Holy fucking shit… We’ve looped back around with the trolley problem memes to end up back at the actual trolley problem.
The entire reason the trolley problem is a “problem” is because it’s not necessarily morally correct to insert yourself into a problem in order to save people, if by doing so you also condemn someone. It’s debated that it’s better to let an unfortunate scenario in which multiple people die play out - allowing yourself to stay out of the picture and not be responsible - than to take action to minimize the damage, and by doing so become part of the picture and partly responsible for the damage that does occur.
It’s supposed to be a difficult situation, even if taking action saves lives, because by taking action you are specifically partially responsible as an acting member in the scenario. There are a lot of people who believe that it’s better to stay out of it and leave yourself morally untouched for having never taken part in it than to take action, even if the action would save lives. And there are a lot of people who believe that it’s better to take action if you can, especially if it saves lives, even if your actions still condemn people to death.
The whole point is that it’s NOT a scenario with a correct answer. The best answer is the one that lets you sleep at night. Yes, I’ll be voting democrat, but I certainly don’t blame those who believe dirtying your hands by voting for a genocide supporter is an unacceptable act.
It’s debated that it’s better to let an unfortunate scenario in which multiple people die play out - allowing yourself to stay out of the picture and not be responsible - than to take action to minimize the damage, and by doing so become part of the picture and partly responsible for the damage that does occur.
“It’s debated”, yes. Most things are debated. Looking at the trolley problem, I don’t really have any respect for anyone who thinks that a strict deontological interpretation is worth murdering four extra people.
Inaction isn’t innocence, it’s a choice like any other.
Congratulations, you solved the trolley problem. I’ll let all of the philosophers of the world know so you can collect your prize… Inaction isn’t innocence, but the “right” answer isn’t innocence, either. Don’t take solace in the fact that you minimized the damage by condemning a bunch of people you don’t know to death by the very person you supported; this election will be my greatest regret in life for not doing something more to force out a 3rd option, as it should be for all of us.
In a vacuum, yes. But knowingly taking an action that condemns someone should destroy you; even if it saved others, knowing that someone died partly due to your actions should make your stomach churn whenever you think of it. Your part in this election and the results thereof should keep you up at night - it definitely will for me.
Holy fucking shit… We’ve looped back around with the trolley problem memes to end up back at the actual trolley problem.
The entire reason the trolley problem is a “problem” is because it’s not necessarily morally correct to insert yourself into a problem in order to save people, if by doing so you also condemn someone. It’s debated that it’s better to let an unfortunate scenario in which multiple people die play out - allowing yourself to stay out of the picture and not be responsible - than to take action to minimize the damage, and by doing so become part of the picture and partly responsible for the damage that does occur.
It’s supposed to be a difficult situation, even if taking action saves lives, because by taking action you are specifically partially responsible as an acting member in the scenario. There are a lot of people who believe that it’s better to stay out of it and leave yourself morally untouched for having never taken part in it than to take action, even if the action would save lives. And there are a lot of people who believe that it’s better to take action if you can, especially if it saves lives, even if your actions still condemn people to death.
The whole point is that it’s NOT a scenario with a correct answer. The best answer is the one that lets you sleep at night. Yes, I’ll be voting democrat, but I certainly don’t blame those who believe dirtying your hands by voting for a genocide supporter is an unacceptable act.
“It’s debated”, yes. Most things are debated. Looking at the trolley problem, I don’t really have any respect for anyone who thinks that a strict deontological interpretation is worth murdering four extra people.
Inaction isn’t innocence, it’s a choice like any other.
Congratulations, you solved the trolley problem. I’ll let all of the philosophers of the world know so you can collect your prize… Inaction isn’t innocence, but the “right” answer isn’t innocence, either. Don’t take solace in the fact that you minimized the damage by condemning a bunch of people you don’t know to death by the very person you supported; this election will be my greatest regret in life for not doing something more to force out a 3rd option, as it should be for all of us.
Thanks. I didn’t realize having strong moral convictions was so rare!
Oh it’s not, it’s just rare for someone to have them while actually understanding morality.
This is why I never got the trolley problem. It seems so obvious that you’re making a choice either way, and less deaths is better.
In a vacuum, yes. But knowingly taking an action that condemns someone should destroy you; even if it saved others, knowing that someone died partly due to your actions should make your stomach churn whenever you think of it. Your part in this election and the results thereof should keep you up at night - it definitely will for me.