Thank you for being so patient with me. Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I
think that the trolley problem is necessary because it forces us to apply are
rather abstract ideas to a concrete situation. That said let me agree with you
that the trolley problem is it flawed one. It offers only two choices both of
which involve pain to another human being. It also does not require you to
think through the belief system on which the decision is based.
Now, let me pose a problem. I am not trying to convince anyone of my point
of view, but I am trying to, with your help, think it through. I am going to
give you my rather careless impressions of several belief foundations of
ethical systems. It is entirely possible that they not accurate are correct, in
fact probable.
I believe from my contact with Christians and
reading of the Bible is that the law spoken of by a lot of Christians is not a
law in the conventional sense. It is more a set of guidelines. To apply these
guidelines one must not break the law of love. The law of love overrides any of
the guidelines. In the Bible God himself seems to break his own “laws,” when
doing so is of benefit to the individual at the community.
Some of my Islamic friends and several of the
books that I’ve read on Islam seem to make the point that the rules are the
rules. Violation of the rules for any reason will lead to punishment. When I
did a were searched on love in the Koran, I only found one instance in the
translation I was using. True believers are to love Allah. They seem to be
intent on obeying the laws of Allah as perfectly as is possible.
A Buddhist seems to think that the object of
life is to destroy any attachments they have to reality. He struggles to
separate himself from his community and even himself.
The theory of evolution as far as I know
believes that the survival and improvement of the species as a whole is the
most important principle. Any choices should be based on whether it improves or
degenerates the species.
Atheism that
is not softened with sentimentality seems to value the survival and improvement
of the individual who holds the belief.
Each of the
holders of these beliefs often violate or modify them through a certain amount
of self-centeredness or misunderstanding.
Much better
than the trolley problem is the Titanic lifeboat problem. If I can state it as
clearly as the person who proposed it with some slight modifications, a
lifeboat is floating in the water near the sinking Titanic. A brilliant woman
and her retarded child are in the water next to the boat. There is only room
for one of them in the boat. How would each of these ethical systems solve the
problem.
A true,
rather than a theoretical Christian, should give up his seat in the lifeboat so
that both can survive. Love overrides survival.
Someone of
the Islamic faith might pick up one or the other of the two in the water and
feel that the fate of the other is written. They might prefer a male child over
a mother.
A Buddhist
might feel that the extinction of the two was a blessing for them both.
The believer
in evolution might base his decision as to who to pull into the boat based on
the value of each. A woman Nobel prize-winning scientist might be more valuable
than her disabled child.
The atheist
might to do anything he feels like doing at that point which is comfortable for
him.
Now, I am
not trying to argue any of these point of view and perhaps some of my
statements are somewhat inaccurate, but I am trying to develop a way of looking
at the way in abstract belief system would operate if confronted with reality.
We would make those decisions based on the way we understand our belief system.
I am not
trying to downgrade any of these belief systems, but instead investigate how
each one would function in practical situations. If we are going to base an
ethical system outside of the theistic one we were raised, I think we have to
establish on what it is based.