The train morality problem

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: The train morality problem

Post by waterchan »

David N. Snyder wrote: What would Buddha do?
I don't think this should be a problem for the Buddha of the pali tipitaka. He can see the kamma of others, so he would act accordingly based on the ripening of kamma involved.

It's only a dilemma for the rest of us.

A virtue ethicist would not flip the switch.

A utilitarian or a lay Buddhist would just flip the switch. Having right intention, there is no killing intent present and therefore no unwholesome kamma accumulated. Unless the guy on the other track is an arahant, in which case the lay Buddhist is kammically screwed for a minimum of 1.62×10^12 years.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
Sokehi
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Sokehi »

retrofuturist wrote: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. :)
But do you really know that he is going to shoot them? Maybe he stops or not even start doing so at all... :tongue:
Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.
Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

https://www.youtube.com/user/Repeataarrr
vesak2014
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:04 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by vesak2014 »

David N. Snyder wrote:What would you do?
I'd flip the switch and reach the tied person as soon as possible to set him free. Whichever nearest comes first. If the mad philosopher is around, I'd ask him to help me by doing either one. At least you do something other than just watching someone gets killed.
What would Buddha do?
This question doesn't apply to a Buddha. Because he can stop the train, or set the five people free, or flip the switch and set the one person free, anything you can think possible.

:anjali:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by chownah »

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
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
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.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
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: 13460
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: 713
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?
Post Reply