I think this is non analogous enough to start a new thread. I'll protect you from uke master.

I haven't really followed too closely what your views are. My reply really wasn't specifically about how I thought you would think. I thought people might disagree with me because to the extent that I keep up with atheist blogs / public access call in shows / books / New Atheists in pop culture, etc., there seems to be a lot of hand waving to the effect that morality is not subjective, and I am essentially claiming that it is.

But as someone else in the thread pointed out, we don't have to go to that level; we can discuss morality on a practical level.

If we accept that morality is essentially arbitrary, although perhaps consistently based on a set of axioms, I can only assume that the X% of people who would not feel comfortable diverting the train, or in your new example, who would let 5 people die instead of 1, must have an axiom which implies that it is better to allow 5 people (or perhaps 500, or all of humanity) die by inaction than it is to cause one person to die by your own action.

I don't think you can criticize it for being unreasonable or illogical since it is axiomatic. Many people seem to actually feel this way, however I suppose the point of all these discussions is to figure out whether they would acknowledge this kind of axiom, or whether they are expressing this choice (not divert the train) and it is actually in conflict with their stated moral principles.

Sort of like people have an asymmetrical tolerance for winning and losing, even if we are talking about the same amount of money -- maybe that isn't rational, maybe it is based purely on emotion, and it is universally a leak in someone's game to react more strongly to losing 3 buy-ins in a session (by maybe quitting, even if it is a good game) than they would to winning 3 buy-ins.

But then again, it is easy in poker to evaluate things like that because in poker we know the object is to win a lot of money. With moral questions, we have to decide what the rules are, what the objective is, and then decide what the best course of action is.

I know I'm rambling, but it seems pretty clear: either you have some moral axiom prohibiting your own direct action (as distinct from an "inaction") from causing harm, and place that higher on the list of priorities than the general axiom about it is good for people to not get killed, OR you can't justify not saving the people.

But maybe I should study some of the arguments people who have thought about all this for more than 3 minutes have made, so I'm not totally talking out of my ass?

Bingo

During WW2 Germany relied on eye witness reports that the rockets that were being directed to London were hitting their targets. Churchill and his advisors hit upon the idea of using double agents to suggest the bombs were landing north of their target. This caused Germany to recalibrate and resulted in subsequent bombs landing south of their target. This decision, saved the lives of more people but at the expense of those that wouldn't have died had this deception not worked.

Should it have been done?

"Subjective" and "arbitrary" does not mean "random".

We can also reject that it's arbitrary or subjective in the absence of God. It seems he's assuming that the question is answered satisfactorily when I think not.

I'm sure battlefield commanders do similar things all the time. To them the Trolley problem is probably a joke. It has to be if they want to win.

Sure, when you make a goal that removes the ethical dilemma it becomes dead easy. For example if you stated that "no matter what, the train must be on time" the scenario is also laughably easy.

This isn't to say that there are not ethical dilemmas in war, I am merely commenting on the faximilie of war you presented here.

As a digression, having nothing to do with the rest of this thread, I point out that the dictionary definition for arbitrary starts with "based on random choice or personal whim..." And while I consider the dictionary subordinate to the opinions of informed people, I struggle to think of a definition for arbitrary that does not at least imply a random element.

But otherwise, another great one-liner! Keep 'em coming! Or engage in conversation. Whatever. I personally prefer the latter, as you are one of the best posters this forum has ever seen, when you make the effort.

I did not mean for it to be crass. My implied statement is that morals to some extent follows from the world we inhabit and what we are. For example "pain" as it exists for us determines a lot of our morals, and pain follows some principles which, as far as we know, are fairly universal.

An analogy could be to see morals as the old trade routes for sailships across the atlantic. Wind is fairly difficult phenomena to predict and very chaotic. But the weather patterns meant the sailships would (almost all) follow the same fairly narrow "oval" pattern on their crossings back and forth. I think morals arise in the same manner.

I agree that there is an element of the arbitrary, but that does not equate to "random".

Well, logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

No it doesn't. Or at least, I am familiar with no system of logic from which this follows.

You may need to broaden your search parameters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYvlhHPLzCA

I would remain silent.

The 5 that are going to die were not placed in that situation by me and I am in no way responsible for there predicament and such need feel no obligation to save them by sacrificing someone else. Their death is not a result of my actions but the actions of whoever placed them in that environment.

The 1 however will only die if I command it making me responsible for that persons death. By leaving the 5 to die I can live the rest of my life knowing that while I may have never saved anyones life I havent caused anyones death either.

While you may find this argument unconvincing (but you only asked for an argument not for you to be convinced by it) to you personally it is good enough to me for me to justify my action or inaction to myself without having to appeal to a god in any way. I am sure you will try to find a way to make it so that this doesn't count as an argument however so you can try and keep the delusion that there is no possible atheist/secular argument to not divert the train or command the 1 to die.

I would remain silent as well, so I don't disagree with you, but I think there is a different perspective as well.

Some believe that your "feeling responsible for that one persons death" should be ignored in order to achieve the max value, where you end up with 5 people, not 1. Through strict utilitarianism, there is really no reason to stop short of this max value due to guilt. I think this is what some consider to be "true atheism", that there is nothing inherently wrong in sacrificing one person to begin with, so you should naturally save the 5.

My problem with this perspective is that I don't see a reason why you should try to achieve max value. Much like morality in this view, this also strikes me as arbitrary. There is no directive to achieve maximum value.

Anyway, you and I have disagreed in the past so much, I'd like to give you my thumbs up on your argument, I agree.

What is "true atheism"? Why does its influence on moral values differ from true not-believing-superman-is-real-ism?

I was trying to be a little coy, it's a term the OP used earlier, since I don't know for sure how he meant it, I can't really speak for him.

There is a view that equates moral nihilism with the only real way to see the world through an atheistic lens, where killing the one person should not at all be problematic, since good and bad are mere illusions.

My problem with this is that I can't see a good argument for using a utilitarian approach in this view, since there is no reason to suggest it is better.

I agree with you that "true atheism" doesn't really make sense, in a true-scotsman kind of way, but I think what people mean is that the implications of atheism should be such and such, where definitions of morality are questionable.

That atheism should equate to nihilism has always struck me as an utterly idiotic argument.

It is like me saying Christians have to be rude because they don't believe in Philophirosine, goddess of friendliness.

Eh, I don't think I'd go so far as call it idiotic, I think it has some redeeming arguments, but the evolutionary argument for morality is enough to suggest that there can be a better approach to being human, than just calling everything equal.

I see absolutely no redeeming features.

"Oh look. You don't believe in The Supreme Deity of Timetables. You must think all directions are equal at all times."

Heh. I'm not convinced enough by the strength of their claims to argue it with you, but maybe someone else is. It's not that popular a view, mostly I think, because it is impossible to live by.

Really?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

This doesn't have to be about "utilitarianism". It can be about sins of omission vs commission. Or about two negatives equals a positive. If you want to make it about guilt, the counter argument is that you should feel even more guilt for not saving five. And if you actually feel more guilt about the one, the retort should be that this is an ethics question and if your guilt is the criteria you are being selfish rather than ethical.

(By the way, even though God's will works as a reason not to divert, if there is a God he would almost certainly want you to.)

It a reason not to. A selfish one in my opinion. But its not what I meant by an argument. By argument I meant reasons that would convince an intelligent logical person who is trying to do the "right thing".

Would any reason given convince you?

Feel free to answer honestly.