There are any number of instances where one acts with good intention, and in a good way, but with predictable consequences - some of which are bad. For example:
Why is pulling a lever in a plane which results in a bomb being dropped on civilians wrong. After all, it is only a lever and why should there be anything wrong with pulling a lever?
No, it does not. I may not murder one person to save a million - that is certainly true. The error being made repeatedly is to declare as evil the act which sees a man die by virtue of that consequence, not by virtue of the act itself. There was no deliberate choice to kill an innocent. There was an acceptance that the good act of diverting the tram to minimise harm would very likely see one life lost.
The moral object is lost if the “act itself” is collapsed to something with no moral content. The man who drops a bomb is not just “pulling a lever”. What is he doing? Is it a true act of defence of country - which would require the act to be directed at military targets. Is it a terrorist seeking to create blanket terror among civilians. Are the civilians the target?
Switching a train to a different track is not illicit. Switching a train to a different track knowing that by doing so you kill someone is gravely illicit. You can’t just separate the physical act from the predictable consequences.
Correct. He is moving the trolley to where harm will be minimized. You continue to assert there is a murder, though I say there is not. Is shooting down the bomber the murder of the innocent hostage, or his unfortunate loss from a good act of self defence?
You have introduced new elements into the scenario. We could discuss those, but this is no longer the trolley scenario.AlNg:
The moral object is lost if the “act itself” is collapsed to something with no moral content. The man who drops a bomb is not just “pulling a lever”. What is he doing? Is it a true act of defence of country - which would require the act to be directed at military targets. Is it a terrorist seeking to create blanket terror among civilians. Are the civilians the target?
Consider this scenario: An evil airforce flies a bomber toward your country’s airspace and states an intention to bomb the first city on its path. You discover that strapped into the back seat of the bomber is an innocent civilian hostage. May you shoot down that plane (clearly choosing to accept the death of that innocent civilian), as a means to defend the millions of the ground, or must you sit idly by?
Correct. In terms of the judging the morality of the prospective act, you need to consider all the consequences, not just the bad.
The innocent hostage in the bomber threatens no one - he is akin to the lone man tied on one track, because just as my efforts to save lives in the trolley scenario lead to one death, so my effort in the bombing scenario lead to one death.
No. The analogy fails because in the bomber situation you have people actively killing other people by dropping bombs on them. What happens to their prisoner if you shoot down the bomber is an unavoidable but totally undesired accompaniment to the intended result. What happens to the man on the track if you pull the lever is the intended result.Zaccheus:
The innocent hostage in the bomber threatens no one - he is akin to the lone man tied on one track, because just as my efforts to save lives in the trolley scenario lead to one death, so my effort in the bombing scenario lead to one death.
The question is may I act in a way which will see the innocent (the hostage in the bomber) die? This is quite analogous to the trolley problem.
The intended result is to have the trolley on a track where the least harm is likely. The death of the man is foreseen but not intended. The death of the man on the track upon pulling lever is also totally unavoidable and undesired if 4 lives are to be saved. You have not identified any difference.
The man on the track is no more intentionally killed than the hostage in the bomber. Defence personnel causing the Bomber (which may be remotely controlled) to crash to the ground where harm is minimised is no different than doing analogously to the trolley.
But you identify no differences of relevance. I introduced the bomber just because it prompts (for most people) the intuitive response that - notwithstanding the innocent on board - of course we may act to defend the many. [I have encountered on CAF persons of a pacifist nature who say the bomber cannot be attacked because of the certainty of harming the hostage.]
Suppose we look at the trolley problem from a different angle. You are in a room with two cages. Four innocent people are locked inside Cage I. One innocent man is locked inside Cage II. The guard is outside the room, but he points to you a loaded gun sitting on the table. He tells you that if you shoot and kill the man in Cage II, then the four in Cage I will go free. But if you do nothing and refuse to shoot the man, or if you refuse to kill him and only wound him, then he (the guard) will kill all four people in Cage I. You cannot shoot the guard because he is outside the room behind bulletproof glass. Should you shoot the man in Cage II to save the four in Cage I ? Many people will say no. But isn’t this the same as the trolley problem? Your intention in shooting the man in Cage II is to save the four in Cage I. So you have a good intention. The only major difference is that in the trolley problem, you pull a lever, whereas in the Cage problem you pull a trigger.
No. This is plainly Murder.
They repeatedly assert it. They do no moral analysis to demonstrate it. See my extended answer.
Consider the Catechism section on defense by military force:Vico:
I would add to the ones you mention, 1756:
As honorable of an intention it may be to try to save the group of 4 people, knowingly committing an action that will kill the one person tied to the tracks is still not justifiable. This also applies to the patient and organ situation.
I always considered thought experiments as the sort of “lab” for philosophy. They’re like science experiments performed under ideal conditions. Useful sometimes for sussing out where our base ideas are, but they need a lot of work to actually apply to the real world.