I tend to enjoy existential thoughts and ideas, and taking problems sincerely and staring at them head on. Adding in fluff to explain away realities, isn’t the preferred way I would want to find answers.
Though, even when I agree with the usefulness of being more clear-headed about situations we face in reality, the more I thought about this example you used, and how you dismissed the various ways to ‘explain away’ the situation, I got to thinking about why I also don’t find your comparison compelling.
Because, as you point out with regard to Camus, every action/inaction we make influences the world around us. Though in reality, the consequences are not clear to us. To apply a consistent value-system in a world that doesn’t ‘give’ results on moral actions the way it does physical ones, seems to be quite doomed to begin with.
Yes, it is highly improbable that you not pulling the switch would lead to the death of the five people, but it isn’t certain. Nothing Is certain in the way hypothetical scenarios present them. We can try to do our best, but that doesn’t mean it leads to the desired result, or to even a fixed result.
And so I guess I want to recognize that although it is a useful skill to be able to be more level-headed in the face of uncertainty, I don’t see your comparison as a good example of gaining moral consistency, as the Trolley Problem is a very clinical and ‘magical’ scenario.
In my view, existentialism is better applied as a mentality, a way to hold conflicts and difficult situations where we don’t see/feel that there are any good outcomes. Instead of being angry, getting reactive or making a choice that would make the situation worse, to try to bear the pain of there being no good options—whilst simultaneously not assigning any blame to each other on top of the felt ‘insert negative emotion’. A decision, a mindset of intentions, of not adding that extra layer of ‘blame’ to any given situation that otherwise would justbe.
I do agree with the temptation to shirk accountability, but there is also real and extreme terror in facing the reality of the world—and I’m pretty sure it is a reason many people go completely insane. It isn’t some easy fancy or useful tactic you can apply on a whim, or a nice skill to learn one summer. It is an extremely humbling paradigm shift, that changes one’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions of the world, and becoming both more accountable, and less reliant on ‘the gods’ or some external authority. A stance in the face of unavoidable hurt, pain and the continuous “infliction” of deprivation on oneself and others. With the Trolley Problem we can have clear results, though that is not the case in life. There are too many uncertainties, and our viewpoints and axioms are scattered, lack enormous amounts of information, and are biased in ways that are in direct contradiction with our conscious intentions—and it is a lot of work to just make minor adjustments. This is also something to rest in, the paradox of being the master of ourselves, whilst also not really having control over anything at all.
And so I wonder if focusing on the Trolley Problem in a way is a subtle rejection of reality. The temptation to give in to a view of reality that is ‘simpler’ and makes more sense to our mind. Like a video game, where the actions are programmed, and the results consistent.
To sum up, I do agree with the use of existentialism in general, and some of its uses for sitting in difficult situations and not shirking our role in situations. Though, in general, do not agree with the link drawn to the Trolley Problem. The best uses of Camus and Absurdism has for me been to not assign ‘blame’ as an added layer to a reality in interpersonal relationshipsand also intrapersonally, by being more able to feel the feelings and thoughts underneath this deflective layer of blame.
I tend to enjoy existential thoughts and ideas, and taking problems sincerely and staring at them head on. Adding in fluff to explain away realities, isn’t the preferred way I would want to find answers.
Though, even when I agree with the usefulness of being more clear-headed about situations we face in reality, the more I thought about this example you used, and how you dismissed the various ways to ‘explain away’ the situation, I got to thinking about why I also don’t find your comparison compelling.
Because, as you point out with regard to Camus, every action/inaction we make influences the world around us. Though in reality, the consequences are not clear to us. To apply a consistent value-system in a world that doesn’t ‘give’ results on moral actions the way it does physical ones, seems to be quite doomed to begin with.
Yes, it is highly improbable that you not pulling the switch would lead to the death of the five people, but it isn’t certain. Nothing Is certain in the way hypothetical scenarios present them. We can try to do our best, but that doesn’t mean it leads to the desired result, or to even a fixed result.
And so I guess I want to recognize that although it is a useful skill to be able to be more level-headed in the face of uncertainty, I don’t see your comparison as a good example of gaining moral consistency, as the Trolley Problem is a very clinical and ‘magical’ scenario.
In my view, existentialism is better applied as a mentality, a way to hold conflicts and difficult situations where we don’t see/feel that there are any good outcomes. Instead of being angry, getting reactive or making a choice that would make the situation worse, to try to bear the pain of there being no good options—whilst simultaneously not assigning any blame to each other on top of the felt ‘insert negative emotion’.
A decision, a mindset of intentions, of not adding that extra layer of ‘blame’ to any given situation that otherwise would just be.
I do agree with the temptation to shirk accountability, but there is also real and extreme terror in facing the reality of the world—and I’m pretty sure it is a reason many people go completely insane. It isn’t some easy fancy or useful tactic you can apply on a whim, or a nice skill to learn one summer. It is an extremely humbling paradigm shift, that changes one’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions of the world, and becoming both more accountable, and less reliant on ‘the gods’ or some external authority. A stance in the face of unavoidable hurt, pain and the continuous “infliction” of deprivation on oneself and others.
With the Trolley Problem we can have clear results, though that is not the case in life. There are too many uncertainties, and our viewpoints and axioms are scattered, lack enormous amounts of information, and are biased in ways that are in direct contradiction with our conscious intentions—and it is a lot of work to just make minor adjustments. This is also something to rest in, the paradox of being the master of ourselves, whilst also not really having control over anything at all.
And so I wonder if focusing on the Trolley Problem in a way is a subtle rejection of reality. The temptation to give in to a view of reality that is ‘simpler’ and makes more sense to our mind. Like a video game, where the actions are programmed, and the results consistent.
To sum up, I do agree with the use of existentialism in general, and some of its uses for sitting in difficult situations and not shirking our role in situations. Though, in general, do not agree with the link drawn to the Trolley Problem. The best uses of Camus and Absurdism has for me been to not assign ‘blame’ as an added layer to a reality in interpersonal relationships and also intrapersonally, by being more able to feel the feelings and thoughts underneath this deflective layer of blame.