Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
About Morally Correct Outcomes in D&D Adventures [+]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8936346" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>"Quick" (hah) note [USER=7040377]@Emoshin[/USER] on the subject of Trolley Problems, since you mentioned you have minimal experience with the study of ethics*:</p><p>[SPOILER="Semi-off-topic aside"]The original point of Trolley Problems (before they even got that name!) was NOT to say that there was some singular, right answer everyone was supposed to get. In fact, it was exactly the <em>opposite</em>! This class of philosophy questions was originally proposed by Philippa Foot (one of my favorite philosophers) in 1967, and then refined and given the name "Trolley Problems" by Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1976.</p><p></p><p>Foot, you see, was a "virtue ethics" proponent, which means (more or less) the theory that ethics questions are best answered by determining what the components of good character ("virtues") are, and then seeking practical means to develop those attributes. However, she was writing at a time when two other theories, "utilitarianism" and "deontology," had been dominant for quite a while, with utilitarianism by far the most dominant. Utilitarianism, again hyper-distilled, claims that we can (in some sense) <em>calculate</em> the ethical value of actions, e.g. actions that increase pleasure and reduce pain, and thus doing whatever gives the calculated best outcome is correct. (More advanced versions recognize "higher" vs "lower" pleasures, with the former categorically better than the latter.) Deontology is complicated so I won't get into it, but the TL;DR is that it's about moral <em>duties</em>, identifying them and fulfilling them.</p><p></p><p>I give all this context to explain why Trolley Problems were so influential, and why they're now badly misunderstood and usually used wrongly. Foot used this argument in its raw form to say, "Look, for all of your claims about utilitarianism, <em>people don't actually behave that way</em>. And I can prove it, through the way people respond differently to this moral thought experiment." Her original framing gives a contrast between the following three scenarios:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A judge or magistrate is presiding over a court where there are rioters demanding that a culprit be held responsible for some crime. The rioters have five innocent hostages, and will kill them if their demands are not met. The magistrate has no idea who the real culprit is, nor even if the real culprit is available to be punished; they have a choice between framing one innocent person who will definitely be killed by the mob, or allowing the five hostages to die.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A pilot is flying a single-person airplane with a heavy cargo, when the engine cuts out. She has the choice of aiming toward a densely-populated area or a sparsely-populated one. However, recognizing that this has too many open variables (e.g. it's possible to hit no one in <em>either</em> location), she proposes...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You are a trolley driver on an otherwise empty, runaway trolley. You cannot stop the trolley and the tracks are narrow and difficult to escape. You must choose whether to allow the trolley to stay on a track that has five people working on it, or switch it to a track that has one person on it.</li> </ol><p>She posed this because, from a purely utilitarian view, the answer to all three problems should be identical: fewer deaths is always preferable to more deaths, and thus we should choose to pilot the plane toward the low-population area, we should direct the trolley to the track with one person, and we should sacrifice one innocent life in order to save five innocent hostages. But the thing is, actual people <em>don't do that!</em> While almost everyone agrees that the correct decision is to crash the plane in a low-population area, a lot of people are very reluctant to <em>change</em> the path of the trolley in order to save five people, even if they are otherwise heavily committed to utilitarianism. And then the courthouse example is even worse, with most people considering it utterly unacceptable to sacrifice one person in that way, even though from a utilitarian/consequentialist perspective the two situations should be entirely identical.[/SPOILER]</p><p>More or less, with the trolley problem, Foot was arguing that we don't, and <em>shouldn't try to</em>, reduce all of ethics down to mere arithmetic, which was in some sense the key selling point of (consequentialist) utilitarianism, the idea that we could skip past all the tedious debate and definitions etc. by employing math to identify correct solutions. This critique made room for a virtue-ethics response to the prevailing moral theories of the day, and was part of the return of virtue ethics to general ethical discussion.</p><p></p><p>*Almost wrote that as "minimal experience with ethics," and HOO BOY that would've been a SPICY thing to say!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8936346, member: 6790260"] "Quick" (hah) note [USER=7040377]@Emoshin[/USER] on the subject of Trolley Problems, since you mentioned you have minimal experience with the study of ethics*: [SPOILER="Semi-off-topic aside"]The original point of Trolley Problems (before they even got that name!) was NOT to say that there was some singular, right answer everyone was supposed to get. In fact, it was exactly the [I]opposite[/I]! This class of philosophy questions was originally proposed by Philippa Foot (one of my favorite philosophers) in 1967, and then refined and given the name "Trolley Problems" by Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1976. Foot, you see, was a "virtue ethics" proponent, which means (more or less) the theory that ethics questions are best answered by determining what the components of good character ("virtues") are, and then seeking practical means to develop those attributes. However, she was writing at a time when two other theories, "utilitarianism" and "deontology," had been dominant for quite a while, with utilitarianism by far the most dominant. Utilitarianism, again hyper-distilled, claims that we can (in some sense) [I]calculate[/I] the ethical value of actions, e.g. actions that increase pleasure and reduce pain, and thus doing whatever gives the calculated best outcome is correct. (More advanced versions recognize "higher" vs "lower" pleasures, with the former categorically better than the latter.) Deontology is complicated so I won't get into it, but the TL;DR is that it's about moral [I]duties[/I], identifying them and fulfilling them. I give all this context to explain why Trolley Problems were so influential, and why they're now badly misunderstood and usually used wrongly. Foot used this argument in its raw form to say, "Look, for all of your claims about utilitarianism, [I]people don't actually behave that way[/I]. And I can prove it, through the way people respond differently to this moral thought experiment." Her original framing gives a contrast between the following three scenarios: [LIST=1] [*]A judge or magistrate is presiding over a court where there are rioters demanding that a culprit be held responsible for some crime. The rioters have five innocent hostages, and will kill them if their demands are not met. The magistrate has no idea who the real culprit is, nor even if the real culprit is available to be punished; they have a choice between framing one innocent person who will definitely be killed by the mob, or allowing the five hostages to die. [*]A pilot is flying a single-person airplane with a heavy cargo, when the engine cuts out. She has the choice of aiming toward a densely-populated area or a sparsely-populated one. However, recognizing that this has too many open variables (e.g. it's possible to hit no one in [I]either[/I] location), she proposes... [*]You are a trolley driver on an otherwise empty, runaway trolley. You cannot stop the trolley and the tracks are narrow and difficult to escape. You must choose whether to allow the trolley to stay on a track that has five people working on it, or switch it to a track that has one person on it. [/LIST] She posed this because, from a purely utilitarian view, the answer to all three problems should be identical: fewer deaths is always preferable to more deaths, and thus we should choose to pilot the plane toward the low-population area, we should direct the trolley to the track with one person, and we should sacrifice one innocent life in order to save five innocent hostages. But the thing is, actual people [I]don't do that![/I] While almost everyone agrees that the correct decision is to crash the plane in a low-population area, a lot of people are very reluctant to [I]change[/I] the path of the trolley in order to save five people, even if they are otherwise heavily committed to utilitarianism. And then the courthouse example is even worse, with most people considering it utterly unacceptable to sacrifice one person in that way, even though from a utilitarian/consequentialist perspective the two situations should be entirely identical.[/SPOILER] More or less, with the trolley problem, Foot was arguing that we don't, and [I]shouldn't try to[/I], reduce all of ethics down to mere arithmetic, which was in some sense the key selling point of (consequentialist) utilitarianism, the idea that we could skip past all the tedious debate and definitions etc. by employing math to identify correct solutions. This critique made room for a virtue-ethics response to the prevailing moral theories of the day, and was part of the return of virtue ethics to general ethical discussion. *Almost wrote that as "minimal experience with ethics," and HOO BOY that would've been a SPICY thing to say! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
About Morally Correct Outcomes in D&D Adventures [+]
Top