Runaway trolley problem

[Ender]

Cont…

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.

The act sends the trolley directly at the baby in the car. It is exactly the same act as in the original case: the trolley is directed at an innocent person. The actions are morally identical as the actions themselves are identical.

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.

The fact is that the embryo’s days are numbered as well, but that doesn’t justify aborting it. If it is immoral to directly destroy the embryo then it is equally immoral to directly destroy the infant. You cannot justify one killing and cavil at the other.

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.

That’s a clever change, but I disagree with your conclusion: it would be immoral to throw the switch if that hastens the death. To argue otherwise is to provide justification for euthanasia.

 

[Ender]

Act and action are not the same.

If I understand your distinction it is that the action includes the act (object), the intent, and the circumstances.

And “proximate” is not about timing.

I think that is an aspect of it. Proximate means immediate, the first and immediate consequence of the act.

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.

I have said that in every scenario regarding trolleys the object is the same: throw the switch to reroute the trolley. Rerouting the trolley is the proximate end of the act of throwing the switch. What comes as a result of that act goes to the intent, not the object. Why something is done is relevant, but distinct from what was done.

 

[Ender]

I equate throwing a switch with squeezing a trigger. No moral content in either of THOSE descriptions. Further, I assert a trolley on tracks that point somewhere to be comparable to a gun pointing somewhere, and I compare a man fixed to tracks comparable to a man being in the sights of that gun.

Yes, I understand your position. Our disagreement is over this exact point.

Now, justify your position above with the positions you have taken with regard to the circular track scenario, and with the alteration you made where only the infant is on the tracks. If throwing the switch is like shooting someone in the head then why have you justified doing it in other situations?

 

[Ender]

Did you miss the part in the OP’s case that throwing the switch kills an innocent person?

How is this different than the operation? In that case as well an innocent person dies. Nor is it accurate to say that throwing a switch kills someone. The act of throwing the switch does not kill anyone. The death flows from the act, but is not in the act itself.

You misunderstand the meaning of “proximate.” The proximate ends to the act are all moral outcomes directly or indirectly caused by the act.

According to JPII this is not accurate. An act has one proximate end, not multiple ones. The other consequences flow from the intent, not the object. The proximate end of poisoning someone is cause death, regardless of how long it takes, or even if it actually occurs. The proximate end of throwing the switch is to redirect the trolley, it certainly does not include the end (proximate, or otherwise) of killing someone.

In this same erroneous manner, another might extend the absurdity by further physically reducing the object as “throw the switch to move the track”…

The physical act is throwing the switch, the proximate end is to redirect the trolley. Killing someone is no part of the end (intent) of the act.

 

[o_mlly]

How is this different than the operation?

The cases are substantially different. In the OP’s trolley case there is no equivalent to the moral agency of the mother. In the operation, the mother is the primary moral agent whose consent authorizes the surgeon to operate. The moral object of the mother’s act to undergo surgery is to save her own life. Who authorizes the bystander whose life is not at risk to throw the switch?

Nor is it accurate to say that throwing a switch kills someone. The act of throwing the switch does not kill anyone. The death flows from the act, but is not in the act itself.

(I suppose you use the word “flows” in this context as synonymous with “indirect.”)

It is quite accurate to write that throwing the switch directly (in se) kills just as pulling the trigger directly (in se) kills. Perhaps to the coroner (physicalist), throwing the switch does not kill but it would not be so to the detective (moralist) who must go beyond the merely physical evidence to determine if the act is criminal (immoral).

We agree that:

• the physical cause of death is blunt force trauma.
• the trolley caused the blunt force trauma.
• throwing the switch causes the trolley to impact the innocent man.
• the bystander foresaw this outcome.

If not “throwing the switch” directly causes the death then what is the in se cause of death?

If one persists (wrongly) to claim that the in se cause of death is merely the physical evil of a trolley impact then even that act which re-directs the trolley is in its object immoral as one may not put another’s life in direct danger and one may not do evil that good may come of it.

According to JPII this is not accurate. An act has one proximate end, not multiple ones.

No, I think JP II agrees. Logically, that an act has one proximate end does necessarily mean that an act cannot have more than one proximate end.

The other consequences flow from the intent, not the object.

Again, a basic misunderstanding of the fonts. Consequences ordinarily belong to the third font of circumstances, not to the font of intention. As noted in prior posts, consequences that change the moral object collapse into the first font of object.

 

[Rau]

This act is immoral. The deliberate electrocution of an innocent person is immoral regardless of reason.

The weapon of death matters not. Just as choosing an act which kills by electricity (typically causes heart failure), choosing an act which kills by trolley (typically causes decapitation) is immoral. Both acts are direct attacks on innocents (despite desiring no death at all), and both were motivated by the same good intent.

The entire original problem could have employed electricity instead of trolleys. The pre-existing situation may have been that in 2 mins a fatal electric shock was to be applied to the 4. A switch is available that changes the course of the electricity such that it bypasses the 4 and is directed to the 1. Do I understand you will allow the 4 to die now because causing death by electricity is not something you are prepared to do, but decapitation by trolley is OK? Or will you tell us that the moral object is now not electrocution but “redirect the electricity”, conveniently ignoring the moral content?

 

[Rau]

Electrocuting someone involves an evil object. Throwing the switch does not.

The action in both cases is “throwing the switch”. The difference is merely in your descriptive language.

You describe one act as electrocution - capturing the fullness of the act. You describe the other as “throwing the switch” - a sterile and limited description of a physical action with no moral content. I understand why you do this - if you allow moral content (protection of life) to be introduced into the object of the action “throwing the switch”, you cannot justify ignoring the deprivation of life (since it is equally direct given the symmetry of the problem). So you omit it all.

Knowingly (deliberately, voluntarily) throwing a switch that directly kills innocents by any technology - bullet aimed at a head, electricity connected to a body, or trolley directed precisely at a man on the track - involves an evil object.

 

[Rau]

As I understand the distinction, removing the embryo from the fallopian tube constitutes an immoral act; it is an abortion. The action is the direct cause of death. Removing part of the fallopian tube itself, however, is not immoral because in that case the death is indirectly caused by the operation. Even though the death is foreseen and the result is inevitable, because the death is indirect and not intended, the action is moral.

I believe, for the first time on this thread, you have acknowledged the proper application of “indirect”. The act to remove the tube is an inherently good act (it has a good moral object - directly treating the mother) and the death of the baby is indirect. The latter is in the consequences only, and thus may be weighed alongside other consequences.

Our problem on this thread - whether entailing trolleys or electricity - is not analogous because the act which is morally good (which directly saves) also directly kills (as a consequence of the structure/symmetry of the problem). The one we might kill was never in danger and was brought into danger and dies directly and solely by our act.

 

[davidv]

The major problem on this thread is the lack of agreement on what the moral object is.
This is my analysis.
The act: Throwing the switch, or not, to avoid the death of four instead of one.
The object: Throwing the switch to redirect, or not, the path of the trolley
The intent: Save four
The consequences: One loses their life.

Given this, my conclusion is that the least culpable act is inaction. The moral wrong is on the one who tied the victims on the tracks, not anyone else put who is unjustly put in the no win situation.

 

[Scowler]

The major problem on this thread is the lack of agreement on what the moral object is.

This is my analysis.
The act: Throwing the switch, or not, to avoid the death of four instead of one.
The object: Throwing the switch to redirect, or not, the path of the trolley
The intent: Save four
The consequences: One loses their life.

Given this, my conclusion is that the least culpable act is inaction. The moral wrong is on the one who tied the victims on the tracks, not anyone else put who is unjustly put in the no win situation.

Not a bad analysis. The problem is that you use the same argument for both the “act” and the “object” - which is confusing.

The whole “tied to the track” is unneeded “fluff”. The same problem arises if there are 4 people on the track, involved in deep conversation, oblivious of the danger. There is one person on the other track, also unaware of the possible danger. No one can be blamed for the scenario. You are the only one who knows what will happen, but you are unable to warn the others (for whatever reason).

You can either throw the switch, or not. What will you do?

 

[davidv]

Please look again. Act and object are not described the same.

 

[Scowler]

Please look again. Act and object are not described the same.

You described the two aspects of the same action.

 

[davidv]

Please explain what you mean.

 

[Rau]

The act: Throwing the switch, or not, to avoid the death of four instead of one.

The one is in no danger. You chose to bring him into danger. The killing of the 1 is no less direct than the saving. This is evident from the symmetry of the tracks. You knowingly choose an act that by its nature kills (a man in no danger) and saves 4 in danger. You needed to choose an act absent moral evil. Eg stop the tram or remove the 4. None existed. C’est la vie.

The moral object you nominate is of the physical order only - without moral content. It cannot be morally judged.

 

[davidv]

Why must the object contain moral content?

 

[Rau]

Why must the object contain moral content?

So that its goodness can be assessed.

 

[davidv]

Why can the goodness of the following statement not be assessed?
“Throwing the switch to redirect, or not, the path of the trolley.”

We are to evaluate whether there is anything good or evil inherent in this object. My analysis says it is morally neutral. Rail switch yard workers do this every day. Hopefully without committing a moral evil.

 

[Rau]

My analysis says it is morally neutral.

There is no moral good or moral evil in a description which is purely of the physical order. The description is incomplete. There are no “neutral” moral objects. They are called moral objects and evaluate as morally good (consistent with love of God and love of neighbour) or morally evil (inconsistent with those ends). For a good act, the object font is wholly good. It must contain no moral evil.

 

[Rau]

Rail switch yard workers do this every day.

When you incorporate moral content, moral assessment is possible. The topic is the morality of human acts, not the physical nature of physical acts.

 

[davidv]

Would you for my benefit, state explicitly what you believe to be the moral object in the trolley problem? I scanned your posts in this thread and could not find that it was stated clearly.