The train morality problem

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Ceisiwr »

chownah wrote:Perhaps this type of morality problem has gained relevance.

Should your driverless car kill you to save a child's life?

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-driverless ... -life.html
from the link:
"Consider this thought experiment: you are travelling along a single-lane mountain road in an autonomous car that is fast approaching a narrow tunnel. Just before entering the tunnel a child attempts to run across the road but trips in the centre of the lane, effectively blocking the entrance to the tunnel. The car has but two options: hit and kill the child, or swerve into the wall on either side of the tunnel, thus killing you."

chownah


I think my natural reaction would be to hit swerve, seeing the child it would be an automatic response. I dont think hitting the wall would automatically register.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by culaavuso »

chownah wrote:Perhaps this type of morality problem has gained relevance.
[url=http://www.wired.com/2014/08/heres-a-terrible-idea-robot-cars-with-adjustable-ethics-settings/]Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars With Adjustable Ethics Settings[/url] by Patrick Lin wrote: Whatever the right value is to put on human life isn’t the issue here, and it’d be controversial any which way. In the same survey above, 36 percent of respondents would want a robot car to sacrifice their life to avoid crashing into a child, while 64 percent would want the child to die in order to save their own life. This is to say that we’re nowhere near a consensus on this issue.
...
With robot cars, we’re trying to design for random events that previously had no design, and that takes us into surreal territory. Like Alice’s wonderland, we don’t know which way is up or down, right or wrong. But our technologies are powerful: they give us increasing omniscience and control to bring order to the chaos. When we introduce control to what used to be only instinctive or random—when we put God in the machine—we create new responsibility for ourselves to get it right.
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: The train morality problem

Post by alan »

Here's a good idea: Never read anything by Patrick Lin.
User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Unrul3r »

Here's an article pertaining to the topic: The Trolley Car Dilemma: The Early Buddhist Answer and Resulting Insights by Pandita

:anjali:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Sun May 29, 2011 3:10 am I don't think this has been discussed yet here, so thought I would give it a try here:

The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues)

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)

What would you do?

What would Buddha do?

Image
The trolley represents an external threat to the monestery.
In the path of this threat the five precepts are bound to the track by the perceiver of the threat. As the perceiver of this threat you can make the choice to break one precept or keep your precepts 100% pure and allow the external threat to simply do its thing. If you choose to break one precept you are responsible for the resultant kamma.

With the threat of an invisible attacker where fear is the primary threat I choose to let it do it’s thing.

With a visible threat I would choose to self-preserve.

A Buddha would not breach a precept.
Last edited by thepea on Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun May 29, 2011 4:28 am Greetings,

It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.

You have the means to kill him, and by doing so, save the five.

Or do you not kill him, and let him kill the five.

Arguably, that's a much more difficult choice.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Gunman is the external threat. The five he is threatening are the precepts you keep. By killing you brech the five and are responsible for the resultant kamma.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?

What would a Buddha do?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?
Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Jack19990101 »

This trolley scenario is very interesting and intriguing too.

It reminds me of the teaching How one cross the flood -
By not pushing forward, by not backing up, by not standing still, one crosses the flood.
(Paraphrasing).

The teaching is straightforward in -
in case of Trolley and the case of flood,
solution is not in action, nor it is in the outward concern.
Dukkha is permeating from all directions in sphere of concern & action.

imo -
Solution is anatta.
We let go attachment to action, even further, completely let go of the concerning party, surrenderring our trust to Buddha Dhamma.

The trolley scenario, it is a classic to describe Dukkha.
Many Sila dilemma are Dukkha in disguise.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:28 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?
Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.
Is there a sutra referece to support the jurisdictional control over the buddha , dhamma and sangha?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:50 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:28 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?
Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.
Is there a sutra referece to support the jurisdictional control over the buddha , dhamma and sangha?
I believe The Buddha said that the Sangha ought to obey the law of whichever country they are in. But what's that got to do with my point?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

Jack19990101 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:41 pm Many Sila dilemma are Dukkha in disguise.
By pulling the lever you are guilty of murder(premeditated killing of a human being). By letting the train(flood in your scenario) do it’s thing and you have zero attachment to the result then you remain innocent(pure of mind).
Governments are always guilty of murderous action, it’s when a governments action is ordered/mandated upon a public where we get involved. Nazi germany pressuring its citizens to turn on the dirty diseased Jews. A government makes a threat out of people then it’s our morality by following said orders that is in jeopardy.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:59 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:50 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:28 pm

Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.
Is there a sutra referece to support the jurisdictional control over the buddha , dhamma and sangha?
I believe The Buddha said that the Sangha ought to obey the law of whichever country they are in. But what's that got to do with my point?
Laws are laws they must go through a parliamentary process. Acts, orders, mandates are asks not laws, they require the active consent and participation of the individual. If the individual is bound by the precepts these individuals have the duty to say no to any ask that goes against their morality. Now is a monestery bound to follow an ask of a government according to the Buddha dhamma?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:59 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:50 pm

Is there a sutra referece to support the jurisdictional control over the buddha , dhamma and sangha?
I believe The Buddha said that the Sangha ought to obey the law of whichever country they are in. But what's that got to do with my point?
Laws are laws
Yes...
they must go through a parliamentary process
No. They might be a form of delegated legislation. In the UK these are normally termed "orders" or "regulations" or somesuch, but they have the force of law. And there is, of course, case law. No parliament required.
Acts, orders, mandates are asks not laws
I'm not sure of the terminology in Canada and elsewhere, but "Acts" are examples of primary legislation. And I'm not sure what you mean by "asks". They are not requests.
they require the active consent and participation of the individual
Delegated legislation and case law require no more active consent or participation than statutes.
If the individual is bound by the precepts these individuals have the duty to say no to any ask that goes against their morality.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask"; nor is it clear that individuals undertaking training precepts have any duties; nor that they are equated with "morality"; nor that such conflicts exist in reality.
Now is a monestery bound to follow an ask of a government according to the Buddha dhamma?
I don't know what the position in the vinaya is, if any. But they are bound to follow laws, I would have thought, and most of them seem to do so without problems. But again, this term "ask".... :shrug:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:32 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:59 pm

I believe The Buddha said that the Sangha ought to obey the law of whichever country they are in. But what's that got to do with my point?
Laws are laws
Yes...
they must go through a parliamentary process
No. They might be a form of delegated legislation. In the UK these are normally termed "orders" or "regulations" or somesuch, but they have the force of law. And there is, of course, case law. No parliament required.
Acts, orders, mandates are asks not laws
I'm not sure of the terminology in Canada and elsewhere, but "Acts" are examples of primary legislation. And I'm not sure what you mean by "asks". They are not requests.
they require the active consent and participation of the individual
Delegated legislation and case law require no more active consent or participation than statutes.
If the individual is bound by the precepts these individuals have the duty to say no to any ask that goes against their morality.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask"; nor is it clear that individuals undertaking training precepts have any duties; nor that they are equated with "morality"; nor that such conflicts exist in reality.
Now is a monestery bound to follow an ask of a government according to the Buddha dhamma?
I don't know what the position in the vinaya is, if any. But they are bound to follow laws, I would have thought, and most of them seem to do so without problems. But again, this term "ask".... :shrug:
The base of law is keeping the peace of society.
The morality laid out by Buddha in the precepts is based on keeping a stable mental peace within and these are the basis for any law passed through parliament process. No government can pass a law which required a man to break any moral precept.
No laws can be created to force a man to:
Kill,
Lie,
Steal,
Have Sexual misconduct, or
Consume intoxicants.

But.... a government can create acts, orders and mandated and a variety of other named things which are “ASKS” of the public. For example an act of war can be created and one could be drafted into service. They can dress you, fly you across the earth to foreign land, they can put a gun in your hands and order you into battle to kill the enemy.
Nobody can force you to kill at war, this must be done by your own active consent and participation. If you choose not to kill you are guilty of no crime. Your fellow soldiers might get pissed at you but you have broken no laws only refused orders.
You can refuse any acts orders or mandates put forth by a government. You will not be charged with a crime.
Similarly in my case driving into a neighbouring prince when the political boundary was closed violated this mandate. But I was not arrested for this, I was arrested for failure to identify. But when confronted by police I was sitting in a cafe having a pepsi. I had no lawful reason to identify. So they used newly recruited private security without badge numbers to violate my freedom of anonymity and arrest me.

This is the difference between a law and any of the other terms used. You are not guilty of breaking a law if you say no to these.

So my question to you was monesteries are to follow laws but do they have a duty(moral responsibility) to carefully choose which acts orders and mandates they follow given that some require a precept breach?
Post Reply