Who or what is the final arbiter of morality and good?

[Leontius]

What are the sources and influences of your morality?

[cbayer]

1. My own conscience is the final arbiter.

I don't always choose the most moral or good route, but my level of guilt clearly sends the message that I have strayed from what I know to be right.

My major influences were clearly my parents, as I think is probably true for most people. But there has always been change and flux in response to new information and experiences.

How about you?

[rock]

85. VERY good answer

Unless you're a psychopath, you know what's right because you can feel what it's like to be the other person. P.S. If you are a psychopath, the question is bootless.

[cbayer]

93. Thanks, rock! You are absolutely right - it is those without

the capacity to empathize that lack a moral compass.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Jeffrey Lebowski

[trotsky]

3. Loaded question.

Assumes there is one.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. the 87th uber-god. nt.

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. I was born with this way. I have always considered myself a good person. I have always wanted

to be a good person and do good in the world. Although I have made bad choices leading me to do wrong things, for which I feel tremendous remorse and guilt. I prefer to make good choices that enhance mine and others well-being. I choose to help people instead of hurt them, even though I grew up with parents who would rather harm others.

Being moral, doing good (and being immoral, doing bad) is in our DNA. It's in our soul/spirit. The choice between good and bad is really a matter of choosing between helping/healing others - the good or harming/degrading others - the bad. Some people feel pleasure from making others feel good about themselves, others get pleasure from hurting others. Morally, the high road is the road of goodness to self and other, which encourages life. The low road, the bad road of immorality is the one of harming and abusing others discouraging growth of life.

So in essence morality is that which encourages healthy growth of life, which is good. Life itself is the arbiter of morality and good.

[on point]

6. Does it physically hurt others or block their rights

If not, moral. Don't impose on others

[Hestia]

7. ^^ Well said

[trotsky]

8. If only it were that simple.

Use that logic for the anti-choicers. They sincerely believe that the fetus is a human being with full rights. Therefore abortion would be a significant imposition on the fetus, to say the least. Ergo, abortion is an immoral act. (According to them, and validated by your reasoning.)

[on point]

12. Individual has sovereignty over their own body. Anti choicer nixed. Next

[trotsky]

13. Anti-choicer believes fetus is an individual. Try again. n/t

[on point]

17. Their beliefs are irrelevant. They don't have ANY sovereignty over a woman's body

[trotsky]

20. Oh, I see.

You declare your beliefs are better than theirs, and that's the end of it. Because you said so. Gosh, it's a mystery why religions have such a history of struggle and conflict over disagreements.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Rights are coupled to personhood.

I do not judge a 1h old muti-celled blastocyst as a person with rights. In order to make an undifferentiated clump of cells a 'person' one must invest in it some metaphysical construct, like a 'soul'.

Which of course, those pro-lifer fundamentalists fervently believe in souls, so... Yeah. Real productive talking to them.

[trotsky]

39. Oh neither do I.

But they do. And if their belief is based on religion, who are we to tell them they're wrong? There are some right here on DU who lecture others on that all the time.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. In a case like that, you balance the rights of bodily autonomy for the living, breathing...

conscious woman versus a zygote/embryo.

Any reasonable approach would say that the rights of the woman take precedence.

[trotsky]

70. I agree, but of course that's not how they see the equation at all.

And by elevating religious beliefs, protecting them from criticism, how can we make any progress?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. There are a whole set of "trolley car dilemma" ethics puzzles

that quickly illustrate why it just ain't that simple.

First, we have the switch dilemma: A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks, one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say "Yes."

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

[trotsky]

15. It's disappointing that even among self-professed liberals...

there is such a strong desire for black-and-white morality, not significantly different than the right-wing fundies.

[okasha]

18. It's simpler.

You send the trolley toward the track with only one person on it because it takes only one other person to grab the damn fool by the ankles and drag him off.

There are enough real moral/ethical problems that your Gedankenexperiment is a waste of time and oxygen.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Oh Hai Okasha!

hmmmm ... not my experiment but I think it is just fabulous that you have dismissed modern post utilitarianism ethics like that. Have you considered reading for a PHD at Oxford or Cambridge? Or perhaps you should start editing the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem on this, as your superior analysis: "grab their ankles" just cuts through the whole idiotic dilemma. It is not like we face situations like this in the real world after all.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

[okasha]

25. LOl

I prefer to remain reality based.

You have fun with your little toy, now.

[mr blur]

26. "Reality based"? You're funny.

[okasha]

27. A little humor is a good thing.

Have a nice day.

[trotsky]

21. Where did the other person come from?

No one else is present to save anyone. You are the only person capable of taking action in the scenario. There are no easy solutions to the trolley thought experiments. They definitely make rigid fundamentalist-type thinkers uneasy.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. The trolley test is a bifurcation mechanism.

You can Kobayashi Maru your way through any philosophical question, and avoid the actual premise all you want there Captain Kirk, but it just makes you a non-contributing participant in the discussion.

Of course the Trolley Dilemma is a manufactured scenario. It's meant to test the morality of a proposition; is it ok to kill one person who would otherwise live to save many, who would otherwise die? It's a utilitarian value of human life proposition.

CAN you answer that proposition directly, without altering the scenario to escape the proposition? I can. It's part of who I am, and how/why I respect and protect human life at the individual level, and at the societal level.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I would refrain from intervening.

The events in motion were not caused by me. To switch the track to the single worker would be an overt act of murder on my part. That worker's life isn't mine to sacrifice, therefore it cannot BE sacrifice... which leaves murder.

I will not murder a human for any benefit, no matter how amortized that murder might be across a great number of saved lives.

I think most people are wrong, on that assessment.


(Add a factor, the single worker volunteering, and I would accommodate, because THAT would be an act of sacrifice, by someone in a position to morally offer it.)

The first of these ethics lectures deals with this scenario handily.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Suppose it is 1000 to 1

Is there no ratio at which you would act?
5:1 seems to be a ratio at which most people accept that in the hypothetical the "right answer" is to sacrifice the one.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. There is no ratio at which I would intervene.

Principles are like that, for me. Five billion lives against one, a goodly chunk of humanity itself, I would refuse.

It occurs to me that this is likely a reflection of my flat out horror and rejection of the core premise of Christianity; the torture and murder of one person to 'save' everyone else.

"Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly.
"One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me
yourself, I challenge you — answer. Imagine that you are creat-
ing a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men
happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that
it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny
creature — that baby beating its breast with its fist, for in-
stance — and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears,-
would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?
Tell me, and tell the truth."

"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

"And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are
building it would agree to accept their happiness on the founda-
tion of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accept-
ing it would remain happy for ever?"

I would not forgive a person who killed another person on my behalf, to save me, or even my child. I don't put a price on human life. An individual may volunteer, may sacrifice themselves for me, or my child, or millions of innocents, and I'm ok with that, would be grateful even. But a life taken to buy some measure of safety or life for me? For even someone else that I love? Can't do it. Won't do it.

Even if I benefited from the murder, I would seek justice for the person who was murdered in that scenario, upon the person who made that choice. I simply cannot classify it as sacrifice when one person offers someone else's life up for destruction, for any measure of benefit at all, even direct benefit to me.

[trotsky]

37. What if it was all of humanity?

Let's make the problem huge. An asteroid hurtling toward earth, one big enough to kill all humans. You alone can divert it but it would take out the International Space Station and its crew. (Yeah, I know, this whole experiment is ridiculous. But that's what makes it fun!) You have no time to warn the crew or get their consent to sacrifice themselves. What do you do?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I would die with my principles intact.

I would not intervene.

I can certainly kill in self-defense, but the thing to be defended against in that scenario, is not the people on the space station.
It does add a small interesting element to the scenario, because if the earth was scourged to the bedrock by such an impact, eventually the people on the space station would die too, lacking their lifeline to resources. So, in this case, to make the two scenarios fully equivalent, non-action in the trolley dilemma should result in the deaths of the 6 workers on the track, AND the 1 worker on the side spur track, by way of the trolley exploding or something. Some one-way mechanism that would not result in the deaths of the six workers if you kill the one.

Basically I trust no one, not even myself, with the power to kill any innocent person for the benefit of other people. Allowing that sort of behavior endangers humanity as surely as that incoming meteor.

[trotsky]

41. Well let's say the folks on the space station could remain on it long enough...

for the earth to be habitable again, and can use an escape pod to return to the surface. They won't die. Does that change anything?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. No, except

it would make me, personally, feel better, from a nostalgia type standpoint, that I had made the right decision, and done so without all of humanity's potential passing away with it.

[trotsky]

46. Yeah I can say I'd have no problem diverting the asteroid.

The trolley experiment is tough. I keep thinking of Star Trek and Spock - "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. (Or the one.)" But his sacrifice was his own. Let's just say I hope I never face a real-world dilemma like that.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Yeah, I'm ok with informed consent, self-sacrifice, that's cool.

Spock's choice was the equivalent of that one worker on the side track yelling 'do it, save them'. I could act in that case, because the choice is his/hers, not mine.

My reluctance to encounter such a situation is two-fold. One, sucks, someone's likely going to die, and that's a horrible thing to be any part of. But second, I don't anticipate my reaction will be immediately popular to bystanders. I know I'm not in the majority on refusing to risk killing one or two, to save many.

[trotsky]

49. What if Hitler is on the space station?

Huh? Then what, smartypants??!?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. No, if you want to get hitler, you need that asteroid to hit, because he's underground.

[Kelvin Mace]

82. I offer a counter to that saying

since it is easily perverted.

The needs of the few and the one must be guarded against the tyranny of the many. After all, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. You have to be very careful about how you define "needs".

[LTX]

110. "I would die with my principles intact."

More appropriately, you would murder 7.1 billion (+) people, and destroy the only know ecosystem capable of sustaining carbon based life forms, to prove the primacy of your "principles." In short, you would willfully destroy both the place where your "principles" originated, and the only place where your "principles" mean anything. Sounds rather like deification of either your alleged principles, or yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Ah, another 'murder' contestant.

So because I won't murder a few people, and will allow natural events to take place, I'm a murderer. Genius.

[LTX]

112. As duly noted below, culpability can affix to inaction as well as action.

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

By the way, from whence does this principle of "innocence by inaction" derive? And would this ego-centric principle of self-absolution change if, say, your choice was between saving 5 family members by killing 1 stranger in the "trolley" scenario? (I suspect, in the spirit of resolute internet sanctity, that your answer will be an unequivocal no. But perhaps I'll be surprised.)

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I posted this downthread but, here's an interesting lecture/Q-A session, also from Harvard on this.

It goes through various permutations of the scenario, and it is interesting to see how the audience changes their responses, without regard to any underlying principle.

It gets REALLY interesting when the 'trolley' becomes 'impending death and the harvesting of organs'. It's really just sleight of hand. The proposition has not changed, you have only changed the nature of the 'trolley' (impending death) appearance from a hurtling trolley, to fading biological function. But it's the same proposition.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

[Warren Stupidity]

48. in the real world you just grab the ankles

so have fun with your toys. Or some other bullshit.

It is interesting how changing the context and parameters messes with people's ethical analysis.

You are walking near a trolley-car track when you notice five people tied to it in a row. The next instant, you see a trolley hurtling toward them, out of control. A signal lever is within your reach; if you pull it, you can divert the runaway trolley down a side track, saving the five — but killing another person, who is tied to that spur. What do you do? Most people say they would pull the lever: Better that one person should die instead of five.

Now, a different scenario. You are on a footbridge overlooking the track, where five people are tied down and the trolley is rushing toward them. There is no spur this time, but near you on the bridge is a chubby man. If you heave him over the side, he will fall on the track and his bulk will stop the trolley. He will die in the process. What do you do? (We presume your own body is too svelte to stop the trolley, should you be considering noble self-sacrifice.)

In numerical terms, the two situations are identical. A strict utilitarian, concerned only with the greatest happiness of the greatest number, would see no difference: In each case, one person dies to save five. Yet people seem to feel differently about the “Fat Man” case. The thought of seizing a random bystander, ignoring his screams, wrestling him to the railing and tumbling him over is too much. Surveys suggest that up to 90 percent of us would throw the lever in “Spur,” while a similar percentage think the Fat Man should not be thrown off the bridge. Yet, if asked, people find it hard to give logical reasons for this choice. Assaulting the Fat Man just feels wrong; our instincts cry out against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would-you-kill-the-fat-man-and-the-trolley-problem.html?_r=0

[Kelvin Mace]

83. My choice would be to let the

trolley's front wheels cross the track going one way, then jam the lever the other way forcing the back wheel on the other track, derailing the trolley before it got to anyone.

[Jim__]

59. The audience response was consistent across the trolley and medical scenarios.

You can claim they didn't recognize any underlying principle, but I would argue, though they were not particularly articulate on the spur of the moment about their reasoning, they were actually respecting a deontological viewpoint.

In the first scenario, situation 1, you are the driver of the trolley. You control the situation. There are only bad alternatives, but there is clearly a less bad alternative - kill 1 person rather than 5. Doing nothing - i.e. not moving the steering wheel, doesn't absolve the driver of responsibility. If he doesn't move the steering wheel, he chooses to kill 5 rather than 1. The choice is effectively, steer into 1 or steer into 5.

The first situation of the medical scenario is the same. The doctor can choose to treat and save 5, letting 1 die, or treat and save 1, letting 5 die. Essentially the same situation and they overwhelmingly voted to save the 5 in both scenarios.

In the first scenario, situation 2, you are on the bridge along with someone else. You are not in control of the situation and you are not forced to make a choice. Pushing the person off the bridge is killing him and it's a choice. The audience overwhelmingly voted not to kill the man.

The medical scenario, situation 2, is essentially the same - save 5 sick people by killing one healthy person, and the audience voted overwhelmingly not to kill the man.

The students tended overwhelmingly toward what I would consider the deontologically based choices.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. No it isn't. The Trolley dilemma is precisely the same whether it's the driver or a person on the

bridge.

The driver is utterly removed from the equation, save one thing; the power to make a change to the scenario (left/right on the wheel, move the trolley onto another track)
The person on the bridge is utterly removed from the equation, save one thing; the power to kill one person and stop the train short of the workers.

It's the same equation.

Both individuals in question can either do nothing, and 5 people die, or they can make an overt act to change the scenario, and kill just one bystander who would otherwise not have been hurt.

"You control the situation."

No, the driver does not control the situation. Through no fault of his own, the driver has no control, except one single opportunity to kill one bystander, to save 5 people in jeopardy. The person on the bridge similarly has one opportunity to kill one bystander and save 5 people on jeopardy.

The driver has no other control, and has no moral culpability for the accident. He didn't break the trolley braking system. He made no mistake or error, or negligence per the scenario criteria. The events might be someone's fault (maintenance probably) but that is beyond the scope of the driver's involvement.

The organ transplant scenario is no different, it simply substitutes time/medical doom for a hurtling trolley. It's the same problem. (For killing one bystander to get organs to save the other 5. it differs for the 'use one of the dying to save the other four', from the trolley scenario by actually altering the equation.)

[Jim__]

61. From a deontological point of view, they are quite different.

From a deontological POV, pushing someone off a bridge is murder - the action itself is wrong. The students overwhelmingly choose not to commit murder.

But, first, looking at your response:

The driver is utterly removed from the equation, save one thing; the power to make a change to the scenario (left/right on the wheel, move the trolley onto another track)
The person on the bridge is utterly removed from the equation, save one thing; the power to kill one person and stop the train short of the workers.

It's the same equation.

No, move the trolley onto another track and kill one person and stop the train is not the same equation. The results may be the same, 1 dead and 5 alive, but the actions are different. From a consequentialist point of view, only the results matter, so a consequentialist might consider the situations equivalent. From a deontological point of view, kill one person is a proscribed action, and so, not a valid consideration, move the trolley onto another track is not a proscribed action and so, is permissible. That's the difference between situation 1 and 2 from a deontological point of view, and that is the way the students overwhelmingly voted.

Since we agree that the medical scenario and the trolley scenario are the same, it may be easier to see the situation from the medical scenario since there is a history here. From the Hippocratic Oath: With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

In the first situation, the doctor is confronted with 6 injured people. One is severely injured and will require the doctor's full attention for the rest of the day, the other 5 are less severely injured and can all be successfully treated if treated today. The doctor can save the 5 and lose the 1, or lose the 1 and save the 5. If the doctor saves the 5 and loses the 1 - the option the students picked - he does not violate the Hippocratic Oath. He doesn't do any harm.

In the second situation, the doctor is confronted with 5 patients in need of immediate transplants and 1 relatively healthy patient who can provide the 5 required transplant organs. However, in order to do the transplants, the doctor must kill the healthy patient - he must violate the Hippocratic Oath.

So, by historical standards, situation 1 and 2 are different.

Again, from a consequentialist point of view, situation 1 and 2 may be the same because the results are the same. From a deontological point of view, the situations differ because situation 2 calls for a direct act of murder. The evidence for the difference is that in both scenarios (trolley and medical) the students overwhelmingly choose to exercise control that they are forced to exercise to save 5 rather than 1; and in situation 2, they overwhelmingly refuse to commit a direct act of murder.

A deontological point of view accounts for the students vote. If you claim the situations are the same, how do you account for the overwhelming votes of the students?

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Hold on.

"No, move the trolley onto another track and kill one person and stop the train is not the same equation. The results may be the same, 1 dead and 5 alive, but the actions are different. From a consequentialist point of view, only the results matter, so a consequentialist might consider the situations equivalent. From a deontological point of view, kill one person is a proscribed action, and so, not a valid consideration, move the trolley onto another track is not a proscribed action and so, is permissible. That's the difference between situation 1 and 2 from a deontological point of view, and that is the way the students overwhelmingly voted."

Fat guy on the bridge is killed by the trolley, not the fall. So, making an overt choice to kill the guy on the side track, or kill the guy on the bridge is actually the same. The shoving him over, fall, and associated injury *before* the trolley turns him into a wheel chock, is never cited as a cause of death. The trolley kills him.

In both cases the consequence is the same; you have killed a bystander who would otherwise never have been harmed, to save five people in jeopardy.

The reasons why people balk at this was delved into pretty deep in Warren's link above this thread fork;

"In numerical terms, the two situations are identical. A strict utilitarian, concerned only with the greatest happiness of the greatest number, would see no difference: In each case, one person dies to save five. Yet people seem to feel differently about the “Fat Man” case. The thought of seizing a random bystander, ignoring his screams, wrestling him to the railing and tumbling him over is too much. Surveys suggest that up to 90 percent of us would throw the lever in “Spur,” while a similar percentage think the Fat Man should not be thrown off the bridge. Yet, if asked, people find it hard to give logical reasons for this choice. Assaulting the Fat Man just feels wrong; our instincts cry out against it. "

I suspect it would not be a different result if you made it the fat man and yourself standing NEXT to the track, requiring only a not-very-violent nudge to get him in the way of the trolley. Still the same problem.

"The results of such studies have been fascinating, showing, for example, that women are less likely than men to sacrifice the Fat Man, or even to flip the lever in Spur. Other investigations reveal that people are more likely to approve the killing of the Fat Man if they have just seen a comedy clip as opposed to “a tedious documentary about a Spanish village.” The contingent nature of our ethical responses in general emerges from other research. We are more generous toward a stranger if we have just found a dime; a judge’s decision to grant parole depends on how long it has been since he or she had lunch. Are these the “deep-rooted moral instincts” on which we are willing to found decisions that may affect tens or hundreds of thousands of fellow humans?"

"a direct act of murder"

I would consider deliberately withholding needed medical care that would otherwise have saved a life, to be murder. If you take away the resource contention, that's what it becomes.

Take away the trolley/wheel chock need, and that's what the bridge/trolley/fat man scenario becomes.

But what is it WITH the contention?

[Jim__]

64. Deontology also proscribes injuring people.

The act of pushing him off the bridge is proscribed. In Robert Fulghum's book, All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, the third behavior listed (on page 2) is don't hit people. I'm pretty sure that covers pushing someone off a bridge.

In both cases the consequence is the same; you have killed a bystander who would otherwise never have been harmed, to save five people in jeopardy.

Yes, the consequence is the same. That is the test consequentialism uses to judge actions. Fulghum's don't hit people makes a pretty good deontological test..

We did both agree that the medical scenario and the trolley scenario are equivalent. And, in the medical scenario, in situation 2, the doctor does kill the healthy patient - a violation of deontological standards and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. In situation 1, he is unable to save all the patients so he saves 5 of the 6 - no violation of deontological standards and no violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

I find it incredible that anyone can believe that a doctor killing a healthy man to harvest his organs because they are needed by other people is equivalent to a doctor saving 5 people rather than 1 due to a lack of resources. The overwhelming number of people asked about this scenario seem to agree. Really - no contest.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. "equivalent to a doctor saving 5 people rather than 1 due to a lack of resources."

In this case, 'resources' is inextricably linked to the organs of the 'donor'.

"Yes, the consequence is the same. That is the test consequentialism uses to judge actions. Fulghum's don't hit people makes a pretty good deontological test.. "

Let's modify the fat man on the bridge then. No hitting. No physical contact whatsoever. Let's say he's standing next to you on the platform, doesn't see the trolley coming, and you ask him to take your picture, from a position that puts him on the track, and not being aware of the trolley, he stands there to take your picture. You've not even made physical contact with him. He's not consented to sacrificing himself.

Now we have equivalence. Neither victim who would otherwise never be a victim is being touched or harmed, save for killing them with the trolley. Both are in a place and time so as to expect to be unmolested, and neither has consented to becoming a sacrificial wheel chock.


To modify the medical scenario, you would have to do some trickery to match. For instance, you've got 6 dying, all WILL die on a long enough timeline, ONE has all the healthy requisite parts to save the other five victims, but he is dying slower than the other 5, and you would have to induce death to harvest the organs in time to save any of them.

[Jim__]

69. "Now we have equivalence." No, lying is also proscribed.

But, you need not go to all this trouble to try to get to equivalence. Sandel uses this approach rather nicely in his lecture. He puts the fat man on a trap door and has a steering wheel type mechanism to open the door. The student he is talking to, gets it, and suggests that he doesn't actually turn the wheel but rather just falls into it. In a poll, Sandel's suggestion may move people. The action masks any violation of specific deontological rule. I'm not sure how such a poll would turn out.

I maintain that it is still not equivalent. It fails the test of treating people with due respect: act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means. You are treating the fat man as a mere means to stop the train. This is different from the action of the driver. He is not using the man on the side-track as a means to stop the train. He is using the side-track as a means to avoid the catastrophe of killing the 5 people. This divergence results in the lesser catastrophe of killing 1 person - this is an accidental result that is due to circumstances. All the people are on the track due to accidental circumstances.

The driver chooses the lesser catastrophe, but he is reacting to accidental circumstances and not using people to as mere means to an end.

But this test wouldn't resolve the question of whether or not people are reacting to a violation of deontological ethics because that question is being masked.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. I thought the trap door was great as well, but I came to a different conclusion.

And I think it highlights where you and I are disagreeing here.

"You are treating the fat man as a mere means to stop the train. This is different from the action of the driver. He is not using the man on the side-track as a means to stop the train. He is using the side-track as a means to avoid the catastrophe of killing the 5 people."

I would agree with this, and the moral balance of it, if the driver did not know for certain that a man was on that track, or that he would certainly be killed.

Since the hypothetical driver sees him, and per the original scenario, knows he will die if he moves the train, I don't view that one step removal of the intent as being valid.

Knowing the single worker will certainly die in advance reduces the entire equation (for me) to weighing one life against several. A decision I would abstain from participating in.

[Leontius]

73. You abstain from nothing you make a concious choice to do nothing

and you do it because it will make you feel better about yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. If I throw that lever, I own a murder.

No matter how celebrated that action might be by others, it would destroy who I am.

That man on the side track? His life does not belong to me. It is not mine to sacrifice for the benefit of the other workers. You cannot sacrifice something that isn't yours to give.

[Leontius]

75. Exactly what I said, you conciously choose to allow five people to die

so you will feel good about yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I don't own responsiblity for the impending deaths.

I would not choose to own one death to save them. It would be murder. I am not a utilitarian, I cannot absolve myself of that murder by the merits of saving other people.

[Leontius]

77. Yes you do own that responsibility you have the ability to act and you choose not to.

By not acting you are as guilty of murdering, as you call it, five people as by acting you murder one. And you place your selfish need for absolution above everything else.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Inaction and action are not equal propositions.

An overt act carries responsibility.

If the cost of action was very low, say, property damage if I move the train, then sure. But this exercise holds human lives in jeopardy. In order to resolve it in favor of action, you require that I assign intrinsic value to each life, and then weigh them against each other.

I refuse.

What happens when someone tries that with say, carbon loading our environment, and the impending threat of global warming? Or access to water rights, where two nations desire the same resource, with lives on the line? That sort of human life/value proposition can lead to wars.

[Leontius]

80. They are exactly equal propositions both lead to what happens.

You have a choice between them and if you choose inaction you know five will die if you choose action one will die.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. If I choose inaction, the five deaths are the responsibility of

the brake maker, installer, or maintenance, possibly the trolley designer. Responsibility where it belongs.

If I throw that lever, knowing I will kill someone, I at LEAST share responsibility with those parties.

[Leontius]

84. You can try to divert responsibility to others if you think it will make you feel better about

yourself which seems to be your total point of concern, how you will feel, how it will affect you but the truth you will have to face is you are responsible for those deaths if you choose inaction just as much as those you seek to transfer blame to. The power to change the outcome right here right now is yours the responsibility for your action or inaction is yours. This is on you no one else . Your choice is what determines the fate of the five or the one. What happened to cause this choice to have to be made is not the question. The only question is your choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. It's not about 'feeling better'.

It's about not violating core principles upon which my entire worldview is based.

I am not qualified to make net value based judgment calls on the lives of human beings. I never have, and I won't start now. I will not assign values that can be measured in such a manner. I can kill in self defense, or in defense of others. But that requires an aggressor, not an accident. I can give my own life to protect others, even though I do not sell my existence lightly. What I cannot do, is end one life, to protect another, when there is no question of aggression in play. Every party involved in this scenario is equally innocent and blameless. So self-defense or defense of others doesn't apply. Sacrifice doesn't apply either because I do not own any life in the equation.

We could probably pop out of this discussion, take a step back and look at the rules of robotics by Asimov.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Since I refuse to be a moral actor weighing the value of human lives, I think this model works well. Here is your concern. Those are the three original rules. There is a fourth, higher level rule added later, called the Zeroth Law.

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

I cannot make a value based decision between the two sets of victims (5 and 1). This is because I view the act of assigning a quantifiable value to human lives for the purposes of weighing which set of innocent victims dies, as a direct threat to humanity, and a violation of the 'zeroth law' above. I might be able to find an equitable solution to that one instance, that everyone agrees was the 'least bad' choice, but in doing so I will have have established a precedent by which other lives might be justifiably ended in less clear circumstances. Where does it stop? Kill 10 million to preserve the lives of 1 billion over a resource constraint?

This is not a path I will travel.

Hopefully I'm not failing any Turing tests or Voight-Kampff tests right now...

[Leontius]

87. Key word in your first sentence "my"

You have made a value based decision, your world view which you value higher than the lives of five people.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Any other choice imperils our entire species.

[Leontius]

89. So does yours.

Did you not say in another post you would by your inaction let the entire world perish.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Fair point.

In that case, I don't think either my solution, nor yours, is really any better than the other.

Except, mine leads to no chance of ME causing murder/mayhem trying to help others.

[Leontius]

91. Sadly it's true there is no solution all can agree on

and no choice we can make that in the end will not destroy us as individuals until we are forced to make that choice and live with the consequences of that choice. One may chose to act and the death of the person allowed to die will haunt them for the rest of their lives but the reverse is true as well all six live are valued above any other by someone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. That definitely sounds like you'd do nothing, to feel better

"This is because I view the act of assigning a quantifiable value to human lives for the purposes of weighing which set of innocent victims dies, as a direct threat to humanity, and a violation of the 'zeroth law' above."

You are defining your personal revulsion of judging one group of people against another as a "direct threat to humanity". What you do is not a 'precedent'; people have made this kind of decision time and again. When Britain and France declared was on Hitler, they knew they would inevitably kill at least one innocent German (one too young to have made any sort of decision, for instance). They balanced against that the number of people who would be killed in Poland, and probably other countries, if they did nothing. To think that your one experience with a few people on the tracks is a precedent for humanity is ridiculous.

I don't see how you think that refusing to be a moral actor absolves you of guilt. Asimov didn't think that, of course, and that's why he put 'or inaction' in both his zeroth and first laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Not exactly.

"You are defining your personal revulsion of judging one group of people against another as a "direct threat to humanity"."

No, I am defining utilitarian 'ends justify the means' valuation of innocent human life (and the killing thereof) as revolting.


Since the bridge scenario is a no-win, what if, instead of dropping the 'fat man' in front of the trolley, I considered that neither option, inaction or murder, is acceptable, and instead, dropped myself on the track in a futile effort to stop the train. Then I die trying, and the five workers die.

Would you still criticize that as guilt, on my part? It's no longer inaction, I sacrificed myself, even though futile, AND I did not commit an overt act to kill an innocent bystander (Fat man, or the man on the side spur track).

Still selfish to make myself feel better? That's an option I would choose BEFORE sending that trolley into an innocent man that would have otherwise survived, or before pushing the fat man over the side, or dropping him through a trap door.

You realize this is a maturely considered position, right? I'm not being flippant. I would destroy myself before committing an act of murder. There are no exceptions. Not vengeance. Not utilitarian tradeoffs. Nothing.

Generally, people in our society do not accept the proposition 'the ends justify the means', or we pay lip service to not accepting it, preferring integrity over expedience. And yet here we are, with a society that would throw a lever and kill an innocent bystander (At a rate approaching 90% of respondents in the survey) to save 5 people.

Do you understand the horrors unleashed by utilitarianism? What if the trolley is bearing down on just two recidivist felons, with no family and little utility to society, and the side spur track holds a highly regarded, productive, loving family man with no criminal record, and several dependents? It's just two against one. How do you weigh the value of human lives? Past performance? Future potential? Economic productivity? Artistic talent? 'Need' by way of the number of dependents downstream of that person?

My solution works regardless of the scenario details. It is internally consistent, and can be applied without nuance or means testing. If I were one of the five (or the two), I would prefer the trolley hit me, due to uncontrolled circumstances, than for a person to commit an overt act of murder against an innocent bystander to save me, just because I happen to be standing next to one or more other people. I value my life very highly, but I would rather grease the wheels on that trolley myself, than force another person to choose to commit murder on my behalf.

Boils down to a question raised in a religious debate, illustrated by Dostoyevsky, and it applies to this situation as well, without metaphysics:

"Tell me yourself, I challenge you — answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature — that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance — and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears,-
would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

"And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?"

"No, I can't admit it. Brother," said Alyosha

I would not consent to be the architect. I would not throw the lever. If I was one of the five (or the two) and someone threw that lever for me, to save me, I would not appreciate it. I would not thank them. Not without the consent of the one killed on my behalf.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. It's your belief that inaction is better than trying to save more people that looks odd

Yes, you can ask whether there is any meaningful way of differentiating between one life and another, and argue that therefore you shouldn't try to do so. But this isn't about that; it's about number of lives saved. You can choose to save more lives, and say all the lives are equal, and you've done the best you can. Even if you suspect that you can sometimes value some lives more than others, on the grounds of life expectancy, their effects on others, or something else, without information, you can choose the option most likely to produce the better outcome. Choosing to kill yourself doesn't help - apart from ending any guilty feeling on your part if you did have one, after all.

Dostoyevsky is not comparing similar outcomes for the many or the one - 'peace and rest' for many with 'torture and death' for one, versus, I think it's reasonable to assume, a somewhat shitty life for all. If he were offering as the alternative 'peace and rest' for the baby, and 'torture and death' for the many, then it would be more like the trolley situation.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Number of lives is just another metric.

It's a number. A value proposition on the lives. You and I might even agree that 'more is better', but someone else might try to weigh a different metric, like economic productivity. (Society does it all the time in different contexts, with deadly outcomes.) It's not a calculation I will choose to run, because I would then own the means; claiming the authority to weigh the value of human lives against each other.

Dostoyevsky's character Ivan actually does do that. He prefers to walk away from his hypothetical god, to accepting that any entity could be just, and true, in architecting our world. He refuses to participate.

I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket."

An interesting dilemma. Two men on the track. A baby, newborn in a stroller on the side track. Do you throw the switch and kill the baby?

I'm willing to guess, you'd let the men die on some other value beyond how many they are, rather than killing the child. (Future potential, or some element of free choice (they chose to be on the track to work, whereas someone left the baby there through no fault of it's own, etc))

What do you think? Does number of people hold in all circumstances? Is it a principle upon which we can rely under any substitute conditions using the same formula?

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. In the absence of other data, saving more lives (or killing fewer, however you want to look at it)

is the preferable outcome. When you know that inaction produces one outcome, the 'calculation' is already run - it was the count. Inaction is still a choice; what you're saying is that the physical action is important, rather than your knowledge and decision of what the outcome will be.

Ivan is saying he doesn't want to be in the system that includes people who torture or kill children. He's not saying that physical inaction is better than trying to judge a 'least worst' outcome.

I have no idea how I'd judge '2 men' v. '1 baby'. That kind of situation is complicated. But I don't think the current position of the switch should be a significant factor. I'd hope I wouldn't say "whatever the position is, I'll leave it".

[Leontius]

99. When you said you would let all life on the planet die to maintain your principle

what exactly are you saying about the value of even a single other life when compared to you and what you feel?

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I'm saying I refuse to establish or accept a precedent that involves killing innocent people

to achieve some goal, however seemingly worthy at the time. The world has plenty of well-meaning disasters on the books as it is.

There are times and places to kill. I listed several upthread. I will not kill innocent people without their consent, to achieve some goal. It's not my life to spend.

If the proposition falls to special pleading, then we know there's no underlying principle at work.

Would you kill the baby, or the men? What if the two workers were the parents of the baby? Most parents would willingly lay down their lives to protect their child. But the criteria of the test prevents us from finding out first. Which decision is right under shades of grey? You might allow the pivotal character leeway one way or the other just by knowing they meant well. My solution works under any/all circumstances because it is rooted in principle.


You're refusing to pull the lever yourself, right now. There exist people in the world who are dying right now, that need resources to live. You could liquidate ALL of your assets, deploy them best you can to save them. You aren't. You're sitting here talking to me. Not pulling the lever. You are actively engaged in inaction. There are people here on DU that actually work deploying aid directly, they could help you do it. But we talk, and the lever is not pulled. I say that's ok. Your level of involvement, your investment in ANY issue, is your choice and yours alone. (Being here, you are more likely than the average to be willing to help, I am not questioning your charitable works, but clearly your investment isn't total, so somewhere, a lever is not being pulled. And I argue, that's ok.)

There are too many things in this world for any individual to shoulder the full responsibility thereof. I wouldn't even suggest you try.

If someone in that horrible hurtling trolley scenario in real life told me, they couldn't do it, they couldn't pull that lever and intentionally kill a man, I would not question them. (I could also find it in myself to understand if they chose to, but I couldn't describe it with any word but murder, because a murder took place, not self-sacrifice.)

[AtheistCrusader]

101. The aspect of Ivan's speech that I was getting at, was the acceptance of responsibility.

That, and whether the survivors could be expected to be happy about the means by which they survived. (would you consent to be the architect/would men be happy, knowing the torture and murder that bought their lives)

I would not be bold enough to say that inaction is certainly better. I have, on deep consideration, decided that I would not act in such a situation, but I do not pretend to have a lock on the truth. I am simply defending my position (and I welcome the challenge, because that is how I learn new things, and I may even change my position. I did not always hold this current position.)

I selected inaction, refusal to 'be the architect' in this case, not just because it makes me uncomfortable to make the choice, but because I fear what society does with questions like this on the whole, if some ambiguous weighting of value of life is ever put into common practice. On the whole, I think human life is valued too little to begin with.

I fear a society that would say 'five here, one here, clearly we kill the one if we have an opportunity to act' without flinching. That's a society that is a little too willing to kill, IMO. The conductor/man on the bridge has little skin in the game. It is not his life in question. He has, at most, his comfort with the outcome, and his comfort with how other people judge his actions, and that's it. Self sacrifice is easy, I think. Most of us will do it, we can make that choice for ourselves. 'Volunteering' someone else is, I think, something that should not be easy, should not be acceptable. Not without some damn deep introspection.

I would not expect absolution for the man I killed, if I threw that lever, just because I saved five people. I wouldn't even grant it to myself.

[Leontius]

102. And the five you killed by your choice what absolution do you expect for that?

[AtheistCrusader]

103. I did not cause it.

You should probably disabuse yourself of the notion that NOT acting to save someone from external forces is morally equivalent to going over there and killing them with your own hands.

If there was zero cost to throwing the lever, it would raise the unacceptability of inaction, but in this case, the cost is a human life. An innocent bystander, that must be killed to accomplish the task of saving the five.

[Leontius]

104. Your choice is to allow one person to die or five people to die.

You cannot absolve yourself by trying to pretend you make no choice by inaction. You make a conscious and in your view a reasoned choice to act or not to act and the choice you make has consequences. You are as much a part of the end as whatever caused the entire train of events to occur you are a part of this .

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I didn't say 'no choice'. I am certainly making a choice.

Find me a law that would be used to hold me accountable for making that choice, if you think there is one.

A law that would compel me to kill one man, who would not otherwise have died, to save 5 others that were otherwise about to be killed by forces beyond my control.

If you're so certain that inaction carries responsibility for those deaths, I imagine you can find a civil or criminal case wherein something similar to that has unfolded, and someone choosing inaction was held accountable for it.

[Leontius]

106. So in order to avoid your moral culpability you now turn to law.

Nice try but it fails absolutely.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. No, I'm pointing out that in all this time, despite your certainty that inaction is immoral,

Somehow no one has though to penalize such a choice. Fascinating.

You also don't seem to be pursuing this discussion in good faith, so, please come up with some material support for your position, or I'm done with this. I've given you plenty of examples, plenty of alterations to the scenario that should amply illustrate that pulling the lever is not obvious for all potential victims. If you have a problem with those examples, please actually voice them.

You have yet to offer a principle that works for all potential combinations of victims. Lets see something from you that isn't special pleading.

[Leontius]

108. Law is not morality.

Again to give salve to your conscious you attempt to claim my side lacks "good faith" to allow you to run away from confronting the truth that you are not separate from this scenario but an active member of it what you do or don't do is the controlling factor in this entire episode. The only "special pleading "here is your hope to be left off the hook for the outcome you decide is best. An finally in all this time I've never said either inaction is immoral but trying to play Pilate is highly questionable.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Its not the controlling factor at all.

Its simply an opportunity to change the outcome. One opportunity. It is absolutely not the normal, preferred, or designed failsafe to the system.

"An finally in all this time I've never said either inaction is immoral but trying to play Pilate is highly questionable."

This is the most dishonest thing I've heard all day. Only 'questionable'? Never said it was immoral?

"you do it because it will make you feel better about yourself."

Implication; I feel bad, or should feel bad about making that choice.
"By not acting you are as guilty of murdering, as you call it, five people as by acting you murder one. And you place your selfish need for absolution above everything else. "
Murder is pretty immoral. Selfishness is generally considered an immoral position.

"And the five you killed by your choice what absolution do you expect for that?"

"you killed"

Murder. No, your position is flawed. They were going to die anyway. If I didn't exist at all, they would still die. Allowing events to unfold as they were in motion, without your input is not the same as killing someone.

"You are as much a part of the end as whatever caused the entire train of events to occur you are a part of this ."

This is utter nonsense. So someone could put any series of events in motion that endangers a life, and any passer-by that has an opportunity to and fails to act to stop it is equally responsible? Hogwash. If you're not getting at some degree of responsibility with this line (as you said above that I could not absolve myself, meaning, responsibility.

"Yes you do own that responsibility you have the ability to act and you choose not to."

You keep dancing around and playing word games, and it is getting old.
Please show how an opportunity to act imparts responsibility, especially when it means, in this scenario, killing someone if I act. If I don't act, 5 people die, but I did not cause the conditions that led to their deaths. A missed or ignored opportunity does not impart responsibility.

[Promethean]

9. Humanity is the arbiter of morality and goodness.

We determine what is right and wrong. We don't always get it correct. We more than likely don't even have it correct now. However we are still learning and have been learning for a long time. Every code of morality we've developed has become obsolete by this learning process and the current standards will be looked at as silly or horrific sometime in the future.

What isn't the arbiter of morality and good? A wrathful deity that insists we are broken and incapable of good. A deity that demands blood sacrifice to appease its wrath. If the blood sacrifice is human even worse. If the human sacrifice is to be tortured and humiliated even worse than that. If the deity has a recorded history of tormenting its followers and commanding them to commit rape and genocide then well...how can anybody with any sense of decency follow such a being?

Anybody who evades our responsibility to keep learning and better ourselves and our society by adhering to a dogma attributed to a god that fits the above description is abdicating their responsibility to be a moral or good person.

[trotsky]

16. Great answer. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Would this axiom survive first contact with an intelligent species somewhere else in the universe?

Would it even survive an expansion in our understanding of the intelligence of other species on this planet?

[Promethean]

53. I included learning and growth into it.

Otherwise it would be static and unable to adapt to new information. Your examples would simply need the word humanity replaced with sentient species. I do hope you weren't trying to tie me down to some kind of dogma. The whole point of rejecting religion is to learn and grow and stop stagnating in rigid dogma.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. No, no nefarious intent.

And I fully accept your explanation.

I've of late been wrangling with ethics around treatment of animals, including in zoos, especially after I became involved with Bikers4Orcas, and saw Blackfish and some other data like that popped off my processing stack. So, it's an issue that's been front of mind for me lately, and I am still developing some rules and understanding around it myself.

[Promethean]

56. That one is tough to wrangle.

I personally am not entirely comfortable with my position on it as well. Though I worry more about farms. I know a few good farmers who never hit their animals, let them graze in large pastures so they don't have to stand in filth and such. However for every 1 of them there are 10 who keep their animals constantly afraid.

In the end I take comfort knowing there are groups out there who are trying to improve the situation. I devote myself to a different cause and I accept that I cannot change everything wrong with the world. I just try to make a positive mark in the cause I have focused myself on.

[stone space]

10. In the end, we all are. (nt)

[kwassa]

14. I am the final arbiter. I am the god of hellfire.

[stone space]

63. "I am the God of Hellfire"

[TexasProgresive]

22. I saw this yesterday and have been thinking about it

Conscience is the root arbiter of ethics or morality and we are all born with a rudimentary conscience. That seed can be nourished by good choices or weakened by bad choices. That is exactly what gangs, child sexual predators do. They groom the person by getting them to do small things that go against their conscience. The person becomes less able to hear and do the right thing. Watching an old rope opera the other day a bad man said something about killing; that the 1st one was hard and left him feeling bad but after that it was easy.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” (Lumen Gentium, no. 16)

The just person lives in God and God in him. Thus God will be born in the just person and the just person is born into God; and therefore God will be born through every virtue of the just person. And not only at every virtue will God rejoice, but especially at every work of the just person, however small it is. When this work is done through justice and results in justice, God will rejoice at it, indeed, God will rejoice through and through; for nothing remains in God's ground which does not tickle God through and through out of joy.-- Meister Eckhart

[trotsky]

23. That line of thinking is a bit disturbing.

Your quotes basically say that a good person is good because of your god, and a bad person is bad because they reject your god. That's where a lot of hatred of atheists comes from.

[hrmjustin]

24. I believe that is God in the end.

The bible, my parents, teachers, clergy, friends, and my conscience influence my views on morality.

[Fix The Stupid]

33. How can you say clergy?

I get the rest, but you get moral/ethical guidance from 'clergy'?

How are they any more/less moral/ethical than anyone else?

[hrmjustin]

44. They are people just like the rest of us and helpful to me in moral guidance.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. I do wonder how God and the Bible can influence your morality...

I don't question that you think they both do, but given the Bible's inconsistencies and God's, I'll just call them immoral, actions in that book, I've observed that most modern Christians pick what stories are "valid" in that book based on preexisting morality, rather than the other way around.

The other influences are obvious, and knowing they are human and imperfect means we discern and filter their advice and influence accordingly, but supposedly the same can't be said of God or the Bible, or can it?

[razorman]

28. I am. Bow before my magnificence.

[rogerashton]

29. The common human faculty of sympathy.

According to Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, anyway.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Reason.

I've used it to construct my entire world view, including my moral ruleset. So far, it works pretty good.

[pinto]

35. I think once one comes of age, the responsibility rests with the individual. My influences -

Family experience, examples and direction.
Personal experience, examples and challenges.
Social examples and standards.
Literature examples and challenges.
Cinema examples and challenges.

All played a part in the development of my own sense of morality.

[Jim__]

51. For my morality, I am.

My influences are parents, family, culture, and experience combined with reason.

[Android3.14]

52. My morals tend to originate from favorite fiction characters

eom

[cbayer]

57. Which ones?

[uriel1972]

55. There is no final arbiter...nt

[Iggo]

58. Ain't one, far as I can tell.

[Humanist_Activist]

67. Using reason, and the best available information to determine how to preserve...

the rights of people as individuals without unnecessarily burdening them, or imposing on them injustice, while also balancing that with societal responsibilities in reducing suffering for everyone.

[trotsky]

71. So, were you going to come back and contribute anything to your thread? n/t

[libodem]

79. You Rang?

BWAHAHAHAHAAA

[GliderGuider]

94. There is no "final arbiter"

Morality and notions of good and bad have varied a lot over the millennia, from one circumstance to another. Often the same person will make different moral choices depending on their situation at the moment. There ain't nothing absolute about morality - it's all learned.

My moral choices are based on what I've learned over the years - a mix of parental, social, cultural and personal lessons. I usually ask myself "What is the right thing to do in this situation?" Most often the guidance that frames my answer amounts to something along the lines of, "Don't fuck shit up without a damn good reason!"