Re-visiting the screet-car dilemma

[kch86]

I don’t know whether the doctrine of double effect would apply here:

1. the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

So, in my thinking:

1. My act, which is steering the tram, is morally neutral.
2. My intention is to save the 5 people, which is the good effect of my action. Killing the one person is not the means to save the 5 people but the bad effect of my steering the tram.
3. The good effect of saving 5 people outweighs the bad effect of killing 1, and the circumstances are sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect.

 

[Castello]

Very noble, but that is still not an option. These problems are not real-life scenarios. You do not have to participate. But if you choose to participate, please stay within the parameters. Of course I understand that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself and hope for the best. But life does not allow you to choose the circumstances. You must play the hand that was dealt. You cannot ask for a different hand. As the old saying goes: “S&^T happens”.

You are on a Catholic board asking the question of Catholics. We don’t accept the “s47t happens” ideal. Maybe go post over at “Moral Relativism Answers” and they will play along.

 

[kch86]

You are on a Catholic board asking the question of Catholics. We don’t accept the “s47t happens” ideal. Maybe go post over at “Moral Relativism Answers” and they will play along.

We Catholics still have to make decisions based on our conception of morality. So the question is, how would Catholic morality deal with the situation? I proposed the doctrine of double effect as a possible solution. Let’s argue on the merits of that and whether my understanding is correct and not insult the OP.

This is an opportunity to learn. So let’s not be evasive.

 

[ASimon]

The problem was stated a few times before, but it is worth to bring it up again.

1. The scenario is this: “there is a street-car in San Francisco, and the driver is incapacitated. You are at the controls, but the breaks are not operational. The street car approaches a Y-fork. You can see that there are 5 people standing on the tracks on the right-hand side, and there is one person standing on the track on the left hand side. If you do not do anyting, the tram will hit the 5 people. If you switch to the other track, it will hit the single person. What will you do?”.

Switch to the other track, killing the 1 person.

1. Would your decision be different, if you knew that the tram will jump off the rail and after hitting the 5 people, it will also kill the single person?

Nope.

1. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be the pope and 4 cardinals and the single person would be a well known criminal, a public enemy #1?

Nope.

1. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be 5 children and the single person would be an old person at the very end of his life?

Nope.

 

[Serious]

I don’t know whether the doctrine of double effect would apply here:

1. the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

So, in my thinking:

1. In my view, my act, which is steering the tram, is morally neutral.
2. My intention is to save the 5 people, which is the good effect of my action
3. The good effect of saving 5 people outweighs the bad effect of killing 1, and the circumstances are sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect.

Exactly as excellent a reply as the previous one.

My point was that some people were inclined to defend the “inaction” by saying that they were not responsible for the unfortunate circumstances which would lead to the death of those 5 people, while taking action would make them an active participant in the death of the single person. In a very good sense they would be “murdering” the single person - they performed an act of volition which lead to the death of this person. But, of course that “murder” was not intended, it was merely an unavoidable side effect - so their action is justified.

 

[kch86]

Exactly as excellent a reply as the previous one.

My point was that some people were inclined to defend the “inaction” by saying that they were not responsible for the unfortunate circumstances which would lead to the death of those 5 people, while taking action would make them an active participant in the death of the single person. In a very good sense they would be “murdering” the single person - they performed an act of volition which lead to the death of this person. But, of course that “murder” was not intended, it was merely an unavoidable side effect - so their action is justified.

I completely agree. Now, where Catholic morality might find itself in disagreement would be in the hypothetical situation where, for example, you were held hostage in a terrorist situation and you literally had to stab and kill one person in order to save 5 people. Then, from a Catholic perspective, it would be impermissible to do the evil act to save the other 5 because the evil act in itself would be the means by which the good effect was achieved. In absolute morality, the ends do not justify the means. The evil act committed to achieve the good result isn’t “on balance” good or anything like that. You still stabbed and killed a person, and in absolute morality, just because the result was good, it was still an objectively evil thing to do.

In this situation, I would be aware of the immorality of the action, so I probably wouldn’t have posted a quick “gut feeling” response like I did with this scenario. I also can’t say if I were faced with such a situation in reality whether I would act in accordance with Catholic morality or act as a relativist might. I’m inclined to believe that I would stick to my principles, but if I did kill the one person, I would be aware that I was committing a gravely immoral act, and I wouldn’t justify myself and say that what I did was a good thing or the right thing to do.

 

[Serious]

I completely agree. Now, where Catholic morality might find itself in disagreement would be in the hypothetical situation where, for example, you were held hostage in a terrorist situation and you literally had to stab and kill one person in order to save 5 people. Then, from a Catholic perspective, it would be impermissible to do the evil act to save the other 5 because the evil act in itself would be the means by which the good effect was achieved.

How wonderful to have this conversation. The “trick” of double effect would come to the rescue here. (The double effect defense is really just a nifty “get out of jail card free in Monopoly” ) You may very well honestly defend yourself, by stipulating that you would not wish to “kill” that person (a guard maybe?), if you had any other way out of your predicament. You did not wish to kill that single person standing on the track either. What is the difference between flipping the switch to direct the car onto the other track, and taking a knife into your own hands? Nothing at all. In neither case did you wish to kill the other person. If you can justify one action, you justified both.

In this situation, I would be aware of the immorality of the action, so I probably wouldn’t have posted a quick “gut feeling” response like I did with this scenario. I also can’t say if I were faced with such a situation in reality whether I would act in accordance with Catholic morality or act as a relativist might. I’m inclined to believe that I would stick to my principles, but if I did kill the one person, I would be aware that I was committing a gravely immoral act, and I wouldn’t justify myself and say that what I did was a good thing or the right thing to do.

I must disagree with the concept that doing the killing is immoral in each and every case. If we consider killing in self-defense an acceptable course of action - not moral, but morally justifiable- then we can use a similar kind of defense here. By the way, I do not advocate “plain, vanilla moral relativism”, I DO advocate taking all the circumstances into consideration.

 

[kch86]

How wonderful to have this conversation. The “trick” of double effect would come to the rescue here. (The double effect defense is really just a nifty “get out of jail card free in Monopoly” ) You may very well honestly defend yourself, by stipulating that you would not wish to “kill” that person (a guard maybe?), if you had any other way out of your predicament. You did not wish to kill that single person standing on the track either. What is the difference between flipping the switch to direct the car onto the other track, and taking a knife into your own hands? Nothing at all. In neither case did you wish to kill the other person. If you can justify one action, you justified both.

It is a get out of jail free card of sorts, but its end result is not always the same as that of relative morality.

Perhaps there is no difference in flipping the switch and stabbing with a knife, and I’m wrong. I’d argue that there is a difference, however.

I must disagree with the concept that doing the killing is immoral in each and every case. If we consider killing in self-defense an acceptable course of action - not moral, but morally justifiable- then we can use a similar kind of defense here. By the way, I do not advocate “plain, vanilla moral relativism”, I DO advocate taking all the circumstances into consideration.

Again, Catholicism agrees with you, and again, through the doctrine of double effect. As we’ve already discussed, causing objective physical harm does not an immoral act make. And should that objective physical harm against the aggressor, undertaken in the name of defending one’s own right to life, unintentionally result in the aggressor’s death, that is the negative one of the two effects of one’s action, the other one being the successful preservation of one’s life in the face of unjust aggression.

Here’s Catholic teaching on the matter of self-defence:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”[65]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]

 

[daeve]

I’m going to try to explain why I would try to save everyone and not choose to kill anyone. I’m getting fuzzy in my old age and don’t always make myself clear.

If I was a doctor, and a pregnant woman was going to die if I didn’t terminate her pregnancy, my obligation would be to do everything in my power to save both, even if it meant losing both. Remember the last episode of MASH? Killing the crying baby to keep a busload of people from being discovered was expedient and the choice many would have made, but it wasn’t the mother’s choice to make.

I’m not the one to decide who lives and dies. I have to leave it in God’s hands.

If one of my kids was in danger, I would probably do the wrong thing and save my child, but I don’t know. They’re both relatively intelligent adults and I hope they’d have the sense to stay off the tracks. I’m also not terribly concerned about the specific situation because there are no street cars where I live.

Self defense or defending someone else from a killer are different situation. I would kill a wrong-doer trying to kill an innocent person.

 

[Armyvet007]

Let’s look at how this is setup

Scenario- only options are to act or not act [and here act means how the OP wants you to act]

1. no action- 5 die; action- 1 dies
2. no action- 6 die; action- 1 dies
3. no action- the Pope and 4 Cardnials die; action- a criminal dies
4. no action- 5 kids die; action- old person dies
5. no action- 5 kids (including the respondant’s) die; action- old person dies

Let me put forth a counter scenario-

An individual puts forth a hypothetical scenario which:

1. only allows the respondant to act/not act; and only in a manner in which the author wants
2. has questions [2-5] which clearly indicate the author wants the answer to be to act
   2a. question 2- no action= the added death of the person that would live if one answered no action initially [this by the way voids the entire scenario since action/no action said person would die regardless]
   2b. question 3- no action= Pope’s death [let us also mention said scenario is put forth on a Catholic forum]
   2c. question 3 and 4- no action= 5 kids die [and just to make sure, the respondant’s child is 1 of those kids]
3. the author is rather vocal about getting a response, going so far as to attempt to critize/goad no answering respondants
4. the author’s past posts on said Catholic forum indicate the author has issues/disagrees with Catholic morality/teachings
5. the author failed to bother to answer his own scenario in his post or provide a valid reason for it

With that, do you:
-believe the author created a rigged scenario designed to garner the answer he wanted? [Yes]
-believe that the author knew his scenario was rigged? [Yes, given his response to other posters and his past posts]
-believe the author’s scenario is dishonest in nature? [Well yeah, it’s designed to get a specific answer]
-believe the author would have been better off just making a post and putting forth an honest argument? [Yes]
-Can you guess at why the author undertook this deception? *

By the way OP,

-“In a very good sense they would be “murdering” the single person - they performed an act of volition which lead to the death of this person.” Rather arrogant of you to ignore the rather specific definition of “murder” Catholics have and redefining it IOT validate your point.

-no action/doing nothing is an action; you could have just not bothered with 2-5

-You really need to figure out how Catholics think. I’d have let the Pope and Cardinals die. A harden criminal needs every chance he can get to find God. I would assume the Pope and Cardinals already have and that they are on good terms.*

 

[kch86]

-You really need to figure out how Catholics think. I’d have let the Pope and Cardinals die. A harden criminal needs every chance he can get to find God. I would assume the Pope and Cardinals already have and that they are on good terms.

Well, is that how Catholics, according to their own Church teaching, should think? I’d be very much interested in seeing a Catholic respond in reference to the doctrine of double effect on this. My interpretation of it suggests that it would be permissible for one to divert the tram to kill the one person instead of the five. I would like to see whether my understanding is correct and to be shown where I am wrong if it isn’t so that I can improve my understanding.

 

[kch86]

I said

Perhaps there is no difference in flipping the switch and stabbing with a knife, and I’m wrong. I’d argue that there is a difference, however.

There is a difference. The death of the person is not a means to an end in the street-car scenario.

In the terrorist scenario, I would presumably have to kill the person first and then the other 5 hostages would be released. There is no double effect. There is only one effect. It is a positive outcome, but it’s a result of my act of murder.

In the street-car scenario, I would flip a switch and divert the tram. My action would have two results: the saving of five people’s lives and one unintended death.

 

[ChesterBeach]

We Catholics still have to make decisions based on our conception of morality. So the question is, how would Catholic morality deal with the situation? I proposed the doctrine of double effect as a possible solution. Let’s argue on the merits of that and whether my understanding is correct and not insult the OP.

This is an opportunity to learn. So let’s not be evasive.

I think you are in line with Catholic Doctrine by applying the Doctrine of Double Effect.

It doesn’t totally let you off the hook though -

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

also

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

It seems that you are culpable just not “as” culpable.

 

[runningdude]

Two nonsense posts and one attempt to evade the dilemma. Is that the best you guys can do? The circumstances are NOT subject to change. You do NOT have an option to deviate. Of course this is a hypothetical scenario (a thought experiment), but in real life you cannot avoid making a decision, and you cannot change the setup to suit your preferences. Sheesh.

Life is not a mathematical game. If your scenario is to simply point out “duh, you save the five”, so be it. But if you’re looking for insight into Catholic thought, insulting your participants is not the way to garner it.

 

[BillP]

These questions are always silly. They are not real life. In real life, you grab a cell phone and call the cops and professionals who take care of it.

Really?? Look up Lt. Cmdr. Joseph R. Carmichael Jr. sometime.

When USS Bunker Hill was hit by a kamikaze and caught fire, the smoke from the fire got sucked into the engine room filling it with smoke and deadly gases. Problem was the crew of the ship needed power from the engines to fight the fires and keep the ship from sinking. LTCDR Carmichael ORDERED his engine room crew to stay at their posts and keep the engines running. 125 men of that engine room crew died that day but the ship and the other 2800 men on her lived…

Do you think Carmichael make the right call?

 

[Katholish]

1. The scenario is this: “there is a street-car in San Francisco, and the driver is incapacitated. You are at the controls, but the breaks are not operational. The street car approaches a Y-fork. You can see that there are 5 people standing on the tracks on the right-hand side, and there is one person standing on the track on the left hand side. If you do not do anyting, the tram will hit the 5 people. If you switch to the other track, it will hit the single person. What will you do?”.

Switch the track. Principle of Double Effect applies. I am surprised this question seems to be troubling or confusing people, but Catholic Moral Theology is fairly clear that you are allowed to switch the track.

You are not murdering anyone by switching the track, rather, you are saving 4 lives.

This scenario does not involve the good effects coming from the death of the one person. If the scenario were re-written such that say for instance, you took one of the passangers off and threw him under the trolly to slow it down before it killed the 5 people, then that would indeed be murder and not permissible.

 

[kch86]

It seems that you are culpable just not “as” culpable.

Thanks. That’s more or less what my gut feeling told me, i.e. that I still commit a wrong, but that the doctrine of double effect merely means that it is permissible and not actually right.

Although…

The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

Presumably, the saving of 5 lives would be a proportionate reason and there is a grave reason why the one person should be exposed to mortal danger.

So while it would be permissible to divert the car, I’m uncertain whether it would be right.

 

[Armyvet007]

Well, is that how Catholics, according to their own Church teaching, should think? I’d be very much interested in seeing a Catholic respond in reference to the doctrine of double effect on this. My interpretation of it suggests that it would be permissible for one to divert the tram to kill the one person instead of the five. I would like to see whether my understanding is correct and to be shown where I am wrong if it isn’t so that I can improve my understanding.

My interpretation would be that, given the rather specific restrictions placed on the actor in the scenario taking action to save the criminal would be permissible. Like you, I’d be more then happy for a more learned Catholic to clarify it for us. [hint hint to the more learned Catholics]

 

[Bookcat]

Turn the key off

 

[po18guy]

Two nonsense posts and one attempt to evade the dilemma. Is that the best you guys can do? The circumstances are NOT subject to change. You do NOT have an option to deviate. Of course this is a hypothetical scenario (a thought experiment), but in real life you cannot avoid making a decision, and you cannot change the setup to suit your preferences. Sheesh.

Is this the best you can do? The premise is nonsensical.