Board index ‹ Morality

[Argento]

For those unfamiliar with the problem:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

The philosophers have been coming with various solutions depending on their worldview over the years, but if the morality comes from the nature of God, it means this problem should have one solution - something that God himself would do if he was a human in this situation.

So the question is: what decision would God like you to make when faced with this problem?

[jimwalton]

There is no "Christian" solution to the Trolley Problem, and I don't even think there's ANY solution to the Trolley Problem. It is designed to be unsolvable to motivate you to probe your ethics and reasons.

[Argento]

Yes, but now I'm using it to probe the ethics of God, if we can call it like this. What would God prefer you to do, according to his perfect morality?

[jimwalton]

I appreciate your drive to probe the ethics of God, but this question is designed to be an inescapable trap of condemnation. I think to try to use it to probe the ethics of God will not lead you anywhere. A better strategy to probe the ethics of God, in my opinion, is to probe the texts He's given us in the Bible rather than to use a contrived trap question which will lead you to condemning God no matter what answer is given. Any answer anyone gives will provide you with "license" to judge God negatively. That's my opinion.

[Argento]

It's not intended to be a trap! Rather, I try to use logic to see how the idea of God being the source of morality applies to problems like this one. You can think whatever you want of me, but it doesn't make my question less valid.

[jimwalton]

> It's not intended to be a trap!

You're serious? It's not intended to be a trap? It's designed to be a dilemma, e.g., no suitable solution. The situation is set up so you have to kill somebody. Maybe God would have the engine fail on the train so no one was killed. Since only two murderous choices are given, the dilemma intends to trap you in a quandary of the value of human life. C'mon, you know that. That's how moral dilemmas are designed.

> I try to use logic

I try to use logic also, but the situation is designed to defy logic. You have to react with your gut.

> You can think whatever you want of me, but it doesn't make my question less valid.

I don't think poorly of you. I just know that moral dilemmas are designed to be unsolvable. It's designed to be a Catch-22.

In the Gospels, people often tried to draw Jesus into a similar kind of dilemma/trap so they could condemn Him. Without fail, Jesus refuses to be drawn into them.

[Argento]

Ok, so the question is: how to reconcile the existence of unsolvable moral dilemmas with the God being the standard of morality? If morality is based on what God would do/expect you to do, then what are you supposed to do in a situation like this?

[jimwalton]

Excellent question. In a context of vibrant human life where free will is at play, there will always be ethical conflicts. We see it in our society in the conflict between religious freedom and sexual rights, and also in freedom of speech vs. saying hateful or dangerous things. Values and morals are eventually bound to conflict, and decisions must be made. Is there any decision that is perfect? Yes, ultimately, but in a situation where only two choices are given, the opportunity for a perfect decision is past. Now only poor choices are left.

Rather than evaluating God’s morality with a contrived dilemma designed to elicit condemnation, let’s (briefly) look at some real biblical situations.

Genesis 6: The Flood. People who don’t bother to think deeply condemn God for killing babies. “He had a moral dilemma: let the world be consumed by evil or to kill babies, so He chose to kill babies. Jerk!!” But that’s not the story. The story is that the world was corrupt beyond imagination, and evil was about to consume society. So (and here’s the difference), God raised up Noah as a preacher of righteousness, who told the people to change their ways or they would be destroyed, either by their own evil or by God in judgment (evil should be punished). The people gave God the finger and refused to change. Now, when the judgment comes, who is most responsible for the death of those babies? The people are. They could have changed, but didn’t. We see the same story at the end of Jonah 3, where because the people changed, God didn’t destroy them. It was the people who decided to call God’s bluff, but it was no bluff. So is this a “perfect” solution? “Perfect” is tough to define there.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah. People who don’t bother to think deeply condemn God for condemning homosexuality. But look at what’s really going on here. It is a city of violent sexual abuse. They had had many opportunities to change their ways, and yet refused every one of them. Who is to blame, then, when judgment comes? God was even willing to forgive the entire city if 10 righteous people were in the whole city. Only 10. There were not. This was the people’s fault, not God’s.

The 10 plagues of Egypt and the “murder” of the firstborn. God had given them time after time, chance after chance, to repent, come clean, and do the right thing. They didn’t. So is God to blame for their own stupidity and rebellion? I don’t think so.

The book of Joshua: The Conquest of Canaan. God told Moses that each city should first be given an opportunity to surrender, and if they surrendered, they would be spared. Instead, the cities mounted war against Joshua. Is God to blame for their deaths?

See, there are always more than two choices. There are always mitigating circumstances. There are always efforts made by God to avoid “the worst scenario.” Always. That’s why these moral dilemmas are so misleading when it comes to analyzing God’s morality through them.

I would ask the courtesy that you take the time to read Jeremiah 18.1-12. It should take you only 4 minutes to read. In real life, and in relation to a real God and His real moralituy, it’s never as simple as “Are you going to kill one person or 5?”

[Argento]

I think you're responding to an accusation I didn't make. I don't want to blame God for anything - I'm only presenting a situation where you have only two choices, and it's not possible to stay neutral, because inaction has consequences as well. And normally you'd ask yourself: what would God want me to do? What would he approve of? That's how we know what is moral, isn't it? So the question is: what would God want you to do in this situation? Nothing or something?

[jimwalton]

I didn't mean to imply that you were seeking to blame God. My apology if that's how I came across. I know many critics and detractors on this forum ARE seeking to blame God, but that wasn't your angle or intent. I got that. Sorry if I miscommunicated.

I realize you are presenting a binary situation of non-neutrality, seeking what someone who is a God-follower would do, and what God would approve of. I get that. But it's my opinion that answering the question will lead you in a false direction that will inevitably lead to misdirection and misunderstanding. That's why I keep turning away from the question. It's contrived because no matter what one chooses, it's both wrong and condemnable. That doesn't help us understanding anything about "something that God himself would do if he was a human in this situation." It simply does not lead us to "this problem should have one solution." I don't agree with the idea that this contrived problem of no solutions should have only one solution, and it will tell us about God's moral perfection.