Action vs non-action

[alitaptap]

Hypothetical scenario:

A train is barreling towards a junction where (unless you intervene) it will go down one path and kill two people who are tied down. However, there is a switch you can toggle that will send the train instead down another path. Unfortunately, a small child is tied up on this second path! Do you leave the switch alone, allowing the train to kill the two people, or do you purposefully direct the train towards the other path (putting responsibility for the death of the small child solely in your hands)?

This scenario is meant to bring up the question of whether non-action can render you morally liable.

Regardless of whether not it is practical, plausible, or even possible to do some action, shouldn’t we consider the choice to not do it to be an action in itself?

 

[JohnDamian]

Choosing to perform an action which either kills; or puts another in danger of death is grossly immoral and disordered. Any justification for such deeds is itself relativism of the highest level.

In a situation like this we must abstain from action. We must never commit an evil action; for whatever purpose.

 

[Bookcat]

No. Not in this sort of case. At least not a “sinful action” it is simply refraining from doing an evil.

One would do only what can be done to save lives. If the what is described is the ONLY options. One would not touch a thing. One would pray for the persons involved …especially for the grace of a good death…and thus eternal life.

One can not choose to do evil.

 

[RobHom]

And the third possibility would be to instead of pondering the moral dilemna of who should die, the more immediate issue is to get your keester in gear and free as many as possible and save as many as possible… Standing around and pondering the moral dilemna would cost three lives…and regardless of moral strictures…could you actually face yourself and excuse your inaction, and do you really think God will just say "Hey, his inaction cost three lives of innocents, but he didn’t do anything evil…???

What about “derailing the train before it arrives at the switch”?

 

[sinnerdexter]

And the third possibility would be to instead of pondering the moral dilemna of who should die, the more immediate issue is to get your keester in gear and free as many as possible and save as many as possible… Standing around and pondering the moral dilemna would cost three lives…and regardless of moral strictures…could you actually face yourself and excuse your inaction, and do you really think God will just say "Hey, his inaction cost three lives of innocents, but he didn’t do anything evil…???

What about “derailing the train before it arrives at the switch”?

You miss the point of the thought experiment.

It is deliberately contrived to create a binary choice (and if a third option is found, then it was not contrived enough).

Not because a binary choice is realistic but because we are trying to examine polar opposites of a single dilemma. Trying to find a third option is doing nothing but evading the question under discussion.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Choosing to perform an action which either kills; or puts another in danger of death is grossly immoral and disordered. Any justification for such deeds is itself relativism of the highest level.

In a situation like this we must abstain from action. We must never commit an evil action; for whatever purpose.

“Choosing not to act” is an action. By your black & white logic, it is evil to choose to not act.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are more practical examples that would better illustrate the moral principles involved. If a woman has cancer and needs treatment, but she is also in the early stages of pregnancy, so that the treatment both directly treats the mother, but indirectly kills the prenatal, is it moral to act? Or is inaction the only choice? It is moral to act (if the prenatal cannot be saved) because the action is not the direct killing of an innocent person. The act is directed at saving the mother’s life, and the death of the innocent is indirect.

So action is not prohibited by the moral law, even if the death of an innocent will result, but only if the death is unintended and indirect. The direct killing of the innocent is always gravely immoral, for any intention, in any circumstance.

The Magisterium definitively teaches that any act is moral if all three fonts of morality are good, and that any act is immoral if any one or more fonts is bad. This teaching is in the CCC, the Compendium, the USCCB catechism and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor. So it always amazes me that, in a Catholic discussion group, when a question of morality is raised, no one even mentions the three fonts, and no one actually uses the three fonts to determine whether or not the proposed act is moral.

The three fonts:

1. intention

The intention of an act is the end in view, i.e. the intended end. Both the intended end and the intended means must be good for an act to be moral. A good intended end cannot justify an evil intended means.

1. moral object

When an act has an evil moral object, i.e. when an act by its very nature is inherently directed toward an evil end (in terms of morality), then the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

1. circumstances

If the consequences of an act are reasonably anticipated to have good and bad consequences, the moral weight of the bad consequences must not outweigh the good consequences. Otherwise, the act is immoral.

The train hypothetical is unrealistic.

A better hypothetical would be decisions of triage at the scene of a natural disaster. The injured are prioritized based on saving the most lives. So if a man’s life might be saved, but only with an extensive use of resources needed to save many lives, he is not treated. But neither would it be moral to directly kill him, even if it would save many lives.

 

[RobHom]

You miss the point of the thought experiment.

It is deliberately contrived to create a binary choice (and if a third option is found, then it was not contrived enough).

Not because a binary choice is realistic but because we are trying to examine polar opposites of a single dilemma. Trying to find a third option is doing nothing but evading the question under discussion.

Actually, no… I recognized the conundrum in the scenario… and at the bottom line there is not “right answer”…

Saving one while letting two die is immoral.

Saving two while saving one is immoral.

Doing nothing is equally immoral.

But even still, taking the 3rd option I offered could be even worse, because if you don’t know how many, if any people are on the train you consider derailing…you could commit are greater evil and immoral act.

 

[wjp984]

Though unrealistic, I think the moral thing to do is to pull the switch to save lives. However, in your example it was a small child; perhaps it is better to save the small child.

It is not immoral to choose to save lives by pulling the switch. You aren’t choosing to kill anyone; just taking a couse of action that involves someone dieing, and you don’t desire that outcome. If you take no action you are choosing to kill more people because you knew you could have pulled the switch.

Here is something more realistic: There is a bad car accident with some injured pedestrians or whatever on the ground. You can’t avoid everyone. You are going to hit someone. Do you stay whatever course you are on even if it means running over and killing several people or do you make an attempt at swerving knowing you are likely to still kill one person? I think you know the obvious choice.

 

[lobster]

You miss the point of the thought experiment.

It is deliberately contrived to create a binary choice (and if a third option is found, then it was not contrived enough).

Not because a binary choice is realistic but because we are trying to examine polar opposites of a single dilemma. Trying to find a third option is doing nothing but evading the question under discussion.

Life doesn’t operate in binary mode. When it comes to life and death, all options need to be addressed. In the case of the train, the operator should stop the train.

 

[RobHom]

Life doesn’t operate in binary mode. When it comes to life and death, all options need to be addressed. In the case of the train, the operator should stop the train.

The apparent presumption is that the operator of the train is not in control. Therefore the decision lies with the person supposedly capable of making the decision…

I agree with wjp984… you do that which will result in the least death or damage. Failure to do anything is the greater evil.

Here is a rather vivid example of that: The ill fated voyage of the MS St. Louis…

christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/voyage.html

iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/st-louis.html

It is a perfect case of what happens when hand wringing and actually refusing to make a decision to take action…and the end result was death of innocents.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Life doesn’t operate in binary mode. When it comes to life and death, all options need to be addressed. In the case of the train, the operator should stop the train.

The hypothesis of the problem is that all other options have been addressed, and the conclusion was that the stated two options were the only ones that might be reasonable.

Even in “real life”, you have to address all options. You seem to be doing your best to avoid addressing the original two options provided to you, so you aren’t really living up to your own standard!

I find it interesting that you won’t even consider whether or not pulling the switch is right, but you are willing to go off and tell the operator to undertake an action that might not help and endangers all the people on the train.

But in your attempt to evade the original question, you haven’t evaded it at all – you still have to choose between “don’t pull the switch and inform the train operator” and “pull the switch and inform the train operator”.

(P.S. “take your time and try to think of another option” is an option that must be evaluated against the others you have. Sometimes, especially when time is a precious resource, it’s the worst option of all)