By Was the point in question the section you quoted? Because it doesn't defeat that point at all. There I'm not talking about whether atheists can give a consistent persuasive argument for not diverting the train, but rather your suggestion that if a putative atheist believes you shouldn't divert the train and is unable to give a consistent persuasive argument for that belief that she is not a "true atheist."

Inconsistent or unjustified moral beliefs are a dime a dozen, both for theists and atheists. Special pleading might seem easier for theists, because they can just claim that they are following God's commands (although I would point out that this is not generally the answer to trolley problems given by Christian philosophers), but that also isn't a persuasive consistent argument for not diverting. So I'm arguing that you should just say that there is no consistent persuasive argument for not diverting, regardless of your views about God's existence (and hence, removing any implication from a person's view on this issue to her views about the existence of God).

Edit: Also, I don't see how claiming it is better to kill more people than less counts as persuasive, as almost everyone rejects that premise. Your acknowledgment of that as a good response to your post is probably why people are misreading what you mean by "argument."

Never mind. The atheist aspect isn't important.

No. You leave it alone, because it is now another separate event. This would be true (for me), even if I later learned there were 10 people on the track I switched it to.

You see one person on a track and a trolley heading towards them, you change the the direction so that the trolley is now heading down a track that you now notice has 5 people on it and you don't switch it back?

That's very clever.

You misunderstood me from the get-go. I never said that atheism leads to moral nihilism, I said it is one perspective, which in the context of this scenario, could help the OP, and I brought it up because I thought that's what he was basing this on. Let's just drop it and move on.

Just one more time for clarity, I never said, or meant to imply that atheism leads to moral nihilism.

Of course, I'm not at all belittling anyone's belief, I used the term philosophy, when perhaps I should have use "world-view", but my point still remains, that this conversation should not be taken personally by anyone, it's just for discourse.

If I've been out of line, anyone can point it out, and I'll reconsider and apologize if necessary, but I have only been dissecting this argument, just like everyone else here.

Nah, you don't sound callous, if anything your honesty is admirable.

My question would be if you would still consider sacrificing a number of strangers for the sake of one loved one, if the scenario was was slightly different.

Would you actively set the train in motion where there is someone tied to the track to save a loved one?

It's something about this trolley scenario that seems to get people to kill with more ease than they would otherwise, and it's part of the reason it's so interesting.

Just noticed David Slansky came up with this new scenario, this one is really good. Really tough call for those who wouldn't divert.

Thank you. Assume you mean both scenarios. The idea is that it proves that the real reason people might not divert is to avoid feeling yucky rather than a deeper philosophical conviction. Do you see that? Because in my scenarios the yucky feeling comes from not diverting, and it the likely choice of the same people who were rationalizing their choice with philosophy.

No. Again, it's a brand new event and my position is not to make decisions as to who lives and who dies if I have no other interest in the outcome. I don't see how I can switch it back without violating my first premise.

Not sure what you mean by yucky, I assume you mean guilt.

I'm not sure about the rationalization for those who divert, because I've been in the "not divert" camp, and just let it play out without my involvement.

For me, the reason this is more difficult to deal with is because in the prior scenarios, one did not actively set the train in motion, but here I feel responsible, since I did set it in motion. I'm really confused as to what I would do.

Not sure I can answer your questions, but kudos on the scenario.

Just to clarify, once you've switched the tracks to a new one thinking it was empty, you wouldn't switch it back regardless of how many people are on the new track?

The way I've heard this scenario proposed most people would divert the train to kill one person in order to save 5. However, they would NOT be willing to push in front of the train someone who was standing on the platform minding their own business.

Of course, it is the act of pushing someone that makes the difference. In the first scenario it's easier to look at it as "well the guy on the other track was just in the wrong place at the wrong time". However, if you actively push someone in front of the train, you can no longer say this, because he wasn't just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You put him there!

I seem to have it backwards... I would NOT divert the train, but I would actively start a moving train where someone was tied to the track to save a loved one in your example. I make no excuses. My loved one is far more important to me than the life of a stranger. But again, you can always continue to complicate it further...

Would I kill someone in order to save a loved one from losing a limb? Probably not. What if my loved one was guaranteed to live, but would be in a coma, or only live another year?

While I think it's a good exercise to think about these types of question, it gets to the point where there can be no practical or rational answers. Eventually, (I think) you MUST arrive at a point of inconsistency where you can no longer rely on logic and all rationale fails.

Correct.

It isn't really "clever" to keep changing the scenario to get the answers you want. Eating salad won't make you lose weight if you define salad to be chocolate.

Everybody understands that the scenario can be constructed so different replies would be preferable. Which should be a lesson in itself. Maybe, just maybe, morals are based on narratives rather than simple axioms.

Dang, your family should appreciate you. You're like Toby Maguire in "Brothers".

I'm starting to see a case for your logic of leaving the train alone, even once you've switched tracks, incorrectly thinking that the new track was empty, and seeing it as a new event. That's just a very tough decision.

That's not what I am doing. Rather I am showing that the argument people are using doesn't hold up to scrutiny. similar to how Tversky and Kahneman showed that people chose two different answers for logically equivalent scenarios because they aren't really thinking it through.

That doesn't happen if you take the position that when the people are equal or you know nothing about them, you choose the outcome that saves the most lives and don't worry about how that outcome was achieved. Just like Churchill did when he allowed a city to be bombed without evacuation to prevent the Germans from knowing they had their code. And just like a general usually does.

Remember that this would be what almost everyone would in fact vote for if they know they were equally likely to get in trouble." In a few years five of you are going to find yourselves on a track. And one of you will be on a different track. Do give your blessing to Lestat or Naked Rectitude or Tame Deuces to pull the switch diverting from 5 to 1.?" If that vote was actually held they would overwhelmingly vote yes (except maybe irrational theists) and that should be an extra reason to behave that way.

Like I said. I am done. You are just far too tilting to deal with.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

This right here is part of my problem with diverting the train. People are NOT equal and you can't know anything about them. What if the one person you killed to save the 5 lives, is the future inventor of a cancer cure? What if he is just a mere heart surgeon who in 3 hours will perform a life saving operation on someone who will then go on to save 50 lives in the future?

There are other reasons too that I'd need to think more about. I think it's best to have the indifference of nature (unless of course, I have an interest in the outcome).

What if the one is a serial killer and all the other 5 are heart surgeons?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

I don't get your point. DS specified "you know nothing about them". And even if I did have the information you provided, I still would not divert the train...

Because who's to say that one one of the heart surgeons save a patient who has a child, who grows up to start a nuclear holocaust?

I believe in a deterministic causal chain that started at the big bang. No matter what you do, things will be as they will be. I'm not at all bothered by my inaction to divert the train in the face of every scenario that has been put forth so far. I still say it's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But wait... I did say that I would kill a gunman about to shoot 10 hostages. In that case, not only do I have information about the gunman (that he'd kill 20 people), but I also have a vested interest in ridding the world I live in of a creep.

That might be inconsistent with the deterministic philosophy I previously stated. For instance, I can't know that the one of the people I save by killing the gunman might not go on to be the cause of 50 deaths. However, I think I'm satisfied in knowing that the gunman is for sure a creep. That should be enough of a vested interest for me to act.

This was not a good post.

All else being equal im diverting the train.

All six people are in compromising positions so it's hard to differentiate 5 v 1 and justify the death of 5 people when there only needed to be 1 death

In the surgery scenario the healthy individual is not in a compromising position. Golden rule then takes precedence, imo