[Unthinking Majority]

Indeed. But how many of us accept that responsibility?

Not many.

[Yaqum]

@Potemkin

I just read the introductory paragraph on Wikipedia into utilitarianism, and based just off of that, it seems that you are right, I am something of a utilitarian.

[Potemkin]

I’m not fully familiar on what a utilitarian is.

Google ‘Jeremy Bentham’. Essentially, it’s a moral philosophy which assumes that a moral calculus is both possible and desirable.

You’re also going to have to be a little more specific on what kind of moral dilemma you’re talking about.

The old railway tracks thing. You know the one.

[Yaqum]

Google ‘Jeremy Bentham’. Essentially, it’s a moral philosophy which assumes that a moral calculus is both possible and desirable.

Thank you for the recommendation. I will, and I agree with the tenet of your definition. I’ll just add that I think a moral calculus is not only desirable, but an innate biological drive. Like all DNA based organisms, we Homo Sapiens also strive to survive and replicate ourselves.

Morality is just one of our methods of intellectualizing and determining what’s best for us.

The old railway tracks thing. You know the one. :)

Well, before I even try to give what will probably be a weak answer to a complex question, I’d like to go back to the original question and say that if reason cannot give a solid answer to that, I certainly see no reason why superstition can solve that conundrum.

Superstition and religion certainly have a purpose. Among other things, they fill in the gaps and provide solace when all else makes no sense, but I digress.

As for the railroad tracks, yes, I’ve heard of it, and I’ve never found it a particularly puzzling conundrum. Based on the myriad of variables that should be taken into account, I think good enough answers to the moral questions related to it can be found.

If it’s a choice between an adult and a child, then I believe we should probably choose the child to live. The adult already had their chance. I’d certainly like to think that I would be brave enough to die for a child if the time came.

If it’s a choice between one and many people, then once again, it’s probably better if the one dies for the many. I don’t believe any one human being has the right to decide who lives and who dies, but I don’t find it a stretch to believe that better choices do exist when given such a melancholic task.

As to the question of inaction versus inaction, once again, I think all the variables must be taken into account. I think evil obtained through action is generally worse than evil permitted through inaction. I think it’s fair to conclude that we all have a stronger moral obligation not to do evil than we do to prevent it.

So if someone allows the many to die instead of the one, or a child to die instead of an adult because they couldn’t deal with the stress of taking on such a responsibility, then I think it’s reasonable to be more lenient towards them than to someone who premeditatively and consciously commits sin.

[Pants-of-dog]

A man set up his kids train set to portray the classic dilemma, just to see what a toddler would do when faced with the problem.

Everyone died. The child laughed and laughed.

[Deutschmania]

A man set up his kids train set to portray the classic dilemma, just to see what a toddler would do when faced with the problem.

Everyone died. The child laughed and laughed.

I saw a comedy sketch that dealt with this dilemma . It was amusing , but also thought provoking .

[Verv]

I think it is possible to pull the lever to save more lives and also take upon oneself the burden of the death without necessarily doing so with a utilitarian motive in mind...

I say this because utilitarianism ends up countering normal virtue ethics.

The classical Christian perspective on pulling the lever is this:

The principle of double effect – also known as the rule of double effect, the doctrine of double effect, often abbreviated as DDE or PDE, double-effect reasoning, or simply double effect – is a set of ethical criteria which Christian philosophers have advocated for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act may also cause an effect one would otherwise be obliged to avoid. The first known example of double-effect reasoning is Thomas Aquinas' treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologica.[1]

This set of criteria states that, if an action has foreseeable harmful effects that are practically inseparable from the good effect, it is justifiable if the following are true:

the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
the agent intends the good effect and does not intend the bad effect, either as a means to the good or as an end in itself;
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.[2]

Principle of double effect

The trolley problem is so brilliant precisely because it is an edge case and a trick question that you cannot really perceive of as having a truly right answer. There's too much room for debate. Yet, there is also the element of obviousness - the goal is to always maximize life and minimize death, which makes many people exasperated when they discuss things like this.

[Saeko]

Everyone died. The child laughed and laughed.

I'm framing this sentence and putting it on a wall.

[Skynet]

During the Streetparade on christian friend (Jehovas witnesses fan) wanted to piss at the wall of a Cathedral but we 2 Muslims said he should respect a house of God.

I have to respect the Jews and Christians.

But I believe Mohammed was God's envoy.


I studied a bit of theology from Sufism to strict Wahabism... to learn the minimum requirements to have a well afterlife (not to fear hell)...

Unfortunately I am too lazy to pray so I listen often religous music.

I donate.

But I am also too lazy to fast.

The furthers pillars I do.


I am not a priest so religion is an important part but not everything ( I am secular)

[SpecialOlympian]

lying to women to get sex,

I want more of an explanation of this. Like, in my experience, the only way to lie to someone for sex is to say you want a relationship with them or that you just put real $100's on the table next to your white leather sectional.

Also my estimation of you has gone up because you apparently hang out with rich coke and heroin addicts who get laid on the reg. Can you introduce me to your friends?

I didn't read anything anyone said, but after reading the OP but I'm not going to bother because the OP, or Original Premise, is: "My friends have a lot of money and they have fun with drugs. Women don't have agency so obviously they've been lied to if they have casual sex with my friends. What is a non-theological justification for them to feel bad for being successful in every possible way that is quantitative and not qualitative (wealth, body count, etc.)?"