The answer that almost everyone gives seems to be very sensible. After all, the question: “What do I believe I would actually do” and “What do I think I should do” are different. Obviously self modifying to the point where these answers are as consistent as possible in the largest subset of scenarios as possible is probably a good thing, but that doesn’t mean such self modifying is easy.
Most mothers would simply be incapable of doing such a thing. If they could press a button to kill their baby, more would probably do so, just as more people would flip a switch to kill than push in front of a train.
You obviously should kill the baby, but it is much more difficult to honestly say you would kill a baby than flip a switch: the distinction is not one of morality but courage.
As a side note, I prefer the trolley-problem modification where you can have an innocent, healthy young traveler killed in order to save 5 people in need of organs. Saying “fat man”, at least for me, obfuscates the moral dilemma and makes it somewhat easier.
self modifying to the point where these answers are as consistent as possible in the largest subset of scenarios as possible…
...weighted by the likelihood of those scenarios, and the severities of the likely consequences of behaving inconsistently in those scenarios.
Most problems of this sort are phrased in ways that render the situation epistemicly unreachable, which makes their likelihood so low as to be worth ignoring.
Re: your side note… am I correct in understanding you to mean that you find imagining killing a fat man less uncomfortable than imagining killing a healthy young traveler?
The answer that almost everyone gives seems to be very sensible. After all, the question: “What do I believe I would actually do” and “What do I think I should do” are different. Obviously self modifying to the point where these answers are as consistent as possible in the largest subset of scenarios as possible is probably a good thing, but that doesn’t mean such self modifying is easy.
Most mothers would simply be incapable of doing such a thing. If they could press a button to kill their baby, more would probably do so, just as more people would flip a switch to kill than push in front of a train.
You obviously should kill the baby, but it is much more difficult to honestly say you would kill a baby than flip a switch: the distinction is not one of morality but courage.
As a side note, I prefer the trolley-problem modification where you can have an innocent, healthy young traveler killed in order to save 5 people in need of organs. Saying “fat man”, at least for me, obfuscates the moral dilemma and makes it somewhat easier.
...weighted by the likelihood of those scenarios, and the severities of the likely consequences of behaving inconsistently in those scenarios.
Most problems of this sort are phrased in ways that render the situation epistemicly unreachable, which makes their likelihood so low as to be worth ignoring.
Re: your side note… am I correct in understanding you to mean that you find imagining killing a fat man less uncomfortable than imagining killing a healthy young traveler?