Immoral Altruism
Eighty-five per cent of them said it would be morally wrong to push one person off [a bridge] to save five [from a trolley], whether these people are brothers or strangers, confirming the idea that there is a rule against killing. However, despite thinking it wrong, 28 per cent said they would still push a stranger off to save five, while 47 per cent said they would push a brother off to save five brothers. (more)
One of the study’s authors offers an explanation:
Social cohesion demands we have rules, regardless of what they are, to help resolve disputes quickly and peacefully. DeScioli says our rule-making system is arbitrary, producing the belief that masturbation is “bad”, for instance.
But why resort to randomness when other good explanations remain? We naturally want simple clear social norms against murder. While simple rules create unfortunate incentives in specific cases, they are overall easier to monitor and enforce. This trolley problem seems to be one of those specific cases where many of us think that our simple rule against murder goes wrong – while we agree that killing in this case violates our murder norms, even so many of us are willing to violate such norms in order to help associates, especially if we care a lot about them.
While morality may be in general pro-social, it is not in every specific case. So there are times when you must choose between being moral, and being helpful.
“producing good consequences is what being moral is all about.”
Yes, and punishing bad consequences or rule breaking is what being in authority is all about. The person who pushes the one to save the 5 will probably be prosecuted for murder.
Then the trade-off is saving five lives for one dead and one in prison for life.
On the other hand, depending on who owns stock in the trolley company, one death by murder by a non-trolley company employee would reduce trolley company liability over 5 deaths, perhaps to zero.
On the other hand, if those 5 are trolley company employees, their deaths would be investigated by OSHA and the company fined and new work rules implemented which would prevent future deaths. Maybe the CEO would even go to jail for having such dangerous work practices. They are on the job, so the company liability is limited by workman's comp. But the trolley company does have deep pockets, so the widows and orphans left behind by the dead trolley workers might get some compensation.
But then there are the trolley company lawyers, who would fight any new regulations designed to prevent future deaths and would also seek to limit and block any next-of-kin compensation.
It seems pretty clear that the most moral position would be to empower OSHA to act to ensure workplace safety before there are trolley accidents. That amounts to pushing a big bundle of the trolley company's money off the bridge to stop the trolley. In that case no one need die, but the trolley company doesn't make as much profit.
"Of course, just by looking at the issue of masturbation on its own, one can very easily realize that, in the end, masturbation does not any significant amount of harm."
You are correct that masturbation is not harmful persay. However, as with any potentially compulsive habit, care is called for when taking part in it. Many folks find that periodically abstaining from masturbation gives them an energy boost and increases their overall enjoyment from this and other sexual practices. For similar reasons, people will find it helpful to moderate their use of sexual images and videos. This is an exercise in self-discipline to some extent, not unlike giving up smoking, keeping good eating habits and working out regularly.