Trolley problem

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 159
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
again, I ask for a valid objection.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh? Foreknowledge that something will hurt somebody, and you are immediately able to use that knowledge to save them isn't analogous? I beg your pardon? Do you have an actual rebuttal, or just claims?
Generally speaking, most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, or found out about it after the fact. However, there are exceptions to this law that you ought to know about.

Aiding and Abetting a Crime (Penal Code section 31)
In California, you can be charged with the crime that was committed if you aided or abetted in its commission, but did not actually commit the crime yourself. Penal Code section 31 describes the phrase “aiding and abetting” as meaning that you assisted another person to commit a crime. Prosecutors can charge you as an aider and abettor whenever you:

  • Know the perpetrator’s illegal plan,
  • Intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and
  • Aid, promote, or instigate in the crime’s commission.
You don’t have to be actually present at the scene of the crime to be charged under what is known as “accomplice liability.” If you willfully participated in the planning of a crime prior to its commission, you can be held criminally liable as an “accessory before the fact.”

If you take a passive role during a crime in progress, such as acting as a lookout or disabling a security device, you can be prosecuted as a perpetrator in the second degree (an accomplice).

Finally, if you help to conceal a crime already committed (hiding stolen money or weapons used in the crime’s commission, for example), or give assistance to perpetrators of crime to help them avoid detection, arrest or prosecution, you can be charged as an “accessory after the fact.”

In these situations, you are culpable under the accomplice liability theory because you knew of the illegal plan and willfully did something to cause it to be carried out or concealed. [LINK]

WILLFULLY DID SOMETHING
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
First of all, you completely ignored the core point in that rebuttal, second of all; guilt by association and being an accomplice are slightly different.
I am more referring to accessories whereas you seem to think of accomplice , but they are different

What Is an Accomplice?
Accomplices (commonly called aiders and abettors) are more connected to the crime itself than accessories and are therefore usually subject to harsher penalties. The key difference between accessories and accomplices is that accessories are not present at the crime scene, while accomplices are present and usually have an integral part in the criminal act. Sometimes, depending on the extent to which someone contributes to a crime, an accomplice will be designated as a “principal in the second degree.” In that vein, many states will seek to punish accomplices to the same extent as the first-degree principal. Even if the main principle goes to trial and is found not guilty, the accomplice could still be tried as a principal.
What Is an Accessory?
Accessories are usually people who cover up the crime after it has been committed. A common designation you may have heard is someone being charged as an “accessory after the fact.” This can mean hiding stolen money or providing safe harbor to the principal or accomplices to avoid capture by the authorities. “Accessories before the fact” do exist, but states will often seek to prosecute them as accomplices.

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You have not provided sufficient objection to convince me that someone who has the ability to prevent something which they "know" is bad, and has done nothing, is not, at the very least, indirectly responsible.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
the context of situations can clearly change the intended moral point of an action, furthermore - none of these things are likely to happen, and thus using it to declare anything of that sort all wrong is faulty, these are outliers. 
What is likely and what is not likely are morally irrelevant.

If we could perfectly predict the future, we wouldn't need laws.

Making any exceptions to the rules for any reason breeds corruption.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Incorrect.

You can not assault others:
You are being attacked and will die if you do not defend yourself, therefore you have the right to defend yourself with assault. Exceptions are not only preferable they are NECESSARY
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh but I have

Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
You simply haven't acknowledged it's existence
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have not provided sufficient argument to convince me that someone who has the ability to prevent something which they "know" is bad, and has done nothing, is, at the very least, indirectly responsible.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore the likelyhood of something happening is EXTREMELY PERTINENT, especially in moral law; the reason that (if you value human life) that harming someone is bad is because it always leads to harm, that is how it works inherently. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
What Is an Accessory?
Accessories are usually people who cover up the crime after it has been committed.
This still requires ACTION.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
as I said, the principle is fairly basic. That does not mean that someone who does not accept it is necessarily wrong, it means that the principle I am affirming is not very complex in it's nature.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The action of NOT DOING SOMETHING in response to specific stimuli is still an action
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore, IF you have consciously decided to NOT do something, THEN it is comparable to positively affirming a negative proposition.

For example:

God does not exist

still requires evidence because it is a claim. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
There’s no such thing as an absolute failure with no achievements.   Surviving childbirth is not easy
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
This entire discussion is about THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF INACTION.

You can't MURDER someone by INACTION.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Furthermore, IF you have consciously decided to NOT do something, THEN it is comparable to positively affirming a negative proposition.
A negative claim is not the same as a "negative action".
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You can, however, abide murder by inaction. Such is standing aside as a trolley is about to murder a person and not even attempting to turn the tracks. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The action of NOT DOING SOMETHING in response to specific stimuli is still an action
Ok, so according to your ONTOLOGY, rocks can take actions?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Prove that claim.

If you were to choose to not do something, then it is comparable to asserting that something is not
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Can rocks commit action? No, that question is nonsense, the reason why inaction can be immoral is because it is opposed to being able to do something. Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can, however, abide murder by inaction. Such is standing aside as a trolley is about to murder a person and not even attempting to turn the tracks. 
I disagree.

How can someone be held responsible for something they did not cause?

It's like a criminal who says, "if you don't send me all your money, I will kill one person every hour", do their words magically make you a murder?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If they choose to not send money? It is possible that they makes them murderers. However, it is also possible that the criminal is lying, even likely; furthermore this is also something which in lots of cases you do not have the opportunity to do, therefore you are not responsible, as I have already concluded. It is also possible that this can cause greater harm to people, therefore you would still be justified in not doing it. Next, as I already said, you would be morally responsible to a lesser degree than the murderer.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop. 
So, basically as long as you don't know that child labor is used in the production of about 50% of chocolate candy on the world market then you can't be held indirectly responsible for contributing to exploitation of child labor.

What happens when you do know?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
However, it is also possible that the criminal is lying, even likely
(IFF) your moral code relies on accurately predicting the future (THEN) your morality is functionally indistinguishable from WITCHCRAFT.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If you have no idea its happening? Of course not, if you do, then you are morally responsible, to, at the very least stop contributing - since you have no way to completely stop it, though it could be argued that you would be held to a degree to help.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Next, as I already said, you would be morally responsible to a lesser degree than the murderer.
Please explain how you measure this.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You're saying that considering the fact that a CRIMINAL may be lying is "telling the future"? Your dishonest analogies are getting a little old. Did you ignore every other point in that? Or do you accept the other points, if that is the case, then the preponderance of evidence would point to you being wrong.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If you directly cause an action you have the most fault, if you help the action then you have some fault, if you let the action happen then you have less fault - the point is they all have fault - there is no need for any complex systems here, just basic cause and effect.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop. 
For example, is Superman (hypothetically) morally responsible for everyone who dies when they visit the fortress of solitude?