weather he was good or a killer, because i would not have to listen to the christians drivel afterwards.
but what would you do if you have to choose to kill yourself and leave you girlfriend grieving and blaming herself for your death or kill her and stay alive but then you will be one who will feel guilt for her death and live in pain just like her.
that is just same as asking which one you love more
unfortunately kids are forced to deal with that when then their parents hate each other divorce and demand them to choose one of them. or use their kids as weapon.
It is I suppose asking which one do oyu prefer. As I said- watch them squirm.
It's so unfortunate when parent divorce and leave damaged children behind. My folks always used to threaten each other with divorce, throuogh most of my childhood. But now they seem content and happy for some odd reason.
The trolley scenario is stupid and here's why: the first version of the scenario is worded with lots of wiggle room and hoping that maybe nobody will get hurt (maybe the one person on the other track will be able to get out of the way), where the second version ensures that somebody will die. They aren't identical moral dilemmas. Smart people should be able to formulate less sloppy example problems than this.
it is completely realistic scenario, imagine that you are railway operator and you have runaway train which you need to direct into one or another directions when both of them will end with tragic results.
however it would be more interesting question if you need to choose between 1000 people you do not see and one person you see and need to kill to save that 1000.
this way you need to choose between empathy and morality.
Stupid ass trolly question You should yell a warning but those workers are trained to listen and recognize a approching trolly. As soon as you touch the switch it is manslaughter
Oh! I see what you're getting at now! Impersonal forms of violence vs intimate forms of violence. It's emotionally easier to kill the enemy by blowing up his troop transport with a missile from a remote controlled Predator Drone than it is to look the same enemy in the eye as you cut him down with a sword. As such, it takes a highly trained killer (or a psychopath. I often wonder where that line's drawn) to do the latter, but anyone who knows how to pilot a Drone could do the former easily.
How about this variation: the lone individual on the other track is a prestigious cancer researcher---someone on track to save millions of lives with his work. The other five are businessmen. In this version, although your actions would directly save a net 4 lives, they would indirectly condemn millions. If one chooses to save the researcher he/she has concluded that that individual's life is worth more than the others.
@mellamosean or how about if we set it in space, that would be more interesting? i mean the main thing is it's Nothing To Do With Whether Or Not Gods Exist!, so let's just have fun and say that on one track it's all the main people from Friends, and let's also say that a rich uncle has gone crazy, died, and left a clause in his will which stipulates that...
nothing to do with whether god exists? why do you say that? i wasn't talking about god, and the point of the video was to show the bible is an inadequate source for morality.
@mellamosean no, did you not read the title? they think it proves a lot more than that, the title is "Man Made God" which they haven't proved. come up with all the thought experiments you want, how could that possibly prove it--for a start, who's to say it's even true, it's very different to IMAGINE throwing a switch and killing people, it might be that people act differently if it actually happened? but anyway, it has nothing to do with the Gods, they were before trains
Well yea, that is the title of the five part video series, and yes, as a whole it is an attempt to suggest, and give substantial evidence for the idea, that god is a man-made concept. You're right, you most likely cannot prove it, but you can provide substantial evidence that man would have invented the concept of god/gods whether or not it actually reflects a real thing, and I think they lay down a nice foundation for that.
@mellamosean i think you're too kind, is it not presumptuous to give it that title? serious philosophers have titles like "On [this or that]", more humble you see, these people are the P.T. Barnums of the YT intellectual community, that's why they have a title like "The Magic Sandwich Show"--it's pathetic, imo, they actually have something to say but should do it honestly and not overreach themselves
It also needs to be made clear that suggesting that the fact that man is inclined to create a god does preclude a god from existing. And it is entirely possible that god purposefully designed us through natural selection in away that would make us invent a concept of god---there is just no reason to actually believe that. What they are ultimately trying to do here is give just one more reason to believe that religion is bullshit.
And finally, if you don't understand the relevance of the trolley problem, then I'm inclined to believe you didn't watch the whole video. The point was that the bible doesn't help solve difficult moral questions. The bible is really pretty pathetic as a moral guideline, which is a good reason to doubt that it is the word of god, or even divinely inspired. Whether or not you take that at face-value, are you now able to see the relevance of the trolley problem?
@mellamosean i agree it's interesting [the trolley thing], i love all that sort of stuff but it's not relevant to a serious discussion about religion--only to a very particular blinkered discussion with someone who happened to believe morality came from God in the 1st place, i don't believe that--i don't see how anyone could, if they want to challenge the specific people who DO, then it's fine...wrong title though!
Again, this is a 5 part video series. This is only 1/5 of it. And this specific part of it is targeting part of is attempting to undermine the idea that the bible is a divinely inspired book. Many people do believe that---religious people. This goes against what a majority of the world believes. And I would have to disagree about the title; I think it is perfectly appropriate as they do set out to suggest that god is a man-made concept. Provocative, yes. Overly so, I dnt think so
@mellamosean well, as far as i know most of the world is 'religious' 1 way or the other?, nevermind that though--all works of Art are divinely inspired anyway according to Socrates... why are they so hung up on Christianity?, since they're atheists it might suit them better to develop a richer worldview, there's lots of religions--you know that.
Well this is not just a criticism of Christianity. Debunking the Bible knocks out Judaism and Islam too. But the video isn't only focused on those three either; all religions with gods are being targeted here. I don't get the feeling you watched all of the video series, and if that's true, don't waste my time with questions that would be put to rest if you had done so.
@mellamosean that would make me a very shallow person wouldn't it...such a thing is not the case, not in this instance. i watched the whole silly thing--to atone for some minor infraction commited in a past life i suppose,--& i see grave errors in their methodology
Well I see grave errors in your criticism; like I've said before, it really appears that you've misunderstood exactly what their going for. But that's ok, not the end of the world. I think I'll have to end our exchange here. Feel free to respond, I will read it, but I will not write back. Good day.
@mellamosean how cold you are, that full stop at the end of "good day" shows utter contempt for my feelings... nevermind it was nice attempting to communicate with you, best wishes
Did anyone else feel that they couldn't flip the switch in the first scenario? I had an immediate problem with preforming any action that results in the direct death of another person, and chose inaction. This way I was not killing anyone (nor was I saving anyone though, which sucks) The trolley was.
If someone is about to fall off a building and you have the chance to save them, are you guilty of their death via your inaction if you choose not to?
@mellamosean How much guilt are you talking about? Do you think guilt is all or nothing? What about the person that was supposed to install a handrail? What about the idiot who is falling off the building? There is usually enough guilt to go around, and everyone deserves a different share.
You're missing my point. Let's just go back to the trolley. It's headed towards 1 person on the track. In a freak-accident, lightning bolts struck both the trolley (disabling its breaks) and the person (not killing by rendering him temporarily paralyzed). You can divert it to a track with nobody on it. Are you guilty of their death via your inaction if you choose not to?
why to some degree? In this scenario you are the only being with any influence on the situation. Guilt can not be distributed to any other person. The way I see it, you are fully guilty if your inaction leads to death. If ever you have an opportunity to prevent a death and consciously choose inaction knowing what the consequences will be, you are fully responsible. I don't guilt is distributed like a pie. 2 people can simultaneously hold guilt for one person's death.
@mellamosean No person is the sole influence of any situation.
If the person dies then everyone failed to prevent that death. Some had more opportunity than others to act. Yes two people can simultaneously hold guilt for one persons death. They can conspire together or apart to act or neglect to act.
@mellamosean - If I consciously do absolutely nothing to save them, then perhaps I would hold some responsibility. But the Trolley problem only gives one action that could be taken, and that action necessarily results in the death of another. The option to try other things (even if those actions would fail) are not even available. In these cases honestly chosen failed attempts are valid choices because it is about the morality behind the action, not that the action is certain to succeed.
I agree that the morality is behind the intention of the action, and yes, real life dilemmas rarely reflect the one-or-the-other choices presented in the trolley problem and other variations. But the point of these thought experiments is to get at the core of our moral reasoning. The more you control and simplify these dilemmas, and the more variants you look at, the better we can understand our moral intuitions.
The reason why these particular problems are interesting is because they illustrate how we are disinclined to equate action with inaction. Our intuition tells us that inaction is not as morally relevant, but we fail to support that incite with reason. Hence, a moral dilemma. Take the trolley problem, only this time we don't know which track it will take. You have the option to choose which track it will take, or do nothing. If you don't choose to make the track hit the lone
@mellamosean The problem stems from the use of a real world situation. The Trolley problem involves people in the world, yet takes away my choices in a way that a real world scenario could not. I could shout at the people to warn them, bang some metal together to alert them, possibly turn the switch so it is halfway between tracks to get it to jam up, or jump offtrack, place something on the tracks to get it to stop, or make noise. Choices that may not result in directly causing a death.
@mellamosean - Action and inaction are not equal. We do not generally equate them for good reason. Choosing to do nothing in a real world situation like this is NOT the same thing as doing something, even if both will result in a death. A person who could save a life but doesn't is not a killer. They may have failed in another societal duty, and may even deserve punishment for it, but they did not preform a killing. Their inaction is a different (possible) crime. The two are not equal.
I know that's what you believe, but you still have not used any arguments to support your position. That is the problem. You are claiming intuition as fact. It must be supported by reason to be concluded as a fact. The way I see it, inaction is not a real thing. What we perceive as inaction is actually an action. For example, if you can reach out your hand to save someone from falling to their death, and you consciously decide to keep your hand still, that is the action you chose
That action resulted in a death, whereas a different action could have resulted in no death. The parallel situation is if a person is not falling and you use your hand to cause them to fall. The action you chose resulted in their death, whereas a different action would have resulted in no death. There is a difference, though, and i think this is the difference you are seeing: a person who pushes someone to their death is acting more maliciously than someone who lets someone fall
fall to their death. The act of letting someone fall is a passive act. Why is this the case? Not because there is any objective difference between the two actions, but because of how people perceive it, including how the acting person perceives it. If the individual perceives one action as being more malicious than the other, than others (rightfully) perceive the actor as being less malicious and of having committed a less malicious crime. But this really just boils down to
@mellamosean ... It means that the person is purposefully not stopping the fall, which is an action. Now you may think I have just contradicted myself, but let me assure I did not. Your example is not a fair analogy to what I was saying about the Trolley Dilemma. In the case of the Trolley, I chose inaction for a reason. The reason was not just that choosing to act would directly result in the death of a person, but also because I was given no other options. This is where intent comes in...
@mellamosean ...Flipping that switch is out of the question for me because the scenario dictates that it is certain to kill a person, but if the scenario were fair I could have done numerous other things with the full intent of saving lives and killing no one because the real world give us possibilities, not guarantees. But the Trolley problem was not fair. It took my choices, and gave me only two possibilities that had 100% guaranteed results...
@mellamosean ...It is possible that my new actions could have made the situation no better, and somehow worsened it, but the actual results are not at issue here, only the intended results because this is a problem of morality, not a problem of how accurately I can judge a situation and obtain the most desirable outcome. Morality is about judgement of the attempt, not the result. It really is the thought that counts here, and the moral choice is to do something with the intent of killing no one.
I think you are talking about empathy here not about morality. because morality is psychopathic judgement according to cold rules. it does not care about your feelings.
@deltaxcd - Even if morality is just a cold judgement (not sure if I totally agree with that), it is a judgement of people's actions and the intent behind them (if you want to call that intent "feelings" I guess you can)
I know what I was talking about, and it wasn't empathy. Being empathetic certainly can help someone act in a more moral fashion, but that's not what this discussion has been about.
@deltaxcd - You are not far off. Intent is not the same as results because predictability is imperfect. It has nothing to do with stupidity, it is the nature of a complex universe and finite knowledge. The intent of not hitting the switch is to not kill and to save all by doing something else. The scenario give us two choices and nothing else which is hypothetical garbage because the scenario takes place in a real world with details and people, and is not given to us as just choice A or B.
@deltaxcd - So if ALL you do is either choose to flip the switch or not, yes, you are being immoral either way (so my earlier use of the word "inaction" was poorly chosen) but the way the scenario was worded was not "All you can do is flip the switch or not" so other options are available. If you want to predestine any other option as having the same results as not flipping the switch, that is fine, but there is know way for me to know that, and I will choose another option to try to save all.
@JonLemerond1 They were using short hand in the video. The Trolley Scenario is well known, and I'm sure they didn't feel the need to spell it out word for word. The answer to your question is there is no other option that will save anyone. OK, now carry on.
This whole thing is a model---it takes what is complex, and simplifies it so we can understand it better. If you want to gain an understanding of how humans perceive what is moral you'll learn to play along in these thought experiments. It is possible to conceive of a scenario where you really would only have two viable options, so being nit-picky about the specifics of the trolley problem seems silly to me. I understand your complaint, but I believe you're missing the point
a defense from ignorance. It makes sense to judge people that way, but it does not make sense to make moral decisions that way. I hope this seems like a coherent thought to you. I was actually relieved by my ability to express my thoughts in (what I perceive as a more) logical manner (than I'm typically capable of). Anyway, all have to give you the final word for now. I have a busy day today and may subsequently have no computer access, so sorry in advance for my delayed response
@mellamosean This is about morality, and the results of an action do not dictate the morality of the action, the intent dictates it. Intent is based partially on perceived results, but the end results themselves are not where the morality of the action are judged from. So you cannot just boil the two choices down to the results and use that to weigh them. When you are judging morality you are judging people and you cannot separate the two and still be judging morality...
@mellamosean ...Turning it into little more than a game of numbers allows you to say nothing more than "the more survivors the better" which can work as one form of a moral judgement but it is such a watered down version of what a real world scenario provides that it is hardly worth comparing the two.
"Letting someone fall" is NOT as passive act, it is a conscious choice to act in such a way as to allow that person to fall. Its the "letting" that is the action here...
individual, your inaction may lead to the death of 5 people. How are inaction and action not equal here in terms of how much responsibility they merit? Here's a simpler version. Choose A, 1 person dies. Choose B, 5 people die. Refuse to make a choice, 10 people die. Are you somehow less responsible if you refuse to make a choice?
I apologize for the messy string of comments. Short and concise would have been preferable. Oh well.
@mellamosean Your simplified version is welcomed, and Option A is the best choice here, but none of them hold me responsible because you have whittled it down to little more than a math equation. In order to judge responsibility a real world situation is required, and in order to have a fair real world situation I have to be in possession of all possible choices that a real world provides, and the details of the situation are also needed to judge responsibility. This provides none of that.
I think I would have just as much of a moral dilemma whether it was pushing a button or a person, if the outcome were the same. I don't think I could deliberately cause harm. Actually, I think I would be frozen in shock at that point.
If you doubt that our morals come from our shared physicality, consider if we all lived in a virtual world (for example) where no one could even touch you without your consent, where no one could take anything that was yours, where there is no privation like starving or disease. What would our morals consist of then?
Morals are a contract & agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on the others needs. Morals are a social construction. Societies make morals in order to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
@Dqowreorn In the full description you will find that pushing the guy is the only available solution (you are not heavy enough to stop the train, the workers can't hear you, etc.).
I spoke with my lawyers and they said I would be liable if I pushed a button that would kill someone or shove a large man onto trolley tracks and then they said I should just walk away. God helps those who help themselves. Benjamin Franklin I believe.
How can you have "You shall have no other gods before me" mean anything if there is only one god. Would not a one and only god just laugh when he saw a human kneeing before a stone idol. How about "You shall not abuse a child".
Its interesting that the psychopath would care enough to try to save anybody.
Or is it just that they have been given an abstract problem to solve. They understand that for the abstract problem, the correct answer is to minimize the number of people killed. They don't care about the people, they just like to get the answer right.
Honestly a big reason I would hesitate to say I'd push the guy is because I wouldn't be sure it would stop the trolley. I might just be killing a 6th person.
Real life isn't a math problem, it's very hard to predict if a plan like that will actually work. Flipping the switch would almost certainly work every time though.
no, there's nothing here that needs to trouble anyone overmuch...no serious arguments, it's entirely superfluous to a debate on whether there is no God or not. it's Christocentric, that's what it is, get over it there's other religions you know--you're just picking on them because they're weak
The point is that religion and the Bible can't be the source for morality because they don't cover all situations like the trolley problem. Even if you say that some does come from religion, some of it must NOT come from religion. And if not all has to come from religion, I see know reason why any of it must come from religion.
@KemaTheAtheist no, i agree--i don't suppose it does, i expect we had morality of some sort long before religion or at least any of the popular 1s today, i mean i don't see why that's an argument against religion in general?
@KemaTheAtheist who is they?, some particular bunch of Christians i expect, in America or some such place, well that's fine as far i'm concerned, i know what many of them are like; there's a million things i disagree with them about probably, i'm here to discuss whether or not there's Gods & Goddesses or not
By "they" I mean theists of any kind. I bet if you go to any holy building and ask them if they think they are more moral than atheists, you will get mostly "yes" answers. In the USA, you don't even need to bother asking because you already know what the answer will be.
@KemaTheAtheist i wouldn't take the bet because i'm sure you'd win, but so what? you & me & even the people in these videos are able to argue at a most sophisticated level than those people aren't we, so why don't we have a go for once instead of picking on essentially very stupid people? if you want to find an (intelligent) 'theist' DON'T look in a holy building, mostly.
@MrDeepwoodtickles ok, the 5 workmen are there, but they are doing chest compressions on a 5 different people that walked by and had heart trouble. They're all in the way.
@MinervaInTheBrain Alternatively, given the odds of 5 diferent people simoultaneously having heart trouble, id say , fuck em obvoiusly god wants em dead ,that shit couldnt happen without a god, im a fuckin convert.
@MinervaInTheBrain Then by that logic they will of moved them to a place of safety before commencing first aid, Stop trying to move the goalpost so you dont concede one!
the second trolley problem is not exactly the same. 1 difference is you could potentially sacrifice yourself in the second situation. although he might have explained it a bit wrong
Usually it is explained that the guy you push is a big, fat guy, and you'd have to be big and fat to stop the trolley, so anyone smaller couldn't sacrifice themselves.
I agree there is a key difference though. The difference is that in the first problem there are two groups already on the tracks in harms way. In the second, only one group is in harms way, and the choice forces someone to be in harms way against their will. It's a subtle difference, but important imo.
yea, my point is not a criticism of the thought experiment, but rather of the way that guy portrayed it. It's like an unintentional strawman. There are lots of ways around the apparent hole in the idea I pointed out. For example, you could be at a distance looking through the scope of a sniper rifle (why you're in the situation is irrelevant. I'm sure there are less absurd solutions) and have the option to shoot the guy so that he falls onto the track.
Most (non-philosopher) people agree there's a key difference, but that may be a result of human irrationality. Ethical intuitions are not always reasonable. Philosophers look for ways to defend our intuitions, but if we can't articulate a defense, we should be skeptical of the intuition. Your criticism is invalid because in both scenarios there is only one group in harms way. In the first scenario is not in harms way---positive action must be taken for them to be in harms way.
The difference is that the first scenario redirects the "harm" whereas the second scenario involves moving the person. You could even customize the scenarios so that the physical action in both is the same---say, flipping a switch or pressing a button. I mean, this would all be done against their will, so that is not what makes these scenarios different.
"I mean, this would all be done against their will, so that is not what makes these scenarios different."
The way it's described is that they people on the track are workers. They are their by choice as part of their job. The guy on the bridge is not. You're forcing him to become part of the situation. He is not inevitably part of the situation like the workers are, and to me, that changes the situation.
So your take is that the workers have accepted the risk of working on the track? That may be a valid point, but I think it's besides the point this thought experiment tries to get at. I think one could customize the scenario so that both groups have accepted the same amount of risk. Perhaps they're all workers, and all the workers spend time working on both tracks. Now it's only governed by chance unless you do something. Does that fix the issue you have with it?
"Perhaps they're all workers, and all the workers spend time working on both tracks."
Even if you mean that both the pusher and pushee are also workers, the pusher is still forcing the person to be part of a situation that they didn't put themselves in voluntarily.
It's kind of like the Death Star contractors dilemma that's brought up in the movie Clerks. watch?v=dGOVbXF7Iog
The guy you push isn't the same as the people who choose to be there voluntarily.
No, you misunderstood what I meant. The pusher can be anybody, it's not important. What I meant is that the individual on a track by himself is also worker who has accepted the same risk as the 5 workers on the other track. They all take turns working on both tracks, so when they happen to be the lone worker on the other track it is just chance. "death star politics" is not relevant here. If you think it is, I think you're missing the point of the thought experiment.
Had I been brought up a Theist, I would solve the trolley problem easily. The answer is to do nothing at all, since whatever happens would be the will of God, and he would sort them out in front of the gates.
When you see someone commenting on a video like this who's contribution is nothing other than some violent mashup of "jesus is lord" combined with "fucking die atheists", the best thing to do is NOT RESPOND and just VOTE IT DOWN. If they want a discussion with anyone other than hateful, bigoted morons, they'll have to try growing a brain first. Until then, don't feed the trolls.
Code for: Ad-hominem attacks are ALL I have left, becausese I am a fucking pussy. I know there is a God, but I dont want to admit it, because I dont want to be held accountable to a higher power.
@Watergun8770 You are a retard surpassed by no one. How many times has Jesus rammed his holy fist in your gaping asshole? Not enough, I bet. Fist away Jesus, fist away.
In the trolley problem it would also be good to experiment with the levels of disdain for the workers on each track. Use instead of worst possible somewhere more moderate as in someone who the person giving the answer would have a mere dislike for, but not necessarily perceived as worthy of death. And not have the choices polar opposites as well. What if there were pedophiles and rapists on each track?
for anyone is interested in philosophical minutiae, the trolley problem was originally devised as an ethical thought experiment by Philippa R. Foot, a little-known philosopher who was on the faculty of Cambridge University. She died recently [October of 2010].
It was her attempt to encourage rationally derived normative ethics though a process of the application of analytic thinking.
My instinctive morality is making me wants to challenge dprjones to give up his poisoness leaf addiction. Please show your lungs love and respect - you need them to breathe.
@KezoZydis Theists also argue that god is "perfect". A perfect being could not create something which was imperfect except if it intended ie maliciously. If it was malicious it would not be perfect.
I'm going to offer this to Christians as there is a Christian on one and five Muslims and/or Jews on the other. Now, use your Bible and tell me it's OBJECTIVELY moral.
delataylor 1 week ago
Well, slavery is very different between different societies and cultures. What we perceive as slavery now is nothing like the ancients did, who often got their slaves from conquered nations or were more accurately described as indentured servants. However the treatment of slaves varied a LOT between the different cultures even at one time, even if the mode of acquisition was the same. Even today the concept of slavery is different than 50 years ago, think "wage slave." Random 2 cents.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
If you push the guy,its murder, or manslaughter at least, if the fools on the line are not following good safety guidelines , and employing a lookout, they are responsible for their own deaths, SIMPLE! Answer, you do nothing.Everyone is responsible for his own safety.Answer, beter 5 fools die of their own stupidity than a single innocent byestander dies.
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
The answer should be, don't push the guy if you want to stop the train. Instead throw yourself in front of it and sacrifice yourself.
FrankLightheart 1 month ago
@FrankLightheart Exactly!
jackdeath 1 month ago
@FrankLightheart Ok, i will stand by and watch this ,and film it for you tube.The urge to do something ,regardless of its effectiveness indicates a lack of inteligent thought.My own primary instinct would be to shout a warning,has anyone thought of that?
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
@MrDeepwoodtickles Not when framed in the form of a math question, I suppose. In such a frame up the question becomes one or five.
But yeah, if you were actually in that situation it would be totally different. I'd never be able to bring myself to push someone else in the way or even jump and sacrifice myself. At which point I would have no other coarse but to shout frantically for them to get out of the way. By the same token, I wouldn't be ale to flip a switch to kill fewer men either.
FrankLightheart 1 month ago
@FrankLightheart The imaginary situation is that it's a huge guy on the bridge, who's mass would stop the trolley (you wouldn't have this ability yourself).
delataylor 1 week ago
@delataylor In that case, KILL THE FATSO!!! He's fat! No one will miss him!
;p
FrankLightheart 1 week ago
as far a slavery goes in the 1700 th 1800th hundreds most people accepted slavery as a form of labor. both the religious and the non-religious. i do not agree that slavery was commanded by God i think it was a political action by the ancient religious people who tried to justify it by saying God commanded it.
however every one of our ancestors are guilty of accepting slavery as a way of life. not just the religious.
aaugoaa 1 month ago
@aaugoaa I don't think the argument was that we only had slaves because of religion. It was certainly seen as acceptable behavior to own slaves, which is probably why people put it in the Bible.
The point is that when we began realizing that slavery was wrong, it was the religious folks that resisted the most. Their Bible is inflexible and so they opposed equality on a religious basis, while the rest of the nation was willing to amend and improve their moral standing.
FrankLightheart 4 weeks ago
the trolley problem isn't that difficult. a moral decision is just what it is. if you make a decision to kill one person to save others then you made a moral decision and action to kill someone. the trolley would have killed those people without any action from you. i don't think it is true that most people would sacrifice the one person to save many. most people would feel a sense that they were powerless in this situation or desperately look for another course of action.
aaugoaa 1 month ago
lol
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
i expect it's coincidental that whenever i say i disagree with these patriarchal scientific nobodies my videos (which are totally unrelated to these matters) become suddenly unpopular. it can't be that people read what i say & do it out of spite, because they have nothing better to say, that would be quite sad don't you all agree
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Surely the solution is to make trolleys with better braking systems...?
mandolinic 1 month ago
5:00 no is the trolley goers bad luck dont push the guy off of the bridge. not that i care about saving their lives its just bullshit you'd kill someone just to save some unlucky bastards.
IncDeathCreed 2 months ago
@IncDeathCreed Please tell me you're still in grade school. Otherwise, there is no excuse for typing like you are.
Zentz29 1 month ago
@Zentz29 Spelling Nazi go get laid. get off the internet and go get some sleep fatty.
IncDeathCreed 1 month ago
I dont believe it would be proper to act at all choosing who lives or who dies regardless if they are murderers or family. Although rationalizing it would perfer to save the most lives regardless if they were criminals or family. The only exception to this would be a preference to save children over adults.
nuse420 2 months ago
I'm busy reading Haris' book End of Faith. It's brilliant!
Domzdream 2 months ago
Or you could pose this question.
On one track there is the ATHEIST who's led a good, healthy life.
On the other is the THIEST, who's a true believer, loves god to bits, but he's a convicted killer.
Which do you choose?
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream I would save the atheists so he can have a chance to know god, because the theists who is a convicted killer is already saved by the grace of god and is going to heaven anyways. Plus to prevent him from killing again that could ruin his salvation.
Well, the old christian in me would say that. Good thing that I'm an atheist. Seriously I would pick the one who is not a killer.
emancoy 2 months ago
@emancoy
Good answer. Man, in the beginning I was like- I'm gonna slap some logic onto this mofo.
How'd you become an atheist? And why? Which religion are you from?
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream I was born catholic, I was heavily influenced by the seventh day adventist. And my love for science and learning have subjected me to a bad case of cognitive dissonance trying to resolve objective reality to religion, until the logical part of my brain wins out.
emancoy 1 month ago
@emancoy I would save the atheist, regardless of weather he was good or a killer, because i would not have to listen to the christians drivel afterwards.
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
@MrDeepwoodtickles LOL thats a good point, I can imagine this christian would be thanking jesus instead of the person who saved his life.
emancoy 1 week ago
This guy speaks exaclty like Daniel Dennet does.
Domzdream 2 months ago
If the world's people were on one end of the track (including my parents whom I cherish with all my heart), and my partner was on the other track.
hands down, I'd choose my partner. Unquestionably. I'd sacrifice all you people for her.
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream
I woud do same.
but what would you do if you have to choose to kill yourself and leave you girlfriend grieving and blaming herself for your death or kill her and stay alive but then you will be one who will feel guilt for her death and live in pain just like her.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
@deltaxcd
I wouldnt feel guilty, 'cause I'd be dead.
I'd choose to let her live, and let myself get run over. If it would be a fast choice, I'd go for that.
Domzdream 2 months ago
Here's what not to ask your close family member, preferably if there's a mom with two children-
You have two daughters. TTrolley is hurtling a great speed at either one of them. Which do you choose? You can only save one. Which would it be?
Watch them squirm.
Domzdream 2 months ago
@Domzdream
that is just same as asking which one you love more
unfortunately kids are forced to deal with that when then their parents hate each other divorce and demand them to choose one of them. or use their kids as weapon.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
@deltaxcd
It is I suppose asking which one do oyu prefer. As I said- watch them squirm.
It's so unfortunate when parent divorce and leave damaged children behind. My folks always used to threaten each other with divorce, throuogh most of my childhood. But now they seem content and happy for some odd reason.
Domzdream 2 months ago
The trolley scenario is stupid and here's why: the first version of the scenario is worded with lots of wiggle room and hoping that maybe nobody will get hurt (maybe the one person on the other track will be able to get out of the way), where the second version ensures that somebody will die. They aren't identical moral dilemmas. Smart people should be able to formulate less sloppy example problems than this.
Perserra 2 months ago
@Perserra you missed the point. It's a philosophical question, not whats the best solution.
norwayjonas 2 months ago
@Perserra
it is completely realistic scenario, imagine that you are railway operator and you have runaway train which you need to direct into one or another directions when both of them will end with tragic results.
however it would be more interesting question if you need to choose between 1000 people you do not see and one person you see and need to kill to save that 1000.
this way you need to choose between empathy and morality.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
Stupid ass trolly question You should yell a warning but those workers are trained to listen and recognize a approching trolly. As soon as you touch the switch it is manslaughter
berrywoke 2 months ago
@berrywoke you missed the point. It's a philosophical question, not whats the best solution. Nor is it supposed to be realistic.
norwayjonas 2 months ago
I'm a big guy.. I'd be the guy that gets pushed
lukeism2 2 months ago
Oh! I see what you're getting at now! Impersonal forms of violence vs intimate forms of violence. It's emotionally easier to kill the enemy by blowing up his troop transport with a missile from a remote controlled Predator Drone than it is to look the same enemy in the eye as you cut him down with a sword. As such, it takes a highly trained killer (or a psychopath. I often wonder where that line's drawn) to do the latter, but anyone who knows how to pilot a Drone could do the former easily.
thegameulost 2 months ago
>most people say yes (it would be okay to sacrifice 1 life to save 5 lives)
A lot of Utilitarians out there, I guess.
thegameulost 2 months ago
It seems that psychopaths are more effective at saving human life than so-called "normal" people.
GlorifiedTruth 2 months ago
That troley problem is harder than it looks.
what if you have to judge someones choice?
lest say I save 100 people but kill one.
It is still first degree murder so I go to jail for my action.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
.... boring, maybe add some low volume background music.
DigitalScreamCMB 2 months ago
@dprjones
How about this variation: the lone individual on the other track is a prestigious cancer researcher---someone on track to save millions of lives with his work. The other five are businessmen. In this version, although your actions would directly save a net 4 lives, they would indirectly condemn millions. If one chooses to save the researcher he/she has concluded that that individual's life is worth more than the others.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean or how about if we set it in space, that would be more interesting? i mean the main thing is it's Nothing To Do With Whether Or Not Gods Exist!, so let's just have fun and say that on one track it's all the main people from Friends, and let's also say that a rich uncle has gone crazy, died, and left a clause in his will which stipulates that...
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
nothing to do with whether god exists? why do you say that? i wasn't talking about god, and the point of the video was to show the bible is an inadequate source for morality.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean no, did you not read the title? they think it proves a lot more than that, the title is "Man Made God" which they haven't proved. come up with all the thought experiments you want, how could that possibly prove it--for a start, who's to say it's even true, it's very different to IMAGINE throwing a switch and killing people, it might be that people act differently if it actually happened? but anyway, it has nothing to do with the Gods, they were before trains
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
Well yea, that is the title of the five part video series, and yes, as a whole it is an attempt to suggest, and give substantial evidence for the idea, that god is a man-made concept. You're right, you most likely cannot prove it, but you can provide substantial evidence that man would have invented the concept of god/gods whether or not it actually reflects a real thing, and I think they lay down a nice foundation for that.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean i think you're too kind, is it not presumptuous to give it that title? serious philosophers have titles like "On [this or that]", more humble you see, these people are the P.T. Barnums of the YT intellectual community, that's why they have a title like "The Magic Sandwich Show"--it's pathetic, imo, they actually have something to say but should do it honestly and not overreach themselves
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
It also needs to be made clear that suggesting that the fact that man is inclined to create a god does preclude a god from existing. And it is entirely possible that god purposefully designed us through natural selection in away that would make us invent a concept of god---there is just no reason to actually believe that. What they are ultimately trying to do here is give just one more reason to believe that religion is bullshit.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
And finally, if you don't understand the relevance of the trolley problem, then I'm inclined to believe you didn't watch the whole video. The point was that the bible doesn't help solve difficult moral questions. The bible is really pretty pathetic as a moral guideline, which is a good reason to doubt that it is the word of god, or even divinely inspired. Whether or not you take that at face-value, are you now able to see the relevance of the trolley problem?
mellamosean 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mellamosean i agree it's interesting [the trolley thing], i love all that sort of stuff but it's not relevant to a serious discussion about religion--only to a very particular blinkered discussion with someone who happened to believe morality came from God in the 1st place, i don't believe that--i don't see how anyone could, if they want to challenge the specific people who DO, then it's fine...wrong title though!
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
Again, this is a 5 part video series. This is only 1/5 of it. And this specific part of it is targeting part of is attempting to undermine the idea that the bible is a divinely inspired book. Many people do believe that---religious people. This goes against what a majority of the world believes. And I would have to disagree about the title; I think it is perfectly appropriate as they do set out to suggest that god is a man-made concept. Provocative, yes. Overly so, I dnt think so
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean well, as far as i know most of the world is 'religious' 1 way or the other?, nevermind that though--all works of Art are divinely inspired anyway according to Socrates... why are they so hung up on Christianity?, since they're atheists it might suit them better to develop a richer worldview, there's lots of religions--you know that.
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
Well this is not just a criticism of Christianity. Debunking the Bible knocks out Judaism and Islam too. But the video isn't only focused on those three either; all religions with gods are being targeted here. I don't get the feeling you watched all of the video series, and if that's true, don't waste my time with questions that would be put to rest if you had done so.
mellamosean 1 month ago
@mellamosean that would make me a very shallow person wouldn't it...such a thing is not the case, not in this instance. i watched the whole silly thing--to atone for some minor infraction commited in a past life i suppose,--& i see grave errors in their methodology
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
Well I see grave errors in your criticism; like I've said before, it really appears that you've misunderstood exactly what their going for. But that's ok, not the end of the world. I think I'll have to end our exchange here. Feel free to respond, I will read it, but I will not write back. Good day.
mellamosean 1 month ago
@mellamosean how cold you are, that full stop at the end of "good day" shows utter contempt for my feelings... nevermind it was nice attempting to communicate with you, best wishes
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Did anyone else feel that they couldn't flip the switch in the first scenario? I had an immediate problem with preforming any action that results in the direct death of another person, and chose inaction. This way I was not killing anyone (nor was I saving anyone though, which sucks) The trolley was.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
If someone is about to fall off a building and you have the chance to save them, are you guilty of their death via your inaction if you choose not to?
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean How much guilt are you talking about? Do you think guilt is all or nothing? What about the person that was supposed to install a handrail? What about the idiot who is falling off the building? There is usually enough guilt to go around, and everyone deserves a different share.
Morkindie 2 months ago
@Morkindie
You're missing my point. Let's just go back to the trolley. It's headed towards 1 person on the track. In a freak-accident, lightning bolts struck both the trolley (disabling its breaks) and the person (not killing by rendering him temporarily paralyzed). You can divert it to a track with nobody on it. Are you guilty of their death via your inaction if you choose not to?
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean Yes, to some degree.
Morkindie 1 month ago
@Morkindie
why to some degree? In this scenario you are the only being with any influence on the situation. Guilt can not be distributed to any other person. The way I see it, you are fully guilty if your inaction leads to death. If ever you have an opportunity to prevent a death and consciously choose inaction knowing what the consequences will be, you are fully responsible. I don't guilt is distributed like a pie. 2 people can simultaneously hold guilt for one person's death.
mellamosean 1 month ago
@mellamosean No person is the sole influence of any situation.
If the person dies then everyone failed to prevent that death. Some had more opportunity than others to act. Yes two people can simultaneously hold guilt for one persons death. They can conspire together or apart to act or neglect to act.
Morkindie 1 month ago
@mellamosean - If I consciously do absolutely nothing to save them, then perhaps I would hold some responsibility. But the Trolley problem only gives one action that could be taken, and that action necessarily results in the death of another. The option to try other things (even if those actions would fail) are not even available. In these cases honestly chosen failed attempts are valid choices because it is about the morality behind the action, not that the action is certain to succeed.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
I agree that the morality is behind the intention of the action, and yes, real life dilemmas rarely reflect the one-or-the-other choices presented in the trolley problem and other variations. But the point of these thought experiments is to get at the core of our moral reasoning. The more you control and simplify these dilemmas, and the more variants you look at, the better we can understand our moral intuitions.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
The reason why these particular problems are interesting is because they illustrate how we are disinclined to equate action with inaction. Our intuition tells us that inaction is not as morally relevant, but we fail to support that incite with reason. Hence, a moral dilemma. Take the trolley problem, only this time we don't know which track it will take. You have the option to choose which track it will take, or do nothing. If you don't choose to make the track hit the lone
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean The problem stems from the use of a real world situation. The Trolley problem involves people in the world, yet takes away my choices in a way that a real world scenario could not. I could shout at the people to warn them, bang some metal together to alert them, possibly turn the switch so it is halfway between tracks to get it to jam up, or jump offtrack, place something on the tracks to get it to stop, or make noise. Choices that may not result in directly causing a death.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@mellamosean - Action and inaction are not equal. We do not generally equate them for good reason. Choosing to do nothing in a real world situation like this is NOT the same thing as doing something, even if both will result in a death. A person who could save a life but doesn't is not a killer. They may have failed in another societal duty, and may even deserve punishment for it, but they did not preform a killing. Their inaction is a different (possible) crime. The two are not equal.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
I know that's what you believe, but you still have not used any arguments to support your position. That is the problem. You are claiming intuition as fact. It must be supported by reason to be concluded as a fact. The way I see it, inaction is not a real thing. What we perceive as inaction is actually an action. For example, if you can reach out your hand to save someone from falling to their death, and you consciously decide to keep your hand still, that is the action you chose
mellamosean 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
That action resulted in a death, whereas a different action could have resulted in no death. The parallel situation is if a person is not falling and you use your hand to cause them to fall. The action you chose resulted in their death, whereas a different action would have resulted in no death. There is a difference, though, and i think this is the difference you are seeing: a person who pushes someone to their death is acting more maliciously than someone who lets someone fall
mellamosean 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
fall to their death. The act of letting someone fall is a passive act. Why is this the case? Not because there is any objective difference between the two actions, but because of how people perceive it, including how the acting person perceives it. If the individual perceives one action as being more malicious than the other, than others (rightfully) perceive the actor as being less malicious and of having committed a less malicious crime. But this really just boils down to
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean ... It means that the person is purposefully not stopping the fall, which is an action. Now you may think I have just contradicted myself, but let me assure I did not. Your example is not a fair analogy to what I was saying about the Trolley Dilemma. In the case of the Trolley, I chose inaction for a reason. The reason was not just that choosing to act would directly result in the death of a person, but also because I was given no other options. This is where intent comes in...
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@mellamosean ...Flipping that switch is out of the question for me because the scenario dictates that it is certain to kill a person, but if the scenario were fair I could have done numerous other things with the full intent of saving lives and killing no one because the real world give us possibilities, not guarantees. But the Trolley problem was not fair. It took my choices, and gave me only two possibilities that had 100% guaranteed results...
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@mellamosean ...It is possible that my new actions could have made the situation no better, and somehow worsened it, but the actual results are not at issue here, only the intended results because this is a problem of morality, not a problem of how accurately I can judge a situation and obtain the most desirable outcome. Morality is about judgement of the attempt, not the result. It really is the thought that counts here, and the moral choice is to do something with the intent of killing no one.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
I think you are talking about empathy here not about morality. because morality is psychopathic judgement according to cold rules. it does not care about your feelings.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
@deltaxcd - Even if morality is just a cold judgement (not sure if I totally agree with that), it is a judgement of people's actions and the intent behind them (if you want to call that intent "feelings" I guess you can)
I know what I was talking about, and it wasn't empathy. Being empathetic certainly can help someone act in a more moral fashion, but that's not what this discussion has been about.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
I don't understand what do you mean by saying "intent"
in my understanding, results are same as intent, unless something goes unexpectedly or acting character is stupid and cant predict results.
If I pull the switch then my intent is to kill and save.
if I do nothing my intent is save and kill. (or don't kill don't save, what is logically same)
so in both cases you end up being immoral because you break at least one moral rule.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
@deltaxcd - You are not far off. Intent is not the same as results because predictability is imperfect. It has nothing to do with stupidity, it is the nature of a complex universe and finite knowledge. The intent of not hitting the switch is to not kill and to save all by doing something else. The scenario give us two choices and nothing else which is hypothetical garbage because the scenario takes place in a real world with details and people, and is not given to us as just choice A or B.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@deltaxcd - So if ALL you do is either choose to flip the switch or not, yes, you are being immoral either way (so my earlier use of the word "inaction" was poorly chosen) but the way the scenario was worded was not "All you can do is flip the switch or not" so other options are available. If you want to predestine any other option as having the same results as not flipping the switch, that is fine, but there is know way for me to know that, and I will choose another option to try to save all.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1 They were using short hand in the video. The Trolley Scenario is well known, and I'm sure they didn't feel the need to spell it out word for word. The answer to your question is there is no other option that will save anyone. OK, now carry on.
veggiescrub 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
this scenario is quite realistic. It is common problem that we have to choose between two bad things.
For example you may need to destroy hijacked plane to save people on the ground.
also we need to balance between convicting innocent and releasing criminals.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
This whole thing is a model---it takes what is complex, and simplifies it so we can understand it better. If you want to gain an understanding of how humans perceive what is moral you'll learn to play along in these thought experiments. It is possible to conceive of a scenario where you really would only have two viable options, so being nit-picky about the specifics of the trolley problem seems silly to me. I understand your complaint, but I believe you're missing the point
mellamosean 1 month ago
@JonLemerond1
a defense from ignorance. It makes sense to judge people that way, but it does not make sense to make moral decisions that way. I hope this seems like a coherent thought to you. I was actually relieved by my ability to express my thoughts in (what I perceive as a more) logical manner (than I'm typically capable of). Anyway, all have to give you the final word for now. I have a busy day today and may subsequently have no computer access, so sorry in advance for my delayed response
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean This is about morality, and the results of an action do not dictate the morality of the action, the intent dictates it. Intent is based partially on perceived results, but the end results themselves are not where the morality of the action are judged from. So you cannot just boil the two choices down to the results and use that to weigh them. When you are judging morality you are judging people and you cannot separate the two and still be judging morality...
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@mellamosean ...Turning it into little more than a game of numbers allows you to say nothing more than "the more survivors the better" which can work as one form of a moral judgement but it is such a watered down version of what a real world scenario provides that it is hardly worth comparing the two.
"Letting someone fall" is NOT as passive act, it is a conscious choice to act in such a way as to allow that person to fall. Its the "letting" that is the action here...
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
@JonLemerond1
individual, your inaction may lead to the death of 5 people. How are inaction and action not equal here in terms of how much responsibility they merit? Here's a simpler version. Choose A, 1 person dies. Choose B, 5 people die. Refuse to make a choice, 10 people die. Are you somehow less responsible if you refuse to make a choice?
I apologize for the messy string of comments. Short and concise would have been preferable. Oh well.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean Your simplified version is welcomed, and Option A is the best choice here, but none of them hold me responsible because you have whittled it down to little more than a math equation. In order to judge responsibility a real world situation is required, and in order to have a fair real world situation I have to be in possession of all possible choices that a real world provides, and the details of the situation are also needed to judge responsibility. This provides none of that.
JonLemerond1 2 months ago
I think I would have just as much of a moral dilemma whether it was pushing a button or a person, if the outcome were the same. I don't think I could deliberately cause harm. Actually, I think I would be frozen in shock at that point.
8698gil 2 months ago
If you doubt that our morals come from our shared physicality, consider if we all lived in a virtual world (for example) where no one could even touch you without your consent, where no one could take anything that was yours, where there is no privation like starving or disease. What would our morals consist of then?
ExtantFrodo2 2 months ago
Morals are a contract & agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on the others needs. Morals are a social construction. Societies make morals in order to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
ExtantFrodo2 2 months ago
I think if I was asked the second trolly problem I would say yes, I would push the guy. I think I would totally wimp out in real life though.
kissfan7 2 months ago
About the trolley problem...
1. How do we know that shoving the big guy in front of the trolley will stop it?
2. Will he even land in the path of the trolley?
3. Would I even be able to shove him off in the first place?
4. Can I not simply yell at the workers and tell them to get off the tracks?
5. How do we know that he wouldn't shove me off first?
6. Would I experience social repercussions? Technically, I did just murder somebody.
Dqowreorn 2 months ago
@Dqowreorn In the full description you will find that pushing the guy is the only available solution (you are not heavy enough to stop the train, the workers can't hear you, etc.).
IndigoCZ 2 months ago
I spoke with my lawyers and they said I would be liable if I pushed a button that would kill someone or shove a large man onto trolley tracks and then they said I should just walk away. God helps those who help themselves. Benjamin Franklin I believe.
EatMAndSml 2 months ago
How can you have "You shall have no other gods before me" mean anything if there is only one god. Would not a one and only god just laugh when he saw a human kneeing before a stone idol. How about "You shall not abuse a child".
Zackindy0846 2 months ago
What about the FIRST OF THE ten commandments being "DON'T ABUSE CHILDREN".
Zackindy0846 2 months ago
there's no god it feels like there is sometimes but that's because our brains are hard wired to feel like that. there, simple.
calzagheisthebest 2 months ago
What about 5 murdering pedophiles who have committed those acts but have never been caught or were released on a technicality?
caveatempt0r 2 months ago
Its interesting that the psychopath would care enough to try to save anybody.
Or is it just that they have been given an abstract problem to solve. They understand that for the abstract problem, the correct answer is to minimize the number of people killed. They don't care about the people, they just like to get the answer right.
caveatempt0r 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Honestly a big reason I would hesitate to say I'd push the guy is because I wouldn't be sure it would stop the trolley. I might just be killing a 6th person.
Real life isn't a math problem, it's very hard to predict if a plan like that will actually work. Flipping the switch would almost certainly work every time though.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
Comment removed
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
great stuff!
styrofoamheart 2 months ago
no, there's nothing here that needs to trouble anyone overmuch...no serious arguments, it's entirely superfluous to a debate on whether there is no God or not. it's Christocentric, that's what it is, get over it there's other religions you know--you're just picking on them because they're weak
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
oh i see, ok--IF someone believed there was an absolute morality as some do, & that it came from God...but it's not necessary
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
i don't see how this relates to religion, it's very interesting but maybe they gave up on that and just started telling anecdotes?
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
@LucyHarcarty
"i don't see how this relates to religion"
The point is that religion and the Bible can't be the source for morality because they don't cover all situations like the trolley problem. Even if you say that some does come from religion, some of it must NOT come from religion. And if not all has to come from religion, I see know reason why any of it must come from religion.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist no, i agree--i don't suppose it does, i expect we had morality of some sort long before religion or at least any of the popular 1s today, i mean i don't see why that's an argument against religion in general?
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
"i mean i don't see why that's an argument against religion in general?"
Because they claim to be morally superior because of their religion, but they're not. Prison statistics show just the opposite in fact.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist who is they?, some particular bunch of Christians i expect, in America or some such place, well that's fine as far i'm concerned, i know what many of them are like; there's a million things i disagree with them about probably, i'm here to discuss whether or not there's Gods & Goddesses or not
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
@LucyHarcarty
By "they" I mean theists of any kind. I bet if you go to any holy building and ask them if they think they are more moral than atheists, you will get mostly "yes" answers. In the USA, you don't even need to bother asking because you already know what the answer will be.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist i wouldn't take the bet because i'm sure you'd win, but so what? you & me & even the people in these videos are able to argue at a most sophisticated level than those people aren't we, so why don't we have a go for once instead of picking on essentially very stupid people? if you want to find an (intelligent) 'theist' DON'T look in a holy building, mostly.
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
sounds like a terrible situation!...
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
trolley problem, this should be good...i'm listening...
LucyHarcarty 2 months ago
Jesus is the man on the bridge, whom they pushed to save someone's life. How do they react if you tell them that?
poorkinghaggard 2 months ago
Comment removed
poorkinghaggard 2 months ago
@mikespike502005 I think you need to go back and watch parts 1&2 again.
quincyme001 2 months ago
What do you mean I dont believe in god? I talk to him every day.
mikespike502005 2 months ago
In both scenarios, i would do neither, if working to code, one of the 5 workmen is a lookout anyway.
MrDeepwoodtickles 2 months ago
@MrDeepwoodtickles ok, the 5 workmen are there, but they are doing chest compressions on a 5 different people that walked by and had heart trouble. They're all in the way.
MinervaInTheBrain 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
@MinervaInTheBrain Alternatively, given the odds of 5 diferent people simoultaneously having heart trouble, id say , fuck em obvoiusly god wants em dead ,that shit couldnt happen without a god, im a fuckin convert.
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MinervaInTheBrain Then by that logic they will of moved them to a place of safety before commencing first aid, Stop trying to move the goalpost so you dont concede one!
MrDeepwoodtickles 1 month ago
The best thing in both trolley scenarios is to do absolutely nothing, since you will likely get arrested for murder otherwise.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
Most interesting gentlemen.
Thank you.
TalladegaTom 2 months ago
Why not just yell at the 5 people with a bull horn?
HybridD91 2 months ago
the second trolley problem is not exactly the same. 1 difference is you could potentially sacrifice yourself in the second situation. although he might have explained it a bit wrong
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean
Usually it is explained that the guy you push is a big, fat guy, and you'd have to be big and fat to stop the trolley, so anyone smaller couldn't sacrifice themselves.
I agree there is a key difference though. The difference is that in the first problem there are two groups already on the tracks in harms way. In the second, only one group is in harms way, and the choice forces someone to be in harms way against their will. It's a subtle difference, but important imo.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
yea, my point is not a criticism of the thought experiment, but rather of the way that guy portrayed it. It's like an unintentional strawman. There are lots of ways around the apparent hole in the idea I pointed out. For example, you could be at a distance looking through the scope of a sniper rifle (why you're in the situation is irrelevant. I'm sure there are less absurd solutions) and have the option to shoot the guy so that he falls onto the track.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
Most (non-philosopher) people agree there's a key difference, but that may be a result of human irrationality. Ethical intuitions are not always reasonable. Philosophers look for ways to defend our intuitions, but if we can't articulate a defense, we should be skeptical of the intuition. Your criticism is invalid because in both scenarios there is only one group in harms way. In the first scenario is not in harms way---positive action must be taken for them to be in harms way.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
The difference is that the first scenario redirects the "harm" whereas the second scenario involves moving the person. You could even customize the scenarios so that the physical action in both is the same---say, flipping a switch or pressing a button. I mean, this would all be done against their will, so that is not what makes these scenarios different.
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean
"I mean, this would all be done against their will, so that is not what makes these scenarios different."
The way it's described is that they people on the track are workers. They are their by choice as part of their job. The guy on the bridge is not. You're forcing him to become part of the situation. He is not inevitably part of the situation like the workers are, and to me, that changes the situation.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
So your take is that the workers have accepted the risk of working on the track? That may be a valid point, but I think it's besides the point this thought experiment tries to get at. I think one could customize the scenario so that both groups have accepted the same amount of risk. Perhaps they're all workers, and all the workers spend time working on both tracks. Now it's only governed by chance unless you do something. Does that fix the issue you have with it?
mellamosean 2 months ago
@mellamosean
"Perhaps they're all workers, and all the workers spend time working on both tracks."
Even if you mean that both the pusher and pushee are also workers, the pusher is still forcing the person to be part of a situation that they didn't put themselves in voluntarily.
It's kind of like the Death Star contractors dilemma that's brought up in the movie Clerks. watch?v=dGOVbXF7Iog
The guy you push isn't the same as the people who choose to be there voluntarily.
KemaTheAtheist 2 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
No, you misunderstood what I meant. The pusher can be anybody, it's not important. What I meant is that the individual on a track by himself is also worker who has accepted the same risk as the 5 workers on the other track. They all take turns working on both tracks, so when they happen to be the lone worker on the other track it is just chance. "death star politics" is not relevant here. If you think it is, I think you're missing the point of the thought experiment.
mellamosean 2 months ago
Had I been brought up a Theist, I would solve the trolley problem easily. The answer is to do nothing at all, since whatever happens would be the will of God, and he would sort them out in front of the gates.
eternalreminisce 2 months ago
When you see someone commenting on a video like this who's contribution is nothing other than some violent mashup of "jesus is lord" combined with "fucking die atheists", the best thing to do is NOT RESPOND and just VOTE IT DOWN. If they want a discussion with anyone other than hateful, bigoted morons, they'll have to try growing a brain first. Until then, don't feed the trolls.
yesimsandw1ch 2 months ago
A hypothetical situation; consider this: God is real
and God judges all according to the
precepts of His Word to eternal Heaven or eternal Hell.
theetrue 2 months ago
@theetrue Here's another one, consider this:
You're wrong, and you're wasting your life. Cheers!
yesimsandw1ch 2 months ago 5
@yesimsandw1ch
I should be like you? That's a bet I
wouldn't want to win. Truth and Love.
theetrue 2 months ago
@theetrue I'm actually a very peaceful, loving, charitable, and respectable person. Maybe you SHOULD be more like me. I'm cute, too.
yesimsandw1ch 2 months ago
@yesimsandw1ch
All very admirable of course;
be sure to tell God all about it:
did Christ die for you and are you forgiven?
theetrue 2 months ago
I just thought as another twist to the trolley problem, make the 5 people muslim when asking christians
alanjavis 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE!!!
Watergun8770 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 You suck at this.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
@grayziehobbes
Code for: GOD EXISTS!!!
Watergun8770 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 No code at all. You suck at life. Die now.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
@grayziehobbes
Code for: Ad-hominem attacks are ALL I have left, becausese I am a fucking pussy. I know there is a God, but I dont want to admit it, because I dont want to be held accountable to a higher power.
Watergun8770 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 You are a retard surpassed by no one. How many times has Jesus rammed his holy fist in your gaping asshole? Not enough, I bet. Fist away Jesus, fist away.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 Clearly you are trying to escape the wrath of Allah.
riahmatic 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 What isn't "code" for that as far as you're concerned? They don't call it the God delusion for nothing.
ukeuwatch 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD EXISTS.
FUCKING DIE ATHEISTS!!!
Watergun8770 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 The Flying Spaghetti Monster agrees with you. Drown them in delicious tomato-based sauce!
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Watergun8770 prove it
blt90 2 months ago
I would like to see your brain measured while making up increasingly horrid/confusing trolly problems =P
Duke0James 2 months ago
In the trolley problem it would also be good to experiment with the levels of disdain for the workers on each track. Use instead of worst possible somewhere more moderate as in someone who the person giving the answer would have a mere dislike for, but not necessarily perceived as worthy of death. And not have the choices polar opposites as well. What if there were pedophiles and rapists on each track?
pocoapoco2 2 months ago
Excellent video series. Thanks for it!
for anyone is interested in philosophical minutiae, the trolley problem was originally devised as an ethical thought experiment by Philippa R. Foot, a little-known philosopher who was on the faculty of Cambridge University. She died recently [October of 2010].
It was her attempt to encourage rationally derived normative ethics though a process of the application of analytic thinking.
Again, I'm really enjoying this series!
2bsirius 2 months ago
My instinctive morality is making me wants to challenge dprjones to give up his poisoness leaf addiction. Please show your lungs love and respect - you need them to breathe.
goosed1 2 months ago
Jesus DOES endorse the death penalty for dishonouring your parents. Read Mark 7:1-13.
roohif 2 months ago
What if the theists argue that psychopaths exist because of human imperfection, which was caused by Adam and Eve sinning?
KezoZydis 2 months ago
@KezoZydis Theists also argue that god is "perfect". A perfect being could not create something which was imperfect except if it intended ie maliciously. If it was malicious it would not be perfect.
lewisner 2 months ago
@lewisner lol ur a moron. not all theists argue that god is perfect.
DavidFrat123 2 months ago