I took Dr. Law's classes in my first and third year, it was such a breath of fresh air listening to him talk philosophy. His lectures were so brilliantly delivered because he knew how to entice an audience. Im now a teacher and i try to implement similar techniques into my own practise. I'd honestly just love to sit in Dr. Law's lectures just one more time.
Might be worth trying to locate this. I couldn't find a link to the multimedia file, only the page stating: "Iain Law was interviewed by Mathieu Ricard on BBC WM radio on Thursday 1st November, about happiness, and whether meditation can make us happier Published 1 November 2012"
Maybe the apparent inconsistency in people's views is due to the fact that real life is messy whereas thought experiments are often based on certainties and perfect dichotomies that seem unrealistic. Given two choices involving willingly letting/making some number of people die, a person might say "well, you never know, maybe if I do nothing or pursue some third option some deus ex machina will save the day..."
Fantastic professor! About the "double effect" and morphine, if you know the dose will be lethal, that would be (non voluntary) euthanasia, unless the patient has directives to receive such handling of his situation, in which case if would be voluntary euthanasia (consent was given beforehand). In order for it to be "double effect," you can forsee that the medication will hasten death to some degree, but not directly cause it. Death would be a side effect of a therapeutic intervention as opposed to a direct result of said intervention.
The trolley problem as normally presented is NOT a "balance of numbers" moral dilemma. A true "balance of numbers" trolley problem would be: There is a track with a train barreling down it. There are 5 people on one section of track, unable to move. There is one person on another section of track, unable to move. There is a switch in front of you. It has three positions. If you switch the lever one way, the train will be routed in such a way that the five people are killed and the one spared. If you switch the lever the other way, the train will be routed in such a way that the one person is killed and the five spared. If you leave the lever in its current position, the train will go over both sections and kill all six people. That is a proper "by the numbers" moral dilemma, and I assert that is the part of the brain that is being utilized (incorrectly) by the people who choose to switch the track in the usual example. I think the power of the trolley problem (and also the monstrous danger of it, as a result) is that the exact scenario presented tricks the brain into treating it as a raw "by the numbers" problem, when it actually isn't. The correct moral answer to the trolley problem as normally presented is that you do not throw the lever. In fact, you have zero right to throw the lever, just as you have zero right to intentionally cause the death of one patient to save the lives of five, at least not without the permission of that one.
The cause leading up to this strange made-up situation is more interesting than the reason for you pulling the lever or not. Just who is responsible for this screwup in the first place, that you suddenly and without blame find yourself in the midst of? Not you for sure, since you only happened to pass by. You can't be held responsible for an "accident waiting to happen", created outside of your control by some third part. Whatever you do or don't can't be judged by others since you are i fact "innocent" to this situation. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Without you present at the scene, for sure five people will be killed. With you present one person or five will be killed, depending on you pulling the lever or not. "Well...", an onlooker might say, "you are morally obligated to pull the lever so that only one person dies and five other gets to live". But the five may be murderers placed there to be executed by way of trolley. Saving them would thus be "wrong" in societys eyes. Saving one person and letting five die might be the right thing to do since He/She might be the new Nelson Mandela. He/She might also be the next Hitler... It's seems more like a game of probabilities: "At least three of the five ought to be good people. Let's save the five!" Thus, what you do or don't do is of no importance to your "guilt" in the situation. The "guilt" lay with the person who caused this situation, not with you who has to live with it. Possible, you will get lauded for saving five people. But that is something that will happen in the future (of which we know nothing) and so of no importance really. Again, weather you pull the lever or not doesn't matter - you are not a "moral agent" in a situation you didn't create.
you dont know they are murders though and you can not be held responsible for not knowing what someone is you can be held responsible for failing to act in a situation that you did know about IE you knew that if you did not pull that lever you would be responsible for more deaths than if if you pulled it.
"The cause leading up to this strange made-up situation is more interesting than the reason for you pulling the lever" Woah, i never even thought of that. The idea that you're not even meant to be involved in this scenario.
Very dubious about the distinction between intention and foresight. I do not think intend has a clear meaning. That is why it is used a lot in the law. Perhaps the word desire should be used instead. Even then it is difficult to assess what a person truly desires.
It seems to me more of a personality test rather than a morality question. Different people stick to different ideals and beliefs that were fed and interpreted to them as positive since childhood. So with the trolley problem, what if they think that killing is good based on the justifications of their personal experiences? Yes, their intention might have been to kill rather than to save someones life. So by the law it was bad, but in this situation he would not intervene because might as well kill more. So the individual was not guilty for not pulling the lever as he wasn't the person who made the train go down the hill. But then he was guilty for killing 5 people because it happened to be his intention. Now this is interesting, if he wasn't involved in the situation at all, he was just standing there and the situation would remain the same without him, but his intention was to kill so he chose to kill more because it would be better for him, is he guilty for the death of these 5 people? Well if he doesn't say it to anyone then he is not guilty but if people somehow find what were his intentions, he would be guilty? Definitely, but again, our thinking is based on our personality.
I think the thing that makes things morally wrong is selfishness Murder is selfish (taking a life and going on living yours.) Stealing is selfish (having someone else's possession and profiting off it.) Making someone cry is selfish (That persons feelings don't matter as much as yours.)
Yeah but it’s all about perspective. In a trolley problem you are being selfish to whoever you let get hit by a train. If there wasn’t anyone on the lever side of the track it would be morally wrong to not hit the lever. Since it is selfish to let five people get hit by a train and also selfish to flip a lever to murder one guy with a train you have to use some other moral reasoning to resolve the issue.
I would disagree that selfishness makes things morally wrong. If you take care of yourself through exercise and eating properly, that's not morally wrong is it? If you want to make a lot of money so you go to school and study for years and years, that's not morally wrong is it? I would agree that we often view Intentions to determine whether an action is moral or not. For example, killing someone in self-defense is a whole lot different than killing them for fun. In this video he actually brings that up. The first was the trolley problem, in which the argument is that people who pull the lever do not intend to kill a person, they intend to save 5 people. In next two (organ donor and fatman) the intent is to kill, the byproduct is saving others.
The answer two why the situations are different is "Trust". The Knee Surgery man put his trust in you to help and not hurt him. He came into the hospital.
I took Dr. Law's classes in my first and third year, it was such a breath of fresh air listening to him talk philosophy. His lectures were so brilliantly delivered because he knew how to entice an audience. Im now a teacher and i try to implement similar techniques into my own practise. I'd honestly just love to sit in Dr. Law's lectures just one more time.
Might be worth trying to locate this. I couldn't find a link to the multimedia file, only the page stating: "Iain Law was interviewed by Mathieu Ricard on BBC WM radio on Thursday 1st November, about happiness, and whether meditation can make us happier Published 1 November 2012"
I'm just ever so glad he mentioned 'The Good Place'; fantastic lecture.
Instablaster...
Exasctly
Marvellous lecture about this ethical dilemma.
This is such a hidden gem of a video. Great stuff 👏
Very effective lecturer ... Thank you.
Maybe the apparent inconsistency in people's views is due to the fact that real life is messy whereas thought experiments are often based on certainties and perfect dichotomies that seem unrealistic. Given two choices involving willingly letting/making some number of people die, a person might say "well, you never know, maybe if I do nothing or pursue some third option some deus ex machina will save the day..."
I've been pondering over similar questions in my videos. Fascinating to see how others interpret these concepts.
Fantastic professor! About the "double effect" and morphine, if you know the dose will be lethal, that would be (non voluntary) euthanasia, unless the patient has directives to receive such handling of his situation, in which case if would be voluntary euthanasia (consent was given beforehand). In order for it to be "double effect," you can forsee that the medication will hasten death to some degree, but not directly cause it. Death would be a side effect of a therapeutic intervention as opposed to a direct result of said intervention.
The trolley problem as normally presented is NOT a "balance of numbers" moral dilemma. A true "balance of numbers" trolley problem would be:
There is a track with a train barreling down it. There are 5 people on one section of track, unable to move. There is one person on another section of track, unable to move. There is a switch in front of you. It has three positions. If you switch the lever one way, the train will be routed in such a way that the five people are killed and the one spared. If you switch the lever the other way, the train will be routed in such a way that the one person is killed and the five spared. If you leave the lever in its current position, the train will go over both sections and kill all six people. That is a proper "by the numbers" moral dilemma, and I assert that is the part of the brain that is being utilized (incorrectly) by the people who choose to switch the track in the usual example.
I think the power of the trolley problem (and also the monstrous danger of it, as a result) is that the exact scenario presented tricks the brain into treating it as a raw "by the numbers" problem, when it actually isn't. The correct moral answer to the trolley problem as normally presented is that you do not throw the lever. In fact, you have zero right to throw the lever, just as you have zero right to intentionally cause the death of one patient to save the lives of five, at least not without the permission of that one.
That was so awesome!
that cliffhanger though
Yes I will take the answers to the test. Thank you.
That was a great lecture
The cause leading up to this strange made-up situation is more interesting than the reason for you pulling the lever or not. Just who is responsible for this screwup in the first place, that you suddenly and without blame find yourself in the midst of? Not you for sure, since you only happened to pass by. You can't be held responsible for an "accident waiting to happen", created outside of your control by some third part. Whatever you do or don't can't be judged by others since you are i fact "innocent" to this situation. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
Without you present at the scene, for sure five people will be killed. With you present one person or five will be killed, depending on you pulling the lever or not. "Well...", an onlooker might say, "you are morally obligated to pull the lever so that only one person dies and five other gets to live". But the five may be murderers placed there to be executed by way of trolley. Saving them would thus be "wrong" in societys eyes. Saving one person and letting five die might be the right thing to do since He/She might be the new Nelson Mandela. He/She might also be the next Hitler... It's seems more like a game of probabilities: "At least three of the five ought to be good people. Let's save the five!"
Thus, what you do or don't do is of no importance to your "guilt" in the situation. The "guilt" lay with the person who caused this situation, not with you who has to live with it. Possible, you will get lauded for saving five people. But that is something that will happen in the future (of which we know nothing) and so of no importance really. Again, weather you pull the lever or not doesn't matter - you are not a "moral agent" in a situation you didn't create.
you dont know they are murders though and you can not be held responsible for not knowing what someone is you can be held responsible for failing to act in a situation that you did know about IE you knew that if you did not pull that lever you would be responsible for more deaths than if if you pulled it.
"The cause leading up to this strange made-up situation is more interesting than the reason for you pulling the lever"
Woah, i never even thought of that.
The idea that you're not even meant to be involved in this scenario.
The knee patient has a contract with his clinician that he and his knee will be the clinician's only concern.
What about noise
Always go the longer route
well first thing i knew was to pull and scream MOVE then no one would die right?
😒whose driving it?
Very dubious about the distinction between intention and foresight. I do not think intend has a clear meaning. That is why it is used a lot in the law. Perhaps the word desire should be used instead. Even then it is difficult to assess what a person truly desires.
It seems to me more of a personality test rather than a morality question. Different people stick to different ideals and beliefs that were fed and interpreted to them as positive since childhood. So with the trolley problem, what if they think that killing is good based on the justifications of their personal experiences? Yes, their intention might have been to kill rather than to save someones life. So by the law it was bad, but in this situation he would not intervene because might as well kill more. So the individual was not guilty for not pulling the lever as he wasn't the person who made the train go down the hill. But then he was guilty for killing 5 people because it happened to be his intention.
Now this is interesting, if he wasn't involved in the situation at all, he was just standing there and the situation would remain the same without him, but his intention was to kill so he chose to kill more because it would be better for him, is he guilty for the death of these 5 people?
Well if he doesn't say it to anyone then he is not guilty but if people somehow find what were his intentions, he would be guilty? Definitely, but again, our thinking is based on our personality.
I think the thing that makes things morally wrong is selfishness
Murder is selfish (taking a life and going on living yours.)
Stealing is selfish (having someone else's possession and profiting off it.)
Making someone cry is selfish (That persons feelings don't matter as much as yours.)
Yeah but it’s all about perspective. In a trolley problem you are being selfish to whoever you let get hit by a train. If there wasn’t anyone on the lever side of the track it would be morally wrong to not hit the lever. Since it is selfish to let five people get hit by a train and also selfish to flip a lever to murder one guy with a train you have to use some other moral reasoning to resolve the issue.
I would disagree that selfishness makes things morally wrong. If you take care of yourself through exercise and eating properly, that's not morally wrong is it? If you want to make a lot of money so you go to school and study for years and years, that's not morally wrong is it? I would agree that we often view Intentions to determine whether an action is moral or not. For example, killing someone in self-defense is a whole lot different than killing them for fun. In this video he actually brings that up. The first was the trolley problem, in which the argument is that people who pull the lever do not intend to kill a person, they intend to save 5 people. In next two (organ donor and fatman) the intent is to kill, the byproduct is saving others.
Now it's changed...
well you could just run and not witness any of those and let whatever happens
❤❤👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
The answer two why the situations are different is "Trust". The Knee Surgery man put his trust in you to help and not hurt him. He came into the hospital.
👌
Such a great lecture by such a great lecturer, all to be ruined with a fat joke :/
Unbelievable, unrealistic, never happen in real life, contrived dilemmas miss the point about what we think morality is.