Why i believe doing nothing is worse than doing.

[rageoftyrael]

Okay, so i'll use the train scenario to set what i'm trying to say here. Many of you will have heard of this scenario. You stand beside a train track, right near a track switch. You look forward and see a fork in the train tracks. On one side is one man, tied to the tracks. On the other side, is 5 men, tied to the tracks. The train tracks are currently set so that when the train, which you can hear behind you, passes you, it will inevitably hit the 5 men. The question is whether you would pull the switch, and save 5 lives, at the cost of one, or walk away and do nothing.

Now, you can answer that question, if you feel like it, but it's pretty split on what people would do. Some people would pull the lever, to save the 5. Some would not, in what i believe is a false belief that they have no responsibility. I disagree with this idea, for several reasons.

1. If, and only if, you had passed by, unaware of the scenario, are you truly free of responsibility. The moment you become aware of the scenario, and the choice in front of you, a certain amount of responsibility to act has been put on your shoulders, imo. Obviously, the person or people who set this up are ultimately responsible, but i do not feel as if that negates your responsibility to act.

2. The primary reason i feel that so many people would choose to do nothing, rather than save 5 lives over 1, is guilt. Either they are afraid of what they will think of themselves, for having chosen that a man should die, or they are afraid of what others will think of them, for having chosen that a man should die.

My problem with this attitude, is that if you take a step back from your automatic emotional response, and look at the situation rationally, is it not much more morally reprehensible to do nothing, simply because you are afraid of what others will think of you, or worse yet, just cause you will feel bad about yourself?

Taking morality as i believe it should be taken, as a guide for individuals to follow for the survival of their species, and perhaps for the betterment of their society, you would then have to make decisions based on what that means. I believe that many would agree with me that not harming people is better for survival, for various reasons, and is also better for society, as a society that is not harming itself, would seem to be a better society. Unfortunately, situations can arise where you might have to harm someone, if for nothing else, for the survival of the species. How can you reconcile these two attitudes? By realizing that survival trumps society, and that numbers outweighs feelings.

So, using this logic, it would seem that choosing 1 man over 5, is not helping either our survival or our society. I am aware that some people would make the claim that they had not made a choice which would live, but it seems obvious to me that, as i explained above, once you are aware of the situation, by doing nothing, you have made a choice. A selfish choice, not for the betterment of society, or for the survival of our species, but simply so that you will not feel bad about yourself, or have other people think badly about you, though number two is a crap roll, cause about half of the people will probably think badly of you anyway.

So, it all boils down to this. How can someone choose their own comfort as more important than saving lives, and still call themselves moral? I have literally had a friend tell me he wouldn't do something bad, even though it would be the only way to save the planet, and when i ask him why not, he says it is because he is to moral to do that. Which, as i said earlier, is hilarious, because the only rational reason he would be unwilling to do said bad thing is for one of two reasons, he's either afraid of how he will feel about himself for having done something bad, or afraid of how other people will think of him for having done something bad, nevermind the fact that he is literally saving billions of human lives, and billions of animals in the process. So, as i pointed out to him, isn't doing nothing worse, because he is choosing his own comfort as more important, than the survival of billions.

Well, that was long winded, as i can tend to be, lol. Either way, what do you guys think?

 

[blackout]

What if the 5 men were vile murdering men,
(tied to the tracks with very good reason)
and you set them free
not knowing the full ramifications of the situation
and they went off to kill another 5,10, 15,20 or more men,
women and children.
(Including maybe even yourSelf)

I think that deciding what is in fact better or worse
(I don't really do 'moral')
can be very tricky
as we often are missing full, vital, and important (telling) information.

I know that's not really what you were getting at,
but those were my thoughts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, it all boils down to this. How can someone choose their own comfort as more important than saving lives, and still call themselves moral?

No. The question is by what right do you arrogantly presume to denigrate all those who would do nothing as "choosing their own comfort"?

 

[rageoftyrael]

Well, i explained why i felt that was the case. If you can give me some reasonable examples as to why someone would choose to do nothing, and those examples don't fall into what i explained, then i may rethink my position. It would be nice if you would stop attacking me personally though. I'm tired of it.

Oh, and i don't know what country you are from Jayhawker, but in my country, i have every right to express my opinion, whether or not you think it's arrogant or not.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Well, ultraviolet, the easiest answer i can give to you is that we can never really act with all the information, and that if you act morally, and bad comes from it, that sucks, but it doesn't mean you should be stymied from actually doing the right thing, for fear that it may come back to haunt you. It's kind of like, if i found a small child on the side of the street, i would help him/her find their way home, knowing that there is a possibility that their parents not only won't be grateful, but may well think i had ulterior motives. It wouldn't be enough for me to be put in jail, but it could well be enough to ruin my reputation where i live. But i care more about doing what's actually right, than i care about what other's think of me.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that unless your personal Code of Honor states that you have a duty to act, you have no duty to do anything whatsoever.

I also think that this idea of a universal duty to act quickly becomes impractical and absurd. There is always someone or something in need of help. Those who attempt to take the burdens of the entire world upon their shoulders as if everything is their business tend to be squashed flat by this burden. It leaves no time for you and your needs. You burn out, and once you burn out, you're not of the capacity to help anything.

Another small irony to consider. A bystander is unlikely to be punished by the law for doing nothing. A person who redirects the train is likely to be tried for manslaughter or murder, regardless of how many lives are on the line. The law does not consider bystanders "responsible" for anything. The moment you involve yourself directly, that changes immediately. Stupid, but I'm pretty sure that's how our system works.

 

[Penumbra]

So, using this logic, it would seem that choosing 1 man over 5, is not helping either our survival or our society. I am aware that some people would make the claim that they had not made a choice which would live, but it seems obvious to me that, as i explained above, once you are aware of the situation, by doing nothing, you have made a choice. A selfish choice, not for the betterment of society, or for the survival of our species, but simply so that you will not feel bad about yourself, or have other people think badly about you, though number two is a crap roll, cause about half of the people will probably think badly of you anyway.

So, it all boils down to this. How can someone choose their own comfort as more important than saving lives, and still call themselves moral? I have literally had a friend tell me he wouldn't do something bad, even though it would be the only way to save the planet, and when i ask him why not, he says it is because he is to moral to do that. Which, as i said earlier, is hilarious, because the only rational reason he would be unwilling to do said bad thing is for one of two reasons, he's either afraid of how he will feel about himself for having done something bad, or afraid of how other people will think of him for having done something bad, nevermind the fact that he is literally saving billions of human lives, and billions of animals in the process. So, as i pointed out to him, isn't doing nothing worse, because he is choosing his own comfort as more important, than the survival of billions.

Well, that was long winded, as i can tend to be, lol. Either way, what do you guys think?

I'd suggest that taking a larger view would help here.

There are three main examples to describe this.

1. A trolley is coming towards 5 people, but you can move a switch to have it hit 1 person instead of 5.

2. A trolley is coming towards 5 people, but you can push a very heavy man off of a bridge to stop the trolley, killing the man and saving the 5.

3. You're a surgeon, and a healthy person comes into get a really basic operation. You have five dying patients that each require an organ to live, and you realize you can take the organs from the one fairly healthy person and give them to these five people, therefore sacrificing one life for five lives.

Reference: Trolley Problem

All of these overly simplistic examples involve a hypothetical scenario of sacrificing 1 person to save 5 people, so the numbers are all the same. But they have an increasing amount of qualitative horror because they involve an increasing amount of activity rather than passivity; perhaps few people would call someone evil for moving a switch to hit one person instead of five. But more people would have a problem with the concept of directly pushing someone to their death to save the five, despite the fact that the math is the same. And just about everyone would find a surgeon morally horrible if she were to murder one patient to save five, despite the fact that the math is still the same.

I'd propose, therefore, that viewing all value in the world in terms of numbers, can be a problem. Suppose we all had the mindset where we'd be able to quickly push someone to their death to save other people? What would this world look like? Or suppose we lived in a world where if we go to the doctor, we might end up getting cut up to save other people? Or if we just viewed everyone in terms of numbers, and were quickly willing to sacrifice a number of them to save a greater number of them, even through passive means?

Small-scenario math of sacrificing one person to save five or more people can be problematic when viewed on a larger scale, because it doesn't take into account the type of mindset that has to be involved.

I'd say that the switch example is subjective; there's not necessarily a right answer. It depends on the person's values, not so much the numbers.

 

[nnmartin]

Taking morality as i believe it should be taken, as a guide for individuals to follow for the survival of their species, and perhaps for the betterment of their society, you would then have to make decisions based on what that means.

so how does this statement fit in your view that incest should be legalised?

How can this 'better' society?

as for the actual OP in this thread, then the correct action would be to just walk away.

as someone else has correctly noted, once you get involved then you may become culpable.

 

[Quagmire]

I'd suggest that taking a larger view would help here.

There are three main examples to describe this.

1. A trolley is coming towards 5 people, but you can move a switch to have it hit 1 person instead of 5.

2. A trolley is coming towards 5 people, but you can push a very heavy man off of a bridge to stop the trolley, killing the man and saving the 5.

3. You're a surgeon, and a healthy person comes into get a really basic operation. You have five dying patients that each require an organ to live, and you realize you can take the organs from the one fairly healthy person and give them to these five people, therefore sacrificing one life for five lives.

Reference: Trolley Problem

All of these overly simplistic examples involve a hypothetical scenario of sacrificing 1 person to save 5 people, so the numbers are all the same. But they have an increasing amount of qualitative horror because they involve an increasing amount of activity rather than passivity; perhaps few people would call someone evil for moving a switch to hit one person instead of five. But more people would have a problem with the concept of directly pushing someone to their death to save the five, despite the fact that the math is the same. And just about everyone would find a surgeon morally horrible if she were to murder one patient to save five, despite the fact that the math is still the same.

I'd propose, therefore, that viewing all value in the world in terms of numbers, can be a problem. Suppose we all had the mindset where we'd be able to quickly push someone to their death to save other people? What would this world look like? Or suppose we lived in a world where if we go to the doctor, we might end up getting cut up to save other people? Or if we just viewed everyone in terms of numbers, and were quickly willing to sacrifice a number of them to save a greater number of them, even through passive means?

Small-scenario math of sacrificing one person to save five or more people can be problematic when viewed on a larger scale, because it doesn't take into account the type of mindset that has to be involved.

I'd say that the switch example is subjective; there's not necessarily a right answer. It depends on the person's values, not so much the numbers.

Of course, there's a third option for scenarios 1 and 2 at least: jumping off the bridge yourself, or donating your own organs to the 5 dying patients. I think a case could be made that if someone isn't willing to sacrifice themselves in a given situation they don't have the right to sacrifice anyone else (this is now known as the Shane/Otis dilemma).

 

[Penumbra]

Of course, there's a third option for scenarios 1 and 2 at least: jumping off the bridge yourself, or donating your own organs to the 5 dying patients. I think a case could be made that if someone isn't willing to sacrifice themselves in a given situation they don't have the right to sacrifice anyone else (this is now known as the Shane/Otis dilemma).

That's a good case to make. It leads to other murky aspects, though.

-What if a person IS willing to sacrifice themselves, and therefore willing to sacrifice others first?

-What if the person views their own self as more worthwhile than others in terms of this type of situation? The surgeon could propose, for example, that if she does this 10 times, she'll kill 10 and save 50; but if she starts with herself, she'll only save 5.

-Plus, of course, the original example of moving a switch doesn't have self-sacrifice as an option. In the broader arena, things like whether to go to war or not, can't come down only to numbers.

Adhering to certain principles and values (based on reason) that an individual or society chooses to express their self with are key. Some may view the path of saving the most people as a numbers game, but in the broader setting, if people are numbers, everything else degrades. So the point is, it's not feelings vs. reason; it's still just reason vs. reason. Reason doesn't necessarily imply pressing the switch.

 

[Quagmire]

*Link deleted*

Sorry, still using mine. Not for anything useful, but still . . .

 

[Quagmire]

That's a good case to make. It leads to other murky aspects, though.

-What if a person IS willing to sacrifice themselves, and therefore willing to sacrifice others first?

I guess we'd have to know why sacrificing the other person(s) first would be one of the perquisites. In a lot of scenarios, "first" would be more or less the same as "instead".

-What if the person views their own self as more worthwhile than others in terms of this type of situation? The surgeon could propose, for example, that if she does this 10 times, she'll kill 10 and save 50; but if she starts with herself, she'll only save 5.

-Plus, of course, the original example of moving a switch doesn't have self-sacrifice as an option. In the broader arena, things like whether to go to war or not, can't come down only to numbers.

Adhering to certain principles and values (based on reason) that an individual or society chooses to express their self with are key. Some may view the path of saving the most people as a numbers game, but in the broader setting, if people are numbers, everything else degrades. So the point is, it's not feelings vs. reason; it's still just reason vs. reason. Reason doesn't necessarily imply pressing the switch.

True, but I wonder what solutions a computer program would come up with if it were fed these questions.

 

[Badran]

Either way, what do you guys think?

I think you're dismissing people's moral concerns based on a huge assumption; that anyone who would refrain from intervening would be doing so for the sake of their own comfort. Personally, i would refrain exactly because of what you said; i don't think making that choice would be either helpful to society, or to our survival. In fact, i think that making the choice of saving the bigger number in general would directly oppose that.

I see nothing based on which i can assume the responsibility, right and/or authority to decide that in such given scenarios the lives of the bigger number of people are 'worth more' than those in the fewer number, or the one person i would supposedly sacrifice. For two reasons clarified before in earlier posts, that i know nothing about those people, and because numbers on their own are not a good general indicator at all. Which is exactly why i think that looking at it in this pure numbers perspective is harmful to society, because i think its a terrible way to look at each other, or think about individuals in our society, and because it is ignoring important details that make a huge difference in each situation.

In which case, when such decision is made, i would consider it a morally reprehensible decision. As it would be based on both ignorance (in regards to the people i would be making decisions about their life's worth), and lack of appropriate consideration in regards to the details of each given instance or situation (laziness, so to speak). Both of which, ignorance and 'laziness', are terrible things to base our decisions on, in my view.

 

[Me Myself]

Sorry, still using mine. Not for anything useful, but still . . .

I didn´t understand

 

[Quagmire]

I didn´t understand

Oops, sorry MeMyself. I just looked at the name of the organization and guessed that it was somewhere you could donate your corneas.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Switch the tracks so the train will go toward the single man.

Run up to the man, pull out my knife and cut him free.

No-one dies.

 

[Quagmire]

Switch the tracks so the train will go toward the single man.

Run up to the man, pull out my knife and cut him free.

No-one dies.

Or: you run up to cut the man free and you both get killed, but your conscience is clean (wherever it lands).

Still, I think your solution is the closest thing to a perfectly moral resolution, Meth.

 

[rageoftyrael]

It seems to me as if perhaps i am too cynical about this, while not trying to be cynical at all. For one, to address the whole ignorance and lazy argument, in the train scenario, you haven't the time to make an informed decision, and if you did, then why wouldn't you do what methylated ghosts said, and save everyone? That's kind of the point, you are put on the spot and have to make a snap decision.

Also, even if you had the information, how do you make the decision that one life is more valuable than another? It seems to me as if going by simple math is a much clearer and less morally murky ground to stand on, then trying to become some arbiter of which life has more value than another.

To nnmartin, that isn't what this thread is about, if you wanna bring that point up, bring it up in the incest thread. I'll address it there.

 

[Badran]

It seems to me as if perhaps i am too cynical about this, while not trying to be cynical at all. For one, to address the whole ignorance and lazy argument,

I hope it didn't come off personal, i didn't intend it to be as such.

You haven't said anything to indicate that you took it personally, but i'm just making sure you know that i didn't mean to imply anything. I was describing the condition which any of us would be in when we make the decision you suggested, in my view of it of course.

in the train scenario, you haven't the time to make an informed decision,

Perhaps when this is case, its best not to attempt to make a decision that relates to those things you're aware that you don't know. Thats part of what i was trying to say. IOW, when so much is missing, it could be better to base your decision on the fact that you have no info, not ignore that, or rely on some other criteria which fails to appreciate the complexity of each situation.

To put it simpler, when we have no idea whats going on, its not always best to intervene anyway. What you seemed to be indicating is that intervening always trumps not intervening in such scenarios, which is something, amongst other things you said, that i disagree with.

and if you did, then why wouldn't you do what methylated ghosts said, and save everyone?

Actually, i assumed that for the purpose of your question it was a given that i can't save all of them. If i can, if the possibility is open, then of course that changes things quite considerably.

That's kind of the point, you are put on the spot and have to make a snap decision.

I understand, and not intervening is a decision, like i said.

Also, even if you had the information, how do you make the decision that one life is more valuable than another? It seems to me as if going by simple math is a much clearer and less morally murky ground to stand on, then trying to become some arbiter of which life has more value than another.

Actually you can't, i agree (possibly with a few exceptions though, based on certain scenarios). My point wasn't to say "we don't know who of them is a good person and who is a bad person", or anything to that effect, but rather that we can't determine such things, as there are way too many variables to consider, many or most which, you can't possibly know. It includes for example things in the future (what will those people do if they live), which we obviously are unable to know. Let alone know what those things they'll supposedly do necessarily entails.

I just might've worded it badly, in making it seem like i'm relying on the fact that i don't personally know those people, or know certain attributes about them, as if had i known them, i would decide who deserves to live and who doesn't.

With that clarified, i also want to point out that relying on numbers fits the criteria we just agreed on, its also arbitrarily deciding who should live and who should die based on a general idea that wouldn't work similarly, or at all in different variants of these kinds of situations, as has been pointed out in a previous post.

You're assuming that there is an inherent higher value in the bigger number of people, or something to that effect. Or perhaps that its the best we can do. If so, then like i said, we can actually do a lot better. Such as, not deciding arbitrarily at all.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Switch the tracks so the train will go toward the single man.

Run up to the man, pull out my knife and cut him free.

No-one dies.

Too many beneficial assumptions, making the original dilemma pointless.