Runaway trolley problem

[o_mlly]

However you reached that conclusion, it is incorrect. In your case I would answer no, the point being that if I have opposite responses to two situations it must be because I see them as fundamentally different.

Then let us compare objectively the fundamentals. Will you then do, as you requested of me and I complied, portray the trolley exercise as you see it in its fundamentals?

Object:
Intent:
Circumstances:

 

[Rau]

Civilian casualties caused by bombing meet the criteria of direct deaths. You are using those terms to mean something other than the definitions given in dictionaries, and unless you define what you mean when you use them I can’t recognize what distinction you’re trying to make.

I believe I am using the terms according to their meaning in moral theology.

 

[Ender]

Then let us compare objectively the fundamentals. Will you then do, as you requested of me and I complied, portray the trolley exercise as you see it in its fundamentals?

Intent: To save four lives.
Object: Reroute the trolley away from them.
Circumstances: There is no way to save everyone, and one person will die as a result.

 

[Ender]

I believe I am using the terms according to their meaning in moral theology.

Then why won’t you define the term? I keep asking for this and you keep ignoring me. You are obviously not using the term according to its dictionary definition yet you won’t explain what it means according to your usage. I don’t know what it means in “moral theology”. All I know is that your claim that a distinction exists is based solely on an assertion that you have resolutely resisted defending.

 

[Rau]

I will try and find a suitable reference, as I doubt you will accept and adopt a definition I give you. Did you review the question yourself at all in the moral theology context, or just the dictionary? Indirect abortion is another common expression btw. And it does not only apply to ‘accidents’.

Civilian casualties caused by bombing meet the criteria of direct deaths.

The knowing choice of an act that “directly” kills innocents is intrinsically evil. This is (IMHO) descriptive of the Hiroshima case given the inherent nature of atomic bombs - mass obliteration on a scale far greater than a legitimate military target.

I note you gave an example earlier to the effect that shooting a man to death and shooting holes in his boat in the deep ocean may be equivalent moral acts - both murder, both “direct” killings. Morally direct. Sounds like the dictionary would view shooting up the boat as indirect killing? Morally speaking, it is direct.

 

[o_mlly]

Intent: To save four lives.

Object: Reroute the trolley away from them.

Circumstances: There is no way to save everyone, and one person will die as a result.

The above mimics closely the rationale Pontius Pilate seems to have employed.

To avoid the train wreck of a Jewish revolt, I will kill this innocent man and then wash my hands of this evil end as if I did not cause it to be.

 

[AlNg]

Intent: To save four lives.

That is a good intent. But it is better to use a good means to attain your goal, rather than an evil means of killing an innocent person. What are you going to say to the widow of the innocent man you killed when she asks you why did you kill my husband. She has four children to care for and to feed. What are you going to do about that? And her lawyer is also going to be after you for compensation. After all, her husband would still be alive if you had not pulled the lever. And her children would still have a father. What right do you have to kill their father and to deprive these children of his care and love?

 

[Scowler]

That is a good intent. But it is better to use a good means to attain your goal, rather than an evil means of killing an innocent person. What are you going to say to the widow of the innocent man you killed when she asks you why did you kill my husband. She has four children to care for and to feed. What are you going to do about that? And her lawyer is also going to be after you for compensation. After all, her husband would still be alive if you had not pulled the lever. And her children would still have a father. What right do you have to kill their father and to deprive these children of his care and love?

Is there another way? If there is, employ it. But you cannot extend the scenario by stipulating extra circumstances. These dilemmas MUST be considered as they are given, not by adding a bunch of “what if”? Those would be different problems.

 

[AlNg]

But you cannot extend the scenario by stipulating extra circumstances

It is a simple fact of life that just about every man has a family or relatives of one sort or another. It is part of the problem that must be faced and answered.

 

[Scowler]

It is a simple fact of life that just about every man has a family or relatives of one sort or another. It is part of the problem that must be faced and answered.

Just about? Just about??? Are there no orphans and single people any more without any friends or relatives? If you wish to incorporate some imaginary family, create a brand new problem and investigate a solution in that case. Every dilemma MUST be investigated as presented. If you cannot make a constructive contribution better stay quiet. Here the choice is simple: “Act, and one person will die, or don’t act and four people will die.” You cannot add or subtract any more circumstances.

 

[AlNg]

Are there no orphans and single people any more without any friends or relatives?

There are. But there are also men with wives and children. Or with brothers and sisters. Even orphans and single people have loved ones and acquaintances. This is something real, something in real life that must be considered when you decide to kill the innocent person on the tracks - even though your intention may be a good one. By ;pulling the lever, you are now complicit in the killing of an innocent person. If you don’t pull the lever, but you just standby and think of a possible way to save these people, but in the end, you do nothing, then no lawyer is going to say that you were complicit in the killing of four innocent people. You tried the best you could to think of a moral way to stop the crime, but you were unable to come up with a moral way to do so. This was not your fault. However, if you pull the lever, the lawyer of the deceased (or the public defender) is going to hold you complicit in the crime of killing his client. And if the man you killed has a family or a wife and children, you are going to have to answer to them as to why you killed their loved one. Suppose that he did have a wife and children and the husband was their sole means of support. Are you going to take care and support these four children and the grieving wife? Are you going to pay? Your action has consequences which the lawyer (or public defender) of the deceased is going to bring to your attention and demand compensation.
If you had not ;pulled the lever, but you tried to think of a way to stop the trolley from killing the four without harming anyone else, and you were unable to come up with any solution to the dilemma, then no one is going to accuse you of negligence or anything else. You tried your best to think of a way out, but you could not see any way out except one which would result in the death of an innocent person. So you did not touch the lever for fear of doing something harmful to an innocent person. The family of the four has no claim against you as you did your utmost to try to save the four without harming anyone else. But if you do pull the lever, you are going to have to answer to the lawyers and to the family, the loved ones, and the acquaintances of the innocent person who you killed, even though you did so reluctantly. By pulling the lever, you are complicit in the death of this innocent person.

 

[Ender]

I will try and find a suitable reference, as I doubt you will accept and adopt a definition I give you.

I don’t care if you give me a personal definition or quote something from Aquinas; I just want to understand what you mean when you use the term.

I note you gave an example earlier to the effect that shooting a man to death and shooting holes in his boat in the deep ocean may be equivalent moral acts - both murder, both “direct” killings. Morally direct. Sounds like the dictionary would view shooting up the boat as indirect killing? Morally speaking, it is direct.

There is no moral difference between the two acts, both would rightly be considered first degree murder. Given the dictionary definition of “direct” however (no intervening steps), it would seem the second means is indirect in its action, but the responsibility is no less direct in both cases, which - morally - is what matters.

 

[Ender]

The above mimics closely the rationale Pontius Pilate seems to have employed.

It is generally useless to debate with a person who cannot distinguish an insult from an argument. Once you figure out how to differentiate the one from the other we can continue the discussion.

 

[Scowler]

I suggest you learn to make readable posts. Do not “vomit” your word-salad and expect to get answers.

 

[Rau]

By ;pulling the lever, you are now complicit in the killing of an innocent person. If you don’t pull the lever, but you just standby and think of a possible way to save these people, but in the end, you do nothing, then no lawyer is going to say that you were complicit in the killing of four innocent people. You tried the best you could to think of a moral way to stop the crime, but you were unable to come up with a moral way to do so. This was not your fault.

The “defence” that “I could not possibly pull the lever because that would be to kill a person” would I believe be perfectly acceptable in court, and before God.

But of some interest (@AINg, @Gorgias, @Ender and @o_mlly) is the variation wherein the person responsible for steering the tram (ie. selecting the track) is not a bystander but rather the Tram driver.

Should/may he steer away from his current course (4 people on track) to the track with lesser people (here we assume he cannot stop the tram in time)?

The Tram driver is expected to manage his tram with due care and cause no or minimum harm.

 

[o_mlly]

It is generally useless to debate with a person who cannot distinguish an insult from an argument. Once you figure out how to differentiate the one from the other we can continue the discussion.

To criticize a proposed argument, which I did, does not insult the one who proposes the argument.

However, falsely claiming victim status as a means to end a lost debate as a debating tactic is dishonest and to be avoided.

 

[Gorgias]

But of some interest (@AlNg , @Gorgias, @Ender and @o_mlly) is the variation wherein the person responsible for steering the tram (ie. selecting the track) is not a bystander but rather the Tram driver.

Should/may he steer away from his current course (4 people on track) to the track with lesser people (here we assume he cannot stop the tram in time)?

The Tram driver is expected to manage his tram with due care and cause no or minimum harm.

I don’t know that there’s a significant difference in that tack. You’re saying that the tram driver can force a change in tracks, but cannot stop the tram in time? This only affects the consequentialist’s analysis, no? After all, “greatest good, greatest number of people”, right?

But, for Catholic Moral Theology, it’s still a matter of “I’ve discovered a dilemma; I can act in a way that’s immoral, or I can choose not to act in a way that’s immoral.” (Of course, to your point about a “court of law” argument, the real-world response would be “I tried to do everything I could to stop the tram, but was unable.”)

(Side tangent: OK, @AlNg, what’s the funkyness with your user name? If I type “@AINg”, it doesn’t transform into a handle. But, if copy & paste from your username, it does. Then, if I retype the ‘A’, ‘N’, or ‘g’, it stays a handle. But, if I retype the ‘I’, the handle goes away and it’s just plain text. So… what character is this, that has the appearance of an “I” but is not an “I”? )

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I know this runaway trolley problem is a classic that has made the rounds for years. But as illustration of moral principles, it is deeply flawed. Let me count the ways:

1. If the accident is imminent, the reaction to pull the lever or not pull the lever will probably be made without time for due consideration of consequences. Either choice - to pull the lever or not pull the lever - could be made without moral culpability. By the time someone explained to me how everyone was inevitably doomed if the trolley came their way and how there was no other way to stop the trolley or get the people off the tracks - the accident would have been over. I could easily believe, in the spur of the moment, that the one person on the track might be able to see the trolley at the last minute and jump out of the way. Whether or not this is true does not matter. There is no way I could be convinced of that inevitability in a short amount of time.
2. If the accident is non imminent, say one day away, I would certainly consider alternatives not initially presented to me. Could I use the extra time to get there and warn everybody? It certainly seems so - at least I would seriously consider it. It would take an extremely contorted scenario to establish conditions where there was time for adequate moral evaluation and yet no other alternative. It is so far-fetched as to be useless for illuminating real world moral principles.

The OP’s restatement of the problem is a little more realistic in that the situation could actually happen where four people are waiting for transplants and one innocent victim is available. In that case the common view is correct. It is not moral to kill one man for his organs to prolong the life of four others. The classic runaway trolley problem does not contradict this judgement because the conditions and actions and deliberation needed to carry out the act are not irrelevant to that judgement, are are clearly different between the two cases.

 

[o_mlly]

Either choice - to pull the lever or not pull the lever - could be made without moral culpability.

Culpability, an important issue, is not the one under examination; only whether the act is evil or not. The act (or not act) can be objectively examined. I believe all who have responded have identified the font of intention as good.

 

[Ender]

But of some interest (@AINg, @Gorgias, @Ender and @o_mlly) is the variation wherein the person responsible for steering the tram (ie. selecting the track) is not a bystander but rather the Tram driver.

Should/may he steer away from his current course (4 people on track) to the track with lesser people (here we assume he cannot stop the tram in time)?

I gave a different variation of this situation which you have not responded to.

The track divides at a switch which controls your entry to a circular portion of track. You can go left or right, clockwise or counterclockwise. A third of the way around to the right, a mother is caught on the track. A third of the way around to the left, a car is stopped on the track with an infant inside. There is nothing to stop the trolley except the car; when the car is struck the trolley will derail. The infant will of course die. The switch is set to send the trolley around to the right.

If you don’t throw the switch the trolley will kill the mother first and continue around until it hits the car where it will kill the child and then derail. If the switch is thrown the trolley will go around to the left and hit the car first where it will derail, so although the infant will die the mother will not.

Is throwing the switch in this example morally justified?