I think Tame_Deuces has a point about this thought experiment not really demonstrating what it purports to show, but instead, that if you tweak a scenario the right way, people will eventually change their answer. I don't think this new answer means that you've changed your moral stance, though.

I don't want to kill anyone, other than self defence, or if they are threatening someones welfare, but it is becoming obvious to me that if you find the certain scenario, I will be forced to kill someone, as it is the best alternative in this hypothetical scenario.

This doesn't mean that those who would divert the train have a better, less contradictory stance, because they too can be persuaded otherwise by the right scenario, or a scenario can be presented where they will act questionable.

I commend DS on the scenario about discovering people on the track you didn't know where there, but I don't think this shows that people have inconsistent morals, at least necessarily.

For me, it's really not a matter of feeling responsible, bad, or guilty. Rather, it's more a matter of involving myself in a decision I want no part of. And maybe that's the one word that describes my stance best... Involvement.

If I were the pilot of a plane that was about to go down, I'd already be involved. So now I may as well make the best decision I can given the info that's available to me.

In the scenario where I diverted the train only to learn later that a better choice was available, someone might be able to persuade me that I became involved the moment I diverted the train the first time. However, I'd probably still want to argue that it's a new event that is separate from the previous situation, and it would require me to involve (or re-involve) myself all over again.

It is sometimes aggravating sifting through his cryptic 1 sentence posts, but he has delivered some powerful lessons to me.

In one of my very first posts in the old R&G forum I tried to state that I would not steal from someone under any circumstances. Sklansky immediately called me a liar and pointed out that I would certainly steal $10,000 from a filthy rich person who would never miss it, if it meant my that best friend could get a life saving operation.

Of course, he was right and while I still sometimes rush and say something stupid, I'm always mindful before answering what appears to be a common sense no brainer question of his.

This is what it is all about. It pushed me to come up with this hypothetical.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47.../#post44456178

So in this instance, it doesn't appear to me that you were inconsistent, but rather, you realized that your position was slightly different than you thought.

You assumed you would never steal, until you were presented with a scenario where you might steal, so your premise was possibly incorrect, but you can still be consistent if you change your premise to, "in some instances, I may steal".

I think when it comes down to the trolley problems, the answer is something similar to this, where some people who's premise is, "it is always immoral to kill", may just not realize that this is not entirely correct.

That is literally and objectively the most ridiculous use of the word "objective" I have ever encountered.

"Will you hit the brakes if there is a man in the road". Yes, you would because in almost all scenarios he is an unlucky traffic victim so this is what we see. "What if he had a chainsaw and a hockey mask?"... we change our answer to no, and then get accused of being inconsistent.

But we aren't inconsistent. Our morals arise in a world where our knowledge is imperfect, information biased and perception limited. We use narratives, heuristics and probabilities to find our way. That is how our values actually work. When we apply them to thought experiments that act differently from the world we live in, we get weird results. These "perfect" morals that is somehow the ideal of the thought experiment would hinder us greatly in the real world. We don't want to assess if we should stop for the man in the road, because usually we don't have the time to do so.

An analogy could be diagnosing as a doctor. In the real world a diagnosis is a guesswork, a choice where "correctness" is based on probability, a little luck and quality of information. However, in the thought experiment we simply ask "The patient obviously has cancer, what would you diagnose him with?". It's not really a medical question anymore.

We've had this conversation before and I'm not sure what your objection is. Firstly there is a distinction between your answer and your reasoning. Your answer may change but it's not your answer that is being checked for consistency it's your reasoning.

Secondly this is a forum where people have an interest in moral and ethical principles, no one is suggesting that we employ thought experiments in the midst of a moral decision this is an exercise for reflection and to test those moral frameworks and lines of reasoning to which we adhere.

If it not the answer, but only the reasoning then all people need do is preface any given answer "given that my understanding of the situation is correct..."

Which should be unnecessary, because people don't generally answer things under the assumption that they misunderstood the question.

If these hypotheticals merely required a yes or no answer then I would agree with you, but other than as a straw poll these questions generally aren't presented like this. It's not the answer that's interesting it's the reason why.

For me this debacle started when I wrote a reply to David Sklansky that I respected people who would not convert from their religion in face of death, and hold nothing against those who died. He then asked if I would agree with this if their children would die as a result (and later proclaimed that I admired people whose children died as a result of their refusal to convert).

Now, you find this interesting because there is somehow an inconsistency in my reasoning (or some such).

But...

David Sklansky stated that he thought a person convert when faced with death as the alternative. Why isn't he being inconsistent? I mean...what if the person's 15 innocent children died as a result of their conversion? Why is it only me who need caveats and ad hoc assumptions to defend my answer?

I'm not accusing you of being inconsistent. I am pointing out that the purpose of these thought experiments is to identify inconsistencies in someones reasoning.

I see the value in the ethical dilemmas. I don't see the values in expanding them with new information and assuming the new debate is necessarily relevant to the old one.

We can hopefully change any answer that way. Consistently.

It's a question of what the new information adds. There's nothing stopping us considering the two ethical dilemma's discretely then comparing the results we get from applying a particular methodology to one to the other.

The new debate may not be relevant to the old one and where the new information renders the previous case irrelevant, which has happened in this thread, then I agree with you there's no value in a comparison but when the new information is crafted correctly it may be.

I agree with this.

It sounds nicer to say that since I don't think you admire those people you should retract your initial statement.

Why?

Are you honestly representing that a 35 year old heart surgeon's life isn't worth more than yours? Maybe not to you of course, or maybe your family, but then, do you know what the word "objective" means?

I think its telling that the diverters think the non diverters are "wrong" while the non diverters only claim that it is up to your personal values (and don't try to argue that the diverters are "wrong").

Valuations of a person are ONLY subjective. This is true even if there is 100% agreement between people on the valuation.

It is wrong. So is putting ketchup on a hot dog.

Maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand what objective means...can you provide a paradigm in which an objective observer might asses either the life of Iggy the tavern bookie, or Loui the street corner thug who deals drugs to kids, as being more valuable overall than the life of Albert Einstein?

You seem to be a pretty smart guy BTM2, but one of us doesn't seem to know the difference between subjective and objective. And I'm pretty sure I know. So help me out.

I think the point BTM is making is that valuations require minds and as such are subjective.

In other words, it's impossible for humans to objective?

I think that claim is too strong but certainly valuations seem to require minds to make them. Like you can be objectively faster than I in a race but for you to be more valuable requires that someone think you are more valuable.

We could list some criteria by which a valuation be made but that criteria and the valuations included will be dependent on the mind that assigns the valuation even if all persons agree.

Just to play devil's advocate, Lestat's original statement was that "under certain circumstances" (i.e. under a common valuation), a doctor's life is more valuable than a homeless man (or whoever). To add the word "objectively" here, while superfluous, doesn't strike me as incorrect. Had he sad that a doctors life is objectively more valuable, without adding the caveat of "certain circumstances" then it would be more questionable, because as you said (and BTM2 I think) that valuation requires subjectivity.