Runaway trolley problem

[AlNg]

No. Pulling the lever is akin to turning the wheel of the madman terrorist’s car away from the crowd crossing the road knowing full well that some on the footpath will still die.

To Mr. Rau and others who say you can pull the lever in the trolley problem:
I don’t understand the distinctions you are making. You said it would be murder in the case of the Cage problem which involved a gun. Let me give you another example.
You are in a room and there are two hermetically sealed cages in the room. Cage I has one innocent man and Cage II has four innocent people. The guard tells you that he is going to drop poison gas into Cage II and kill four people, but that you can avoid this by pulling a lever in the middle of the room. If you pull that lever, then the poison gas cannot enter Cage II but it will be diverted into Cage I and the one innocent person in Cage I will surely be killed. Now is it moral to pull that lever or not?
Mr. Rau said that in the case of the Cage problem with a gun, not gas, that it would be murder. Now would it still be murder if it involves poison gas? If it is, then how does this differ in any substantial way from the trolley problem where you say it is not murder to pull the lever?

 

[Rau]

I don’t understand the distinctions you are making.

This is clear. I think we have had enough analogies, and I think you are somewhat reticent to respond to those and the accompanying arguments I’ve provided. So I’ll let this last variation of yours go…

 

[AlNg]

I’ll let this last variation of yours go…

OK, so you don’t want to go further. However, I would like to explore this a bit on my own.
A. The Cage problem with a shooter. You have said that it was murder to shoot the person in Cage X.
OK, I agree.
B. the Cage problem with gas. Well, if it is wrong to shoot someone, then it has to be wrong to gas that person, resulting in his dying from inhaling poison gas. So pulling the lever in the Cage B problem with the poison gas is also murder.
C. now let’s go to the trolley problem. What is the difference between pulling the lever in the trolley problem and pulling the lever in B, the Cage problem with gas. There is no substantial difference!! In either case, you divert the fatal element (runaway trolley or poison gas) by pulling a lever. By pulling the lever, you divert the fatal element from the four locked on the tracks or locked in the cage onto the one innocent person. But wait!! We agreed that B was the same as A, and A was definitely murder, so B was murder also. Now we see conclusively that to pull the lever in the trolley case must then also be murder since there is no substantial difference between B and C.
Case closed.
To review the Cage problem with shooter (Case A):
You are in a room with two cages. Four innocent people are locked inside Cage Z. One innocent man is locked inside Cage X. 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 X, then the four in Cage Z will go free. But if you do nothing and refuse to shoot the man, then he (the guard) will kill all four people in Cage Z. Should you shoot the man in Cage X to save the four in Cage Z ? Ans: No it would be murder. Mr. Rau agrees.
Case B is given in the second post up.

 

[Rau]

AINg - please search out the moral object(s) of the acts in question as I believe that is where the answer lies.

I have given this point more thought and also consulted some external experts, who have conveniently delivered opposing opinions, one being essentially the same as I have described to date, and the other as follows, and which I think may be the better solution:

We may have failed to properly identify the moral object(s) in the trolley problem. There are in fact 2 moral objects:

• saving 4 lives;
• taking 1 life;

This is not the same as saying the saving of the four is just the Intention (achieved by killing another) - as for example in a direct abortion to save the mother. Saving the 4 is certainly the intention, but it is also one of the moral objects of the act itself. The problem is that there is another / parallel moral object, being the killing of the 1. [We don’t want or seek the death, but its relation to the act is morally direct.]

If there is any evil moral object - as this suggests - the lever can’t be pulled.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I have given this point more thought and also consulted some external experts, who have conveniently delivered opposing opinions, one being essentially the same as I have described to date, and the other as follows, and which I think may be the better solution:

We may have failed to properly identify the moral object(s) in the trolley problem. There are in fact 2 moral objects:

saving 4 lives;
taking 1 life;

This is not the same as saying the saving of the four is just the Intention (achieved by killing another). It is certainly the intention, but it is also one of the moral objects of the act itself. The problem is that there is another / parallel moral object, being the killing of the 1. [We don’t want the death, but its relation to the act is morally direct.]

If there is any evil moral object - as this suggests - the lever can’t be pulled.

@Rau Excellent articulation of this concept.

 

[Elf01]

OK, so you don’t want to go further. However, I would like to explore this a bit on my own.

A. The Cage problem with a shooter. You have said that it was murder to shoot the person in Cage X.

OK, I agree.

B. the Cage problem with gas. Well, if it is wrong to shoot someone, then it has to be wrong to gas that person, resulting in his dying from inhaling poison gas. So pulling the lever in the Cage B problem with the poison gas is also murder.

C. now let’s go to the trolley problem. What is the difference between pulling the lever in the trolley problem and pulling the lever in B, the Cage problem with gas. There is no substantial difference!! In either case, you divert the fatal element (runaway trolley or poison gas) by pulling a lever. By pulling the lever, you divert the fatal element from the four locked on the tracks or locked in the cage onto the one innocent person. But wait!! We agreed that B was the same as A, and A was definitely murder, so B was murder also. Now we see conclusively that to pull the lever in the trolley case must then also be murder since there is no substantial difference between B and C.

The difference with the cage problems is that the good effect (if it even happens) directly comes from the bad effect. That fails the PDE. The same with the surgeon or throwing someone onto the track to block the train.

If B was not a cage problem, but for example the gas is going to escape from a tube in a place where there are several people. There are two chambers, one with four people in it and one with one person in it. The gas can be diverted into one of the chambers. I would access this as more like the trolley problem and say that you could divert the gas morally.

 

[Ender]

If you know that the performing of a specific action will directly result in the death of another person that would otherwise not die, then that action is not a moral action.

The argument against switching the trolley to the track with only one person is that this is an action taken, while sitting on our hands and allowing the trolley to roll over five people is not. Since the action is (being defined as) the deliberate killing of an innocent person, the argument is that we cannot commit the act. I reject the position that one cannot “act” immorally if one does nothing.

Situation: you are sitting beside a swimming pool when a toddler walks up and falls in. Unless you pull him out he will drown. Is there anyone who would suggest that doing nothing in this situation is moral? But if doing nothing here is immoral how can it be argued that doing nothing in the case of the trolley is moral simply because one has not “acted”? Abdication of our responsibility is an act of the will whether it involves physical exertion or not.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

This situation is not comparable. No one must die for you to save the toddler.

If the only way to save someone is by ending another innocent life, then that action is not a moral option.

Your responsibility to save someone does not extend to requiring you to end an innocent life in the process.

If you could save the four people tied to the track without ending someone else’s life and you chose to do nothing, then yes, that would be wrong.

 

[Techno2000]

The runaway trolley problem is where there is a runaway train headed to run over and kill four people who are tied to the tracks. However, you are next to a lever, and if you pull that lever, the train will be diverted to a different track, where only one person is tied to the track. If you do nothing, then surely four people will die, but the one person can be easily untied and he will be saved. If you pull the lever, then that one person will surely die, but you will save the other four. Most people will say it is better to pull the lever because having one person die is better than having four people die.

The choice would be clearer if it was 1000 to 1… just too much blood and guts for me to take.

 

[Rau]

I reject the position that one cannot “act” immorally if one does nothing.

Certainly one can act immorally by doing nothing. I assume you are making that general point, not asserting that such is the case with the trolley?

 

[Gorgias]

I reject the position that one cannot “act” immorally if one does nothing.

That’s not the position, if I understand you correctly.

Yes, there are sins of omission – that is, it is possible to ‘act’ immorally through inaction.

This doesn’t mean that inaction is inherently immoral. What it means is that, if there were a morally licit action to be taken, it would be immoral to fail to take it. It’s not, strictly speaking, that the lack of action itself is immoral. It’s that, when a morally acceptable course of action is available, lack of action is immoral.

In other words, if there are only morally illicit actions that are possible, then it is not immoral to choose to not perform those actions. That is to say, between the choice of “immoral action” and “inaction”, inaction is the only moral choice.

 

[Ender]

This situation is not comparable. No one must die for you to save thev toddler.

You missed my point. You’ve taken the position that doing nothing in the case of the trolley is moral because no “act” is committed, while throwing the switch is an act which can be judged in moral terms. I simply pointed out that the choice not to take action also constitutes an act and may also be judged morally. You have made the choice to let five people die on the assumption that turning a blind eye to the situation absolves you of any responsibility for the outcome. It isn’t true in the case of the toddler and it is equally untrue with regard to the trolley.

 

[Ender]

Certainly one can act immorally by doing nothing. I assume you are making that general point, not asserting that such is the case with the trolley?

Yes, you are correct, and I think the example with the toddler and the pool demonstrates that.

 

[Ender]

if there are only morally illicit actions that are possible, then it is not immoral to choose to not perform those actions. That is to say, between the choice of “immoral action” and “inaction”, inaction is the only moral choice.

Perhaps, but that isn’t the choice. We are forced to choose between “immoral action” and “immoral inaction”. Both choices lead to someone’s death. I’m still looking for the argument that explains why five dead is morally preferable to one.

Doing nothing in a situation where that choice leads to the worst possible outcome is not a morally licit choice.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

You missed my point. You’ve taken the position that doing nothing in the case of the trolley is moral because no “act” is committed, while throwing the switch is an act which can be judged in moral terms.

No, this is not my position.

If you could save the four people tied to the track without ending someone else’s life and you chose to do nothing, then yes, that would be wrong.

I stated above that doing nothing would be immoral.

The problem is that in the trolley situation, the only action that can be taken results in the direct causation of the death of an innocent person.

You are not “choosing” to do nothing; this would imply that you actually had a viable, moral action that could be taken and are refusing to.

Rather, you really don’t have a “choice”.

If someone was in pain and there was no other option to alleviate their suffering other than to pick up a gun and kill them, yet you refused to do so to stop their suffering, would you be guilty of an immoral act by “choosing” to do nothing?

CCC1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

if there are only morally illicit actions that are possible, then it is not immoral to choose to not perform those actions. That is to say, between the choice of “immoral action” and “inaction”, inaction is the only moral choice.

Perhaps, but that isn’t the choice. We are forced to choose between “immoral action” and “immoral inaction”.

No. Inaction, in this case, is not immoral, because the only action possible is immoral. It just doesn’t get any simpler an explanation than that.

Both choices lead to someone’s death.

Agreed. However, inaction is the only option that does not entangle you in responsibility for death.

I’m still looking for the argument that explains why five dead is morally preferable to one.

Because we’re not utilitarianists, that’s why. “The greatest good for the greatest number of people” is not the norm of Catholic moral theology.

Doing nothing in a situation where that choice leads to the worst possible outcome is not a morally licit choice.

It really is. Let’s up the ante:

Another formulation of the problem is the “man stuck in the cave” scenario:

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Now, according to you, one death is preferable to many deaths. Is it moral to blow up the big guy?

Your answer, it would seem, is ‘yes’. However, that means that you actively kill the guy. Is it moral to do so?

(Both are bad choices. Not both are moral choices, however. )

 

[Rau]

I’m still looking for the argument that explains why five dead is morally preferable to one.

Your statement appears to rest on a false premise. The number of dead is not itself the basis for placing the act on the morality scale.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

To say that not choosing is immoral implies that there is a moral alternative that is not being taken.

 

[Ender]

You are not “choosing” to do nothing; this would imply that you actually had a viable, moral action that could be taken and are refusing to.

Rather, you really don’t have a “choice

You do have a choice to make, but it is between a bad option and a worse one. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

 

[Rau]

You do have a choice to make, but it is between a bad option and a worse one. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

The real question is whether any of the options are morally permissible. “Good” and “bad” or “worse” etc is likely an informal way of referencing the consequences. Anticipated consequences may make immoral a proposed act. Actual consequences don’t tell us much at all about the morality of the act(s) involved.