Comfy Slippers wrote:
Can you at least give some insight to your reasoning? Claiming that you enjoy discussing ethics, then proceeding to give a vague answer that doesn't lead up to anything is nonsensical. You're willingly pushing for a thread full of result spam.
The entire test is just a huge contradiction and a slap in the face for anyone who isn't utilitarian. This train dilemma is locking you to a set amount of choices. Though it is understandable, given the unavoidable situation. Then again, they fail to realise that inaction is not action when determining moral culpability, and this is where this one fails the most. And much like this thread, the topics covered here are pretty inexplicit (slight issue, but an issue nonetheless). Also, it largely misses any nuance in thought. Sure torture is immoral, but at the same - letting millions of people die is probably more wrong. Welcоme to the real world of gray areas where nо one really abides by utilitarian lоgic, nоr strict moralism. My thought just dоesn't process fit into their contrived axioms.
I myself strive to be an utilitarian whenever possible because I enjoy making people happy and it gives me a positive feedback.
That being said, I will say that the test in and of itself is very basic and simplifies a lot of situations by amongst other things, locking you to a set amount of choices. I hope that the thread can allow discussion of the questions and the logic behind one's own answer, and if you had another answer than those given and why.
Right and wrong are also relative concepts to one's own morality, which is why the test states that there are no right or wrong answers. I would disagree that it's a slap in the face for anyone who isn't utilitarian, rather, I would argue that it is a valid example of how hard of an ideology it is to uphold in the real world, and how you often would have to sacrifice commonly good morals like "torture is wrong" to adhere to utilitarism. It is the start of a conversation, hence why it was left intentionally vague at the start as I don't want to people to have any preconceived and influenced thoughts going into the test.
The train dilemma has numerous variations by now and is an exploration of how we let different sets of data affect our decisions. Because the test doesn't provide much background information as to who the people on the track are or why they're tied there, I tried maximising happiness in all situations where I could.
However, were I presented with motivations, relation etc, my decision would most likely differ.
Inaction is an intriguing idea, because the reasoning behind it could very vastly from person to person, and if you wanted to choose that in the scenarios, I would very much want to know why. I like learning.