HJCarden wrote: ↑November 25th, 2020, 2:09 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2020, 10:18 pm
1: Arguments used to compare the morality of two competing rules or courses of action are
ultimately based upon the benefits and harms of one versus the benefits and harms of the other.
What do we mean by "ultimately"? We mean that moral arguments often begin by applying familiar social rules, like "lying is bad, so one ought not lie", as axiomatic assumptions. But then we run into
exceptions where our instincts tell us that "We really ought to lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or they will kill them".
What justifies this exception? A consideration of the benefits and harms of telling the truth. Tell the truth in this situation and
people will die. So we lie.
Telling the truth is better in most situations, but in this situation it is
morally wrong. Why is it morally wrong? Because of the objective harm. Why "objective"? Because it is not a matter where someone's feelings will be hurt. It is a matter of people being killed in a gas chamber.
I find issue with this. Consider the classic trolley example. Many would agree that if we can pull the lever to divert the trolley to a track that only has 1 person tied to it, versus 5, we have made a difficult, yet correct moral decision. However, take then the example of the Very Fat Man. We have this intuition that it would be wrong to push this man off of a bridge into the path of the trolley to save the 5 people tied to the tracks. Statistically, thats how most people sway when surveyed about the trolley problem. Therefore, this is shows that we might not actually be interested in the benefits and harms of actions. Same net loss of life, but two very different ways we feel about the problem.
However, I believe you could counter and say that doing what we feel to be morally right creates the most benefit and prevents the most harm in the long term. The benefits of not pushing the fat man could be setting a good example, teaching others to discover morality by their own good actions, and so on and so forth...however I do not agree with this line of thinking. I believe that full stop, not pushing the fat man is the morally correct choice because (and admittedly this is very Kantian) by pushing him, we would violate some law of morality, something to the tune of "not pulling people into harmful situations that they were not involved in" (the exact moral law here is unimportant). My ultimate point is that we have intuitions that tend towards moral laws without consideration for broad net utility, rather that these moral laws are correct on their own accord.
To further illustrate this point, take into consideration self defense. Say that you are a lone pilot streaking through space when a star destroyer jumps out of hyperspace and begins firing upon you. You take the necessary action to defend yourself, and you destroy the bridge of the star destroyer, crippling the ship, and eventually leading to the demise of all but a lucky few who escape in pods. The calculus of this is so extreme, and if you killed this many people in any other situation you would be a genocidal maniac, but because you were defending yourself, many would say you are in the right. This I believe refutes your first idea, unless you are willing to state that the person defending themselves is creating more overall good by wiping out the entire opposing force.
The answer to all three should be in the long term consequences. The means, the "how we go about things", imply rules that last beyond the current scenario. Means become ends.
A real-life version of the first trolley problem would be the triage stage of a mass casualty event. Those who will live without assistance or will die even with assistance are passed over in favor of those needing assistance to survive. The most critical of those who can survive with assistance are usually attended to first. We accept that some people will die, and that some will die solely because we lack the resources to save everyone who might be saved.
The first trolley problem involves throwing a switch to save a net of four lives. The second trolley problem involves killing an innocent fat man. In the first trolley problem the single individual tied to the tracks may also be an innocent fat man. But we are not killing him. The person who tied him to the tracks is killing him. In the second trolley problem we are definitely responsible for killing the innocent fat man, because we pushed him onto the tracks.
HJCarden wrote:"Therefore, this is shows that we might not actually be interested in the benefits and harms of actions. Same net loss of life, but two very different ways we feel about the problem."
In both trolley problems, we apply existing rules of conduct. One rule says that it is better to save the life of 5 people than to save the life of 1 person. The other rule says that we must not murder any innocent person. In these two emergency scenarios, we don't have time to create any new rules, we only have time to decide which rule to apply.
But both of the existing rules will have a history in which the real-life consequences of each rule will have been previously considered in the formation of the rule. In the first trolley problem, it's just cold math. In the second trolley problem, the rule was created because no one wants to be murdered. The rule against murder as a big objective benefit and big reduction in objective harm. (Assuming we create a society that enforces that rule and that makes people less likely to feel that they need to murder someone).
HJCarden wrote: "I believe that full stop, not pushing the fat man is the morally correct choice because (and admittedly this is very Kantian) by pushing him, we would violate some law of morality, something to the tune of "not pulling people into harmful situations that they were not involved in" (the exact moral law here is unimportant)."
When I was a child, my mother told me that God loved us and that He created laws that were good for us. That seems consistent with the notion of benefits and harms. There is a reason behind each rule. And the reason is to prevent us from doing harm or being harmed.
HJCarden wrote:"My ultimate point is that we have intuitions that tend towards moral laws without consideration for broad net utility, rather that these moral laws are correct on their own accord."
I believe our intuitions evolved to produce good results and to avoid bad results.
HJCarden wrote:"Say that you are a lone pilot streaking through space when a star destroyer jumps out of hyperspace and begins firing upon you. You take the necessary action to defend yourself, and you destroy the bridge of the star destroyer, crippling the ship, and eventually leading to the demise of all but a lucky few who escape in pods."
Self-defense is another case of the means becoming ends. In order to reduce the amount of murdering going on, we allow the person who is about to be murdered to kill her attacker. Ideally, this reduces the number of attempted murders, benefitting us all.