Are We Responsible for Our Inactions?

[Heyo]

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?

 

[stvdv]

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

Are we responsible for our inaction?

Action pertains to: Thought, Word, Deed

Ideal would be:
Thought = Word = Deed

IF
there is no Thought
THEN
no action required
ELSE
IF you see (Thought) injustice and you do nothing THEN you are as guilty for the injustice to continue

 

[Nimos]

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 don't think you can compare this to the trolley problem, because in your case there isn't really a dilemma.

A. A flawed candidate.

B. A candidate who intends to cause pain and suffering.

In the trolley problem, the dilemma is that in one option more people are killed than the other, however, to avoid that, you as a person have to make a choice to cause the death of one person to save the many. The dilemma occurs whether one finds this to be morally justified or not.

But in your case, there is no reason not to choose candidate A, it's just a flawed one, but no mention of anyone really getting hurt by it, so in that case, you could say that you are obligated to choose that candidate if pain and suffering on the country is to be avoided.

Anyone choosing candidate B would be a maniac

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have an obligation to make people aware that there are other options. I cannot, in good conscience, sign off on either a bad candidate or a malevolent candidate by casting a vote for either.

I would go as far as to say that inaction is probably a better alternative than voting for either candidate described in the OP, but making others aware of other options and/or casting a vote for one of the other options is preferable to inaction.

 

[Heyo]

Anyone choosing candidate B would be a maniac

We already agree on that.

But in your case, there is no reason not to choose candidate A, it's just a flawed one, but no mention of anyone really getting hurt by it, so in that case, you could say that you are obligated to choose that candidate if pain and suffering on the country is to be avoided.

A lot of people (who voted for Sleepy Joe in 2020), found reasons not to vote for Harris. What were the pain and suffering they thought Harris would cause? Maybe they feared her (non-)involvement in Palestine? Maybe they remembered what a ***** she was as a prosecutor?

Somehow, a lot of voters decided that they didn't want to be responsible for Harris - even when that enabled Trump to win.
They didn't pull the lever, because they saw something on the track (if they were rational and moral agents).

 

[HonestJoe]

@Heyo I think you're just on the path to realising that your action/inaction distinction is flawed at best. From a fundamental moral point of view, certainly in the context of these simply hypotheticals, in makes no difference whether a given out come occurs from an action or inaction.

Psychologically and emotionally we make a distinction though (which is why the Trolley Problem is so interesting) and in the uncertainties of the real world, it could well make a practical difference (since doing what you think will lead to the best result may not work out that way).

 

[Nimos]

A lot of people (who voted for Sleepy Joe in 2020), found reasons not to vote for Harris. What were the pain and suffering they thought Harris would cause? Maybe they feared her (non-)involvement in Palestine? Maybe they remembered what a ***** she was as a prosecutor?

Somehow, a lot of voters decided that they didn't want to be responsible for Harris - even when that enabled Trump to win.
They didn't pull the lever, because they saw something on the track (if they were rational and moral agents).

I don't think you can put it that simple. Because in this case both tracks would be filled with stuff and most of it would be wrapped so you can't see inside so to speak.

I just don't think it is a very good way of putting it, because it is so complicated and people might choose one over the other due to completely different reasons. So it isn't really about pain and suffering anymore.

But if we purely go with that idea, then you should vote for candidate A, regardless of whether that is supposed to be Trump or Harris. So it works both ways depending on who you as an individual see as being candidate A or B.

 

[Estro Felino]

I liken the free will with a sharp knife.
You can use it in different ways.
You can use to harm or kill others.

Or you can use it in useful ways, like cutting meat.

But it's always better not to use it. That is inaction in this case can be bad, but action is much, much worse. It results in sin.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Sure, if you have the opportunity to save someone with no bad consequences it would be wrong not to do so.

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 is a democratic problem. The choice made by the democratic process is not always going to align with your personal moral values.

 

[Estro Felino]

Look at the Nazis.

The Banality of Evil.
They preferred total action and absolute Treue zum Staat, than being indolent.

Indolence would have kept their soul save from damnation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have an obligation to make people aware that there are other options. I cannot, in good conscience, sign off on either a bad candidate or a malevolent candidate by casting a vote for either.

In 1933 the SPD was seen as clearly flawed. The NSDAP - the Nazis - was clearly malevolent. Thanks for your "principled" indifference.

 

[Nakosis]

Look at the Nazis.

The Banality of Evil.
They preferred total action and absolute Treue zum Staat, than being indolent.

Indolence would have kept their soul save from damnation.

What if someone was holding a gun to your head?
In times of war, one can be shot for not following orders.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Word games cannot absolve complicity; intentional inaction is action.

 

[Estro Felino]

What if someone was holding a gun to your head?
In times of war, one can be shot for not following orders.

It also depends on each person's religiosity.
My religiosity tells me that it's better to die than cooperating with evil.

I understand that is very difficult for people who don't believe there is a hereafter.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In 1933 the SPD was seen as clearly flawed. The NSDAP - the Nazis - was clearly malevolent. Thanks for your "principled" indifference.

And yet there were 30+ other Weimar party options. Thanks for your "unbiased" assumptions.

 

[dybmh]

Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

Yes. Not acting is "negligence". There are at least two ways of considering it from a moral perspective: one with a law giving deity, and one without. In both cases, it is immoral not to act.

Lacking a divine, rule-giving, executive who magically appears directing the individual to pull, or not pull, the lever, most individuals agree, empathy is a valid metric for making moral choices. This is the method I am using to consider the dilemma.

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?

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.

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone

On that level alone, ignoring that both events involve destruction of the train cars, using the "golden-rule" aka "empathy" as a means for evaluating moral choices: what would you want me to do if you were one of those 5 individuals on the train about to crash? Wouldn't you want me to save you? Wouldn't you want those other 4 individuals to live? I would, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

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?

Yes. I vote for the flawed candidate whose intentions are good. However: there is a problem with the manner in which this question is asked.

"... the other candidate has stated ... "

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. Not acting is "negligence".

^ this

 

[RestlessSoul]

In 1933 the SPD was seen as clearly flawed. The NSDAP - the Nazis - was clearly malevolent. Thanks for your "principled" indifference.

Not endorsing Harris is akin to supporting Hitler?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And yet there were 30+ other Weimar party options. Thanks for your "unbiased" assumptions.

I made no assumptions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not endorsing Harris is akin to supporting Hitler?

Please don't waste my time with such childishness.