The Trolley Problem -- An Introduction and discussion about Normative Ethics

In the following weeks, I would like to discuss about the trolley problem, which is the media to approach learning normative ethics (規範倫理學) in my opinion.

To begin with, what is the trolley problem? Consider the following situation: You are a driver of a runaway trolley. On the railway track are five workmen who are right in front of the trolley and can’t get out of the way. Now you have two choices: one is to do nothing and let the trolley bump into those workmen, while the other one is to switch the direction and divert the trolley to the side track, where there is only one worker immersing in his work. Would you choose to kill one and save five, or select the opposite?

Well, to answer this question, the philosophers think about three major approaches to viewing this moral dilemma and giving a reason for their choice.

The first one is utilitarianism (效益主義/功利主義), which locates morality just by the result of an act. That is, they judge good and evil mostly on the consequence of your action. And in this case, those who support this perspective will choose to divert the trolley because five lives are more valuable than one!

The second point of view is deontology (義務論), which think of morality as some duties and right. In other words, there are some of universal obligations and duties that we should abide by to approach morality. Specially, in the trolley problem, those who approves of this viewpoint will not choose to switch the trolley because if you switch it, then you will be responsible for the one life. However, if you doesn’t do any actions, then the responsibility of five lives would not be imposed on you!

The third viewpoint and more discussion will be post in the next few weeks. Let's expect it!

Self-Reference in Philosophy

This week, I want to discuss the similarities of the paradoxes I have mentioned in the previous weeks and give a brief summary to these paradoxes.

First of all, let’s start with self-reference. Actually, the word self-reference implies a sentence, a statement or an idea which refers to itself. For example, if you says,” I’m what I describe in this sentence”, then you talk about “the sentence itself”, and hence the sentence is self-referring.

In fact, there are lots of jokes induced by self-reference. For instance, look at the following picture:

                  

The joke is amusing because the dog use what the man just utters to make the man embarrassed. That question from the dog is an example of self-reference.

Moreover, self-reference can be used for controverting others’ ideas. It is common that we hear about the following conversation:

A says,” I have no beliefs.”

B asks,” Is it what you believe?”

A replies,” Yes, I believe that all beliefs are neither true nor false.”

B replies,” So it is your belief! You do have your belief!”

The conversation actually reveals how self-reference can work for debating and controverting.

Finally, get back to our topic. Most of the paradoxes are induced by self-reference! Think of the Pinocchio paradox. Pinocchio says,” My nose will be growing.” What he says has already referred to the rule imposed on him, because the result of telling lies will be the growth of his nose!

Pondering on the Curry paradox and the barber paradox, you will find their similarities that all of them talk about themselves in the statement! Therefore, it is why self-reference plays a significant role in philosophy.

And let me give a brief summary for the post in these weeks.

Perhaps you will wonder why we should learn the paradoxes. Are they useful? Are they close to our life? The answer may be no. Nonetheless, as the noted philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel says, everything evolves and develops in the unity and conflict of opposites, and undergoes a progress of “negation of negation” (continuously negating itself), finally being rational and approaching to the truth, or what he calls, absolute knowledge. Perhaps by getting deep thoughts of paradoxes and contradiction, we can really understand the world more clearly and intrinsically.

The pictures are from

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/dilbert.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ZezObYZTM

                                                                               

Russell’s Paradox

There is an interesting scenario which seems to be both plausible and contradicted. We can describe it in the following story:

In the town, there is only one barber, who is male. And everyone in the town should be clean-shaven owing to the new mayor’s policy. Therefore, the barber is delighted because he earns lots of money after the mayor’s policy is implemented, and then said proudly,” I’m the man who shaves all men, and only those men, who do not shave themselves.” In the same time, a child near him ask a question of him,” Who shaves you, Mr. Barber?”

We actually get an amazing conclusion about this story. That is, if the barber shave himself, then he doesn’t shave himself. It is totally weird and unbelievable in the story that seems to be able to happen around us.

It is called Barber Paradox specifically, and is an example of a more widely known paradox named Russell’s Paradox. In reality, Russell’s paradox plays a vital role in the realm of mathematics as well. It is a paradox valued by both scholars and general public, and a paradox noted for both mathematicians and philosophers.

In 1902, Russell sent a message to the Canadian math professor Gottlob Frege and told the professor his discovering of Russell’s Paradox. At that time, Gottlob Frege was about to publish his new book about set theory. In fact, the books were already printed and was about to be sent to the bookstores. After knowing Russell’s Paradox, Gottlob Frege acknowledged that there were basically errors in the book. Nevertheless, there was no time for him to revise the errors or even appendix the revise to the book. Hence, the books had been sold for only one day before withdrawn.

In the next decades, mathematicians endeavored to find a solution to make the set theory more complete, therefore leading to Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, which are used universally in the set theory nowadays. And all that reveals that Russell’s Paradox writes an indelible page in history.

Curry’s Paradox ----How to Prove Whatever You Say Is True

Whenever we are arguing or debating with others, we are confronted with such a dilemma that if we should keep on quarrelling or just bring the quarrel to a termination. Although we are dying to demonstrate our standpoint is true, we know all of our efforts will finally be in vain most of the time. Now there is a measure in philosophy that can prove whatever we say is true, isn’t it what we are craving for?

The method is called Curry’s paradox, named after the logician Haskell Curry. To show this method, we can start with the conditional claims. Logically, a conditional statement” if A, then B” implies that the premise” A is true” can lead to a conclusion” B is true“.

For example, “if Oliver stays up all night, then he will be late for school.” is a conditional claim. To verify our claim is true, maybe we will have the following inference: suppose Oliver stays up all night, and then he will get up late next day, therefore being late for school. (That is, the premise leads to the conclusion.)

Now think of the following case:

Sentence 1: if sentence 1 is true, then sentence 2 is true.

Sentence 2: whatever I say is true.

To verify the conditional claim in sentence 1 is true, suffice it to say that the premise “sentence 1 is true” leads to the conclusion” sentence 2 is true”. However, the premise “sentence 1 is true” implies the content of sentence 1 (if sentence 1 is true, then sentence 2 is true.) is true. And by the premise and the content of sentence 1, we get the conclusion “sentence 2 is true”. (That is, the premise leads to the conclusion.)

From the inference above, we actually prove the conditional statement is true. Moreover, because sentence 1 is equivalent to the conditional statement, sentence 1 is true too. Then, from the words framed, we get the conclusion sentence 2 is true.

Amazingly, now we get what we long for! Disappointedly, even if you prove what you say is true logically, perhaps your friends will not accept your standpoint. This time, you can only shrug and stop arguing with a sigh……

For more information, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B172ZYOyK4g.