Are We Responsible for Our Inactions?

[SalixIncendium]

Word games cannot absolve complicity; intentional inaction is action.

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if you're just being unintentionally ironic.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I made no assumptions.

If you didn't, you certainly built a nice straw man. Nothing in my post indicated "indifference."

 

[SalixIncendium]

Please don't waste my time with such childishness.

Please don't deflect. You're the one who brought the Nazi party to the table.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

actions have moral value, inaction doesn't

This is surely questionable.

To “inactively” watch someone drowning, is that ethically neutral, for example?

A choice not to act, is nonetheless a choice and most choices involve some aspect of ethics.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Heyo]

May I please confirm that I understand the premise correctly?

There are 2 train tracks. On each track is a train. One of the trains has 5 individuals. One of the trains is empty. There is a lever. I can choose to pull the lever or not. If I pull the lever I save the 5 individuals and the empty train crashes causing a huge mess and many problems for myself and others to solve. If I do not pull the lever, the the train with the 5 individuals crashes, and the individuals die.

To make it a true variant of the Trolley Problem, there would be one run-away trolley that can't be stopped. But there is a track-switch with which you can divert the trolley to another track.
But for the problem itself, your version would work just as fine.

Friend, in America, the majority of the voters don't believe what the candidate has stated. It's accepted, among almost everyone here, politicians cannot be trusted to do what they say or to say what they mean. Because of this, if one of the candidates has "stated" they intend to do X, Y, or Z, it has almost zero impact on the voters here in America. This phenomena is exaggerated if what is stated is absurd and ridiculous. "Their stated intention is to inflict pain and suffering on the country." <--- that's very difficult to believe, and, it's also very easy to deny and ignore. Even if a candidate is quoted encouraging the murder of their political opponent, the general public will not believe it, or take it seriously, for one reason or another. A candidate can win without debating their opponent. Ultimately it's because what is "stated" by politicians in America does not matter at all.

I should have added that candidate B has also a history of cruelty and it is believable that he will act on his promise.

 

[Stevicus]

I think everyone here knows about the Trolley Problem. (And those who don't can follow the link.)

I have a new variant that occurred to me during discussing the reasons of the US election.

In the original Trolley Problem, the solution I have preferred is that pulling the lever makes me responsible for the death of the one person I decided to kill, while I'm not responsible for the death of the five people, if I do nothing.
I.e. actions have moral value, inaction doesn't.

But what if there is no person on the other track? Or maybe something replaceable, like an empty car?
Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

If we're talking about voting in a country with tens or even hundreds of millions of voters, then it's an indirect process where the individual voter has no real contact or control over the person for whom he/she is voting. It's somewhat abstract and disconnected to the point where I can't see how a single individual can be considered morally responsible in any significant way.

The Trolley Problem only has one switch and one person controlling it, but in this case, it's tens or hundreds of millions of people - and a very complicated tangle of switches and tracks that most people couldn't really figure out anyway.

Or, perhaps another way to look at it from the standpoint of the Trolley Problem, you don't really get to see the tracks or the people who might be on them. You have no way of personally examining or observing the situation first-hand. Instead, you have to rely on what other people tell you about the layout of the track and what would happen if you chose A or B. You get conflicting information and mixed messages, and you're not really sure who is telling the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Scenario.....
A) Throw switch 1 to kill 1 person
B) Throw switch 2 to kill 2 people.
C) Throw neither switch to kill 3 people.
But throwing neither switch will discourage people from creating this scenario.

Sometimes, scenario C is the option I've chosen
because of long term benefit in exchange for short
term loss (voted Libertarian).
Other times I've chosen scenario A because long
term benefit is less compelling than short term
bad consequences (voted for Harris).

The real world can get complicated.

 

[dybmh]

I should have added that candidate B has also a history of cruelty and it is believable that he will act on his promise.

OK

There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

Including the addendum, this is how I understand the premise:

1. Candidate A is perceived as generally flawed.
2. Candidate B has a history of cruelty and promises to inflict pain and suffering.
3. Because of the history of cruelty, it is believable that Candidate B will act on their promises.

Do you have an obligation to vote for [ the flawed candidate ]?

If the threat is credible, then yes. Otherwise it's negligent. The problem is, here in America, the one's reporting the "history of cruelty" are not believed. If it's not believed, the threat is not credible. There is no obligation to act.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think everyone here knows about the Trolley Problem. (And those who don't can follow the link.)

I have a new variant that occurred to me during discussing the reasons of the US election.

In the original Trolley Problem, the solution I have preferred is that pulling the lever makes me responsible for the death of the one person I decided to kill, while I'm not responsible for the death of the five people, if I do nothing.
I.e. actions have moral value, inaction doesn't.

But what if there is no person on the other track? Or maybe something replaceable, like an empty car?
Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

Well if you didn't build the track, you didn't build the lever, and you didn't build the trolley, doesn't obligate one to act regardless of the outcome.

 

[Estro Felino]

Scenario.....
A) Throw switch 1 to kill 1 person
B) Throw switch 2 to kill 2 people.
C) Throw neither switch to kill 3 people.
But throwing neither switch will discourage people from creating this scenario.

Sometimes, scenario C is the option I've chosen
because of long term benefit in exchange for short
term loss (voted Libertarian).
Other times I've chosen scenario A because long
term benefit is less compelling than short term
bad consequences (voted for Harris).

The real world can get complicated.

So is that a matter of numbers?

I mean those 3 people will die because of inaction...
but switch one will make you kill a person because of action.

You can't see the difference because you're not a Christian.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm too tired right now to give a good answer, but I think that maybe the importance of action and inaction are supplanted when it comes to many social issues that are going wrong, when you alter the causes behind them, which are the ideas that generate the situation. Because some ideas, that are in place for a great duration, may cause perpetual good or bad. The action that you take, you take within the effect of the greater idea. If you don't change the idea, it just keeps happening

 

[dybmh]

action is much, much worse. It results in sin.

Respectfully, I think you are referring to impulsive action.

 

[Stevicus]

I remember another puzzler similar to this was the Monty Hall Problem, and it occurs to me that people oftentimes don't really consider the consequences of their voting choices as much as think about they expect to get from choosing one or the other. Either you choose the door with the car behind it, or you choose the door with the goat.

It's not that anyone would want anyone to get run over by the trolley. Personally, I'd be wondering how I could wind up in such an absurd situation in the first place. I've seen parodies of the Trolley Problem which were actually pretty funny.

 

[F1fan]

I think everyone here knows about the Trolley Problem. (And those who don't can follow the link.)

I have a new variant that occurred to me during discussing the reasons of the US election.

In the original Trolley Problem, the solution I have preferred is that pulling the lever makes me responsible for the death of the one person I decided to kill, while I'm not responsible for the death of the five people, if I do nothing.
I.e. actions have moral value, inaction doesn't.

The problem I always had with the trolley dilemma is that we have no idea who the people are. It could be five old people with terminal illnesses and one young person. We are asked to make a moral judgmenbt based on little information. That justifies indecision.

But what if there is no person on the other track? Or maybe something replaceable, like an empty car?
Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

I would think so. An empty car? Maybe, because even a non-life threatening thing like that a person can intervene and avoid a crash, and work for others to investigate and clean up. There's a sort of efficiency to act in the big picture.

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

This of course is a real scenario, and as we all know the criminal candidate got more votes. If Trump ran for president on the planet Vulcan he would have gotten zero votes. Vulcans would explain not voting for him because it would be illogical. Trump voters did not vote logically (the exception being the rich who will enrich themselves with tax cuts at the cost to America, and I guess that's logical, albeit unethical). They voted on emotions, and Trump has been very successful at exploiting these undisciplined minds. Harris wasn't a perfect candidate, but I doubt there would have been any candidate that could compete with the propaganda and manipulation of the far right.

There is already reports of Trump voters regreting their selection, and web searches asking "how can i change my vote?" If Trump suceeds at his agendas that will damage the economy many of these voters will have regret. Inflation is certain wth tariffs, and if he replaces powell in the Fed he will get lower interest rates, and easy money will flow meaning a hot eeconomy. That is how economies crash. Look at the 2008 housing crash as an example.

The question is how fast all this will happen.

 

[Nimos]

The problem I always had with the trolley dilemma is that we have no idea who the people are. It could be five old people with terminal illnesses and one young person. We are asked to make a moral judgmenbt based on little information. That justifies indecision.

There are different versions of it. And I think Heyo's version isn't really a trolley problem, because there is no dilemma here.

He could just as well have said, on one track there are 5 people and on the other is one person, if you pull the lever the one person is getting really scared by the train but otherwise fine, but if you don't pull it 5 people dies. Are you obligated to pull it? If the intention is to save the most people then you are obligated to do it, even though you scare one person.

But personally I think the trolley problem works best if you don't add any biased information, but just ask it straight up. And there isn't a right or wrong answer to it, it obviously depends on what you as a person feel is morally right.

 

[F1fan]

Scenario.....
A) Throw switch 1 to kill 1 person
B) Throw switch 2 to kill 2 people.
C) Throw neither switch to kill 3 people.
But throwing neither switch will discourage people from creating this scenario.

In psychology there's an observed phenomenon called the bystander paradox. In an emergency and there's a person in trouble and a person that can help there's seldom a hesitation to help. When there's a crowd of bystanders it's not uncommon that no one helps, at least immediately. This is because most assume the next person will intervene. I think voting for Trump can be like this, because whatever harm Trump causes the voter only cast one vote, he wasn't the only voter who is completely responsible. The blame will be broad, and I doubt many MAGAs will feel accountable.

 

[Heyo]

I'd be wondering how I could wind up in such an absurd situation in the first place.

You could run into Michael from VSauce:

 

[Nimos]

You could run into Michael from VSauce:

@Stevicus I'd be wondering how I could wind up in such an absurd situation in the first place.

Not to intervene, but I think there are lots of people faced with this, doctors, rescuers, soldiers, politicians etc. anyone who has to make a decision that they know will cause someone else to suffer or die as a result of what they do.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I think everyone here knows about the Trolley Problem. (And those who don't can follow the link.)

I have a new variant that occurred to me during discussing the reasons of the US election.

In the original Trolley Problem, the solution I have preferred is that pulling the lever makes me responsible for the death of the one person I decided to kill, while I'm not responsible for the death of the five people, if I do nothing.
I.e. actions have moral value, inaction doesn't.

But what if there is no person on the other track? Or maybe something replaceable, like an empty car?
Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

I think it would be wise to vote for the flawed candidate over a candidate that is going to "inflict pain and suffering" on the country. Assuming you mean flawed as to character or ability.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing." (Attr: Edmund Burke)

In the example above, you have given only two real choices: vote (for the flawed by not worst candidate), or not vote. If this is a situation in which, whatever happens, one of the two will win, then in my view I have an obligation to vote for the flawed candidate. Flaws can be dealt with, corrected, We do it all the time, as no human is perfect, and we all make errors.

To do nothing, in this case, suggests that you one is unconcerned with "the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering." And that, I think, is immoral.