Violence is Wrong

Nature = Outside of human causation My opponent responded to my charge that his conception of nature was too obtuse by claiming that his definition was actually simple; that nature is anything in the universe which is completely separate from human causation. However, what I have been attempting to argue in regards specifically to the trolley dilemma, is that within the context of morality, indirect causation is still causation. In moral terms (as opposed to talking purely about physics,) the person at the controls made a choice, and the outcome of this choice causes five people to die. Therefore it is not an act of nature. If Con disagrees with this, it's not enough to simply state that it's wrong. Con must propose a convincing conception of moral causality which only takes into account 'direct' causation. As I alluded to near the end of my Round 3, this is impossible, since morality to be functional at all must take into account the effects of 'not doing' a particular thing. The trolley dilemma Con states that 'Bob' "did not cause this situation to come into being. So, Bob is not responsible for what would occur had he not been there to make that choice." If the five people do die, Bob is causing the situation of those people dying to come into being. Even barring such a rebuttal, the logic used by Con here is simply not how morality works. It is due to the decision made by Bob that the people die, and if he had chosen differently they would not have. Therefore it is due to Bob's decision that they die, it's as simple as that. It's irrelevant what would happen if Bob weren't present at all, which is a totally separate situation. Action and inaction Con does not accept consciousness as always being action. Perhaps I could more accurately say that a being which is conscious is always also in action (although I'd argue both statements are true.) We can analyse the respective meanings of the terms 'alive' and 'dead' to see that this is true. A completely inactive being could not be alive. This is why I frame Bob's decision, whichever it is, as an 'active' choice. The fact that Bob was present in the trolley and had the ability to change the outcome is not something to be ignored by morality. Rational self-interest and valuing others I can accept Con's elaborations of the rational self-interest position, albeit it weakens the moral principles involved, because it's predicated on inductive assumptions. It's acceptable, if somewhat tenuous. Blaming outcomes on nature Con misinterprets my position, that "If it were, for instance, very difficult to pull the lever to change tracks, blaming the course of events on nature might be more convincing." My point was precisely that this would not change the morality of the principles involved. We might be more forgiving of Bob, because his reason for not pulling the lever was different, but it would still be more moral if he had done so. The very point was to show that the most moral thing in all of the examples discussed was to reduce harm caused to all parties, and that the difficulty of putting it into action does not invalidate this. Conflating natural violence with human violence Con accuses me of conflating the two sides of his dichotomy. I continue to hold that Con is misattributing the dichotomy, as human causality is directly or indirectly involved in all situations here discussed, so none are 'purely natural violence'. Conclusion This was my final round. Thanks to Con for engaging in the debate, I enjoyed it and I hope my arguments were clear and that the debate was productive.