Immiment Death Question

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

iirc you weren't one of the ones trying to argue that if you "let nature take its course" you are somehow not at all responsable for the deaths of the five people. That remark was directed squarely at the "its fate, and I'd be more wrong to mess with it" responses.

You don't remember correctly, although to be fair my language and thinking was not nearly as crude and problematic as your example's.

I was merely saying that it makes no sense to try and claim you are morally free and clear if you choose inaction, you are responsable either way simply by having been in a position to make the choice.

Why? The root of this assumption is that potential for action obligates action. It assumes a level of duty brought about by ability, and that inaction by thwarting this duty is an action in itself.

Why does my ability to do action x neccessitate that not doing action x is immoral? This doesn't make any sense to me.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

although to be fair my language and thinking was not nearly as crude and problematic as your example's.[sic]

Please feel free to elucidate the manner in which my examples were crude and problematic?

The root of this assumption is that potential for action obligates action.

You are presented with two actions. Pulling the lever, and refraining from pulling the lever. They -are- both actions. Refraining from pulling the lever is a choice you have made after considering both of the valid options, and you are therefore equally responsable for the consequences in both cases.

Why does my ability to do action x neccessitate that not doing action x is immoral? This doesn't make any sense to me.

I did not say that not doing x is immoral, I said that whether you do X or !X, you are equally responsable for the consequences. It is up to your own personal moral code to determine whether you consider one, the other, or both actions immoral, and that will likely dictate which of the two actions you choose.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Please feel free to elucidate the manner in which my examples were crude and problematic?

Why? You were quoting them for the purpose of criticizing them. It's exactly as you said, arguments about fate are silly because they don't account for the unilateral nature of fate.

You are presented with two actions. Pulling the lever, and refraining from pulling the lever. They -are- both actions.

I don't think you get it. This is the point in contention at the moment. Repeating your statement isn't an argument.

Refraining from pulling the lever is a choice you have made after considering both of the valid options, and you are therefore equally responsable for the consequences in both cases.

I really don't think you understand my argument. Whether you consider both options or not is irrelevant, you are only responsible for the consequences of your own actions.

The ability to consider taking an action does not imply that you should necessarily take that action. The act of consideration itself has no moral value. You are arguing that because an action is within your means to do, inaction is somehow immoral.

The question is: Why am I obligated to take any action within my means, and if I am not obligated then how is my inaction immoral?

You have repeatedly failed to even address these questions.

I did not say that not doing x is immoral, I said that whether you do X or !X, you are equally responsable for the consequences. It is up to your own personal moral code to determine whether you consider one, the other, or both actions immoral, and that will likely dictate which of the two actions you choose.

First of all, you have yet to properly support your argument, and secondly of all you aren't arguing any sort of measurement by which to weigh morality so it doesn't even seem like there's a point to your contention. If neither action holds any inherent moral value why contest the nature of the actions?

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

You seem to be arguing that in this situation, There is only one thing you can do that counts as an action: pulling the lever. I am disputing that, saying that inaction -is- an active decision to refrain from pulling the lever.

The purpose of the thought experiment isn't for someone to try and say "Well I'm going to let nature take its course" and argue that you are somehow not in any way accountable for the consequences.

The purpose of the thought experiment is to force you to make an active decision between saving one life and saving five lives (Or if you're a tad more cynical, between having one person die or having five people die)

To say "Well, I'm neither saving nor killing anybody, because I do nothing" is to completely miss the point of the question, which was designed -entirely- to point out percieved flaws in Mill's pleasure calculus with respect to making any kind of actual decison outside a vacuum.

[BumOnStreet]

Re: Immiment Death Question

The question is: by pulling the lever, are you doing evil while you do good or doing good while you're doing evil?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

ps:sorry if this is already answered, i was only reading the first page

but, I think having the opportunity to know what is the situation at hand and not doing anything to at least save people is doing more evil than good.

of course, i am partisan to the military mindset of which is the better evil when it comes to this kind of situation -- I would save 5 people, even if I hate their guts because they are, after all, having goals/accomplishments/etc. just like me, instead of the one person.

[FluorescentArmy]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would probably waste those five seconds pondering where the hell I was and how that massive ball got up in the sky. I would probably switch the platforms if I did do something. It seems to me that 1 death is a lot less than 5. One death causes less emotional pain than 5 would. Unless, per say, the 5 were celebrities. Then I would just keep them there.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

You seem to be arguing that in this situation, There is only one thing you can do that counts as an action: pulling the lever. I am disputing that, saying that inaction -is- an active decision to refrain from pulling the lever.

It may be in some instances, but it isn't necessarily. Regardless, what you are arguing right now depends on whether or not thoughts (decisions) independent of actions can contain moral value, and whether thoughts are actions. I don't believe thoughts contain moral value or are actions.

Feel free to argue otherwise, though.

The purpose of the thought experiment isn't for someone to try and say "Well I'm going to let nature take its course" and argue that you are somehow not in any way accountable for the consequences.

Well shoot, I guess I fail the thought experiment then. That doesn't change my opinion though. If I have to choose between two wrong opinions which are widely accepted and an alternative which is unilaterally rejected, I'll choose the latter.

The purpose of the thought experiment is to force you to make an active decision between saving one life and saving five lives (Or if you're a tad more cynical, between having one person die or having five people die)

This phrasing of the problem contains a fallacious method of thought. That's what I've been trying to demonstrate by dichotomizing between action and inaction.

[/quote]To say "Well, I'm neither saving nor killing anybody, because I do nothing" is to completely miss the point of the question, which was designed -entirely- to point out percieved flaws in Mill's pleasure calculus with respect to making any kind of actual decison outside a vacuum.[/QUOTE]

How much training do you have in philosophy? You seem to be ignoring substantial portions of my argument and refusing to recognize arguments from Deontology. The most commonly accepted alternative to Utilitarianism is Deontology.

The point of my response is to point out that, irrespective of the statement this problem makes about Mill's moral calculations, it can be solved by Deontology. It can presumably be solved by Utilitarianism as well, just with an excess of calculation and the introduction of countless other potentially problematic ethical issues.

The problems that arise when attempting to use Utilitarian perspective to solve this problem are primarily of the conflict between act and rule utilitarianism.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Immiment Death Question

For the record, I don't believe fate. Saying you were fated to pull the lever is just like saying that even if you decided not to, you'd still do it. Whether it be by reflex, provocation, or slipping on a bar of soap while walking away and then landing on the lever.

I would probably waste those five seconds pondering where the hell I was and how that massive ball got up in the sky.

Same Here. Also add, "How did I get here" and "How is it that I know this lever can magically switch those two platforms at instant speed?

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Still that one person could be your mother and those 5 people could be hobos. You would choose your mother. Now its flipped around. You would want to save the 1 person, not the 5 random hobos that have no life.

You can't take others lives into your hands, its not right.

[ffrrocksya]

Re: Immiment Death Question

maybe. is everyone a stranger including the one person?

[BumOnStreet]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Still that one person could be your mother and those 5 people could be hobos. You would choose your mother. Now its flipped around. You would want to save the 1 person, not the 5 random hobos that have no life.

You can't take others lives into your hands, its not right.

are you making fun of me?

lol im jokin, but yeah, if its 5 secs, i would guess it will probably due to your feelings, unless it is 5 secs of real thinking.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Haha where did you come up with that? HAHA!!!

No matter what, i'm sticking to my first thought. You can't do anything about it. Its not right to take other peoples lives into your own hands.

[ffrrocksya]

Re: Immiment Death Question

oh.. ok. i would faint due to the pressure

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Your pathetic... haha

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

It may be in some instances, but it isn't necessarily. Regardless, what you are arguing right now depends on whether or not thoughts (decisions) independent of actions can contain moral value, and whether thoughts are actions. I don't believe thoughts contain moral value or are actions.
Feel free to argue otherwise, though.

Actually, as I tried to point out, I'm not actually arguing morality at all. The word "consequences" doesn't -have- to morally bad results, just results of any kind. I simply mean that deciding "I am not going to pull the lever" and then not pulling it is an -act- in exactly the same way as deciding "I am going to pull the lever" and then pulling it is an -act-

In either case, you are responsable for the consequences of making that choice, whether to -you- the consequences are "Dealing with the fact that you caused the death of 1/5 people through your action" or "Dealing with the knowledge that by telling myself it wasn't up to me to change anything, five people died"

I make no value judgements about either decision, I simply look for people to admit that whichever course they decide they -chose- it and have some modicum of responsability for the results of their choice.

Well shoot, I guess I fail the thought experiment then. That doesn't change my opinion though. If I have to choose between two wrong opinions which are widely accepted and an alternative which is unilaterally rejected, I'll choose the latter.

I think you do miss the point of the experiment. You are being forcibly presented with your choice of two options. There is no third option, there is no way to hem and haw your way into a third option if you are still following the tenets of the question. It's not like someone is saying "Which ice cream do you want, chocolate or strawberry" and you can say "Actually, I'll take neither, I don't like either kind" You are instead being told "You unequivocably -must- select chocolate or strawberry" and any response other than "chocolate" or "strawberry" is invalid, because that was not one of the terms of the question.

This phrasing of the problem contains a fallacious method of thought. That's what I've been trying to demonstrate by dichotomizing between action and inaction.

Er...this thought experiment is -meant- to prove that Mill's pleasure calculus is a fallacious method of thought...that's what it was posed to -do-

How much training do you have in philosophy?

Rather a lot actually...I'm right at the tail end of a philosophy degree in fact.

You seem to be ignoring substantial portions of my argument and refusing to recognize arguments from Deontology. The most commonly accepted alternative to Utilitarianism is Deontology.

I'm well aware of what and how Deontological moral theories are and work. I'm also well aware that arguments of morality from duty are generally one of the leading alternatives to Utilitarian thought. You'll notice that I've actually done very little addressing of your "argument" at all, because within the bounds of this thread, and this thought experiment, arguing deontology is outside the bounds of what's being asked.

The point of my response is to point out that, irrespective of the statement this problem makes about Mill's moral calculations, it can be solved by Deontology. It can presumably be solved by Utilitarianism as well, just with an excess of calculation and the introduction of countless other potentially problematic ethical issues.

It's not meant to be "solved" by outside means, it's -meant- to make the Mill Utilitarian be put into an uncomfortable position of admitting that maybe their using math to valuate human life isn't such a good idea after all.

The problems that arise when attempting to use Utilitarian perspective to solve this problem are primarily of the conflict between act and rule utilitarianism.

Okay, I take it back, you didn't completely miss the point of the thought experiment, you understand it perfectly, and seem to have felt the need to argue an outside perspective regardless.