Are We Responsible for Our Inactions?

[Alien826]

This may make it clearer.

The trolley problem is not meant to be solved. There is no perfect solution and the objective is to illustrate that. There's another where you have to do something to save the people. You are on a railroad bridge and see that diverting a train will save five and kill one. You can't do anything from the bridge. There is a very fat guy on the bridge and if you throw him off his weight will be enough to divert the train.

There are also variations where the one person is your spouse, and so on.

As far as the election goes there's too much individual perception involved to make it an exact parallel. Vote for whoever you think would be best for the country is the answer.

 

[Estro Felino]

This may make it clearer.

The trolley problem is not meant to be solved. There is no perfect solution and the objective is to illustrate that. There's another where you have to do something to save the people. You are on a railroad bridge and see that diverting a train will save five and kill one. You can't do anything from the bridge. There is a very fat guy on the bridge and if you throw him off his weight will be enough to divert the train.

There are also variations where the one person is your spouse, and so on.

As far as the election goes there's too much individual perception involved to make it an exact parallel. Vote for whoever you think would be best for the country is the answer.

It's also paradoxical. Because we can't think straight when there is force majeure or state of necessity.
Action must be taken after thinking thoroughly, not instinctively.

 

[Alien826]

It's also paradoxical. Because we can't think straight when there is force majeure or state of necessity.
Action must be taken after thinking thoroughly, not instinctively.

Of course. And there's plenty of time to think before voting in an election. The Trolley Problem is kind of frozen in time, you are not really on a trolley. Plenty of time to think about it. Who knows what I or anyone would do in a real situation. Probably panic like the guy in the clip.

 

[osgart]

In a moral trap where good is not an option, the moral obligation is to choose bad over worse. Inaction would mean insufficient information to make a distinguishable better choice. Inaction might also be a good choice if there's no other way to learn the lesson but to endure the worst if the situation is survivable, and the harm manageable with the ability to overcome it.

The deception of those who chose worse over bad could be that they live in an echo chamber that filters out all the relevant information to make a worthy decision. They never knew the right sources by being taxed, or they were morally lazy, or they were morally blind.

Moral blindness would be caused by being conditioned to accept a reality that isn't real, thus not seeing clearly the right choices to make, and putting unknowns in harms way.

To me, I voted Harris, because Trump was obviously the absolute worst choice to make for many, many reasons.

Choosing the worse option when all relevant information is obvious and known, and bad is better with no possibility of a good option is willfully immoral which is unacceptable.

 

[Revoltingest]

So is that a matter of numbers?

Obviously not.
I chose arbitrary numbers to illustrate the concept.

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

Being an atheist allows me secular clarity,
rather than being mired in religious prejudice.

 

[Estro Felino]

Being an atheist allows me secular clarity,
rather than being mired in religious prejudice.

That's not what I meant.
Christians know that after death, there's a judge waiting for them.

Atheists don't believe that.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what I meant.
Christians know that after death, there's a judge waiting for them.

Do the really believe that?
If they did, they'd behave better during their time on Earth.
Not waging wars, raping, stealing, oppressing, & lying.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do the really believe that?
If they did, they'd behave better during their time on Earth.
Not waging wars, raping, stealing, oppressing, & lying.

Yes, that's what I call "cognitive dissonance" or "serious psychiatric issues".
I mean...maybe they are so narcissistic that they believe God will forgive them.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Maybe, although those who choose those professions do so voluntarily and know what they're getting into. They wouldn't just wind up in a situation like that; it's something they choose and something they've trained for (except for politician, but maybe they might have creative solutions to the problem).

 

[Stevicus]

Or in Trump's America, the Trolley Problem might look more like this:

 

[Stevicus]

Here's one that seems even more relevant, since the fact is, we don't really know what the outcome of many choices might actually be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

"For evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing."

 

[Estro Felino]

"For evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing."

The Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt.

By the way...I adore this philosopher, and I agree with her...but I think that there is also a sadistic component that Nazis had, which helped them do their job.
The ones who preferred to be hanged or shot instead of participating to that Evil Fair, were devoid of the sadistic component.

The sadistic component is present in children too. Those who torment insects or little animals out of pleasure.
Then we grow up...and understand empathy and sympathy.

They didn't grow up.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The issue I have with the trolley problem is, it assumes definite, predictable outcomes. In real life situations, those are rare.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that's what I call "cognitive dissonance" or "serious psychiatric issues".
I mean...maybe they are so narcissistic that they believe God will forgive them.

Many Christians have told me it doesn't
matter what they do, ie, good works won't
get'm past the Pearly Gates. All they need
do is believe. Others say they're pre-destined
for Heaven no matter what they do.
With these rationalizations, cognitive
dissonance isn't needed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Many Christians have told me it doesn't
matter what they do, ie, good works won't
get'm past the Pearly Gates. All they need
do is believe. Others say they're pre-destined
for Heaven no matter what they do.
With these rationalizations, cognitive
dissonance isn't needed.

I don't understand these Calvinist theologies...

but they surely make their Christianity much similar to the other two monotheistic faiths.

 

[Nimos]

Maybe, although those who choose those professions do so voluntarily and know what they're getting into. They wouldn't just wind up in a situation like that; it's something they choose and something they've trained for (except for politician, but maybe they might have creative solutions to the problem).

Like the image

You are correct that not everyone will face the issue in a similar severe situation where it is a matter of life and death etc.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

It depends on whether you have good information or mass minded propaganda. For example, with the DNC, now soul searching about their decisive loss, has many centrists Democrats coming forward saying this could have been preventable, if they had not been afraid to speak out against parts of the party line. If they spoke out sooner, and did not toe the line, their own Fascist side, would have eaten them and spit them out. They had to walk lockstep, over the cliff, due to the risk of being ostracized; leaders would destroy their future.

The entire media complex was pandering for Harris, rather than testing her, while lying 90% of the time about the opposition. Do the ends justify shady means? Now these fanatics are caught in the middle of a media restructuring. The majority no longer wants lies. Enough people had been kicked out; criticized, for daring to think differently than the DNC sermon; minorities. They were call sexist via the Lefty shame tactic. They went to the other side and helped give Trump his mandate to boot the all Fascists from power and strip their Fascist empire, until is set back to step one. You still appear to be toeing the line and are not aware that Trump is a straight shooter, which is needed for free speech and return to Democracy. Your premises are flawed, so your dilemma is not straight forward. You needed to be rational and not as dependent on emotional thinking; sentiment and emotions bias to cloud reason.

Reducing Government regulation is needed because most of that regulation was done in an Unconstitutional way. Only Congress can make laws, yet the Bureaucratic state, which is unelected, has made more laws than Congress. This is not Democracy. It was a way for the Fascist State to run biased laws through the system, while avoiding the Constitutional checks and balances. If power is all you seek, then this crooked path might appear useful to your ambitions. But it was/is threat to Democracy, which you guys did give lips service to. Hold on to that point. The lessor threat to Democracy gets elected fair and square, while the greater threat skips steps; coups and coronations. More rip off was rejected in favor of following the law.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Stevicus]