Runaway trolley problem

[Ender]

I am not sure that it is responsible to go around murdering an innocent ;person.

I’m pretty sure that no one actually struggles with this question. The issue is whether or not the death of the one that results from throwing the switch is a matter of murder. Simply asserting that it is doesn’t really add to the discussion.

 

[Rau]

The issue is whether or not the death of the one that results from throwing the switch is a matter of murder. Simply asserting that it is doesn’t really add to the discussion.

An innocent person not in any danger was killed by an action knowingly chosen and ordered [train —> Track —> innocent person] to that end. The definition of murder, no?

 

[Ender]

An innocent person not in any danger was killed by an action knowingly chosen and ordered [train —> Track —> innocent person] to that end. The definition of murder, no?

No, it is not. Innocent people were killed in virtually all of the bombing raids in WWII, actions that were knowingly chosen. Their deaths were as inevitable as that of the person on the track.

The operation that saves the mother’s life also takes the life of her fetus. That act was deliberately chosen and the consequence as inevitable as in the trolley case.

Your position is essentially a repudiation of the concept of PODE.

 

[Rau]

Your position is essentially a repudiation of the concept of PODE.

No, it comes back to you declining to see the same moral objects as I do in the case of the trolley. Were the death of the innocent not a moral object, PODE (which is nothing nothing more than correct analysis of the fonts) would yield a positive view on the act.

 

[AlNg]

The issue is whether or not the death of the one that results from throwing the switch is a matter of murder.

This seems like the type of reasoning that led the laughing gunman Anders Behring Breivik to gun down and kill 85 young victims, one by one. And laughing all the time? He cheered and shouted you all must die? Why? Because he was saving Norway and Europe from the workers youth league, feminist ideology and Islamic terrorism? So under your reasoning, he wasn’t murdering anyone, because he acted to save others? Is the death of the 85, which was done to save others, a matter of murder or not? He was only pulling the trigger to save others, so he really wasn’t murdering anyone? It was wrong and irresponsible for the laughing gunman to kill 85 innocent people to save many others and similarly it would be wrong and irresponsible for someone to pull a lever to kill one innocent person to save four others.

 

[BlackFriar]

Do you think any sane person would be laughing if they threw the switch. Hence poor comparision…to say nothing of the remoteness of his assumed consequences.

I dont think you are really considering the views of those whose conclusion you disagree with but just keep running with your own unrelated principles.

 

[AlNg]

Do you think any sane person would be laughing if they threw the switch.

Hence poor comparision.

It is also insane to think that it is responsible to murder one person to save the other four.
He was cheering because he thought he was acting responsibly. His intent was to save Europeans from horror.

 

[BlackFriar]

As Ender also notes, the fact you keep using the word murder when your protagonists have explained why that is not easily said …and you seem unprepared to discuss that point…basically means you are not engaging but simply interrupting. So long as you keep doing so I dont think anybody will engage you further.

 

[Ender]

No, it comes back to you declining to see the same moral objects as I do in the case of the trolley. Were the death of the innocent not a moral object, PODE (which is nothing nothing more than correct analysis of the fonts) would yield a positive view on the act.

There is only one moral object of an act, regardless of the number of consequences that result from it. There can be only one primary end, and it is no more appropriate to say the death of the one is a moral object of throwing the switch than to claim the death of the four is a moral object of not throwing it.

The deaths are neither the ends nor the objects, they are consequences, but at least be consistent. If death is an object in one case it is equally an object in the other.

 

[Rau]

There is only one moral object of an act, regardless of the number of consequences that result from it.

This claim about the principals of moral theology ought to be supportable by other than your own assertion. And in any case, since you gave up on identifying the moral object, how can you decide that the deprivation of life from this innocent is not it?

If death is an object in one case it is equally an object in the other.

That’s a wrong assertion. 2 Acts both see a death of innocent(s) in the consequence. This does not mean both acts must have the deprivation of life of an innocent as moral object not even in the “either/or” structure of the trolley.

Here is a treatment of the “inaction” act from the Link I provided earlier to Conte’s trolley analysis.

“The act of omission, that is to say, the decision to refrain from pulling the lever, has the good intention to avoid killing an innocent, and has the good moral object of refraining from an intrinsically evil act. The consequences of this act of omission would seem to be bad, since four lives are lost and only one is saved. But consequences include more than a simple accounting of lives lost. The moral weight of lost lives depends on how proximate or remote the deaths are to the chosen act.
If you do not pull the lever, four lives are lost, and only one is saved. But the saved life is proximate to the decision not to act, whereas the four lost lives are remote from the same decision. You did not place those persons on the track, nor direct the trolley toward them. The situation which endangers their lives is not of your making, so the consequences of their deaths is reduced in moral weight, by being removed from your act. Furthermore, you cannot save them without committing an intrinsically evil act, that is to say, without sinning gravely, and this reduces the moral weight of their deaths further. So the font of consequences is actually good.”

The reliance on identifying the moral object(s) of acts remains.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Runaway Trolley

@Vico - I can’t tell from your response whether you assert it is moral to pull the lever or not. Can you clarify.

Throwing the switch is intended to do good, not to intentionally kill another, which death is unintentional. Throw the switch to save four people.

 

[o_mlly]

No, it is not. Innocent people were killed in virtually all of the bombing raids in WWII, actions that were knowingly chosen. Their deaths were as inevitable as that of the person on the track.

If you (still) attempt to draw a parallel moral dilemma between the trolley and the bomber then you must change the bystander status from bystander to prosecutor of a just war and let us know how many unjust aggressors are tied (or not) to which track.

The operation that saves the mother’s life also takes the life of her fetus. That act was deliberately chosen and the consequence as inevitable as in the trolley case.

Remember, in a tubal pregnancy the lives of both mother and child are in danger (both are tied to the track, so to speak). The surgeon’s foreseeable ends are: No action (operation), two die. Act (perform operation), only one dies. The surgeon ought to act. However, the surgery he may perform must not directly kill the child. No one may ever kill an innocent person.

Your position is essentially a repudiation of the concept of PODE.

No. The first principle requires the act be good. You have incorrectly tired to categorize the act as neutral. In the OP’s scenario, the actor foresees an end to the act as killing an innocent person. If an end is foreseen then that end is also willed. A good intention (the primary end willed) cannot change the act’s moral object from evil to good.

> CCC #1737 For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

I know this won’t change your mind but perhaps others will.

 

[Rau]

In the OP’s scenario, the actor foresees an end to the act as killing an innocent person. If an end is foreseen then that end is also willed.

I believe the “directness” from act to the death of the innocent is a key factor. The act chosen (by virtue of the structure of the problem) is precisely aligned to killing the innocent - the death cannot be seen as mere side-effect. Were someone desiring the death of the one - he should pull the lever! The evil of that act lies in the moral object, as well as the Intention.

 

[Melchior_1]

This is often explored with Batman, who is a “Technical Pacifist”. Some disagree with his “no killing” code, but Batman inevitably brings up the point that “will it stop at one”? You kill the Joker, who is an obvious deranged psychopath. Do you then kill Bane, a murderer who is tactical mastermind with drug-enhanced strength? Do you kill Falcone, whose nothing more than a crime boss? Do you kill Dent, who may not even be culpable for his actions due to a clear case of mental instability and/or multiple personalities? Do you kill Kite-Man, roped into a bad situation due to his engineering skills?

Once the line is crossed, the descent to darkness often begins. For this reason, among others, I usually side with “the end never justifies the means”.

 

[jcm2017]

“The god of the philosophers”.
Which is not the true God. The true God is real, not one of endless speculation. God is the source and end of moral evaluations. He reveals himself and is found in good faith, not in vain searching for legalistic “gotchas”.
For all the supposed open minded tolerance of atheism, it still reveals itself as a face of fundamentalism.

 

[JustLamb]

How would the stance change if:

The three were atheists
The one were Catholic?

It is a Catholic with the lever…

 

[o_mlly]

I believe the “directness” from act to the death of the innocent is a key factor. The act chosen (by virtue of the structure of the problem) is precisely aligned to killing the innocent - the death cannot be seen as mere side-effect. Were someone desiring the death of the one - he should pull the lever! The evil of that act lies in the moral object, as well as the Intention.

A direct killing is a direct attempt on the life of an innocent person. Throwing the switch targets, that is, directly attempts to kill an innocent person and is immoral.

 

[Scowler]

How would the stance change if:

The three were atheists

The one were Catholic?

It is a Catholic with the lever…

It is fun to play with these hypotheticals. Suppose that the person on the “default” track is a cardinal, or maybe even the pope. If nothing is done, the trolley would kill him. And on the track there are a couple of “evil” atheists. If you change the course, then they will be run over… and YOU (a good catholic) is the one who must decide who will live and who will die. How would you choose?

Or maybe the one on the “default” track is you child, and on the other track are your enemies, who put your child on the track? Would you allow your child to die?

These thought experiment are great fun, and they allow you to do some soul-searching… IF you are up to the task. Most people shy away from these challenges.

 

[JustLamb]

Your premises are easy.

The cardinal and the pope are already saved and will go to heaven. If they are squashed the atheists might convert, or at least they are still alive to be converted. There is the potential by killing the pope to save more souls.

If the child is baptised, again it is saved and goes to heaven. Same potential applies.

In my example squash the three saved Catholics in favour of the potential saving of one atheist soul.

Is that not Catholic teaching? Leave the 99 sheep to find the one?

 

[Rau]

A direct killing is a direct attempt on the life of an innocent person. Throwing the switch targets, that is, directly attempts to kill an innocent person and is immoral.

That was my point. You posted earlier:

If an end is foreseen then that end is also willed.

I suspect some will read this and think you mean that merely foreseeing the death (which may be consequence, not moral object) determines the action as a “direct killing”. In the trolley, the death of the one innocent is the moral object, inherent to the act chosen (and of course foreseen too) so it is more than mere consequence, though this is what Ender disputes. This is also what distinguishes the trolley from other (so called) double effect cases - in which bad ends are foreseen too, but in those cases they are side-effects and not inherent to the act.