Immiment Death Question

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

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.

Correct. I don't accept the tenets of the question. Although nonetheless I still have to respond to a couple things you've said.

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-

Making a decision may be an act. I'll accept this for the sake of argument, that thoughts can be considered actions.

However...

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"

This is a peculiar phrasing, and in some ways it actually captures the key distinction that I'm skeptical as to whether or not you understand. In either of these instances, the consequences being accepted also fall within the realm of thought, not within the realm of reality.

By arguing that you have to accept personal responsibility for the actual deaths of either group in any circumstance you are suggesting that nominal interactions, which we now are considering to constitute "actions", have some neccessary bearing on the events of reality even when by their nature they exclude themselves from causing an effect on reality.

What you're describing as responsibility through negligence, despite being questionable because the supposed duty is questionable, suggests transmissability of the properties of thoughts into the properties of reality, even when no interaction is observed.

It's negative causation, and I'm not sure that I agree with it or that it makes any sense.

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.

In one instance your choice has a direct effect on yourself and your environment. In another your choice has an effect on only yourself. It doesn't even so much have an indirect effect on your environment because the event you could have averted could happen irrespective of your presence or interference.

Train + people = death. Train + people + observer =/= immoral death, because the observer is completely redundant to the occuring events.

Unless the observer is bound by duty, but I don't believe that they are.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

This is a peculiar phrasing, and in some ways it actually captures the key distinction that I'm skeptical as to whether or not you understand. In either of these instances, the consequences being accepted also fall within the realm of thought, not within the realm of reality.

I understand perfectly the distinction you are trying to make, don't get me wrong, I just don't see that it has any bearing to the question as asked.

The "Correct" (such as it is) way to have phrased the question in this thought experiment is this:

"Knowing full well the consequences of you pulling the lever or not pulling the lever, but being obliged to make a conscious choice to either pull the lever or not pull the lever, which would you do?"

To put the "realm of thought and realm of reality" objection into proper perspective, lets assume for the sake of this exercise that there is a crowd of people watching you, who are all, themselves, aware of the fact that you must choose to either pull the lever or refrain from pulling the lever, and know exactly what the outcome of either choice will be.

I mean, I see where you're coming from that you want to say "Unless I actually make an active contribution to the situation, I might as well not be there from the perspective of morality" But you're wanting the question to be different from what it is.

Just because the -outcome- of "Me standing here not pulling the lever" and "Nobody standing here at all" are the same, doesn't mean that you standing there not pulling the lever -is- the same as nobody standing there at all.

Having the power to intervene, the knowledge that you can intervene, and the knowledge of what action and inaction will do -make- you accountable even if your decision is to not pull the lever.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

If you pull the lever wouldn't that be like.. second degree murder or something? Since you took part of it?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I just don't see that it has any bearing to the question as asked.

And we've already determined that the question as asked is phrased in a fairly nonsensical way...

"Knowing full well the consequences of you pulling the lever or not pulling the lever, but being obliged to make a conscious choice to either pull the lever or not pull the lever, which would you do?"

First of all the use of the word Obliged is both unneccessary and improper, because the question assumes that by neccessity you only have the two options.

To put the "realm of thought and realm of reality" objection into proper perspective, lets assume for the sake of this exercise that there is a crowd of people watching you, who are all, themselves, aware of the fact that you must choose to either pull the lever or refrain from pulling the lever, and know exactly what the outcome of either choice will be.

I'm not sure what difference this makes.

I mean, I see where you're coming from that you want to say "Unless I actually make an active contribution to the situation, I might as well not be there from the perspective of morality" But you're wanting the question to be different from what it is.

I typically want loaded and improper questions to be different from what they are.

Just because the -outcome- of "Me standing here not pulling the lever" and "Nobody standing here at all" are the same, doesn't mean that you standing there not pulling the lever -is- the same as nobody standing there at all.

You have yet to show this.

Having the power to intervene, the knowledge that you can intervene, and the knowledge of what action and inaction will do -make- you accountable even if your decision is to not pull the lever.

And now we come back to the question I wanted you to answer in the first place.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that if something is within your ability then it is within your duty neccessarily, that the properties of thoughts manifest in the properties of reality even when there is no causal relationship between them, and that therefore inaction is always a form of action, even in the most trifling of circumstances, although a form of action which does not neccessarily have moral property even in the most dire.

First of all, you haven't effectively supported any of these claims. In fact all of these claims were preceeded by me asking, several posts earlier, why these exact these should be considered the case.

Now, maybe you're just playing your hand poorly because it's the same as the question itself and you want to demonstrate this. However you've already conceded I understand the issue, and you already understand that I'm arguing from an alternative basis. The question is why are you bothering to argue from a Utilitarian perspective if you don't support it in the first place and you recognize the validity of my alternate perspective.

I'm not arguing over what the question does or doesn't say, I'm arguing over whether that contextualization of the problem is valid in the first place, and if not, why, and what contextualization is superior.

[etrnnlchaos24]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Id pull the lever. At least id be going out doing a good deed.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I'm not arguing over what the question does or doesn't say, I'm arguing over whether that contextualization of the problem is valid in the first place, and if not, why, and what contextualization is superior.

The question was posed, in the exact way it was, to bring about the exact same opinion you keep insisting. That to math out this problem is stupid and makes no sense.

The contextualisation isn't -supposed- to be superior, you're supposed to look at the question and go "All things being equal I'd probably pull the lever and make more people survive, but man, what a crappy way to make that decision, I'd rather <Insert alternative and more sensical moral system>"

The only reason I have any cause to continue to object to your position is that you keep addressing the question in terms outside the bounds of what the question is asking.

Your entire position, as regards the actual posing of this thought experiment is able to be summed up as "If forced to pull the lever or not pull the lever, I would probably not pull the lever on the grounds that it is not necessarily my duty to choose to interfere in what is happening" and that's that.

The (very interesting) discussion on the merits of Utilitarian ethics versus Deontologoical ethics (In which I would almost certainly side with you) is just something that should be in its own thread for discussion, not posed here as an -objection- to a thought experiment that was actually trying to -prove- why deontological ethics work better than utilitarian ethics, that's all.

We've largely been going to cross-purposes here simply because you're lodging the expected rejection to the experiment from inside the experiment, instead of from outside of it.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Immiment Death Question

devonin, do you live in a world where the sky is black and dead puppies rain from the sky? Through action or inaction how does either outcome become your responsibility just because you were there and could do something?

Ask these questions:
>What caused the metal ball to fall from the sky? Where did it come from?
>How is it that these people are on those platforms?
>Why does the situation allow for one person to decide who lives and who dies? How did he/she get there?

Although these factors are completely removed from the experiment, doesn't mean they can be ignored. Especially in determining responsibility.

[ninjja_]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I wouldn't pull the lever. I'd stare in disbelief at it then run away.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Immiment Death Question

The issue here is you know nothing about the people saving. Since each person is a complete unknown, you could value them all as X. Now the question is, is the value of X negative or positive, meaning, will they contribute to society. If someone is a murdering crack head, they obviously have a negative value, while if someone is a doctor who is close to a breakthrough on a cure for cancer, they obviously have a positive value.

If the people have negative values then you would want to save the one rather than the five, otherwise you would wish to go for more. Since society is moving in a generally forward direction it is safe to assume that the odds are more likely that someone will have a positive value than a negative value. Therefore, X is positive. 5X > X so I would pull the lever.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

The issue here is you know nothing about the people saving. Since each person is a complete unknown, you could value them all as X. Now the question is, is the value of X negative or positive, meaning, will they contribute to society. If someone is a murdering crack head, they obviously have a negative value, while if someone is a doctor who is close to a breakthrough on a cure for cancer, they obviously have a positive value.

If the people have negative values then you would want to save the one rather than the five, otherwise you would wish to go for more. Since society is moving in a generally forward direction it is safe to assume that the odds are more likely that someone will have a positive value than a negative value. Therefore, X is positive. 5X > X so I would pull the lever.

And you'll go through that process each and every time you make every decision for your entire life?

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

5X > X so I would pull the lever.

Good gosh man, this is ridiculous! There's no good way to do this mathematically! Well, that WAS a pretty good way to do it, but for crying out loud, math doesn't say who's a good person and who isn't!

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Good gosh man, this is ridiculous! There's no good way to do this mathematically! Well, that WAS a pretty good way to do it, but for crying out loud, math doesn't say who's a good person and who isn't!

And that, incidentally, is 100% the exact answer the philsophers who originally composed this thought experiment were looking for people to say.

[chuckey]

Re: Immiment Death Question

duh theres water underneath the platforms so we would all jump off and swim to cancun

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Uh... Noone ever said there was water under the platforms.

[Vampire_Gurl]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Wow...such a great question, dude. Man... gimmie about a week 2 answer that question. Ok, what was the whole concept again?????