When we talked about Mill and the trolley problem in class on Friday, I just kept thinking back to Hume's ethical philosophy, and how I like, but also have problems with, both. I like Hume's idea that justice is never a matter of fact, that it does not exist in nature, and agree that justice could have begun as a matter of fact, but then had something added onto it, which is our own personal judgment. He also states that moral judgments are formed (not by reason) but by the sentiment of sympathy. And I agree with that. And I even agreed with his examples of a perfect society and a society in chaos when he said that neither of those was somewhere that justice applied. I think my major reservation about Hume lies in the 3 rules he stated to prove his theory. First, that moral sentiments are found in ALL men. Second, that men praise and blame the same actions. And Lastly, that praise and blame are not derived from self-love. My greatest problem is in #2, and I just wonder how Hume would justify that. Is he saying that because humans are rational beings, they find the same things to be good and bad? I worry that he is giving men too much credit. Hume calls human feeling the most general principal of human nature. And because of that, it just seems ridiculous to think that all men will agree on matters of good and bad. And I think it's easy to say that there are plenty of issues that currently divide our society, and these are issues that men do not praise and blame in the same way. What would Hume say about issues such as the Death Penalty (perhaps you could say that all men put blame on killing, but what about how divided people are over what to do with a man once he has killed someone else?), and abortion? Is Hume's theory too relative, or am I misreading this entirely?
I've been thinking about the trolley problem a lot this weekend, I even brought it up while at a bar with some friends on Friday night. I feel pretty confident in saying that if I were in that situation I would flip the switch and save the 5 people instead of the one. However, I do understand one of the main arguments against that, which was brought up in class. There is something to be said for the mentality of flipping that switch and actively choosing to kill that one person, instead of doing nothing, and allowing the trolley to continue on its intended path and unfortunately kill the 5 people. Perhaps this says something about the indifference that people often attribute to our generation, I don't know. When the trolley problem changed to include the fat man that we could push onto the tracks, it made me even more uneasy. But my biggest question is about how Kant would have looked at this situation. If you could push the fat man onto the track to save those 5 people, what would be the difference between throwing yourself onto the track to save those 5 people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My comment lies in your problem with the second law. That men, "praise and blame" the same action. While i will agree with you that humans are rational, i would also contend that this is a rational statement. It is not the action that changes but the context. The context is what determines praise or blame.
ReplyDeleteFor example, we would all say that thievery is "bad" we would all contend that this action is blamed by men. But, is it not also praised given the context? For example in the case of a man who steals to feed his family, we would say that he is doing the right and noble thing by putting his family first and that he is helping those weaker than himself. But, at the same time we would blame him for stealing, because we know that stealing is wrong, and that the person whom he stole from would most certainly suffer consequences for the thief's actions.Good points, just wanted to give my two cents.
Interestingly, Mill also solicits the sentiment of sympathy, and even notices that one may be just to help one's family before a stranger. thus, for both Hume and Mill, the Trolly case is contingent on all of the facts; and that is the main problem. We can never know all of the contingencies in a situation, so sometimes we will miss them, and screw up, and regret the decision that had to be made. Conversely, at certain system, like Kant's, disregards all contingencies, and thus you could not will the maxim of pushing a stranger in from of a train, nor yourself. There may be no perfet system of justice, we just need to find the best possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Walter's conclusion that, in the real world, one will not know all the facts in order to judge a situation correctly in most life or death situations (and even others in which our perspective gives us only one view of this happening). The contingencies in situations are, however, important within the situation because of the fact that this is how we guage what we believe the consequences are going to be.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I am in full agreement with the fact that sympathies or emotions shouldn't come into play when judging "just" decisions mainly because sympathy or empathy cannot be measured in concrete terms and because it only serves to blind you to the existing contingencies by distracting you with feelings. I realize that I sound like Spock, but I do believe that facts, and not feelings, help us to move forward and make better decisions. As someone in another comment said: it would be "nice" to give a murderer a second chance and let him or her off, but this doesn't benefit society in the least and definitely isn't just. Politicians- in the same sense- shouldn't be passing laws based on whether the people will be immediately "happier," and in turn solidify re-election (making the politician happier)... Justice lies in TRULY benefitting others, for their own good and in the long run based on facts.
Kara, I feel the uneasiness of the Trolley problem, as well. Could I choose, for example, between one I loved and five strangers? If I could be the one to sacrifice self for others, I would, but that's not allowed according to the Trolley problem. But what if it is? Suicide (really self-sacrifice), for these philosophers, is not allowed but as Dev pointed out, what if it is without Justice?
ReplyDeleteRather, I might suggest that it is more just to throw oneself onto the tracks because, according to Mills, whatever benefits the greatest amount of people and harms the fewest. Not only would it save them, but it would also cause them to live different lives and I would wager to give back to humanity more than what they were capable or willing to give before. Thus, perhaps it is the most just thing to be the Fat man?
Just a suggestion.