OOTS #1274 - The Discussion Thread

[StragaSevera]

And if all I had posted was that statement, you might have a point. But I didn't. I posted an argument. That happens to have been written by someone broadly recognized as not the finest moral writer of all time. And yet he still had you beat. People are not potatoes, and you reducing them to such ends up looking like the most ridiculous mathematical equation of all time (5V < V <1000000V).
GW

"People are not potatoes" is not an argument. Yes, they are not - for example, potatoes are plants and people are animals.
This is one of the many profound-sounding, but empty phrases.

There is no point in trying to explain morality to someone that'll just toss it out the window when it is inconvenient.

Yes, I don't think there is a point to explain that human life has value to somebody that is not willing to throw out a thought pattern in order to save a million of them.

[pendell]

"People are not potatoes" is not an argument.

It is actually. The argument is that human life is of transcendent value , beyond price. That one cannot balance human lives in the scale as one could a sack of potatoes, a purely economic commodity.

Even so.

I think there has to be a certain element of utilitarian thinking when we're dealing with military actions. If we were to go full deontological, well, why are we killing people at all?

The entire point of war is that getting a certain number of people killed -- on both sides -- is a lesser evil than not fighting the war. The alternative viewpoint is best described as "peace at any price" -- no evil we can possibly suffer can be greater than the evil which comes from fighting a war, with the attendant deaths in action, starvation, disease, displaced persons, "collateral damage" et al.

If we're not going to accept that assertion, then we must also conclude there are times it is good to do the lesser evil in order to prevent a bigger one. That, or we must conclude that no good person can fight a war. Ergo, paladins are a contradiction in terms.

I reject the D&D rules assertion that it is not an evil act to kill an evil creature. That's a rules convention which allows paladins to cut people in two with a sword and not fall for it. And as we've seen in this very story, just because a creature is evil now doesn't mean it always will be -- evil creatures can receive redemption, good ones can fall. Killing them cuts that entire journey short.

That doesn't mean we start treating humans as disposable resources, like potatoes, as RA Heinlein points out. The deontological imprimature that every human life is of inestimable value still holds to some extent. But ... well, history is full of examples in which people made the most high-minded rules in peacetime which went by the boards in war. Case in point: Back in the 1930s it was illegal to bomb cities, or for submarines to torpedo merchant ships without warning. By 1944 both sides did this without the slightest hesitation. What was morally the correct course of action had to be put aside for the course of action which was actually effective.

I think that the intelligent person has to think about this ahead of time and build a workable moral framework for their actions. Because if we insist on building a moral framework more suitable for a fantasy world, what actually happens is that the whole things gets discarded on the altar of pragmatism once we come under serious threat. Better to have a workable system ahead of time that doesn't break under the strain.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Except that if you're going to fight a war, you are absolutely going to do this , if in no other way than as "collateral damage".

Unless you're able to get both armies off into a distant field far away from everything else -- which hasn't happened since the 19th century, I believe -- then if you fight any kind of modern war you're going to be condemning an unknown number of completely innocent civilians to death from errant bombs, starvation due to cut food supplies, freezing due to power outages, etc. etc.

You cannot fight a modern war without sacrificing the innocent. We try to minimize it. But there's no way to fight one and not sacrifice an unknown, but potentially large, number of innocents. That's doubly true if you're fighting an enemy who has no compunction about using innocents as human shields.

OTOH, if you refuse to fight, then the people who are ruthless and cruel enough to use innocents as shields get to have their way versus those who won't. An unpalatable choice, to be sure.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

Well, then you are killing a million of innocent people

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them is. But hey, whatever makes the blood on your hands easier to cope with.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think that the intelligent person has to think about this ahead of time and build a workable moral framework for their actions. Because if we insist on building a moral framework more suitable for a fantasy world, what actually happens is that the whole things gets discarded on the altar of pragmatism once we come under serious threat. Better to have a workable system ahead of time that doesn't break under the strain.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

There are plenty of systems that are perfectly happy with establishing in advance how many people are worth sacrificing for the common good (and worse, which people). But it quickly becomes political, so this is hardly the place to discuss them. And as it happens, I'd rather not live in any of them, so take that as you will.

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them either. But hey, whatever makes the blood on your hands easier to cope with.

This is what bothers me most about the trolley problem. Why is the implication that I'm killing anyone just because I see the bloody result of some maniac tying people to railway tracks?

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

GW

[Quizatzhaderac]

The kerning of the ellipses first text box in panel ten is uneven, just like Redcloak's niece!

I'm filing the "up here" with the indefinite "she" from last comic, in the "I guess Julia is using a different style guide than some other posters" box.

I know I often have to resist the urge to correct someone who says "up here" without considering geography.

I'm gonna need you to explain that because I don't see anything in there about hypocrisy.

When someone wrongly accurses another of hypocrisy, they make bad assumptions about what the accused's stance is, or don't engage it honestly.

One the most superficial level, the first speaker is treating their side and the other side differently. Presumably, the first speaker has reasons for preferring on side, and we'd want to examine those reasons to determine any hypocrisy.

The second speaker is assuming the first's stance is something moronic like "sides should be equal."

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death.

Emphasis mine. There is an ocean of difference between certain and possible death in how people behave.

Tabling the moral issues, good commanders almost never order people to certain death because soldiers won't follow those orders. Yes, the 300 Spartans did it, and we're still talking about it thousands of years later on other continents. IRL, Xykon's troops would have all deserted and if they didn't, they would flee once it looks remotely like they're in the sacrifice position.

Soldiers with a cause are much more likely to go in for the occasion big heroic sacrifice, but a good commander doesn't expect them all to behave like a chess game.

Circling back to Julia's suggestion: if Roy tried to use Sunny like a chess piece he'd likely either refuse or panic and leave too early. Or Serini would figure out what's happening and they'd be back to fighting her.

Also, Roy is a skirmisher leading a group of six, not a general leading thousands. Not only does that make numbers smaller, it means outcomes tend to be more lopsided. If he loses one person, that's a pyric victory. If Plan A in an attack he initiates and still involves a good chance of an ally's death, that's a terrible plan.

For comparison, only about 1 in 17 Confederates died at the battle of Gettysburg, less on the Union side.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also, Roy is a skirmisher leading a group of six, not a general leading thousands. Not only does that make numbers smaller, it means outcomes tend to be more lopsided. If he loses one person, that's a pyric victory. If Plan A in an attack he initiates and still involves a good chance of an ally's death, that's a terrible plan.

I mean, there is also the fantasy consideration that dying isn't exactly the unfixable condition that it is in the real world. One third of the main team has been dead for some time already. But that doesn't make putting a child in deliberate harm's way any less immoral, and that's before I even check if you can resurrect a beholder.

GW

[Peelee]

The kerning of the ellipses first text box in panel ten is uneven, just like Redcloak's niece!

The keming looks fine to me.

When someone wrongly accurses another of hypocrisy, they make bad assumptions about what the accused's stance is, or don't engage it honestly.

One the most superficial level, the first speaker is treating their side and the other side differently. Presumably, the first speaker has reasons for preferring on side, and we'd want to examine those reasons to determine any hypocrisy.

The second speaker is assuming the first's stance is something moronic like "sides should be equal."

That's not a great line about hypocrisy, though. That's effectively just saying "no it isn't".

[Tzardok]

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

GW

Seen that one before in a manga. Resulted in the trolley skidding forth on both trails at once and killing all six. Was funny.

[StragaSevera]

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them is.

I don't know of your country, but in Russia there is a crime called "willingly leaving people in danger that led to their death". If you stand at the edge of a hole in a river ice that a person had fallen into, and you have a long stick (which means you can reasonably save them without falling in the hole yourself), if you just shrug: "Nope. I'm not killing them, the frozen water is killing them", and go your own way, you are going to jail.

So no, you don't get this defense - you get defenses like "I could not reasonably save them, I could just make things worse" (which is about tactics of saving people - you should not try to help if you don't know how), but not the one you tried to hide behind.

The things I don't like about the trolley problem's second case (the one with a fat man that can be thrown on the rails), is that you have no reasonable way to know that it will be enough to stop the train AND that if you miscounted, you may make the train slip on the blood of six people instead of five, which may cause the crash, killing even more people. (And, of course, the other argument that you are certainly going to jail - it's OK to have self-preservation when we are talking about five people and not 1 000 000 people).

[pendell]

This is what bothers me most about the trolley problem. Why is the implication that I'm killing anyone just because I see the bloody result of some maniac tying people to railway tracks?

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

The Trolley problem is an abstraction. Of course if there's another way to solve the problem that doesn't involve any lives we should do that. The problem is, that's not always an option.

Here's the real world example I'm most familiar with .

Every warship in the world has watertight doors in case of flooding. Which is a thing that can happen when unfriendlies are throwing high explosive at you.

The problem is that, as a rule, when you seal those watertight doors you're condemning the people still in the compartment to an absolutely horrible death by drowning.

But you've got to. There isn't a clever solution that you can find to the problem in the nick of time. Either those people die, or the entire ship sinks. And if you're in a submarine that means everyone on board dies.

Lose a few, or lose everything.

Every naval officer is trained for this contingency. And it's an ugly choice, but it's happened a lot over the centuries.

That's the real world problem the trolley problem is showing in its most abstract form. It is a necessary problem to face. Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice for-real.

here's another example . The author is Bob Mason, describing his experience as a helicopter pilot. I'll cut out the real-world example but just leave this abstract question he was asked..

Before I got into the army, they had asked me a question they asked all prospective grunts: What would you do if you were the driver of a truck loaded with soldiers, traveling very fast down a muddy road, flanked on both sides with steep drop-offs, and a small child suddenly walked into your path? Would you try to avoid her and drive off to certain death, or would you keep going and kill her? Well, everybody knew the right answer: You kill the kid. And it didn’t much matter, because the kid and the situation weren’t real anyway. So I had said, “I’d stop the truck.”
“No, no. You can’t stop the truck. It’s going too fast.”
“Well, then, I wouldn’t be going so fast down a very bad road in the first place.”
“You don’t seem to understand. It’s assumed that you have no choice but to kill either the little kid or you and your comrades.”
“Since I have no choice, I’ll go ahead and kill the kid.”
“That’s what we like to hear.”

This abstract example did have a real world application -- which you can read about in the book ,as I think it trips the real-world filter if we talk about it here.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

I don't know of your country, but in Russia there is a crime called "willingly leaving people in danger that led to their death". If you stand at the edge of a hole in a river ice that a person had fallen into, and you have a long stick (which means you can reasonably save them without falling in the hole yourself), if you just shrug: "Nope. I'm not killing them, the frozen water is killing them", and go your own way, you are going to jail.

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

[StragaSevera]

Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice.

I agree, and I just realized that's exactly what I hate about the position of my opponents. That the position of "you should not ever sacrifice innocent lives" is not only results in more innocent deaths, but it devalues the real people in real situations who needed to make these choices. (And this devaluing is not only making me "eww", but it makes so less people are inclined to save lives this way, which leads to even more deaths).

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)
It is still YOU who are killing people in the trolley problem - either by action or by inaction. You don't get to stand there and say "this is not me, I'm absolved from responsibility".
And it really sucks.

[StragaSevera]

If we are making examples from books, I would love to cite the most moral writer of the XXI century (at least, according to me) - Elizier Yudkovsky.

Harry stared up at the night sky, remembering history.

In real life, in real wars...

During World War II, there had been a project to sabotage the Nazi nuclear weapons program. Years earlier, Leo Szilard, the first person to realize the possibility of a fission chain reaction, had convinced Fermi not to publish the discovery that purified graphite was a cheap and effective neutron moderator. Fermi had wanted to publish, for the sake of the great international project of science, which was above nationalism. But Szilard had persuaded Rabi, and Fermi had abided by the majority vote of their tiny three-person conspiracy. And so, years later, the only neutron moderator the Nazis had known about was deuterium.

The only deuterium source under Nazi control had been a captured facility in occupied Norway, which had been knocked out by bombs and sabotage, causing a total of twenty-four civilian deaths.

The Nazis had tried to ship the deuterium already refined to Germany, aboard a civilian Norwegian ferry, the SS Hydro.

Knut Haukelid and his assistants had been discovered by the night watchman of the civilian ferry while they were sneaking on board to sabotage it. Haukelid had told the watchman that they were escaping the Gestapo, and the watchman had let them go. Haukelid had considered warning the night watchman, but that would have endangered the mission, so Haukelid had only shaken his hand. And the civilian ship had sunk in the deepest part of the lake, with eight dead Germans, seven dead crew, and three dead civilian bystanders. Some of the Norwegian rescuers of the ship had thought the German soldiers present should be left to drown, but this view had not prevailed, and the German survivors had been rescued. And that had been the end of the Nazi nuclear weapons program.

Which was to say that Knut Haukelid had killed innocent people. One of whom, the night watchman of the ship, had been a good person. Someone who'd gone out of his way to help Haukelid, at risk to himself; from the kindness of his heart, for the highest moral reasons; and been sent to drown in turn. Afterward, in the cold light of history, it had looked like the Nazis had never been close to getting nuclear weapons after all.

And Harry had never read anything suggesting that Haukelid had acted wrongly.

That was war in real life. In terms of total damage and who'd gotten hit, what Haukelid had done was considerably worse than what Dumbledore might have done to Narcissa Malfoy, or what Dumbledore had possibly done to leak the prophecy to Lord Voldemort to get him to attack Harry's parents.

If Haukelid had been a comic-book superhero, he'd have somehow gotten all the civilians off the ferry, he would've attacked the German soldiers directly...

...rather than let a single innocent person die...

...but Knut Haukelid hadn't been a superhero.

And neither had been Albus Dumbledore.

Harry closed his eyes, swallowing hard a few times against the sudden choking sensation. It was abruptly very clear that while Harry was going around trying to live the ideals of the Enlightenment, Dumbledore was the one who'd actually fought in a war. Nonviolent ideals were cheap to hold if you were a scientist, living inside the Protego bubble cast by the police officers and soldiers whose actions you had the luxury to question. Albus Dumbledore seemed to have started out with ideals at least as strong as Harry's own, if not stronger; and Dumbledore hadn't gotten through his war without killing enemies and sacrificing friends.

Are you so much better than Haukelid and Dumbledore, Harry Potter, that you'll be able to fight without a single casualty? Even in the world of comic books, the only reason a superhero like Batman even looks successful is that the comic-book readers only notice when Important Named Characters die, not when the Joker shoots some random nameless bystander to show off his villainy. Batman is a murderer no less than the Joker, for all the lives the Joker took that Batman could've saved by killing him. That's what the man named Alastor was trying to tell Dumbledore, and afterward Dumbledore regretted having taken so long to change his mind. Are you really going to try to follow the path of the superhero, and never sacrifice a single piece or kill a single enemy?

I think this is a much deeper example than one about potatoes. You may disagree, of course, and this exampe might be scrubbed by moderation, because I don't know the exact rules of the forum.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The Trolley problem is an abstraction. Of course if there's another way to solve the problem that doesn't involve any lives we should do that. The problem is, that's not always an option.

Here's the real world example I'm most familiar with .

Every warship in the world has watertight doors in case of flooding. Which is a thing that can happen when unfriendlies are throwing high explosive at you.

The problem is that, as a rule, when you seal those watertight doors you're condemning the people still in the compartment to an absolutely horrible death by drowning.

But you've got to. There isn't a clever solution that you can find to the problem in the nick of time. Either those people die, or the entire ship sinks. And if you're in a submarine that means everyone on board dies.

Lose a few, or lose everything.

Every naval officer is trained for this contingency. And it's an ugly choice, but it's happened a lot over the centuries.

That's the real world problem the trolley problem is showing in its most abstract form. It is a necessary problem to face. Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice for-real.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That is quite literally impossible to map to the trolley problem. There is a distinct lack of people tied to rails (e.g. there against their will), for one. For another, the scenario involves either killing everyone, or killing only a subset, rather than two distinct sets. For thirds, the person making the decision is also not a random passerby in a position to help, but someone in position of authority over the whole vessel. Possibly other issues, if I bothered to keep thinking, but I won't because any of those three already render the comparison invalid.

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

OK, hear me out, what if you don't have a stick, but you have a suitably thin person nearby you could use as a stick?

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)
It is still YOU who are killing people in the trolley problem - either by action or by inaction. You don't get to stand there and say "this is not me, I'm absolved from responsibility".
And it really sucks.

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. The First Law, originally, was "A robot may not cause harm to a human being". Later in the stories it was amended as follows: "A robot may not injure a human being or by inaction allow a human being to come to harm".

You can't escape guilt in the trolley problem. You either kill fewer people by choice, kill more people by choice, or by inaction kill someone, because you could have acted to save them and didn't.

It's a problem that crops up in military situations, sometimes in emergencies as well (a firefighter can either pull out the screaming child on floor 2 or the widow on floor 1 before the whole building falls, but not both). Happily, it doesn't occur often in civilian life for most people.

Respectfully ,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)

No you didn't. You pointed out that Russia has a law against not helping save someone's life. Notwithstanding that I am not Russia, and thus am not obligated to share Russia's opinions, this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

So, again, is there any state which mandates you help one person by hurting another, or save one person by killing another?

[StragaSevera]

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. The First Law, originally, was "A robot may not cause harm to a human being". Later in the stories it was amended as follows: "A robot may not injure a human being or by inaction allow a human being to come to harm".

Yes. It's really easy to tell yourself: "I couldn't do anything, I'm powerless here, it's all their fault". This is like the bystander effect - when you are less likely to get help if there are multiple people near you. Everybody thinks that somebody else will do it, and nobody wants to do it on their own.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. The First Law, originally, was "A robot may not cause harm to a human being". Later in the stories it was amended as follows: "A robot may not injure a human being or by inaction allow a human being to come to harm".

[citation needed]

In fact, I think you are wrong, since the absence of the secondary clause was examined early on in one of Calvin's short stories ("Escape!", IIRC, where a mining robot was created without it so they'd stop rushing in to save humans from minor danger - to humans - that was instant fatality to robots). Now, I accept Asimov is known for revisioning his stories often & without compunction, but given that it is crucial to the, AFAIK, his very first robot story (Robbie) that the robot rushes to prevent the MC from being hurt by a third party, that it was baked in from the beginning.

GW

[Peelee]

Yes. It's really easy to tell yourself: "I couldn't do anything, I'm powerless here, it's all their fault". This is like the bystander effect - when you are less likely to get help if there are multiple people near you. Everybody thinks that somebody else will do it, and nobody wants to do it on their own.

It's even easier to tell yourself "this other person should die." Funny thing about the trolley problem is that it's never you on the tracks.

[StragaSevera]

this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue

Because it is not relevant. You said that it is not you who kill them, it's somebody else. I told you why it does not matter who kills them, you have responsibility to do something or to abstain from doing it.

Imagine the situation. We are videochatting, and I take a child in my camera's field of view, pull a knife to his neck, and order you to kill yourself with your own knife right now, or else I'm killing the child - if you do anything else, if I see any movements of your arms that are not connected to taking a knife and stabbing yourself, he is dead. To make sure you believe me, I start slowly cutting his throat.
What would you do? Woud you try to negotiate, or try to somehow call police while disguising it as searching for a knife? If you do it, you are leaving the child in danger that right now is leading to his death.

Every rational person would not kill themselves here - for many reasons, both selfish ones and altruistic ones (not calling the police might mean you leave a dangerous violent criminal uncatched). But according to YOUR logic, you are obliged to kill yourself, otherwise you are sacrificing an innocent life.

[Peelee]

Because it is not relevant. You said that it is not you who kill them, it's somebody else. I told you why it does not matter who kills them, you have responsibility to do something or to abstain from doing it.

It is relevant. But as to what you think you proved, you did show legality when we're debating morality, so you still proved nothing.

Notwithstanding that no nation has a law requiring you to kill one person to save another.

[BaronOfHell]

We haven't yet seen that this is a trolley problem where the only way to save every life in the world is to sacrifice a child's life. There may be other possibilities which allow all of them to survive, and I think we need to explore those options first.

Regarding the trolley problem I like Haley's explanation of the shell game.

Even if the rules presented are genuine, it is more the realization of the setup.. is there a set of circumstances where you can persuade a person to actively murder someone else, e.g. by pulling a handle?
The answer ought to be no if the person's alignment is good, in my opinion.

Of course I realize inaction can be wrong as well, but it'd be like when RC tried to make O-Chul give up the secrets behind the defenses of Girard's gate, but in stead of interrogation he could just as well have tortured O-Chul by telling him they were going to drop five people off the tower roof, unless he told them to drop any other prisoner instead... apart from himself, in which case they would only drop the one he choose.

[Fyraltari]

If we are making examples from books, I would love to cite the most moral writer of the XXI century (at least, according to me) - Elizier Yudkovsky.



I think this is a much deeper example than one about potatoes. You may disagree, of course, and this exampe might be scrubbed by moderation, because I don't know the exact rules of the forum.

This seems like a false dichotomy. Was it inevitable that the Nazi atomic research project would have succeeded had that boat not sunk?

Also, since when are we considering military officers paragons of moral strength? Armies aren't exactly known for their unwillingness to kill and harm. No offense to military folk, intended.

[pendell]

[citation needed]

In fact, I think you are wrong, since the absence of the secondary clause was examined early on in one of Calvin's short stories ("Escape!", IIRC, where a mining robot was created without it so they'd stop rushing in to save humans from minor danger - to humans - that was instant fatality to robots). Now, I accept Asimov is known for revisioning his stories often & without compunction, but given that it is crucial to the, AFAIK, his very first robot story (Robbie) that the robot rushes to prevent the MC from being hurt by a third party, that it was baked in from the beginning.

GW

I'll concede you're probably right about this one -- I think i was remembering the 'Escape!' short story which pointed out how important that additional clause was.

Ironically, Isaac Asimov, in my view, threw this whole moral framework in the bin in Robots and Empire when he added his zeroth law to the equation:

0. A robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such conflicts with the zeroth law.

What is "humanity"? And how do you know what does and doesn't constitute "harm to humanity"? What we've done is gone straight back to "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" utilitarianism. It means any crime is permissible to a robot in service of this extremely nebulous zeroth law. The fact this wasn't made into a villain's backstory is, to me, a missed opportunity.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[StragaSevera]

It's even easier to tell yourself "this other person should die." Funny thing about the trolley problem is that it's never you on the tracks.

It is much easier for a good person to sacrifice yourself. In fact, because I'm really fat, in the second problem I would rather jump on the rails than push a fat person on them (if I somehow knew that it would be enough).
To sacrifice somebody else is much harder - that's why terrorists take hostages.

It is relevant. But as to what you think you proved, you did show legality when we're debating morality, so you still proved nothing.

You did not give any argument about why it is relevant.
And I gave an example of a law that is considered moral by most people (even you, I presume? If you think that it is ok to leave a guy in freezing water, then I don't think our moral systems can be any more different).

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Also let's move away from Nazis.

You did not give any argument about why it is relevant.

I did. Here, I'll even bold it for you:

Notwithstanding that I am not Russia, and thus am not obligated to share Russia's opinions, this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

It is much easier for a good person to sacrifice yourself.

Easy to say from a chair.

And I gave an example of a law that is considered moral by most people (even you, I presume? If you think that it is ok to leave a guy in freezing water, then I don't think our moral systems can be any more different).

You gave an example that cut out the entire moral element. If you think that's the same thing we don't really have anything to discuss.

[StragaSevera]

This seems like a false dichotomy. Was it inevitable that the Nazi atomic research project would have succeeded had that boat not sunk?

That's the problem - it was not inevitable. But it was still a good thing to do.

Also, since when are we considering military officers paragons of moral strength? Armies aren't exactly known for their unwillingness to kill and harm. No offense to military folk, intended.

That's what the second part of the quote talks about - we all live in the bubble, shielded from this decisions, and it makes an illusion that is described in my opponents' posts. If there were no "military folk", every single one of us would be obliged to make such decisions.
I'm not praising them, of course - I'm just giving an example of one IRL sacrifice that was moral.

[pendell]

Also, a poster above claimed less-than-full understanding of the forum rules. I am not a mod, so the most I am allowed to do is link to them . If there is anything that appears unclear , I'm sure a PM to one of the mods (peelee is one, and he's participating in this very conversation) will probably clear ita ll up.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[StragaSevera]

this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

I still fail to see any relevance of this. I gave many examples - the hostage ones, the (moved away from) one, and so on. If you refuse to partake in one but not in the other, it is an arbitratry decision - or you need to explain to me why it is not as much arbitrary as "I push the trolley lever if it is painted green and not push if it is pained any other color".

Easy to say from a chair.

And even easier to never rise from a chair, claiming that you are too moral for it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'll concede you're probably right about this one -- I think i was remembering the 'Escape!' short story which pointed out how important that additional clause was.

Ironically, Isaac Asimov, in my view, threw this whole moral framework in the bin in Robots and Empire when he added his zeroth law to the equation:

0. A robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such conflicts with the zeroth law.

What is "humanity"? And how do you know what does and doesn't constitute "harm to humanity"? What we've done is gone straight back to "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" utilitarianism. It means any crime is permissible to a robot in service of this extremely nebulous zeroth law. The fact this wasn't made into a villain's backstory is, to me, a missed opportunity.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Eh. As I understand it, those late Foundation series novels are not even necessarily written by Asimov. But given I didn't really get into the series (I love the first one, but after that, it goes downhill quickly). I vaguely remember that character - was it R. Olivah? - but I remember finding the whole thing rather silly and not in the style I liked. When it comes to Asimov, if it is not a short story, I don't enjoy it (the original foundation novel, for example, if more like 4/5 short stories published together).

ETA: thinking about it a bit more, my main issue is that the long forms always seemed to have some Omniscient Council of Vagueness running things in the background (Second Foundation! Robots with 0th law! etc), which is too conspiracy-theory-like for my liking, especially when it happens over and over.

GW