Three moral dilemmas

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t change the problem one single bit. I just thought of a solution you didn’t think of. It was there all along.

 

[Economist]

I didn’t change the problem one single bit. I just thought of a solution you didn’t think of. It was there all along.

Not really, but if you try to jiggle the switch, chances you are that you will kill all the people. Is that better? The problem is that the scenario must be analyzed as it is presented. Cannot invoke a “deus ex machina”, like they did in the old Greek tragedies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh, no. You do not get to add anything to the problem at this point. You don’t want us to change the problem. You shouldn’t change it either.

 

[runningdude]

OK. Then doing nothing absolves you of any moral culpability. Have I got that right?

No. This is a hypothetical situation. In it, you are compelled to do something. Given this compulsion, there is no moral culpability. Having no choice not to act absolves you of moral culpability.

This is the nature of a hypothetical. It can dictate the premises exactly. If you are are forced to do one of two things, and people will die either way, you are not morally at fault. There is no option not to act in the premise. The option does not exist.

The hypothetical represented this as a “moral dilemma”. It is not, however, a moral dilemma, because there is no moral choice. If it were meant to illustrate a dilemma, then the premise is flawed.

 

[chercheur]

If every possible act is evil, then you cannot choose a non-evil act. Simple.

In Catholic moral theology, whether an action is “evil” is not determined solely by consequences. So choosing to do nothing is not necessarily an evil act just because it will lead to bad consequences.

It seems to me that in the Catholic view, killing an “innocent” person is wrong in itself, while allowing deaths to occur through inaction may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances (e.g. whether they could be lawfully and reasonably prevented). If the only way to prevent evil is to commit an act that is itself evil, then it’s not wrong to not prevent it. While there are “lesser” evils, it’s still not permitted to actually commit evil.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

if there is no other solution?

There is always other solutions in all situations

To kill one person indiscriminately in order to save many indiscriminately is impermissible.

Scenario like this does not really represent real cases. There should be real life cases bring up as the discussion context.

For example a person is contracted with Aids in 1980s there was no medicine for Aids at the time. Did we execute those who contracted Aids in 1980s in order that Aids would not spread? No.

 

[Gorgias]

If every possible act is evil, then you cannot choose a non-evil act. Simple.

That’s the point: “choosing to not commit an evil act” is not itself an evil act. Therefore, it is not the case that “every possible act is evil”. One, here, is not. Simple.

On the other hand, @Ender points out something you seem to be missing: “that every possible act may be harmful does not mean that every possible act will be evil.”

These are all the possibilities.

Regardless, you’re still setting up a straw man and attempting to tell me that I hold for something that I do not assert:

According to you, it is moral to use the necessary force against the lion, but not against the insane person. The mentally sick person can be substituted with someone who is simply ignorant, who is also innocent of malice, and then you are forbidden to use the necessary force to defend against the impending harm?

Not so.

You may use ‘necessary force’, without the intent to kill (although that might come to pass), in order to defend yourself or another. I don’t get where you think that’s immoral.

Every time when there is no argument the “straw man” or “red herring” is presented.

No: rather, every time you present a straw man, I’ll point it out to you.

If you had a rational argument, you could have presented it.

No: if you represented my stand accurately, then we wouldn’t be in this spiral.

These “games” are much older than either one of us. The rules have been created. Your answer is at least “uncharitable” or worse.

Meh. If the rules are nonsensical, then they’re nonsensical and so is the game. That’s not “lack of charity”, that’s “presence of rationality”.

In that case Kirk’s response was counter to the purpose of the test, as they didn’t get to evaluate his character under those trying circumstances.

I disagree: they were able to evaluate it more effectively than they’d evaluated anyone else – they learned that he possessed a critical leadership trait (“don’t accept defeat; find a possible solution where none seem to exist”).

 

[Economist]

In Catholic moral theology, whether an action is “evil” is not determined solely by consequences. So choosing to do nothing is not necessarily an evil act just because it will lead to bad consequences.

I am aware of that. But that does not help in this scenario. Allowing the trolley to destroy five INNOCENT persons is an evil act - if you could have avoided it. Killing one INNOCENT person is also an evil act.

It seems to me that in the Catholic view, killing an “innocent” person is wrong in itself, while allowing deaths to occur through inaction may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances (e.g. whether they could be lawfully and reasonably prevented). If the only way to prevent evil is to commit an act that is itself evil, then it’s not wrong to not prevent it. While there are “lesser” evils, it’s still not permitted to actually commit evil.

But it is “permitted” to ALLOW an evil outcome to occur, even if you can prevent it?

On the other hand, @Ender points out something you seem to be missing: “that every possible act may be harmful does not mean that every possible act will be evil.”

They would be, if they could be avoided.

You may use ‘necessary force’, without the intent to kill (although that might come to pass), in order to defend yourself or another. I don’t get where you think that’s immoral.

So you ARE allowed to use lethal force against an INNOCENT person, who unknowingly presents a lethal danger (either due to ignorance or due to insanity)? Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

Meh. If the rules are nonsensical, then they’re nonsensical and so is the game.

You are welcome to protest all those ethics classes and demand that they drop the “thought experiments” from their curriculums. Because they are “nonsensical”.

 

[Usagi]

But even Kirk admitted decades later that, because he had cheated his way past the “no-win scenario,” he had never actually learned to deal with unavoidable loss. The whole point of introducing the KM as part of Kirk’s backstory (besides making him look cool a time or two) was to put forth a lesson he had supposedly missed out on — while talking up its importance to younger officers like Saavik — until he had to face it in real life with Spock’s death and the considerable casualties among the cadet crew.

 

[whatistrue]

You are welcome to protest all those ethics classes and demand that they drop the “thought experiments” from their curriculums. Because they are “nonsensical”.

We are not your students, you are not our professor, and we did not agree to your “rules”. This is the real world, not a college classroom, so stop whining when we ignore the “rules”, or just stop presenting the experiments.

 

[Economist]

We are not your students, you are not our professor, and we did not agree to your “rules”. This is the real world, not a college classroom, so stop whining when we ignore the “rules”, or just stop presenting the experiments.

No, this is NOT the real world, this is a discussion forum, with free participants. You are welcome not to participate.

 

[whatistrue]

Or to participate in whatever manner I choose, unconstrained by your ideology or desires.

ETA: But following the rules of the forum, which I did agree to…

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that in the Catholic view, killing an “innocent” person is wrong in itself, while allowing deaths to occur through inaction may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances (e.g. whether they could be lawfully and reasonably prevented). If the only way to prevent evil is to commit an act that is itself evil, then it’s not wrong to not prevent it. While there are “lesser” evils, it’s still not permitted to actually commit evil.

It seems clear (from those at least willing to address the dilemma - and thank you for that) that the argument for doing nothing is that that absolves one from the responsibility of doing something that leads to the death of an innocent person.

Now I recognize that one may not do evil that good may come of it. What I question is whether throwing the switch is in fact an evil act, or rather leads to the unwanted consequence of a legitimate act of double effect. I compare this to a doctor performing an operation on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. This is not considered a direct abortion yet the embryo will die as a direct result of the operation. Nonetheless this is a moral act.

So if a doctor may legitimately perform an act which directly leads to the death of an innocent person why is it that the switch cannot be thrown even though it leads to an identical outcome? The doctor has a choice: take an action that saves one life even though it destroys another, or let them both die. That seems like an easy choice to make so why is it wrong to choose an act that saves five…even though another dies?

Your choice determines whether five will die or only one. I find it a hard argument to make that the moral choice is to let five die.

 

[vz71]

including the non-action) involve committing

So a non-action is an action…

I think your thought experiment has thought you into a corner.

 

[vz71]

Ethical thought experiments as used in ethics classes are not for the purpose of exposing anyone’s hypocrisy. That is your stated purpose and yours alone.

2 points…

 

[vz71]

It is not that I don’t like them. They are violations of the rules of the game. Thought experiments are all based upon a certain ground rules, and they are not supposed to be modified. In the trolley scenario you cannot introduce new possibilities, like changing into a superman and save the people on both tracks

You missed the point.
We can see it to be totally inadequate. We can see that none of the options are morally acceptable.
The experiment didn’t fail.
It showed that we can see past the artificial parameters.

 

[o_mlly]

This [salpingectomy] is not considered a direct abortion yet the embryo will die as a direct result of the operation. Nonetheless this is a moral act.

Internally inconsistent. If an abortion is indirect then the child’s death is, by definition, indirect.

The procedure is, as you write not a direct abortion, that is, the procedure is an indirect abortion. The child dies indirectly, not as you write, directly. The act is not immoral in its object and may be permitted.

Salpingostomy is a direct abortion, that is a direct attack on the person-body of the child, is immoral in its object and never permitted.

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/9514/6984/9801/MSOB052_When_Pregnancy_Goes_Awry.pdf

 

[o_mlly]

What I question is whether throwing the switch is in fact an evil act, or rather leads to the unwanted consequence of a legitimate act of double effect.

First Principle of the Double Effect - The act may not be immoral, that is must be good in its moral object, intention and circumstances.

Comparison Surgeon’s to Bystander’s Act

Moral Agent:

Surgeon – Bystander

Instrument:

Scalpel – Switch

Physical Act

Cut – Throw

Moral Object:

Surgeon Target – Innocent embryo, Evil in moral object; Surgeon Target – Tube, Not Evil in moral object

Bystander Target – Innocent Person, Evil in moral object

 

[Elf01]

Bystander Target – Innocent Person, Evil in moral object

Bystander Target: Trolley (maybe tracks). Why is that not the case?

 

[o_mlly]

Bystander Target: Trolley (maybe tracks). Why is that not the case?

What is the direct cause of the innocent person’s death?
Bystander → switch → throw → innocent person → death.

We know the teaching is that all direct abortions are immoral.
Surgeon → scalpel → cut → innocent person → death.

How is the bystander’s act different than the immoral surgeon’s act?