Double Effect: Trolley problem and loop varient

[Thing]

Its like quantum physics - when you start measuring stuff you change it. Likewise when you set up an artificial scenario where the operator has no choice, he must flip the switch or not and either way person or persons unknown will be killed. In this case the artificial experiment takes away all the choice from the operator to avoid ill, so there can be no moral problem, crime nor guilt, nor evil, nor any degree of evil as a consequence as the operator cannot know which is the least evil - kill 5 saints or one atheist or one saint and save 5 atheists or a mixture.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thing - you can’t say that there’s no moral dilemma if the operator cannot “avoid ill”. It’s true that if we make bad choiceswe can create moral dilemmas, but the operator has not created this situation. It would be going against Church doctrine surely to accept that someone cannot make a “right” choice?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Another reason for hitting the switch is to avoid hitting five.

To **foresee and accept **an event is not necessarily to intend the event.

Hi o_mlly,

That’s right, another reason for hitting the switch in the second scenario is to avoid hitting the five.

But what is the first reason? I think we might be able to clear things up if you’ll answer that.

One can foresee and accept ***some *consequences of ones actions without intending them. But one cannot disclaim as unintended a consequence of one action which itself is the cause of something else which one intends.

Can you address that point?

When you press the button on the door of a house in order to summon the occupant do you intend only to 1)press the button and 2) summon the occupant or do you intend to 1)press the button, 2)cause a bell to ring and 3)summon the occupant?

Do you, in other words, claim to only foresee and accept that the button makes a noise? The noise it makes it what summons the occupant, isn’t it? If you don’t intend it to make a noise, why push it? If asked by the occupant why you rang the bell how would you answer? Would you say you didn’t want the bell to ring? That you actually didn’t intend it to ring?

VC

 

[Thing]

Thing - you can’t say that there’s no moral dilemma if the operator cannot “avoid ill”. It’s true that if we make bad choiceswe can create moral dilemmas, but the operator has not created this situation. It would be going against Church doctrine surely to accept that someone cannot make a “right” choice?

As I said, because this is a contrived reality, there is no choice given to the operater of the trolly. There is no moral dilemma and no evil act which the operator can make. The mad philosopher has forced an impossible situation on the operator => no action the operator makes can be immoral or evil.

 

[o_mlly]

Hi o_mlly,

That’s right, another reason for hitting the switch in the second scenario is to avoid hitting the five.

But what is the first reason? I think we might be able to clear things up if you’ll answer that.

One can foresee and accept ***some ***consequences of ones actions without intending them. But one cannot disclaim as unintended a consequence of one action which itself is the cause of something else which one intends.

Can you address that point?

Yes.

That the five are unharmed does not happen because the one is harmed. The five are unharmed because the trolley does not run them over. That one is harmed is incidental (not to minimize the effect, only categorize it) rather than instrumental. The good does not proceed through the evil.

When you press the button on the door of a house in order to summon the occupant do you intend only to 1)press the button and 2) summon the occupant or do you intend to 1)press the button, 2)cause a bell to ring and 3)summon the occupant?

Do you, in other words, claim to only foresee and accept that the button makes a noise? The noise it makes it what summons the occupant, isn’t it? If you don’t intend it to make a noise, why push it? If asked by the occupant why you rang the bell how would you answer? Would you say you didn’t want the bell to ring? That you actually didn’t intend it to ring?
VC

I’m afraid you’re losing me on the relevance in this example. But I’ll try an answer.

If, as you stipulate, my intention was “to summon the occupant” then that is how I would answer. If the occupant is deaf, then the button probably never rang a bell but flashed lights in strategic places in the house. But that doesn’t matter, since my intention was to summon regardless of the mechanism’s apparatus I must answer “to summon the occupant.”

 

[Doc_Keele]

As I said, because this is a contrived reality, there is no choice given to the operater of the trolly. There is no moral dilemma and no evil act which the operator can make. The mad philosopher has forced an impossible situation on the operator => no action the operator makes can be immoral or evil.

You’re wrong and you’ve missed the point. And you also seem to be contradicting yourself.
Life is full of situations where there is no easy choice.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That the five are unharmed does not happen because the one is harmed. The five are unharmed because the trolley does not run them over.

Can you show me how this works?

Why doesn’t the trolley run over them?

VC

 

[o_mlly]

Can you show me how this works?

Why doesn’t the trolley run over them?

VC

For the same reason as Scenario 1. The operator flipped the switch.

It seems we’ve been here before.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For the same reason as Scenario 1. The operator flipped the switch.

It seems we’ve been here before.

So the switch somehow stops the trolley? Does it activate its brakes?

VC

 

[Thing]

You’re wrong and you’ve missed the point. And you also seem to be contradicting yourself.
Life is full of situations where there is no easy choice.

In our real lives we are never, ever, faced with absolutely only two evil choices.

In the example of the trolly operator the question was, which action was immoral; but because there was no oportunity given to the operator of the trolly to freely chose a non-immoral option the operator is exempt from an accusation of chosing immorally. So the example itself renders the question of immorality null and void.

 

[o_mlly]

So the switch somehow stops the trolley? Does it activate its brakes?

VC

The switch in both scenarios prevents the trolley from harming five.

I’m not going to convince you and you are not convincing me so let us end the exchange agreeing to disagree.

 

[Doc_Keele]

In our real lives we are never, ever, faced with absolutely only two evil choices

Wait a minute, you said the two choices weren’t evil?

If one sat down and thought about it would be easy to think of dozens of scenarios like this.

In the example of the trolly operator the question was, which action was immoral; but because there was no oportunity given to the operator of the trolly to freely chose a non-immoral option the operator is exempt from an accusation of chosing immorally. So the example itself renders the question of immorality null and void.

You obviously have a problem with abstract thought.

Are you saying that when there are no “moral” choices that an immoral choice is morally acceptable?
Are you agreeing that moral dilemmas are possible even when the person has not created the situation through wrong choices?
How does that fit with the Church’s deontological approach?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The switch in both scenarios prevents the trolley from harming five.

I’m not going to convince you and you are not convincing me so let us end the exchange agreeing to disagree.

But how does the switch prevent the trolley from hitting 5 people in the second scenario? One would think this is a fairly direct question and could be met with a fairly direct answer. How one goes about accomplishing a goal is certainly a part of a moral analysis, isn’t it?

If you think the conversation has hit an impasse I won’t continue to engage you in it! I wish we could continue it because from where I stand, and from what I understand, your position seems somewhat unreasonable. If it’s my mistake, I could use the correction.

In any event, thank you for the conversation. :tiphat:

VC

 

[Thing]

Wait a minute, you said the two choices weren’t evil?

If one sat down and thought about it would be easy to think of dozens of scenarios like this.

No the question is about the trolly operator - does the trolly guy act immorally. People being sqwashed on a railtrack is an evil, but the trolly operator cannot chose evil as his only two choices lead to the same end. So he cannot act immorally in this scenario.

You obviously have a problem with abstract thought.

I have a problem with deficient imaginary scenarios.

Are you saying that when there are no “moral” choices that an immoral choice is morally acceptable?

An immoral choice is not an immoral choice here because there is no choice. Trollyman does not choose immorally he simply chooses, the mad philosopher takes the immorality bit, the trolly guy takes the choice bit.

Are you agreeing that moral dilemmas are possible even when the person has not created the situation through wrong choices?

If you were dropped into a parallel universe which was totally an immoral universe, where every single act everyone could take was an immoral act. Then you, as arriving from a moral other universe, would not have the freedom to chose to act morally, so you would not have a moral dilemma you would simply act and your choice action would not be immoral.

How does that fit with the Church’s deontological approach

If you decided to murder someone, and did, then you would have chosen an immoral act.
If you murdered someone while you were asleep you would not have committed an immoral act. Both our sleeper and our trollyman are confined and cannot choose a non-immoral act and are so not guilty themselves of committing an immoral act.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thing, how can there be a deficiency in an imaginary scenario? The only deficiency can be in the approach taken to analyse it.
The Church would say that there’s always a moral option. In the case of ectopic pregnancy it might be to let the woman and embryo die for example.
The Church also holds that doing nothing is morall acceptable. So the Church would hold that letting the 5 people die is the moral option.
There’s another thought experiment that’s well know called Sophie’s Choice that many might argue involves two immoral choices. Again the Church might say that doing nothing (which leads to both children dying) is the moral thing to do.
So clearly there is a moral option.

You just don’t understand the scenario, it’s as simple as that. Not much I or anyone else can do about that, if you refuse to go beyond the concrete

As for “murdering” someone whilst you’re asleep, your analysis is wholly lacking. The “action” of killing someone is objectively immoral, but then the particular definition of “action” being used needs to determined.

I think you need to read about Kant.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is my understanding of the layout. (click to enlarge)

A, B = tracks A and B
S = switch

VC

Any corrections?

 

[Thing]

Thing, how can there be a deficiency in an imaginary scenario? The only deficiency can be in the approach taken to analyse it.
The Church would say that there’s always a moral option. In the case of ectopic pregnancy it might be to let the woman and embryo die for example.
The Church also holds that doing nothing is morall acceptable. So the Church would hold that letting the 5 people die is the moral option.
There’s another thought experiment that’s well know called Sophie’s Choice that many might argue involves two immoral choices. Again the Church might say that doing nothing (which leads to both children dying) is the moral thing to do.
So clearly there is a moral option.

You just don’t understand the scenario, it’s as simple as that. Not much I or anyone else can do about that, if you refuse to go beyond the concrete

As for “murdering” someone whilst you’re asleep, your analysis is wholly lacking. The “action” of killing someone is objectively immoral, but then the particular definition of “action” being used needs to determined.

I think you need to read about Kant.

The though experiment is too vague to be useful. On the one hand we are to let the trollyman have moral and immoral choices while on the other hand we find the trollyman does not actually have any choice beyond killing people on one track or killing people on another track.
Because I have the utmost sympathy for the poor wretch of a trollyman I will absolve him of any immoral event [given that he is a normal happy fellow just trying to do his job], and I will hold the mad philosopher fully accountable for any immorality.

Fini.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thing - too vague? I thought the problem was that it was too prescriptive?
I can’t see anything vague about the thought experiment at all.

It is demonstrating some of the issues with the deontological approach.
The problem could be solved by virtue ethics for examples, or various forms of utilitarianism/consequentialism eg rule consequentialism.

 

[Thing]

Thing - too vague? I thought the problem was that it was too prescriptive?
I can’t see anything vague about the thought experiment at all.

It is demonstrating some of the issues with the deontological approach.
The problem could be solved by virtue ethics for examples, or various forms of utilitarianism/consequentialism eg rule consequentialism.

Which reminds me, I have not seen your solution yet.

Yes it is vague because it is a human scenario which the viewer seems to judge subjectively. But. Is trollyman behaving morally now? Well, I don’t know what the trolly man is thinking, actually.
Prescriptive? It only give two choices which turn out to be the same choice. So I cannot say that any such choice is moral or immoral.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes it is vague because it is a human scenario which the viewer seems to judge subjectively. But. Is trollyman behaving morally now? Well, I don’t know what the trolly man is thinking, actually.

Thing, I think you are supposed to be the trolley man, aren’t you?

VC