this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
166 points (94.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Philippa Foot is most known for her invention of the Trolley Problem thought experiment in the 1960s. A lesser known variation of hers is as follows:

Suppose that a judge is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime. The rioters are threatening to take bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed from the riots only by framing some innocent person and having them executed.

These are the only two options: execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit, or let people riot in the streets knowing that people will die. If you were the judge, what would you do?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 110 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Let the people riot.

Condemning an innocent person to death would be the direct responsibility of the Judge, whereas the judge is not directly responsible for the actions of the protestors. Those protestors are behaving outside of the judicial system, and the judicial system may deal with them eventually, but their threat of violence should not be part of the decision-making process.

Caiaphas and his whole “it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” thing shouldn’t really be seen as a role model for judges. Just sayin’.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

I agree also by rules-based utilitarianism. It's important not just to consider the immediate, short-term utilitarian outcome, but to consider the utility of a world whereby we regularly make the same type of decision.

In a world where a riot is all it takes to sentence unpopular people to death, you create a perverse incentive for people to riot -- or threaten to riot -- in order to pervert the proper carriage of justice. Who knows how much net harm would be done in this world ruled by mob justice.

But the alternative is a world where rule of law exists, which I think is a far better world to live in.

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 16 points 1 year ago

Justice be done though the heavens fall. It's a very old quote, originally in Latin, it's a core principle of a functioning justice system.

[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Condemning an innocent person to death would be the direct responsibility of the Judge, whereas the judge is not directly responsible for the actions of the protestors.

This logic could be applied to the original trolley problem as well - pulling the lever is condemning an innocent person to death and you are directly responsible for it, while you are not responsible for the trolley continuing on its course and killing five people.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The difference, and what makes the trolley problem more effective I think, is that the trolley problem doesn’t give us the framework of a judicial system, rule of law, whereas the judge has that.

I think, anyway. I only took intro philosophy classes.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.

If you redirect the trolley, you're not trying to kill the man on the other track. You're trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there's always the possibility he'll escape on his own.

Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there's culpability that doesn't exist in the trolley scenario.

In one case you're accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you're pursuing it as a necessary step.

[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

That makes sense. The original problem is "do nothing" vs. "do something", while this version is "do something just" vs. "do something unjust".

[–] DrPop@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

True but then that's where personal philosophy comes in. Doing nothing is still an action to me especially if I was aware. It's rather be responsible for one death rather then several.

[–] triclops6@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

This highlights why the trolley problem is in fact a problem, letting worse things happen is seen as preferable to doing a bad thing. But letting a bad thing happen when it's guaranteed is kinda like doing that worse thing yourself, you have control through inaction.

I know I'd be riddled with guilt but I hope I'd have the courage to do the bad thing to prevent the worse one