Grandma Foot (Foot was born on October 3rd and died on October 3rd is also a wonderful thing~cough cough) Back then, this question was also raised for the various practical issues she wanted to discuss, and then it rose to speculation, and finally for the people Provides guidance on solving real-world problems.
After all, the "trolley problem" is a problem in an ideal situation. Its premise, conditions, and results are all impeccable. No matter how you think about it, there will not be an answer that satisfies everyone. Yet another philosopher gave a solution to this type of problem - Marx. In fact, Marx already gave the answer long before some famous "thought experiments" were born.
(Someone must call me a "5 Mao Party", so let's just say it. The correct methodology will not be wrong because of the words of one person or group of people. It is the same for any philosophical school and religion.)
Actually , long before the birth of some famous "thought experiments" (you can read "Ten Famous Thought Experiments" under Baidu), Marx has already given solutions, including this of course (try to solve other problems with Lao Ma's logic That's pretty strict~).
The starting point for solving this problem is: actualization (does it evoke the well-known "everything starts from reality, theory is connected with practice, seeks truth from facts, and develops truth in practice"?). He believes that any truth cannot be developed and verified whether it is discussed in the real environment or not (but if you think he means "it is wrong not to discuss it in reality", please read Lao Ma's original work carefully, he Think that logical speculation and practice are equally important, but the ultimate truth can only be proved by practice). Real-life questions are more complex and more direct, and there can be exact answers. In fact, two philosophers, Ford and Marx, would not have discussed only this question, since they were fully aware that unrealistic fantasies are useless, but combining many similar problems into one refined question for speculation is It's absolutely necessary (but if Grandma Feet is just speculating, the old horse will definitely call her "metaphysical" - although we know "metaphysical" doesn't mean that - it seems more accurate to use "fantasy" and "unrealistic").
If there is a gap between Yale's public class teachers and Marx (well, one is just an accomplished professor, one who has changed billions of people's way of life and understanding of human social processes - if you have to say), One thing must be: the professor does not "specifically analyze specific problems" (suddenly feel inexplicable laughs~).
Having said so much, we start to analyze this issue directly with specific events, such as counter-terrorism:
a Muslim terrorist claims to have planted 3 nuclear bombs in the United States. If the nuclear bombs explode, each nuclear bomb will kill 600w~1000w US citizens (I can clap my hands. How fast~ I'm off topic again...), now that the U.S. military has caught the terrorist, and the only way for him to tell the exact location of the nuclear bomb is to torture his two children to death, will you put the two to death? An innocent child was tortured to death in exchange for the lives of thousands of innocent people?
The above brief description has omitted a lot of specific content, let's call it "a compromise between ideal problems and practical problems into specific problems". This example is from the movie "Unthinkable" released in 2010 (yes, the year Grandma Foot died at the age of 90) (5 stars recommended for friends who are interested in this issue), for the sake of most people who haven't seen it The filmmaker's welfare, I'd still spoil it (there are woods and some are very evil~): In the end, the secret interrogation team just used children to intimidate the terrorists, and successfully asked them to explain the specific locations of the 3 nuclear bombs, and gave up torturing children to death. As a result, the explosion of the fourth nuclear bomb was not prevented (the most loving thing against "justice must be done" is the most love~ ah ha ha).
It’s still a bit far-fetched. Let’s bring it back: First of all, it is anti-social that terrorists threaten the lives of innocent people with nuclear bombs (if you have something to look for, then other people who haven’t touched you will start a knife and blow up the Pentagon or the Presidential Palace.) ; Second, looking at the two children of terrorists as individuals, torturing them to death is itself anti-social, but both social contract theory and historical materialism emphasize that people are people who include social contracts/social relations ( The theory of social contract says that "man is a person who is free to contract"; Marx said "man is the sum of social relations". In fact, social contract and social relations are not completely equivalent, but they can be equivalent in this situation), here, the two The social contract/social relationship between the child and the terrorist is "father and son", the social contract/social relationship between the terrorist and the US government is "hostile", the social contract/social relationship between the two children and millions of people is "you live or die", the child The relationship with the US government is an "interrogation chip", and the relationship between tens of millions of people and terrorists is a "negotiation condition". When the two aspects are considered together, the following inference can be drawn: the practice of tortured children to death to make terrorists account to save millions of people is to punish and prevent terrorists' crimes by the same means as terrorists.
Looking at either side alone, there will be a dilemma in analysis because of the sacrosanct human rights of that side, for example, children are innocent and cannot violate their lives. But since it is part of the whole problem, the whole problem must be analyzed as a whole (the dialectics is coming~), the problem with only seeing children's human rights and ignoring their social contract is that only when they recognize their social contract, they will Enjoying human rights - freedom of contract, since sociality is the premise of human rights, denying sociality will inevitably deny its human rights (when human rights are denied, children enjoy "natural freedom" and should be judged according to the animal survival law of "natural selection" Their life and death—they should die for the sake of the human population), so fairness by contract is in line with Western philosophy, and of course, it is also in line with historical materialism (it is rare that idealism and materialism are in harmony ~ but there is no social contract below, haha).
[Put a foot in~] Go back and look at the idealized "trolley problem": It seems that there is no social relationship other than 1 dead and 5 alive or 1 alive and 5 dead? It doesn't matter, we can first look at the experiment done by the University of Michigan. They added in an experiment that the person on the side of only one person is the answerer's lover, so the question becomes "Will you save the lover and kill five people? Or save five people and kill your lover?" From a social point of view, respondents should be more inclined to save their lover. The result of the experiment is that, compared with the idealized "trolley problem" experiment (90% of people choose to kill 1 to save 5), fewer people choose to kill 1 to save 5 (down to 53%) (the timely complaining about "love"). "Dog people", because dogs are closer to their social relationship, and they ignore the social relationship of pigs, cows, ducks, sheep and dogs as human livestock, infringing on the human rights of dog eaters who are more distant from them). Marx said that practice tests the truth. Sure enough, social relations are an important factor for people to consider~
[Kick back~] "Using violence to suppress violence" is obviously criticized - treating terrorists in the same way as terrorists has completely lowered our moral level! What is the meaning of cruelty compared with terrorists! This is absolutely reviled in Western viewpoints (except utilitarianism and pragmatism, etc.), because most of them are accustomed to standing on the moral high ground and looking at things from the perspective of "superman" and "God" (most idealists will With this tendency, the materialist loves to be a diaosi...hey~). However, we must immediately realize that in answering this question, we have not considered an important aspect: do we as answerers have a social relationship in the question? If so, what are the social relationships involved?
Choosing which party to save is actually also choosing which party to die, which in itself is asking the respondent to do the moral loss of ignoring the rights of the other party on the moral high ground of saving the party. If you save 5 people, you will be condemned by the family of 1 person who died, and if you save 1 person, you will inevitably be condemned by the family of 5 people who died (yes, it's so dark~). But it must be realized that morality cannot judge the behavior chosen by the respondent, and the law will condone that behavior. Does it feel a bit like the "Richard Parker case" - does morality and law apply to the parties in extreme circumstances? Of course, the difference between the two questions is that the former has already determined that morality is basically inapplicable, because at the same time being condemned, he has also become a hero of the other living party, but is applicable to the law - the "emergency hedging" regulations; the common point of the two questions is that A precondition—whether the parties give up being a social person—can also be used to analyze the situation.
For the "Richard Parker case", if the defendant renounces being a social person in court, he should not be convicted of murder, but should be imprisoned for life by endangering social security, deprived of all legal rights for life (really serving as an animal farmer). If the accused does not renounce his status as a social person, he shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment for intentional murder and deprived of his political rights for life.
The same applies to respondents to the "trolley problem". When you don't see yourself as a social person, you can play a god, a demon, or any role you want to make choices, but what is more valuable and practical is to consider which choice is the most important when you are a social person. good.
Since as a social person, it should be considered from the perspective of social relations (repeating Marx's definition of human beings: a person is the sum of social relations). If you don’t give 5+1 people a qualitative definition of identity (such as which of them are your cousins, which is your Mama, and which is your EX), then each person represents 1 unit of social relationship Quantity (dialectics is here again~Quality is the stipulation that a thing becomes itself and distinguishes it from other things, and quantity is the stipulation of the scale, development, speed, and spatial composition of components; And the amount is equal), the impact of the loss of 1 social relationship (assuming that 1 unit of social relationship loss has a negative impact on society) is much smaller than the impact of 5 social relationship losses, so killing 1 to save 5 is ideal The best decision made as a social person under the problem of change.
To sum up, according to the Marxist point of view, the ideal "trolley problem" should preferably choose to kill 1 to save 5.
Summary: In fact, according to Marx's point of view, it is not good to kill 1 to save 5 "for the fundamental interests of the vast majority of the people". Have you discussed whether those 5 people are gangsters, gangsters, rapists and murderers? Even if they are social cancers, have you discussed that you have the right to decide whether they live or die? According to the old horse's theory, it can be answered! So don't underestimate Marxism~ ah ha ha ha ha (don't remind me that I have gone astray~~~ I don't take medicine from 1am to 6:30am and feel cute~...= =)
View more about Unthinkable reviews
