Hello sir, I hope you are doing well and that are safe in this period of lockdown. I am sending you a message because I have a question regarding one of your class, on the serie the bad the good and philosophy in the deontology part, you are distingued two types of theories : agent based and patient based. My question is how these theories are incompatible ? Isn’t it possible to find a theorie that is centered both on agents and patients ? In the way you are explaining it almost seems like the two can be reconcile and I don’t understand why it should be the case... In any case I hope you will read and answer me, thank you for taking your time. Have a great day or night. Thank you
I don't see the difference between switching the tacks and pushing a fat man off a bridge. 🤷🏻 I think they're the same. I agree with RG Frey in "Intention, Foresight and Killing" that there is no difference between using someone directly and recognizing that an unintentional outcome will be someone being used. Throwing the tracks to save the five is just as much of murder as directly pushing a fat man off a bridge. In my opinion, the only ethical response to the trolly problem is to do nothing. Or, if allowed, to try and save those in danger *without* switching the tracks nor pushing the fat man. Perhaps by trying to untie them. And, if you could have done this, but did not, then that is also unethical. But, if you tried your best and failed to save anyone, then that is *not* unethical so long as you didn't switch the tracks nor push the fat man. So my solution to the paradox of deontology is the same as Frey's. Namely, a control theory of agency where the treatment of the patient or victim is equally as important as your intentions as the actor or agent, thus the imperitibe is to control outcomes via causal reasoning based on your intentional actions: thus, the ethical thing to do is to intentionally mold and shape the unfolding of events to both respect the rights of victims and to never act with bad intentions and this synthesis of both agent and patient centered theories of deontology includes an imperative to act when capable of doing so and condemns inaction and bystanding. But, it also condemns maximizing the public good at the expense of victims but not at the expense of bystanders.
In this way, bystanders are compelled to try and untie the victims of the trolly before they are hit. But it is reasonable to not endanger yourself as a bystander to try and save the victims. However, it is not reasonable to stand by and do nothing to try to untie the victims when there is no real danger to yourself in doing so.
My ethics course instructor taught us that Kant thought it immoral for someone to cut off and sell their own hair since they are using their body as a means to an end. The instructor also thought it likely that Kant would have thought that the sale of one's labor to a company is immoral for the same reasons.
You had a very strangely and funnily misguided instructor who probably hasn't read Kant carefully. There is nothing wrong with working for a company, as long as you can respect yourself doing so. The issue is if your company exploits you or makes you do bad things. In such cases of course you cannot continue working for them and respect yourself and others. But merely working for someone is just as innocent as asking someone to bring us a glass of water. We can respect the person and ask them to do this, if they are treated fairly and respectfully while doing so (paid normally, etc.).
@@istvanzardai6318 Hair is not subject to means. It someone not something that cannot be a means to an end not something. You can volunteer to sell your labor. Your labor is a means to your own ends. Slavery is usually involuntary. The slave master is using the labor of the slave for his ends.
I was worried that there would be no video this week! You may keep your rights on up to the point that you violate someone else's. If your actions kill someone, you then loose your right to be informed and consent to anything that is done to you as a result. If you steal something, same thing. if you punch someone, same thing, if you poison their drinking water, same thing. In that moment you decide that it's ok for you not to follow the social contract because you are a "Special Snowflake" (agent), you give up your liberties; your rights. You can can kill someone who is about to kill other people, but you must essentially catch them with the weapon in hand, pointed at their intended victim, and finger on the trigger. You cannot act on "pre-crime" suspicions, nor thought crimes. There must be an orgy of EVIDENCE! There must always be EVIDENCE of a rights violation when you do something to someone without their consent. All the "agent" stuff is made up. There are no Dictators. There are people who do things. If some of those things are ruling over a specific geographical location by force and not allowing the residents of that area to participate in the decision making process regarding resource management, then people who speak what is known as English call that person a Dictator. If the effect of the person acting in this way is that thousands of people die on the orders of that "dictator" (a violation of those thousands of people's civil rights) then we must, as a species, hold that person accountable. I'm not certain, but I think our obligation to other people comes from the same place that our obligation to ourselves comes from. I have been thinking about this a lot here lately.
So what philosophy is it if you leave the 5 to thier fate? I get that if I choose to do nothing that may be perceived as me actively making the decision to kill 5 people. But if I were not present they would die anyway. But by what right do I have to make the judgment call that savings 5 people, who were stupid enough to be hanging out on a train track, is a validation for sacrificing 1. Who was stupid enough to be hanging out on a train track as well. I would disagree that not throwing the switch or pushing the fat man in to the trains path does not make me responsible for the fate of the 5. Thier lives are not collectively more valuable because there are 5 of them. That one person does not deserve to die simply because 5 poeple made poor life decisions or could not for see the potential consequence of thier actuons. I get that were are not privy to the information of what brought these 6 people to the train tracks, or near enough to be pushed. but again I would agree that by not pushing the fat guy or throwing the switch it does not make me responsible for the fate of the 5. But by performing either action does make me responsible for the fate of the one.
The question to be had here is: by your own moral system do you consider it a moral obligation to reduce the amount of harm in the world to a very significant degree when it doesn't take anything away from you? typo
