| > I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. I find in terrifying that people feel it's okay to pull the lever and kill someone, even if it saves five people. That one person is just walking along, doing exactly what they should be, then some philosopher comes along, manages to (almost godlike) interpret five people in a trolley are about to smash into a wall and only one person is on the other track - so he pulls the lever saving the five strangers, but killing the person who was just walking along. Who is he to choose that man deserves to die over the others? The philosopher chose to impose his will and opinions on the others has done something to actually kill someone. Inaction is not the same as action. Those five people (we assume) chose to get on that trolley, they were doomed by the fate of the trolley. The guy walking along was doomed by the opinion of a philosopher. In your case of a lifebuoy I would feel inclined to toss the bouy because I wouldn't be killing someone to save another I would be saving someone at the expense of some physical effort. Regardless, that's my choice, it shouldn't horrify you because I didn't make the guy drown - I did nothing to harm them. If I am to blame for walking away, what does that say about you? Are you going to punish me? If so, you must feel it's your duty to impose your opinion on others because you somehow feel more correct, but does that really make you moral? I am sure there are many times people feel it's moral to do X, yet others thought it was sacrilege. This is the point. If we all are going to get along in a society, we have to accept that peoples choices don't matter, as long as they don't inflict their will upon you. That doesn't mean they wont help, that doesn't mean people wont donate to charity. It's a choice to offer charity, it's a choice to accept charity - in the case of the trolley it's a choice to walk along the tracks and to get on the trolley. However, when the philosopher pulls the lever he has changed the game, he has made a choice for someone else - that's what I find immoral. > I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. I find it quite annoying that this entire scenario has some sort of moral high ground. In this case, we are given the choice under the impression it is a choice. I disagree entirely. We (1) cannot know what we are doing is the best option and (2) if we impose our opinions on others we are morally in the wrong. The basis of society is that we can all get along, that means I shouldn't hurt/inconvenience you really at all unless I need to to survive. I don't claim to be judge and executioner, yet pretty much everyone who ever answers this question believes they have the moral high-ground to execute someone/anyone - I don't, so I don't play the game. Edit: The trolley scenario is always presented as an argument to justify or way to explain Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics, Deontological ethics, etc. the basis of which is a justification to inflict your views on life on everyone else. Personally, I side more with the objectivist philosophy and I believe that morals are based more on what you can live with. I can personally not live with myself if I kill someone, I can live with myself if I decide not to take action. Similarly, I would find it hard to live with myself if I didn't toss that lifebouy, because there is no harm in not doing it. |