I want to understand the moral philosophy of taking a life in

>>8369991
Kierkagaard

>>8369991
That was the fucking worst episode ever, and you should read the Bhagavad-Gita as It is.

The trolley problem?

A ton of people have written about it, including some wise /lit/ anons.

>>8370167
>The Bhagavad Gita as it is

And if you want to read the Bible, read the Book of Mormon

>>8370170
The two are different because one is inevitable because the other one isnt. Death by natural causes can only occour if you live long enough for them.

>>8370167
>That was the fucking worst episode ever
wew m8

>>8370175
There are problems directly related to the trolley problem that are exactly like the OP. However these things all relate to that intuitionist ethics which is descriptive rather than prescriptive so doesn't really cover the OP. All you can do is read some ethics: consequentialist, teleological, virtue, deontological, duty, utilitarian are all words to look up.

An example of a related problem: you are a doctor with 5 patients in need of different organ transplants. You can harvest all the necessary organs from 1 person (take compatibility as given for whatever reason). Do you kill 1 to save 5?

And then to make it more interesting the 1 might be a heinous criminal or might have a terminal illness but will die of natural causes after the other 5 etc etc

>>8370252
So honestly the trolly problem is useless to come to any ethical conclusions because its always dependant upon the variables. Whats morally okat is dependant on the circumstances. (So The trolly problem only helps you if youre ever in that exact situation.)

>>8370258
>because its always dependant upon the variables.
It just doesn't make any ethical arguments, it's a situation people judge. It's a decent kind of though experiment like the cat in the box of quantum physics so you have something concrete to think about to see how different ethical positions/frameworks play out.

>>8370258
>So honestly the trolly problem is useless to come to any ethical conclusions
Kind of. It's a good for the start of your analysis, and is used in classrooms because it allows you to refine your assumptions. If you want to say "Killing is always wrong" there's a trolley problem for that. If you want to say "Killing is sometimes justifiable if it saves a life" there's a trolley problem for that. It helps you refine your statements and you end up learning your boundaries (most people have never considered the exact extent to which a human life has value).

Actually coming to any useful conclusions about ethics requires first being aware of your own ethical views, for which trolley problems can be a part of.

I'd also recommend ticking bomb scenarios, and ethics surrounding "finding" valuable objects.

>>8369991
After Virtue, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? and A Short History of Ethics by Alasdair MacIntyre, the most significant moral philosopher of the 20th century.