Runaway trolley problem

[AveOTheotokos]

You are not “choosing” to do nothing; it is the uncontrolled, default trajectory of events that your life has been placed on that you have no morally viable alternative trajectory to be on.

Imagine if you were in the trolley situation, but you were tied up and all you could do was watch the events transpire. In that case you are physically restrained from choosing to intervene.

Now imagine you are not tied up. Being untied would physically free you to act, but morally you are still “bound”; you are morally restrained from acting. You do not have a free choice to act because of the immorality inherent in the act of diverting the trolley’s trajectory to kill the single person.

You are not morally culpable for the trolley killing the four people because you had no role in initiating the events leading to their death and you have no other morally viable choice that allows you to intervene. You are just a helpless witness to the events that are inevitably going to unfold.

Again, the only way choosing to do nothing can be immoral is if there was a moral alternative choice that was being chosen not to be taken.

 

[Ender]

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.

Except “doing” nothing is as much a moral action as “doing” something else. You cannot evade involvement in a situation simply by ignoring it.

Both choices lead to someone’s death.

Yes they do, and the choice is yours to make. So explain why choosing that five will die is the moral option. You decide who lives and who dies, and it is not a choice you can refuse to make.

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

There really is no “inaction” option here any more so than with the drowning toddler; that’s my point. Sitting is not necessarily a morally neutral act. First comes the act of choosing, and that I’d surely not morally neutral in this case.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Except “doing” nothing is as much a moral action as “doing” something else. You cannot evade involvement in a situation simply by ignoring it.

Yes they do, and the choice is yours to make. So explain why choosing that five will die is the moral option. You decide who lives and who dies, and it is not a choice you can refuse to make.

The difference is that you are not choosing for the four to die; they are already in a position where their death is certain, and you had no role in that trajectory becoming a reality.

The introduction of an alternative immoral choice (pulling the lever to kill the one instead) does not somehow make you now culpable for the death of the four. It is a potential event that could only become actualized by your intervention.

The death of the four is an actualized event that is transpiring without your interaction with no morally acceptable potential event for you to chose as an alternative.

The only thing you could morally do is to try to reach the four before the trolley, try to shout to someone closer, pray, etc…

Even if these attempts may be futile, they are really the only moral potential options, however the trolley scenario usually spells out that there is clearly no other intervention available to you other than the morally unjustifiable option of pulling the lever and killing the one person.

 

[Ender]

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.

I agree, but that’s not been my argument. You decide whether one will die or five will die, and you are morally responsible for that choice.

Someone brought up the scenario of the pilot diverting his stricken plane away from the populated city to the less populated suburbs. Where is the distinction? He can do nothing and claim no responsibility for where the plane hits, or he can choose to kill some smaller number of people in the suburbs. From the arguments given here he should sit on his hands, because to deliberately crash his plane in the suburbs is (it is claimed) immoral. Who thinks this way?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I already responded to the pilot scenario earlier, but the pilot’s choice is not just a “one lever pull and done” action, and the consequences are not certain until the point that the pilot has completely lost the ability to control the aircraft.

Ideally, the pilot would steer away from every possible casualty until which point his (name removed by moderator)uts on the controls were no longer controlling the aircraft.

He would ideally be steering away from the more populated area, not at a less populated area. He wouldn’t steer away from the more populated area then aim the plane directly at someone’s house.

He would continually point the aircraft’s direction of travel to avoid hitting obstacles, because he would ideally also be trying to reach the ground as safely as possible to try to protect not only the lives of those on the ground, but the lives of his passengers as well.

As I have mentioned before, the trolley scenario is a classic because of the outcomes being on “rails”. The crashing jet and other scenarios have too many variables and potentials. The only scenario I can recall being mentioned in this thread that is accurately analogous to the trolley is the “fatman stuck in the cave entrance” scenario brought up by @gorgias.

 

[Rau]

Someone brought up the scenario of the pilot diverting his stricken plane away from the populated city to the less populated suburbs. Where is the distinction?

That was me. And as it happens that very issue remains on my mind - what “details” distinguish the two. The answer hangs on the moral directness of the act and the result. There is a “directness” inherent in the railway track picture, but I am yet to see how to make real, or more real than the other scenarios. Some will say that no person is being targeted - but that is not convincing.

 

[Rau]

As I have mentioned before, the trolley scenario is a classic because of the outcomes being on “rails”.

In debate is whether that is enough to create a moral difference. Steer the train to where fewer will die. Steer the plane to where fewer will die. The moral difference is not yet sufficiently identified. Pretending that the pilot is actually working to avoid deaths on the ground is “pretend”.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

In debate is whether that is enough to create a moral difference. Steer the train to where fewer will die. Steer the plane to where fewer will die. The moral difference is not yet sufficiently identified. Pretending that the pilot is actually working to avoid deaths on the ground is “pretend”.

The difference I see is that pulling the lever for the trolley directly guarantees the killing of the one person and is the only possible alternative outcome, whereas the pilot scenario the alternative outcomes are variable until which point the pilot loses control.

With the plane, it is not as simple as the plane crashing towards an unavoidable skyscraper and the only other option is to point the plane directly at a nearby subdivision, or farmers house. If the pilot can guide the plane elsewhere, then he would logically avoid everything until he could no longer guide the plane.

The outcome is continually variable and dependent on the pilot’s continual sequences of choices until the point when he cannot make any other choices.

I cannot envision the pilot scenario being able to be constrained enough to where the choice was equivalent to that in the trolley scenario. If the pilot can steer the plane, then he has the choice to steer (or attempt to steer) it away from killing people. He may fail, but he can still try.

In the trolley, you have only two potential trajectories: the current trajectory into the four, or acting to alter the trajectory to kill the one.

I guess another way to say it is the plane is being steered with variable and unpredictable potential outcomes, where the trolley is not being steered; it is more a selection of an alternate, but exact outcome.

Another analogous scenario that I just remembered was mentioned earlier in the thread was the two locked chambers, one with four people and the other with one person.

A poison gas canister is is falling down a pipe towards the four and is guaranteed to kill them while the one person in the other chamber remains unharmed, but you are given an option to pull a lever that will divert the canister towards the chamber with only one person, guaranteeing their death instead of the four.

This scenario swaps the trolley for a gas canister, the rails for the pipe, and the people tied to the tracks for the people locked in the chambers.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Except “doing” nothing is as much a moral action as “doing” something else. You cannot evade involvement in a situation simply by ignoring it.

Yes they do, and the choice is yours to make. So explain why choosing that five will die is the moral option. You decide who lives and who dies, and it is not a choice you can refuse to make.

I’m curious if we reversed the trolley situation if anyone’s answers might be different…

Let’s say that the trolley is heading toward track A, but now there is only one person tied to the track. You have only one potential option, which is to pull the lever to divert the trolley to track B, but there are four people tied to the tracks.

If you choose not to act, the trajectory remains the same and the one person is guaranteed to die. If you choose to act and pull the lever, then the one person is saved, but the four people who would otherwise have not been at risk of death are now guaranteed to die.

This change reverses the utilitarianistic element of the choices. Is it immoral to choose not to act? Or is it immoral to choose to act?

Does inaction make you culpable for the death of the one? Is choosing to act noble because your ultimate intention is to save the one?

 

[Rau]

The difference I see is that pulling the lever for the trolley directly guarantees the killing of the one person and is the only possible alternative outcome,

The difference is rather artificial. Presumably if the pilot’s option were to select a fixed steering option that directed him to a housing estate rather than a crowded CBD, we’d say this mirrors the trolley precisely and so the pilot can’t take that step. But, his certainty about deaths on the ground may be no different regardless of whether he turns the plane manually or selects a fixed destination. He knows the outcomes of either evasive choice is death (of some other innocents) on the ground.

By the way, whether or not the threatening events are set in motion by an evildoer, or misfortune, would seem to be of no relevance.

I cannot envision the pilot scenario being able to be constrained enough to where the choice was equivalent to that in the trolley scenario.

The trolley is somewhat more deterministic in that the path and the particular innocent(s) to die are are known with precision from the outset. The plane, not running on a track, leaves us able to imagine that other potential outcomes are possible. But if the pilot knows there are not, if he knows it only a matter of which/how many innocents will die, then the difference between the two would seem superficial.

I guess another way to say it is the plane is being steered with variable and unpredictable potential outcomes, where the trolley is not being steered; it is more a selection of an alternate, but exact outcome.

The outcome is only less predictable because you imagine (and will) it to be so. The pilot may (and I assert, does) know better.

 

[Rau]

I’m curious if we reversed the trolley situation if anyone’s answers might be different…

Let’s say that the trolley is heading toward track A, but now there is only one person tied to the track. You have only one potential option, which is to pull the lever to divert the trolley to track B, but there are four people tied to the tracks.

If you choose not to act, the trajectory remains the same and the one person is guaranteed to die. If you choose to act and pull the lever, then the one person is saved, but the four people who would otherwise have not been at risk of death are now guaranteed to die.

In this model, it would be wrong to pull the lever regardless which of my 2 models of analysis one accepts.

My first model would claim a good moral object in saving the one, and a good intention. But the foreseen consequences are more harm than good, so acting is wrong.

My second model sees a good intention but 2 moral objects in pulling the lever: save 1 - good; kill 4 - bad. Thus we may not act. [And clearly one does not steer the plain from the farm house to the hotel!]

 

[Rau]

The only scenario I can recall being mentioned in this thread that is accurately analogous to the trolley is the “fatman stuck in the cave entrance” scenario brought up by @gorgias.

This is not quite the same. In this case, the death of the fat man is itself the saving of the others. In the trolley the 4 are first saved, though the death of the other flows from the means. There is no question that blowing up the fat man has an evil moral object. Whether switching the track of the trolley has an evil moral object is the very matter in debate.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

This is not quite the same. In this case, the death of the fat man is itself the saving of the others. In the trolley the 4 are first saved, though the death of the other flows from the means. There is no question that blowing up the fat man has an evil moral object. Whether switching the track of the trolley has an evil moral object is the very matter in debate.

I guess it comes down to the degree of separation between your action and the consequence then?

To me both actions are the same: pull a lever to save four or lite some dynamite to save four, man dies by being run over by trolley, man dies by dynamite exploding.

Your intent in both is to save the four, one by changing the track, the other by clearing the cave opening. The death of both the tied up man and the fat man is a undesirable consequence.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

My second model sees a good intention but 2 moral objects in pulling the lever: save 1 - good; kill 4 - bad. Thus we may not act.

This is the model guiding my analysis of these scenarios.

If the plane situation were truly limited in a way to where the plane was locked on autopilot heading towards a highly populated area (skyscraper?) guaranteed to kill many and the only option of control available to the pilot is to push a button that switches the the locked autopilot trajectory directly toward a less populated area (farmhouse?) guaranteed to kill only a few, i would say it would be wrong to switch the trajectory.

You would be taking action that would directly result in the killing of innocent people who were otherwise not at risk of death. If the highly populated area element were removed, it would be an immoral act to deliberately crash the aircraft directly into the less populated area. The addition of the intention of saving the people in the highly populated area does not change the objective immorality of the act of deliberately crash the aircraft directly into the less populated area.

I would say the only moral option for the pilot would be to fight to regain control of the aircraft till his last breath. And to pray!

 

[Rau]

I

I guess it comes down to the degree of separation between your action and the consequence then?

Kind of. We know from the description of the principle of double effect that if a sought after good arises only from the death of an innocent which we have caused, then moral evil is evident. But we know there are cases where an act we take causes the death of an innocent and quite in parallel saves others, and the act is a good act. It is the moral directness of our act and the death of the innocent that matters. If we rely on the death of the innocent (eg, the Fatman), then the action and result were morally direct. Cancer treatment for a mother may cause her unborn to die, but that is not murder because the medical treatment is not morally directed toward the unborn.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m curious if we reversed the trolley situation if anyone’s answers might be different…

Great approach!

In this model, it would be wrong to pull the lever regardless which of my 2 models of analysis one accepts.

My first model would claim …

My second model …

OK… so, basically, you’re saying that you don’t approach morality from the perspective of Catholic teaching. Fair enough. Does that mean we’re done here, then?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

But we know there are cases where an act we take causes the death of an innocent and quite in parallel saves others, and the act is a good act. It is the moral directness of our act and the death of the innocent that matters

This leads me to a few questions:

Does the indirectness of the killing of an innocent only affect the morality of the act that leads to the killing, or does it also affect the morality of choosing not to kill the innocent?

Does the level of moral directness/indirectness alter the morality of the choice of inaction?

How indirect must the killing of an innocent be before it renders immoral the option of inaction?

At what point do we become morally compelled to take action that directly leads to the death of an innocent?

 

[Rau]

OK… so, basically, you’re saying that you don’t approach morality from the perspective of Catholic teaching. Fair enough. Does that mean we’re done here, then?

Did you want to discuss the subject matter or me?

 

[Rau]

Does the indirectness of the killing of an innocent only affect the morality of the act that leads to the killing, or does it also affect the morality of choosing not to kill the innocent?

The alternative act you refer to is - in this context - a mother choosing not to have treatment for her condition till after birth of child. She may do that. Delaying may of course prejudice her treatment to her personal peril.

At what point do we become morally compelled to take action that directly leads to the death of an innocent?

Are you proposing that a mother may not seek medical treatment if that treatment would kill her baby?

 

[Ender]

I already responded to the pilot scenario earlier, but the pilot’s choice is not just a “one lever pull and done” action, and the consequences are not certain until the point that the pilot has completely lost the ability to control the aircraft.

Until he has completely lost control he still has choices. It is those choices that are at issue.

He would ideally be steering away from the more populated area, not at a less populated area. He wouldn’t steer away from the more populated area then aim the plane directly at someone’s house.

When the pilot steers away from the populated area he also steers toward the less populated area; he cannot do one and not the other. Of course he’s not aiming at a specific house, but he has made the decision to lessen the carnage by crashing in the suburbs. Even aside from the passengers he knows others will die when the plane hits. Has he committed an evil act by choosing to kill fewer people in (e.g.) Queens than to kill more in Manhattan?