Runaway trolley problem

[Ender]

This notion of wanting / desiring is in the actor, not the act where the moral object is found. If I choose to throw a lever that directly saves and also directly kills (innocents), I can’t be excused for the killing because I didn’t “want” it. This is the trolley situation - whether the killing is by trolley or by electrocution. There is no moral difference.

If you really believe that “If I choose to throw a lever that directly saves and also directly kills (innocents), I can’t be excused for the killing.…” then you cannot support throwing the switch in the case of the circular track, and you would let the mother and the infant die even though you could easily save the mother. That ought to suggest a serious problem with your position. Nor - and this is the point - can you support operating on ectopic pregnancies except by entertaining an undefined meaning for “direct”. Everything comes back to that.

 

[Ender]

I think I’m leaning towards the death being indirect if under other circumstances the action that achieves the good effect could be taken without leading to it.

Define what you mean by “indirect”. If I shoot a person that is unarguably a direct killing, but what about David’s act of sending Bathsheba’s husband into the front line of battle so he would be killed? Is that any less of a murder than if David had simply slain him with a sword? Do we consider his act an indirect killing and accept it because of that?

 

[Ender]

This is incorrect. There is no “need” to invoke Double Effect - it is simply a tool to assist with the analysis. Further, that the surgery ultimately leads to death does not mean the surgeon directly took the life of the innocent. Were an innocent “directly” killed by a (knowingly chosen) act - that act is certainly evil.

The surgeon chooses to operate with the knowledge of both outcomes: the mother will live, and the fetus will die. Both outcomes flow inevitably from his act. His reason for operating is to save the mother, and his act is directed to that end, but the very same act, although unintended, also causes the death.

Where is the difference in the trolley case? The bystander chooses to throw the switch with the knowledge of both outcomes: the four will live, and the one will die. Both outcomes flow inevitably from his act. His reason for switching is to save the four, and his act is directed to that end, but the very same act, although unintended, also causes the death.

It is arbitrary to contend that his act is directed at killing rather than saving when his motivation for acting is unarguably identical to that of the doctor: to save life. However you define direct and indirect you cannot do it in such a way as to differentiate between the bystander and the doctor except arbitrarily. You can claim a difference exists but you cannot demonstrate that it flows from your definitions.

 

[o_mlly]

Define what you mean by “indirect”. If I shoot a person that is unarguably a direct killing, but what about David’s act of sending Bathsheba’s husband into the front line of battle so he would be killed? Is that any less of a murder than if David had simply slain him with a sword? Do we consider his act an indirect killing and accept it because of that?

David is a murderer in either case. And not all that clever as David put his evil act and evil intention in writing:

2 Samuel 11:15 This is what he [David] wrote in the letter: “Place Uriah up front, where the fighting is fierce. Then pull back and leave him to be struck down dead.”

The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death.

 

[Elf01]

I think I have defined indirect (or at least attempted to). Read the post you quoted for my attempt.

what about David’s act of sending Bathsheba’s husband into the front line of battle so he would be killed? Is that any less of a murder than if David had simply slain him with a sword?

Here the evil comes from the intent font. I would say the killing of Uriah was indirect, but as David wanted his death the act is immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

Here the evil comes from the intent font.

I agree. I was just about to edit my post to conform.

 

[Rau]

Both outcomes flow inevitably from his act.

It is your proposal that inevitability is the criterion for judging moral directness. I’ve rejected that from the start. Were you correct, catholic theology would refer to all abortion as direct, the loss of innocents in war as direct and so on. But it does not.

Please think about moral directness in the trolley: as the immediacy of the 1 death changes (becomes more immediate) as we change the mode of killing from trolley impact to electrocution, is there any change in moral directness? Inevitability does not change.

 

[o_mlly]

Nor - and this is the point - can you support operating on ectopic pregnancies except by entertaining an undefined meaning for “direct”. Everything comes back to that.

Although i indulged an erroneous definition of"direct" in a prior post only to argue that that definition led to same conclusion, i.e., “throwing the switch” is evil; I did not offer an alternate definition. Here it is.

“Direct” as it relates to the moral object means that the foreseen outcomes exist per se (through the act itself) and in se (in the act itself). Note: the conjunction is “and” not “or.”

… the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. (VS 80.)

I believe the argument in the OP’s trolley case that permits the act “throw the switch” on the grounds that the death of the innocent person is remote to “throwing the switch” is as patently false just as the following defendant’s defense:

Judge: How do you plead on the charge of murder?

Defendant: Not guilty, your honor. You see, that dead fellow was still alive when I aimed the gun at him and pulled the trigger.

In contrast to the bystander’s act, the surgeon’s act – excise diseased tissue – does not in se cause the death of the fetus. Therefore, the bystander’s act directly kills an innocent and the surgeon’s act indirectly kills the fetus.

 

[Ender]

“Direct” as it relates to the moral object means that the foreseen outcomes exist per se (through the act itself) and in se (in the act itself). Note: the conjunction is “and” not “or.”

Good, I can work with this. As far as the act of throwing the switch is concerned, while it is true that the outcome comes through the act itself, it is not in the act itself. That is, if there was not someone on the second track, and the switch was thrown, obviously no one would die. Therefore death is not in the act of throwing the switch. This is equally true of the surgeon, as while the death also comes through the act itself it does not exist in the act. This is why removal of the part of the body containing the fetus is valid, where the removal of solely the fetus is not. The death is not in the former act, but is in the latter.

Shooting someone is a direct cause of death. Throwing a switch is not. If it was, someone would die every time a switch was thrown. The latter is an act that (in this case) leads to a death, just as the excision of “diseased” tissue in the case of an ectopic pregnancy leads just as inevitably to a death.

Suppose someone was aiming a gun at person A, and just before he fires I knock his hand away to cause him to shoot person B. Am I responsible for the murder of B? Yes, my act lead to the death of B, but it seems a real stretch to claim that my act of saving A was intrinsically evil.

 

[Rau]

Shooting someone is a direct cause of death. Throwing a switch is not.

The correct comparable would be “Squeezing a Trigger” - that is what is comparable to “throwing a switch”. If you leave out the moral content…if you manipulate the words sufficiently, you can make any argument.

The following all directly cause death:

• Squeezing a trigger that sets loose a hammer that strikes a bullet that gets propelled down the barrel of a gun toward an innocent person known to be in its path…is a direct cause of death.
• Throwing a switch that connects 5000V to a cable that is known to be connected to an innocent person…is a direct cause of death.
• Throwing a switch that directs a trolley down a track that is known to hold a trapped man…is a direct cause of death.

To knowingly perform and of these acts is gravely immoral.

This is equally true of the surgeon, as while the death also comes through the act itself it does not exist in the act. This is why removal of the part of the body containing the fetus is valid, where the removal of solely the fetus is not.

You are partially correct. This act is ordered to the excision of mum’s tissue soon to haemorrhage. You should have of course added that the death is indirect.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as the act of throwing the switch is concerned, while it is true that the outcome comes through the act itself, it is not in the act itself.

If the above is true then all those convicted of premeditated murder whose victims were not strangled by the hands of the convicted should be freed and, if retried, retried at the most for reckless endangerment. Which is absurd.

That is, if there was not someone on the second track, and the switch was thrown, obviously no one would die.

If that were the case then we would not have ~ 800 posts. No dilemma, no drama there.

I don’t see how your modification clarifies. Other radical modifications also save the innocent person’s life. If the bystander was not there then the innocent person does not die. If the switch is not there the innocent person does not die. If the bystander does not throw the switch then the innocent person does not die. It is only the bystander who pulls the lever that kills the innocent person.

Also, the fetus, unlike the innocent person on the tracks, is in mortal danger. Therefore, the surgeon’s act does not expose the fetus to mortal danger. The same cannot be said of the bystander.

 

[o_mlly]

Therefore death is not in the act of throwing the switch.

“Throwing the switch” is not the act. The human act, properly described, includes the moral object – “that kills an innocent person.” The following instruction points to the error in your analysis.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/doctrine/proport.txt
MAKING GOOD MORAL CHOICES: TWO APPROACHES
by Rev. Ronald Lawler, Joseph Boyle and William May

Proportionalists typically hold that no kinds of acts, when defined in purely descriptive language, that is, language that includes no morally evaluative terms, are always wrong, or intrinsically evil in a strong sense. If one were to mean by murder an unjust slaying of an innocent person, then they would agree that every murder is indeed wrong, for the characterization of the killing as unjust is sufficient to settle its immorality. But the direct slaying of an innocent person is not held to be absolutely and in every possible circumstance wrong. Such an act does not include evaluative terms in its description, and it is conceivable that in some extreme circumstances such an act would be determined to be the lesser evil. In those circumstances killing [to the proportionalist] would be a morally good act.

 

[Ender]

The correct comparable would be “Squeezing a Trigger” - that is what is comparable to “throwing a switch”. If you leave out the moral content…if you manipulate the words sufficiently, you can make any argument.

According to o-mlly’s definition, the death in the trolley case is not direct: "the foreseen outcomes exist per se (through the act itself) and in se (in the act itself)."

The following all directly cause death:

• Squeezing a trigger that sets loose a hammer that strikes a bullet that gets propelled down the barrel of a gun toward an innocent person known to be in its path…is a direct cause of death.
• Throwing a switch that directs a trolley down a track that is known to hold a trapped man…is a direct cause of death.

To knowingly perform and of these acts is gravely immoral.

Putting a gun to a person’s head and pulling the trigger will always result in death. Redirecting a trolley by throwing a switch does not. Only in the latter case is the death through the act, and not in the act. Your claims are assertions; they do not logically flow from your definitions.

This act is ordered to the excision of mum’s tissue soon to haemorrhage. You should have of course added that the death is indirect.

Why is this death indirect? Again, this is simply another assertion: it is indirect solely because you define it that way. Why do you claim the operation is “ordered to” the excision of the tissue, but refuse to accept that throwing the switch is “ordered to” the salvation of the four?

Here’s a simpler question: why are you on the fence about the circular track problem? If throwing the switch (and directing the trolley at an innocent person) is intrinsically evil then your choice is clear: let the mother and baby both die. That this conclusion seems transparently wrong might be because your categorization of the act is incorrect.

 

[Ender]

If the above is true then all those convicted of premeditated murder whose victims were not strangled by the hands of the convicted should be freed and, if retried, retried at the most for reckless endangerment. Which is absurd.

If you take the position that directing the trolley at the innocent in the OP’s example is intrinsically evil, then it must be true that directing the trolley at the innocent person in the circular track situation is equally evil, except in that situation you said you would throw the switch.

You have described an act as intrinsically evil in one instance, and said you would commit the very same act in the second.

 

[Ender]

“Throwing the switch” is not the act. The human act, properly described, includes the moral object – “that kills an innocent person.”

If this was true it would be equally true in the circular track case where you have already said you would throw the switch to direct the trolley at the car with the infant inside. That act also leads to the death of an innocent person. How can you throw the switch in one case and not the other?

Additionally, “killing an innocent person” is simply no part of the object of the act. It is a consequence of the action, but the object of the act is to redirect the trolley, and is the same object whether or not there is a person on the track. Suppose no one is on the other track: what then is the object?

The direct slaying of an innocent person is always wrong, but this is not a direct slaying of an innocent person, as even you acknowledge by your willingness to throw the switch in the example of the circular track.

 

[Rau]

[

Redirecting a trolley by throwing a switch does not [kill]

It DOES when a man lies on the track. Stop omitting the morally significant content when it suits!

Why is this death indirect? Again, this is simply another assertion: it is indirect solely because you define it that way. Why do you claim the operation is “ordered to” the excision of the tissue, but refuse to accept that throwing the switch is “ordered to” the salvation of the four?

The baby died. But the surgeon treated the mother, rather than attacked the baby.
I agree with your ordering of the trolley. It happens that it is equally ordered to the death of the innocent.

 

[Rau]

Here’s a simpler question: why are you on the fence about the circular track problem? If throwing the switch (and directing the trolley at an innocent person) is intrinsically evil then your choice is clear: let the mother and baby both die. That this conclusion seems transparently wrong might be because your categorization of the act is incorrect.

Please catch up on the posts Ender. I’ve hopped off the fence.

 

[Rau]

You have described an act as intrinsically evil in one instance, and said you would commit the very same act in the second.

Act and action are not the same. And “proximate” is not about timing. The death of the innocent (and heretofore safe) man on the track is proximate to the act of directing the tram toward him. The speed of the tram (or bullet, or electricity) does not change that. This is a discussion about the moral characteristics of acts, not one about classical mechanics.

 

[Rau]

the object of the act is to redirect the trolley, and is the same object whether or not there is a person on the track. Suppose no one is on the other track: what then is the object?

Not merely redirect it, but redirect it precisely toward an innocent man - by knowing choice, as surely as the electric circuit would carry electricity to the man. Explain why death by electrocution (flowing from the lever throw) is not permissible when death by trolley is?

 

[Rau]

It occurs to me @ender that it may be better to let you get up to date with / respond to earlier posts b4 I respond any further. Perhaps advise when you are up to date so dialogue can get better in synch.