Utilitarianism

[Panicmode]

yes, but russ basically placed an unfair ultimatum: do you always agree that the ends justifies the means ? No. I don't. And the reason for this is the ramifications of the means often negatively outweighs the positive ramifications of the end.
And in this case, the means does not outweigh the ends, though the means are still in my thoughts.

But you understand now, that is your opinion. It is not fact. Therefore, there are really no right or wrong answers.

[Russ]

And the reason for this is the ramifications of the means often negatively outweighs the positive ramifications of the end.

Erm what? The whole point is that if that an action results in a net positive outcome then that action is justified. So, you've said that killing one child to eradicate disease is justified. I asked you if this meant you would also support other situations, such as torture to prevent terrorism and human experimentation to advance research and save lives.

Nobody has ever claimed that every action okay irrespective of the outcome...

[funkyducky]

yes, but russ basically placed an unfair ultimatum: do you always agree that the ends justifies the means ?

When did this happen? I can't seem to find anything that Russ posted that implies this.

Can we please get back on topic now?

[Russ]

Here is my opinion of this thread and of the posters (credit to username)

   On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

[funkyducky]

...I pick option no. 3

[Mao]

Here is my opinion of this thread and of the posters (credit to username)

   On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

Determine the net effects (or the probabilistic distribution of effects), parametrize weightings for each effect, choose the set that gives the best expected value of results.

Hardest part will be to parametrize. What number do you give to Hitler? What number do you give to curing cancer?

[Mech]

Morality shouldn't be governed by logic. Morality should be seen by what is consciously most correct to ourselves and for others. Otherwise our life would be rendered futile and mundane like robots and computer. Too bad for us, we've been bestowed upon us the ability to emotionally consider actions and consequences.

I think you are dichotomising something that need not be so. I would even go as far to call it a false dichotomy this logic versus humanity question. There is such a thing as intuition. Also, why cannot a humanist moral philosophy - which you seem to be alluding to - be based on a logical foundation? If everyone acted on their emotions, we would live in a very disorderly and irrational world.

Also, if you see this post:

• Natural Law
  
  Hedonism
  
  Ethical Egoism
  
  Relativism

*Removed content of headings to save space in my post.

Panicmode does a lovely job of illustrating the moral differentiation between deontological and consequentialist strands or branches of moral theory.  From a deontological position, we may feel we owe a duty to either a) the baby and to preserve its alleged innocence or b) to protect humanity at large or c) our own interests. Similarly, we could look at this consequentially and weigh up the costs and benefits of each course of action or inaction. As Mao pointed out, the hardest problem here is parametres and what values we assign to each outcome.

Ultimately, there is no correct answer. It depends on your values and the presuppositions you make. You can defend a whole litany of different techniques.

Also, apologies for resurrecting a relatively old thread. I just had an itch when reading this and felt the need to comment.