Runaway trolley problem

[Ender]

Frankly, I’m undecided regarding the circular track, seeing 2 arguments.

The problem with the circular track situation is that it is identical to the situation with operating on an ectopic pregnancy, which the church allows. If you acknowledge this, however, the arguments you’ve applied in the OP trolley case are defeated.

Yes, I am telling you the electrocution is set to kill at just the same time that the diverting track renders the four save. I introduced it to help you see that a mere difference of timing is all that separates the OP from an obviously intentional killing of an innocent.

Yes, the amount of time is not the critical distinction. In the case of the electrician, the object is to electrocute someone, and that makes the object immoral. In your example the death is intentional; in the trolley case it is not.

We foresaw his death, his death is directly caused by our action, and we voluntarily chose the act anyway.

All true, and all just as true of the surgeon.

 

[Rau]

The surgeon’s deliberate (voluntary) act directly causes an innocent person’s death. What is true of one situation is true of both.

Ender there is ample literature describing these medical scenarios and cases which are direct vs indirect are distinguished. The death of the unborn ectopic baby is direct or indirect according to the treatment selected. Could you research this question further and reassess your position.

 

[Ender]

Ender there is ample literature describing these medical scenarios and cases which are direct vs indirect are distinguished. Could you research this question further and reassess your position.

No. If there is something you think makes your point then you find and cite it. I’ve already provided a citation that supports my argument. Provide one that supports yours, if you can find one.

 

[Rau]

In the case of the electrician, the object is to electrocute someone, and that makes the object immoral. In your example the death is intentional; in the trolley case it is not.

This is just an assertion. There is no reasoning. Whether throwing the switch electrocutes the innocent or hurles a trolley at him (in addition to rendering the 4 safe) makes no moral difference.

 

[Rau]

No. If there is something you think makes your point then you find and cite it. I’ve already provided a citation that supports my argument. Provide one that supports yours, if you can find one.

I gave you what was easily found - several Conte articles.

What did you cite that underpins your understanding of direct/indirect?

 

[o_mlly]

The surgeon’s deliberate (voluntary) act directly causes an innocent person’s death. What is true of one situation is true of both.

Your arguments wrongly equivocate agency that aims to act on the victim him/herself as the obstacle or difficulty from agency that aims to directly act on an object as the obstacle or difficulty that accidentally contains a victim. The former is direct agency, the latter is indirect agency.

In Catholic teaching there is a moral difference between crushing the skull of the fetus (directly) so as to save the mother’s life versus removing the fetus (indirectly) in the course of removing the cancerous uterus so as to save the mother’s life. In your view, it appears the morality of both acts is identical.

 

[o_mlly]

Are we allowed to directly kill a person in those cases where we see he will soon die in any event? If life may be taken where it will soon be lost then what is the problem with euthanasia?

No. Are we allowed to indirectly kill a person in cases where an offsetting proportional good effect is foreseen? Maybe, if the case meets the other three PODE principles then the answer is, Yes.

 

[Ender]

This is just an assertion. There is no reasoning. Whether throwing the switch electrocutes the innocent or hurles a trolley at him (in addition to rendering the 4 safe) makes no moral difference.

The electrocution was your condition, not mine; it’s not my assertion, it’s yours.

 

[Ender]

I gave you what was easily found - several Conte articles.

I’m not doing your work for you. You find a relevant quote and cite it, and I’ll respond to it.

What did you cite that underpins your understanding of direct/indirect?

I’m not wedded to any definition. I’ve told you before, I’m just looking for a clear definition, whoever provides it.

 

[Rau]

The electrocution was your condition, not mine; it’s not my assertion, it’s yours.

To help you see an equivalence. Are you going to even think about what follows from that post? Why is electrocution or hurling a missile different?

 

[Ender]

Your arguments wrongly equivocate agency that aims to act on the victim him/herself as the obstacle or difficulty from agency that aims to directly act on an object as the obstacle or difficulty that accidentally contains a victim. The former is direct agency, the latter is indirect agency.

And we’re back with the Whack-a-mole situation of the proliferation of terms. When one term proves inadequate, another one pops up. Let’s at least be clear: the death of the victim is an inevitable consequence of the act. It is not some accident.

In Catholic teaching there is a moral difference between crushing the skull of the fetus (directly) so as to save the mother’s life versus removing the fetus (indirectly) in the course of removing the cancerous uterus so as to save the mother’s life. In your view, it appears the morality of both acts is identical.

Speak for yourself as best you can; you certainly are not qualified to speak for me. The two acts are clearly not morally equivalent.

The problem with your description is with the use of “indirectly”. It is indirect only in the sense that it is unwanted. It is certainly not indirect in terms of inevitably resulting from the act of surgery. This is why it is allowed under PODE: the evil result is unwanted even though it is unavoidable. The same is true, however, of the trolley case. The death of the innocent is unwanted even though it is unavoidable.

 

[Ender]

To help you see an equivalence. Are you going to even think about what follows from that post? Why is electrocution or hurling a missile different?

No more new situations. Don’t we already have enough to discuss? Deal with the circular track situation; don’t just invent new ones.

 

[Rau]

I’m not wedded to any definition. I’ve told you before, I’m just looking for a clear definition, whoever provides it.

Oh, now I remember. You proposed the definition yourself. I provided one too, other posters concur with it. And I provided references to a third party (theologically trained). Seems I’ve done as much as you, maybe more?

 

[Rau]

No more new situations.

It’s hardly very new. I just varied the weapon of death. Still initiated by the same well-intentioned bystander in the same action that also saves.

O_mlly gave you a response to your quite new situation. I lean the other way but am not resolved in my mind. [Yes, I’m prone to overthinking.]. Will you examine the variation of the OP I described and identify any moral distinction between it and the OP?

 

[o_mlly]

The problem with your description is with the use of “indirectly”. It is indirect only in the sense that it is unwanted.

There you go again, confusing the fonts of object and intention. Please spend some more time mastering these moral concepts as that lack is apparently the source of your “whack-a-mole” difficulty.

Please note that if another uses the adverb “apparently” in reflecting an idea then one gives their own perspective.

You are not going to like this but you have to read it.
https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/5014/4916/3486/NCBCsummFAQ_Maternal-FetalConflicts.pdf

Morally Illicit Direct Abortion
• Interventions that directly target the body-person of the child for destruction, such as curettage abortion and craniotomy, constitute direct abortions and are intrinsically evil.

 

[Rau]

The problem with your description is with the use of “indirectly”. It is indirect only in the sense that it is unwanted. It is certainly not indirect in terms of inevitably resulting from the act of surgery. This is why it is allowed under PODE: the evil result is unwanted even though it is unavoidable. The same is true, however, of the trolley case. The death of the innocent is unwanted even though it is unavoidable.

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.

 

[Elf01]

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.

This seems to work in the etopic pregnancy scenario:

If there is no baby in the tube and it is about to rupture you remove the tube.
Removing baby alone does not apply here (no baby to remove)
Same with the injection.

It also seems to allow removal of a womb for the same reason (it would be removed if there was not a baby there).

Any comments on that principal?

 

[Rau]

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.

The “abortions” involved in tube removal, or indeed womb removal [assumed medical necessities] are correctly termed “indirect” abortions. Those procedures are themselves directed at the mother’s body - it’s health - not destruction of the child. Given the side-effects are certainly not intended, but rather only tolerated, the acts are moral (nor evil moral object nor morally evil intention).

 

[Rau]

The death of the fetus is a direct and inevitable consequence of the operation. If this wasn’t so it wouldn’t be necessary to invoke the principle of double effect to justify it.

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.

 

[Rau]

Suppose the track after the switch is a circle, and the switch only determines whether the trolley goes around clockwise or counterclockwise…

The switch is set to send the trolley around to the right - counterclockwise. One third of the way around the track in that direction an infant’s mother is caught on the track. One third of the way around in the other direction a car is stopped on the track, with the woman’s infant child inside. When the trolley hits the car it will derail.

So, if the trolley continues around as the switch is set, it will first strike and kill the mother, and continue on until it hits the car, killing the infant, derailing and stopping. If, however, the switch is thrown, the trolley will go around clockwise and strike the car first. Again, the child will be killed, but the car will derail the trolley and the mother will be saved.

This is my current thinking on the the circular trolley problem and I also contrast it with the original trolley problem and euthanasia.

In the original trolley case, we act wrongly by throwing the lever because our act directly brings 1 innocent into harm’s way – it lethally targets him (who prior to our act was safe). This assessment is unchanged whether the innocent is killed upon throwing the lever (eg. electrocution) or shortly thereafter (eg. by the moving trolley). Whether the death is ‘contemporaneous’ with the action, follows the action in a microsecond or in 5 seconds does not change the (life-depriving) moral evil inherent in, and introduced by, the act.

In the circular trolley, the act targeting the baby (and mother) is committed by others prior to any act of ours. The proposed act to reverse the direction of the trolley adds/introduces no moral evil (a statement we cannot make re: the original trolley problem) – it does bring forward the death of the baby (and saves the mother). It is difficult to see that there is moral evil in this act given we did not perform an act that introduced threat to the baby.

But is the shortening of the elapsed time till baby’s death unjustifiable in the sense that Euthanasia – being morally evil – is unjustifiable and shortens life (which Ender suggests)? I don’t think it is - in the latter case, the act that kills is our own eg. the giving of a drug. In the circular trolley, there is a time-compression but the life-depriving act pre-existed - we did not introduce it (viz a viz the innocent) as we did in the original trolley.

Imagine the circular trolley with no mother on the track – just the baby – but all other details as Ender specified. Is the evil inherent in the act that sets the trolley in motion any different according to where on the track the baby is placed? I don’t believe so. Is there evil in changing the direction in which the trolley circulates (altering the time of death) – I don’t believe so. These remarks are all in the context of this “unreal” scenario – in the real-world we’d be making arguments that deferring the collision was good because it provides time to effect rescue. That is meaningless in the hypothetical world.