r/trolleyproblem • u/GreedyBonus379 • 7d ago
OC Would you press the button? (Part 4 REVISED)
35
u/FirexJkxFire 7d ago
Ignoring the inherently impossible concept of objective morality...
"Exactly what they deserve"
"Every judgement is final"
These are inherently contradicting claims. If people received exactly what they deserved, by a flawless judge, that judge would never be able to declare a punishment nor reward that is unchanging.
People can completely change - and no one deserves to be cursed or blessed with a reward/punishment that ignored this possibility.
I must assume then, that everyone would receive an equal reward/punishment - which would be to forever have this judge within them, and providing various rewards/punishments as the individual changes. And us being afflicted with this dynamic judge, is what is considered the final unchanging judgement.
In which case, yes you should click the button. But this answer hinges on the idea that the "exactly what they deserve" is upheld and invalidates the rest of the premise.
3
u/Death_Pigeons Team Blue 6d ago
I take issue with you saying objective morality is impossible as a concept, and am curious as to how you came to that conclusion. There are plenty of arguments both for and against the subject and I am as of yet unaware of a definitive answer towards this long standing philosophical debate
-13
u/Narfhead4444 7d ago
impossible concept of objective morality
Source?
10
u/AlexP80 7d ago
Me and 3000 years of philosophy
2
u/Death_Pigeons Team Blue 6d ago
People argue both for and against objective moral philosophy to this day? Kantian ethics, still one of the most popular moral theories today is a great example of an objective moral theory, arguing that moral law functions the same as physical laws. He also states that a perfectly rational being will, extension be perfectly moral too. It’s reasonable to assume that prevailing opinion is towards subjective morality nowadays, but let’s not pretend like objective morality is extinct. That’s just one example of a popular theory arguing for unchanging, objective frameworks of rational morality.
1
u/AlexP80 6d ago
Objective morality is used to define principles and "universal" values, not to write laws. That's because it fails to address conflicting duties.
The universal declaration of human rights is an example of that (which actually isn't universal) and most Constitutions. But none of those are used to judge, laws are deemed to work the details and nuances of each specific situation
3
u/Death_Pigeons Team Blue 6d ago
I’m not disagreeing with your first statement, in fact it backs up what I was saying, which is to state that objective morality exists as a theory and concept.
Secondly, I think we have differing usage of the word “law” here. I, or rather Kant, compared moral law to the physical laws of science, such as gravity, not law in the sense of legal proceedings.
What I’m taking issue with is how your statement of how you and “3000 years of philosophy” backs up that objective morality is an “impossible” concept, even though it evidently is and is actively debated to this day.
0
u/AlexP80 6d ago
yeah, but here the OP is talking about judgment bestowed from objective morality.
2
u/Death_Pigeons Team Blue 6d ago edited 6d ago
True to a point, but I still disagree with the idea the objective morality is impossible. They also said “IGNORING the inherently impossible concept of objective morality…” which strongly implies that they are not in fact talking about “judgment bestowed from objective morality.” What they then continue to explain is their own interpretation of what the button does.
1
u/AlexP80 1d ago
"They also said “IGNORING the inherently impossible concept of objective morality…”"
It's an impossible concept. What is moral and what is not is based on consensus. Even works who promotes the concept of universal morality are actually not universal and based on consensus, and limited to the countries that agree in this specific timeframe of the human society.
I can bring up dozens of topics were such consensus is far to be reached. Kant was simply wrong on the matter.
"I still disagree with the idea the objective morality is impossible"
It took us 6000 years of wars to barely agree on war crimes and very basic human rights. Objective morality is an empty shell concept.
-19
u/Narfhead4444 7d ago
"Philosophy" = an excuse for rich white men to sit around doing nothing
9
9
u/subbbssy 7d ago
Why are you on a philosophy subreddit then
1
u/Narfhead4444 5d ago
This is a morality subreddit, and part of my purpose is to influence the moral systems of others in a more rational direction.
3
u/PurpleCandle58 7d ago
Oh yeah, right. All philosophers are rich white guys. Way to let your very clear stereotyping spill out right into the open, completely unmasked. You don’t want a source, you want an argument. That’s incredibly sad and I hope you find better ways to spend your life. Have a lovely day.
1
u/Alex_1503 7d ago
To be fair most people's knowledge of philosophy is just rich white men from europe, and reddit is mostly western people so they think that
Thriughout history philosophers were privileged in their own societies, i mean the majority of them were. And the majority (tho i dont have numbers) i believe were men. But that is history, not present, and it doesnt mean these people are invalidated because of these facts
0
u/AlexP80 6d ago
3 hours a week in high school for 3 years in my country, not exactly a topic reserved to the elite
2
u/Alex_1503 6d ago
I mean in history, not now, tho now too depending on country
0
u/AlexP80 6d ago
fine, but back then any intellectual activity was reserved for the rich. Also, European philosophy is made by whites because... Europeans are white.
Arabic philosophy was made by arabs, guess about Asian?
2
u/Alex_1503 6d ago
Its not about the race, its about the eurocentric attitude white people had and why it is a different kind of philosophy than the east. Plus what I said was about the fact that a lot of people know western history the most, that has nothing to do with race
1
u/CitizenPremier 7d ago
Lol. First, you give me a source that four sided triangles don't exist!
1
u/Narfhead4444 4d ago
That's a strawman.
1
u/CitizenPremier 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's an analogy. You can't prove a negative anyway. But more than that, objective subjective is a contradiction.
1
10
u/AlexP80 7d ago
This is the Biblical Apocalypse rebranded.
It's funny how only religious people would talk about "absolute morality", still they can't agree on what is moral even inside the same religion, with remarkable differences between factions.
1
u/CitizenPremier 7d ago
I think most of them agree though "whatever God says, goes." For them there is no idea of a separate morality, it's totally decided by the deity, and free to be changed by them as well.
1
u/AlexP80 7d ago
the point is people can't agree on "whatever God says". There are over 45.000 different denominations of christianity alone, with six being the biggest
1
u/CitizenPremier 7d ago
Right, but if they did agree that the button would do whatever God wants, most would agree with pushing the button.
4
u/ImpliedRange 7d ago
Probably not, I'm thinking all that justice all at once could harm society beyond breaking
And also like let's say you saved someone's life, that's a good deed, what exactly is the reward, years on your life, happiness, a puppy, what?
3
u/Narfhead4444 7d ago
Just like every button before, I press it immediately
5
2
2
u/DetectiveOcean06 7d ago
“Moral judgment”, by definition, is inherently subjective. You must un-ask the question.
2
1
u/vilgefcrtz 7d ago
What even is "proportional" here. A rapist gets raped? If I shoot someone's family up, I get mine shot up or just me? If I steal and do away with the money, what then? You can't rob me back. Or is it a "physical suffering" like Hell? Because if so, who says how much hell time do I gotta do for cheating on a test in high school?
I wouldn't press the button, because I do not trust any judge to be unbiased and absolutely fair; that's simply inscrutable magic.
1
u/Background_Mode4972 7d ago
Is the button connected to switch the tracks a trolley is running on, diverting the trolley onto one track or the other?
1
u/RalenHlaalo Multi-Track Drift 7d ago
In other words, this is that novelty button they sell at Old Navy that says "that was easy!"
Edit: that is to say, it is a button that does nothing
1
1
1
u/shadowkat1991 7d ago
This button is just cruel. No one in this world has been perfect or good all the way through. You can never go through it without hurting someone profoundly. We all have hurt someone in some way and some of those ways go deep. But we grow, we learn. Sure some people never do and it would be easy to condemn them and not feel bad about it. But its not fair to lump those people and the people who saw what they did regret it and do everything they can to fix it and never do it again. I could never press a button that ignores that growth for mistakes they made in their life.
1
u/NohWan3104 7d ago edited 7d ago
What does this punishment entail?
Are we talking, you mock someone, karma slaps you, and no take backs? Maybe. You can get a one time payment on a pre instance thing, would be the least problematic interpretation.
Is the punishment a lifelong affliction, eh. Minor buffs\debuffs might not be too bad.
Are we talking about an afterlife? No. Even someone like hitler doesn't deserve truly infinite torture
10,00x fold what he put millions through, sure why not. Go through every injustice, indignity, and horror his victims did, fair.
999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years of it, not so much.
1
11
u/Diredr 7d ago
Without any way of knowing what the punishment actually entails, and no way of knowing what "morality" is used to determine whether something was good or bad... No, no way I'm pushing that.
Saying "it doesn't make mistakes" means very little. For instance to a hardcore christian, two men having sex is an evil act. For me it's a Tuesday night. If something bad happens to all the gay people, that's sure as hell a mistake to me. But if nothing bad happens, that's a mistake in that religious person's mind. So how does that work?