Isn’t switching the track the same as pulling the trigger? Both are mechanical actions which begin a condition which results in death. Is there possibly a third option that you are not aware of or it is not the most popular action?
With the knowledge that the action will result in a death, I agree with you. It seems like the same thing. You pull the lever, knowing that the man will die. The point of the trolly problem is that there is no correct answer. If you leave it, you allowed those people to die, knowing you could have saved their lives. If you pull it, you caused the death of another person. It’s really not something that can be answered. Let’s face it, most of us would be too frozen in thoughts of morality and fear of making the wrong choice in God’s eyes, that we’ll probably just watch it happen and not pull the lever because we waited too long.
You're focusing on the consequences rather than the intention. In Catholic morality what's most important is the intention and not the consequences. The guy who pulled the trigger wanted to kill someone, the guy who switched the track wanted to save the greatest amount of people. The consequences may be the same, but the intention is very different.
I completely agree with what the father said but the outcome is not actually the same. What this is missing is the time component. If someone lets 1 person die to save 5 you are left with 5 alive and 1 moral rational person. If someone kills someone else and then lets the train run over him you are left with 5 alive and 1 psychopath. Who would you rather live with? A good intention will always lead to a better outcome if you consider all of time not just that one instance.
this particular question comes up enough its known as the "Trolley Problem"? I've never heard this particular "what if" from the Atheist on reddit. I've seen plenty of arguments but never this one. Seems easy enough for Americans to understand the concept of "lesser evil among two choices" after all it is election season.
It's an old hypothetical dilemma, but it highlights the problem with hypothetical situations, namely the use of a scenario disconnected from reality to try and obscure or confuse. In the real world there would have to be a laundry list of improbable qualifiers specified in order for the hypothetical to be realistic. For example, a rationale for why the people are on the tracks in the first place, or why they aren't able to move out of danger under their own power (these two factors alone would require extensive explanation), how it is that a worker's only option is to change tracks (why isn't he able to warn them? If they're too far away why isn't there other workers around who could come to their aid - extremely unlikely that there'd only be one worker in a yard). I could go on, but you get the idea.
@@ironymatt it's just a trick question to get to the point of God makes mistakes or is mean for having the situation in the first place is how I took it. I just never heard it before and the way it was used made it seem common. I've heard different scenarios presenting the same dilemma though.
Yes this is very common I had this example in my highschool psychology class. But it went something like: The one person was your grandmother and the other 5 were random kids that you don't know... But yea I never head being called the "trolley problem" lol
What if the situation was that the only way to switch the tracks (somehow) was by shooting the one person on the other track? How would that stack up as while it could still be the lesser of two evils the action of killing a person is still wrong. I understand in Fathers situation that shooting the guy outright doesn’t save the 5 people it’s the pulling of the lever does. But what about the situation where murder is the only way to save the people?
Okay so question, what if it’s 5 strangers and the 1 dude is a close friend / family member. Then is it okay to ignore the switch and let the 5 strangers die? Or should the switch still be thrown to save 5 instead of 1?
It is not different. The only thing that would change it would be if the five people were all murders, or the one person was. That’s the only way I see the choice being black and white.
Spiritually looking you can never know if those 5 people weren't murderers and the one a good soul unless you feel/read them. You cannot know what God's plan was in the first place...maybe that was the "punishment" of the 5 and when you decided to spare them you killed a beautiful soul instead. Right would 9f been to trust God to do what's best (He always does) and pray for all those souls, because we are not to judge, for God to spare them, forgive their sins and save their lifes...for some reason we always think we should actively do something. That something can be (not choosing out of 2 bad sintuations) but beg God to do what he knows to do best "miracles" and save all of them...trust in that, act out of tree of life not out of tre of knowledge
If you would of have full faith and really worthy of God's limitless help you would 9f asked God to spare all people and He would of done it...God does miracles...so you don't have to choose between two bads...put it in God's hands...God does everything for the best not matter how it looks to us.
I also struggle with this moral dilemma. In the context of the trolley problem perhaps its seen as follows, i.e. that even though the act itself is intrinsically evil - the using of aborted baby cells for the development of the vaccines - the effect is a moral good and therefor is viewed as a lesser evil. Not saying I agree with this stance but interested to know what others think.
I've also heard that after GW signed the law banning embryonic that the industry was forced to come up with a diff way to use/procure stem cells which turned out to be better for medicine and research. That said there is still a market for embryonic.
I don’t think the principle of double effect is a useful moral framework. It seems one could easily use that to justify various nefarious acts on the grounds that the effects that are evil are just the double effect, whereas the effects that are desirable are what was truly intended. Like if I decide to cut out of traffic and drive over a sidewalk ploughing through a bunch of people in order to make it to work on time, the deaths of those people were just accidental, and not a part of my intention. The morality of a given act must depend on the consequences one can anticipate from any given action. I can anticipate that if I drive through a crowd, people will die, regardless of my actual motives for doing so: therefore it is wrong.
Hypotheticals require some suspension of disbelief but there is always a transcending point/ concept. This is a classic hypothetical so that’s why they didn’t describe in great detail here. Your questions could be valid if this was a real scenario I suppose.
As the guy above said it, I confirm. This is just a thought experiment and thought experiments are made to be extreme in order to show what are our beliefs and where do they lead to.
Such hypotheticals are critically important for determining moral principles. They distill the components of moral situations without confounding the analysis with countless variables. If you cannot answer the question that is because you have not formulated a moral principle on this issue. No judgment, it’s a hard question. But I would argue that in this kind of scenario, an impending disaster is inevitable, and you have the power to mitigate the consequences of the result by shifting the trolley to hit the one person. The fate of the two groups (that of the 5 people and that of the 1) are connected in this case as any decision you make towards the wellbeing of one group necessarily affects the other. Therefore it is moral (and even obligatory) to reduce the scope of the disaster by shifting the train and ensuring fewer total deaths.
Doesn't this miss the point altogether? It has nothing to do with good/bad, right/wrong. Sin has to do with honour/dishonour. The moral argument only exists because we are all created in the image of God. As human beings, we can either honor that relationship or dishonor that relationship. By switching the track toward the five or the single person is not a moral argument because our actions do not dishonour another person. There is no moral dilemma, it is simply an unfortunate circumstance.
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnxGWlciHI4/mqdefault.jpg)
A very well-thought and well explained answer. Thank you
Isn’t switching the track the same as pulling the trigger? Both are mechanical actions which begin a condition which results in death. Is there possibly a third option that you are not aware of or it is not the most popular action?
In the video the priest answers this question, but no, the morality of either actions aren't the same.
With the knowledge that the action will result in a death, I agree with you. It seems like the same thing. You pull the lever, knowing that the man will die. The point of the trolly problem is that there is no correct answer. If you leave it, you allowed those people to die, knowing you could have saved their lives. If you pull it, you caused the death of another person. It’s really not something that can be answered. Let’s face it, most of us would be too frozen in thoughts of morality and fear of making the wrong choice in God’s eyes, that we’ll probably just watch it happen and not pull the lever because we waited too long.
You're focusing on the consequences rather than the intention. In Catholic morality what's most important is the intention and not the consequences. The guy who pulled the trigger wanted to kill someone, the guy who switched the track wanted to save the greatest amount of people. The consequences may be the same, but the intention is very different.
I completely agree with what the father said but the outcome is not actually the same. What this is missing is the time component. If someone lets 1 person die to save 5 you are left with 5 alive and 1 moral rational person. If someone kills someone else and then lets the train run over him you are left with 5 alive and 1 psychopath. Who would you rather live with? A good intention will always lead to a better outcome if you consider all of time not just that one instance.
this particular question comes up enough its known as the "Trolley Problem"? I've never heard this particular "what if" from the Atheist on reddit. I've seen plenty of arguments but never this one. Seems easy enough for Americans to understand the concept of "lesser evil among two choices" after all it is election season.
It's an old hypothetical dilemma, but it highlights the problem with hypothetical situations, namely the use of a scenario disconnected from reality to try and obscure or confuse. In the real world there would have to be a laundry list of improbable qualifiers specified in order for the hypothetical to be realistic.
For example, a rationale for why the people are on the tracks in the first place, or why they aren't able to move out of danger under their own power (these two factors alone would require extensive explanation), how it is that a worker's only option is to change tracks (why isn't he able to warn them? If they're too far away why isn't there other workers around who could come to their aid - extremely unlikely that there'd only be one worker in a yard). I could go on, but you get the idea.
@@ironymatt it's just a trick question to get to the point of God makes mistakes or is mean for having the situation in the first place is how I took it. I just never heard it before and the way it was used made it seem common. I've heard different scenarios presenting the same dilemma though.
It's very common in ethical philosophy but I've not heard it put to a theist before either.
Yes this is very common I had this example in my highschool psychology class. But it went something like: The one person was your grandmother and the other 5 were random kids that you don't know... But yea I never head being called the "trolley problem" lol
What if the situation was that the only way to switch the tracks (somehow) was by shooting the one person on the other track? How would that stack up as while it could still be the lesser of two evils the action of killing a person is still wrong.
I understand in Fathers situation that shooting the guy outright doesn’t save the 5 people it’s the pulling of the lever does. But what about the situation where murder is the only way to save the people?
Thank you!
Okay so question, what if it’s 5 strangers and the 1 dude is a close friend / family member. Then is it okay to ignore the switch and let the 5 strangers die? Or should the switch still be thrown to save 5 instead of 1?
i would let the strangers die.
It is not different. The only thing that would change it would be if the five people were all murders, or the one person was. That’s the only way I see the choice being black and white.
Spiritually looking you can never know if those 5 people weren't murderers and the one a good soul unless you feel/read them. You cannot know what God's plan was in the first place...maybe that was the "punishment" of the 5 and when you decided to spare them you killed a beautiful soul instead. Right would 9f been to trust God to do what's best (He always does) and pray for all those souls, because we are not to judge, for God to spare them, forgive their sins and save their lifes...for some reason we always think we should actively do something. That something can be (not choosing out of 2 bad sintuations) but beg God to do what he knows to do best "miracles" and save all of them...trust in that, act out of tree of life not out of tre of knowledge
If you would of have full faith and really worthy of God's limitless help you would 9f asked God to spare all people and He would of done it...God does miracles...so you don't have to choose between two bads...put it in God's hands...God does everything for the best not matter how it looks to us.
First!
Most virus covid19 vaccines are developed using aborted baby cells. I understand that the Church allows this. Please comment.
I also struggle with this moral dilemma. In the context of the trolley problem perhaps its seen as follows, i.e. that even though the act itself is intrinsically evil - the using of aborted baby cells for the development of the vaccines - the effect is a moral good and therefor is viewed as a lesser evil. Not saying I agree with this stance but interested to know what others think.
I've also heard that after GW signed the law banning embryonic that the industry was forced to come up with a diff way to use/procure stem cells which turned out to be better for medicine and research. That said there is still a market for embryonic.
From what I recall the Church opposes the use of embryonic cells for research, as a rule. Have they made any statements regarding such for Cov19?
Where did you here this
Remoteness from the evil act, lack of other options and protecting the health of others are the reasons given.
I don’t think the principle of double effect is a useful moral framework. It seems one could easily use that to justify various nefarious acts on the grounds that the effects that are evil are just the double effect, whereas the effects that are desirable are what was truly intended. Like if I decide to cut out of traffic and drive over a sidewalk ploughing through a bunch of people in order to make it to work on time, the deaths of those people were just accidental, and not a part of my intention. The morality of a given act must depend on the consequences one can anticipate from any given action. I can anticipate that if I drive through a crowd, people will die, regardless of my actual motives for doing so: therefore it is wrong.
There are 4 criteria of the principle of double effect, proportion/consequence being one of them.
Who do YOU in charge of the rails? Who put you in a NO WIN situation? There is no logic to the Trolley problem with zero info of the dilemma.
Hypotheticals require some suspension of disbelief but there is always a transcending point/ concept. This is a classic hypothetical so that’s why they didn’t describe in great detail here.
Your questions could be valid if this was a real scenario I suppose.
As the guy above said it, I confirm. This is just a thought experiment and thought experiments are made to be extreme in order to show what are our beliefs and where do they lead to.
Such hypotheticals are critically important for determining moral principles. They distill the components of moral situations without confounding the analysis with countless variables. If you cannot answer the question that is because you have not formulated a moral principle on this issue. No judgment, it’s a hard question. But I would argue that in this kind of scenario, an impending disaster is inevitable, and you have the power to mitigate the consequences of the result by shifting the trolley to hit the one person. The fate of the two groups (that of the 5 people and that of the 1) are connected in this case as any decision you make towards the wellbeing of one group necessarily affects the other. Therefore it is moral (and even obligatory) to reduce the scope of the disaster by shifting the train and ensuring fewer total deaths.
Doesn't this miss the point altogether? It has nothing to do with good/bad, right/wrong. Sin has to do with honour/dishonour.
The moral argument only exists because we are all created in the image of God. As human beings, we can either honor that relationship or dishonor that relationship.
By switching the track toward the five or the single person is not a moral argument because our actions do not dishonour another person. There is no moral dilemma, it is simply an unfortunate circumstance.
Where did you get your definition of sin?