Double Effect: Trolley problem and loop varient

[Thing]

1. I understand, and I thought about that but even in the original non-loop case, he’s not at risk if the trolley just stays on course.
2. Also, are you saying that it would not be moral to accept the death of one person if millions were spared? I understand that this is ugly because of our instinct that we have no right to make such a decision. However, considering the Golden Rule and in a society where everyone had given implicit permission to sacrifice them in such caes, then I think that in Scenario 3 it would be moral to decide about the sacrifice. In a society where such permission is not implicit, I still think that one must save as many as possible and I know it’s uncomfortable.

1. The trolly can take two courses. The fatman is tied to one and is at risk, he is part of the experimant
2. If the one mans death would actually save millions then that one man would, like the fatman, be part of the experiment, he would be at risk; and to sacrifice him would be the lesser of two evils, as in the first and second examples.
   If the one man was safe though, then his sacrifice would not be part of the experiment, and you could not chose to sacrifice him.

 

[Coder]

1. The trolly can take two courses.

The man is safe unless the trolley operator takes an action just as in the other cases. See original scenario statement here:
"Original Scenario Statement:

Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

If the one mans death would actually save millions then that one man would, like the fatman, be part of the experiment…

That’s not what I had in mind. What if a train would otherwise collide with another and hundreds would be killed?

 

[Thing]

Ah, I see. To make it more like the train scenario then: in that group of of people within the blast radius of the grenade only the Fat Man is close enough to get on top it.

So, to be clear:

4 other people, you, and the Fat Man are at risk of getting caught in the explosion.

None of the 4 people, nor you can jump on the grenade.

Can you push the fat man on the grenade there by saving the 4 people?

VC

Highly unlikely scenario. If I was close enough to push the fatman I would be close enough to alter the experiment in other ways.
But no, I cannot push the fatman onto the grenade; the fatman is currently free, until the thing explodes, to alter the experiment. He will die in either case. We must all live or die based on his freedom.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Highly unlikely scenario. If I was close enough to push the fatman I would be close enough to alter the experiment in other ways.
But no, I cannot push the fatman onto the grenade; the fatman is currently free, until the thing explodes, to alter the experiment. He will die in either case. We must all live or die based on his freedom.

Ok, so it is similar to the fatman on the bridge (except that part about dying in either case).

Thing, you aren’t approaching these questions through PDE, right?

VC

 

[Thing]

The man is safe unless the trolley operator takes an action just as in the other cases. See original scenario statement here:

That’s not what I had in mind. What if a train would otherwise collide with another and hundreds would be killed?

In the first two cases; and since the original question is about whether this is moral or not, when the five people and the fatman are fixed to the tracks they become unwilling participants in the risky experiment.The trolly operator is also an unwilling participant in the experiment. Remember it was the Mad Philosopher who forced this situation on them all.
The fatman is not safe as the morality of flipping the switch, from the Trolley operators perspective, has been removed from the experiment. The fatman is now at risk because his track represents the lesser of two evils and there is no immorality, in the Trolley operators view, in chosing that track. The fatman can be chosen.

In the case where the fatman is suspended safely above the track; in this case he has been removed from risk, the trolley cannot hit him. The fatman is safe. One party is actually safe while the other five are at risk. The fatman must be freely placed into actual risk from total safety. This has become, now, a real choice about morality vs. immorality, unlike the previous two scenarios. The fatman is secure. It is therefore immoral to chose to place the safety of the fatman at risk.

You might say the object of the exercise is to place all the participants into safety. In the first two cases the participants are all of them potentially at risk and choosing one group over another will make safe the remaining majority hopefully. And the decision in the first two cases does not have a moral dimension for the Trolley operator - because of the Mad Philosopher’s removal of Trolleymans choice to avoid an evil event. It is not immoral or moral for the Trolleyman to chose one group over another.

In the third case there are two groups again. However this time there is a moral vs. immoral dimension. This time one is safe - the other is at risk. Again the object is to bring the participants to safety. It is therefore an immoral decision to *remove *the safety of one of the participants. It contradicts your intention.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Anyone else want to weigh in on Coder’s proposition that you can throw a switch to drop a fatman on the track to save 5 because it is necessary to save the 5?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In the first two cases; and since the original question is about whether this is moral or not, when the five people and the fatman are fixed to the tracks they become unwilling participants in the risky experiment.The trolly operator is also an unwilling participant in the experiment. Remember it was the Mad Philosopher who forced this situation on them all.

That Mad Philospher!

By the by, sometimes these scenarios are proposed in a way that eliminates the Mad Philosopher altogether, or eliminates him from one track.

In scenario #1, track B ends. But beyond it there is a man sleeping in the path of the trolley if it were to go down track B. Can you pull the switch?

In scenario #2, still a loop, but the fatman fell asleep on the sidetrack which is never used. Or, alternatively, the fatman got his foot caught while crossing this side track. Can you pull the switch?

VC

 

[Thing]

Thing, you aren’t approaching these questions through PDE, right?

VC

Partial differential equation ?
Pennsylvania Department of Education ?
Plug-in Development Environment ?
Dont think so…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Partial differential equation ?
Pennsylvania Department of Education ?
Plug-in Development Environment ?
Dont think so…

Principle of Double Effect.

The trolley problem is approached in various ways, but the OP is trying to figure out how PDE applies to it. That’s the main line of this thread.

VC

 

[pnewton]

The scenario remains double effect. Unless the switch person had a hand in tying the fat man down, it does not violate the principle that one can do no evil to avert a greater evil. For example, one could not push someone onto the tracks to stop the train. Thought experiments are always unrealistic, though. Wild, extreme cases make for poor guidelines.

In truth, I can see the situation where I would simply refuse to play the game and let the five die. Obviously I would do anything to stop the trolley in a real situation.

 

[Thing]

That Mad Philospher!

By the by, sometimes these scenarios are proposed in a way that eliminates the Mad Philosopher altogether, or eliminates him from one track.

In scenario #1, track B ends. But beyond it there is a man sleeping in the path of the trolley if it were to go down track B. Can you pull the switch?

In scenario #2, still a loop, but the fatman fell asleep on the sidetrack which is never used. Or, alternatively, the fatman got his foot caught while crossing this side track. Can you pull the switch?

VC

I guess you’d have to say fate intervened and there still is no moral dimension. Would’nt it just be immoral if the Trolleyman decided to be perverse and run over the five for fun?

 

[Thing]

Principle of Double Effect.

The trolley problem is approached in various ways, but the OP is trying to figure out how PDE applies to it. That’s the main line of this thread.

VC

I don’t see how dropping the fatman satisfies any of the conditions of PDE.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I guess you’d have to say fate intervened and there still is no moral dimension.

What do you mean fate intervened?

Anyway, if you look at the two scenarios like above where the Fat Man just happens to be there, does it change how you view the bridge scenario with the Fat Man just happening to be there?

Thing:

Would’nt it just be immoral if the Trolleyman decided to be perverse and run over the five for fun?

Yes. PDE actually handles that with the second rule: one cannot positively will the evil effect. In scenario #1 it is permissible under PDE to flip the switch, unless you* want* to kill the Fat Man. I suppose it would be the same violation of rule two if you didn’t flip the switch in order to save the Fat Man, but also because you wanted to kill the 5. (Though, even without this ill will you would be violating rule four because saving the Fat Man isn’t proportional to allowing the evil effect of 5 dying.)

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t see how dropping the fatman satisfies any of the conditions of PDE.

You are right, PDE analysis forbids it. It would forbid it for the same reason it would forbid scenario 2.

As far as I know when authors apply PDE to scenarios 1, 2, and 3 they find it allows 1, prohibits 2 and prohibits 3.

VC

 

[Thing]

What do you mean fate intervened?

Anyway, if you look at the two scenarios like above where the Fat Man just happens to be there, does it change how you view the bridge scenario with the Fat Man just happening to be there?

VC

The suspended fatman is ok unless someone intends to make him non-ok.
The fatman stuck on the tracks is not ok and is not an intention of the switch operator. The decision in that case is morally neutral because there are going to be non-ok people on one track or the other and obviously if people could be avoided the intention would be to avoid them.

 

[Coder]

…the principle that one can do no evil to avert a greater evil. For example, one could not push someone onto the tracks to stop the train.

Yes, but how is “do evil” defined? In a situation where either five or one will die, I do not see that it is evil to choose the one. For something to be evil it must be a wrong choice but when there are only two choices both of which are undesirable, I don’t see how choosing the least undesirable option is evil.

Consider the statement: “I don’t have the right to make this decision that one who is otherwise safe will die, so the five will die.” Isn’t this kind of like washing your hands of it and refusing to get involved? Is your thinking influenced by American culture? Think about the man who buried his talent becasue he was afraid of his master.

Matthew 25:18-28 usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm

 

[Coder]

The -]fat/-] large man is now at risk because his track represents the lesser of two evils and there is no immorality, in the Trolley operators view, in chosing that track. The fatman can be chosen.

This distinction seems artificial. The simple fact is that in all three cases the trolley operator must either take an action that will result in the death of one man or if he allows the natural progression of events the one man will live and the five will die. It’s that simple and I don’t see how all of these other factors affect the morality even though they affect us emotionally.

 

[Thing]

You are right, PDE analysis forbids it. It would forbid it for the same reason it would forbid scenario 2.

As far as I know when authors apply PDE to scenarios 1, 2, and 3 they find it allows 1, prohibits 2 and prohibits 3.

VC

It could be argued that it allows 2, though it depends on how you view things.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It could be argued that it allows 2, though it depends on how you view things.

Well, it could be argued. But I’ve only seen it argued this way on this thread. (Even Wikipedia (gasp!) points out that PDE forbids scenario 2)

Do you know of anyone who argues that PDE lets you flip the switch in the loop scenario (#2)?

In fact, my understanding of the person who created the loop scenario was attempting to show that PDE has some weaknesses, i.e. that it would forbid flipping the switch in scenario 2 when most people think it would be ok to do so.

One of my points in this thread has been to show how scenario 2 violates PDE. I’m not sure why some want PDE to justify scenario 2 though.

VC

 

[Coder]

I think that the principle of not doing evil so that good may come is a guide in decision making. In these cases, some are trying to call it “evil” when causing one to die is the only way to prevent five from dying. I just don’t see that this is what this principle is about and I think some here may be misapplying it. Doesn’t it actually seem kind of mean to say someone is “doing evil” when they are forced into a miserable situation and they are just doing the best they can by causing the one to die?