Trolley Problem

[dshix]

Oh? By pulling the lever are you not taking responsibility for destroying one human being for the sake of keeping others alive? Is it, or is it not Roman Catholic teaching that:
One ought not to willingly destroy an instance of an intelligible human good for the sake of some other intelligible or sensible good?

The distinction resides in the fact that when double effect is applied, one does NOT intend the evil effect. Therefore one does NOT “willingly destroy” since the object of the act is not to destroy, but to save.

This has already been discussed in the thread.

 

[Rau]

Oh? By pulling the lever are you not taking responsibility for destroying one human being for the sake of keeping others alive? Is it, or is it not Roman Catholic teaching that:
One ought not to willingly destroy an instance of an intelligible human good for the sake of some other intelligible or sensible good?

Aaahh, Tom, so this confirms you believe that to flip the lever, with the good intention of saving 4 lives, is immoral. Why did you simply not say this when asked earlier?

Of course, your conclusion is not in accord Catholic moral theology - but you know that, I think.

 

[Tomdstone]

The distinction resides in the fact that when double effect is applied, one does NOT intend the evil effect. Therefore one does NOT “willingly destroy” since the object of the act is not to destroy, but to save.

You have pulled the lever willingly and therefore must accept responsibility for your act of playing God and deciding who should die.
According to my understanding, imprudence is a sin according to Catholic teaching. When coming to a decision, you are required to be prudent. The sin of thoughtlessness can occur when you fail to judge things rightly and neglect those things upon which right judgment depends. You don’t know who those four men are and if they are convicted criminals due to be executed soon or not. By pulling the lever within a few seconds notice, you have acted rashly and are possibly guilty and responsible for killing a good man, while letting four convicted criminals go free. You are playing God, deciding who should die, and you have acted on your own, rashly and without counsel making your decision in a few seconds without time to think of the possible consequences of your action. What Catholic teaching requires a man to determine who will live and who will die within a matter of a few seconds without taking due regard for all of the factors and all of the consequences involved? Quite the contrary, to decide to take a human life, within a second or two without knowing in detail many other things such as who these people are, and whether or not there is some other way to save everyone, and without taking proper counsel, it seems that you are guilty of imprudence, which is a sin, AFAIK. Christians are called to act prudently and with good judgment. There is not enough time for a good Christian to take counsel and act prudently. So my conclusion is that it is possible that someone who pulls the lever will be held guilty of imprudence.
Further, by pulling the lever, you are responsible for shedding innocent blood. But according to Proverbs 6:17, God hates the hand that sheds innocent blood.

 

[dshix]

I’m sorry, you’re going all over the map with this, and your points don’t really count against the fact that double effect CAN be used in this situation.

I have neither time nor interest to debunk all of your statements which cannot be supported by Catholic theology. If the OP or another person asks for further explanation of the principle of double effect, I will be happy to explain it to them, but you clearly are not interested in accepting the principle at all, since you ostensibly do not conform to Catholic theology.

The bottom line for anyone reading this: if you want the Catholic answer to the question posted in the OP, the answer resides in the principle of double effect as explained very early in this thread.

 

[Rau]

Tom, your post #61 strays from Catholic moral principles in numerous ways. Argue your case as you please, but don’t suggest Catholic principles support your conclusion.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I would try to jump on the train and brake it to a stop so that no one would be killed.

Stuff like this isn’t helpful. Trying to break the hypothetical gets us away from an interesting question. You might as well say “I would quickly MacGyver a lasso using my shoelaces and throw it around the trolley, then tie the other end to a bigger trolley going in the opposite direction, thus pulling it away from the men tied to the tracks.” or “I would invent a time machine, go back in time and prevent the men from being tied to the tracks, and while I’m at it, engineer a solar powered trolley to reduce air pollution.”

I mean, yeah, if you break the hypothetical by introducing new facts, there are an infinite number of possible solutions that are preferable to the original options. That’s really not the point and it defeats the purpose of the exercise. The thought experiment only works if you choose A or B. Saying, “But I would choose C!” isn’t allowed.

Unless you’re being facetious, in which case, carry on.

 

[vz71]

Oh I intend to.

You see, what’s the point of a time machine if all you do is stop a few people from being killed?
How about we go back and lock away the nefarious individual that set this up?
They need to come up with better. This is not even worthy of a Bond villain.

Speaking to the double effect -
We are getting so nuanced as to make any bearing at all on real possibility a stretch.
What good is a thought experiment that has no practical application?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

We are getting so nuanced as to make any bearing at all on real possibility a stretch.
What good is a thought experiment that has no practical application?

The experiment is designed to get at the question of whether it’s better to take an affirmative but objectively wrong action in order to reduce harm to others, or whether it’s better to refuse to take the affirmative but objectively wrong action and allow greater harm to result. The scenario itself lacks practical implication: obviously, this is never going to happen in the real world. But it does help us discern a principle that we can then apply to real world scenarios.

Think of it this way: when scientists do an experiment, they have to try to isolate the variable they’re attempting to test. This means creating in a lab a situation that probably wouldn’t occur in nature: if they observed it (it being the phenomenon they’re attempting to explain) in the natural world, they couldn’t be sure whether their hypothesis was correct, because there could be a million other factors influencing the result. So they try to create an artificial simulation in a lab to test for one specific thing. Even if that lab scenario wouldn’t occur in nature, it might well explain what is happening in nature.

 

[phil19034]

From prior threads, I believe Tom does not distinguish the “known consequence of death arising from an act” from the “act of killing (murder)”. Thus in his thinking (which is not consistent with moral theology) the act which saves the 4 is identically a deliberate act of (intentional) killing of the one. Thus, for him, double effect arguments are moot.

What if you know the one person and do not know the four? For example, what if the one person is a family member and the 4 are strangers?

How does that change things?

 

[BobCatholic]

The “Trolley Problem” is a situation that has only one outcome - evil must occur.
There is no choice but evil, so as soon as the Trolley Problem indicates there is a choice, the choice is nonexistent. Therefore, saying one has a choice in this matter is a lie, which is yet another evil.

Since there is no choice, there is no moral question - since moral questions always involve a choice. No choice, no moral question. It is like talking about the moral question about whether breathing involuntarily has a moral component.

The Trolley Problem also does not reflect reality. It is excruciatingly rare that we have a choice between evil and worse evil. Most of the time, it is either good vs lesser good, good vs evil or evil vs lesser evil.

Thus, I reject the Trolley Problem as a moral question.

 

[Rau]

The “Trolley Problem” is a situation that has only one outcome - evil must occur.
There is no choice but evil, so as soon as the Trolley Problem indicates there is a choice, the choice is nonexistent. Therefore, saying one has a choice in this matter is a lie, which is yet another evil.

Since there is no choice, there is no moral question - since moral questions always involve a choice. No choice, no moral question. It is like talking about the moral question about whether breathing involuntarily has a moral component.

The Trolley Problem also does not reflect reality. It is excruciatingly rare that we have a choice between evil and worse evil. Most of the time, it is either good vs lesser good, good vs evil or evil vs lesser evil.

Thus, I reject the Trolley Problem as a moral question.

You make an error by confusing the evil outcome (which the hero lessens) with the evil act (of the initiating perpetrator). What is a constant is that there is evil in the outcome, but no evil in the actions of our hero. His act is good in object and lessens the evil in outcome. All the evil is attributable to the one who set the events in motion.

Initially, the better course of action is the one Tom suggests. But if our hero judges such an attempt will fail miserably, we are allowed to ask whether switching the track is morally good or morally evil.

 

[Rau]

What if you know the one person and do not know the four? For example, what if the one person is a family member and the 4 are strangers?

How does that change things?

It probably makes the problem unbearable.

 

[Rau]

The experiment is designed to get at the question of whether it’s better to take an affirmative but objectively wrong action in order to reduce harm to others, or whether it’s better to refuse to take the affirmative but objectively wrong action and allow greater harm to result. The scenario itself lacks practical implication: obviously, this is never going to happen in the real world. But it does help us discern a principle that we can then apply to real world scenarios.

There was no objectively wrong act. The moral object of the act is not evil.

 

[vz71]

What if you know the one person and do not know the four? For example, what if the one person is a family member and the 4 are strangers?

How does that change things?

One of my powers is telepathy.
I know them all.

 

[vz71]

The experiment is designed to get at the question of whether it’s better to take an affirmative but objectively wrong action in order to reduce harm to others, or whether it’s better to refuse to take the affirmative but objectively wrong action and allow greater harm to result. The scenario itself lacks practical implication: obviously, this is never going to happen in the real world. But it does help us discern a principle that we can then apply to real world scenarios.

Think of it this way: when scientists do an experiment, they have to try to isolate the variable they’re attempting to test. This means creating in a lab a situation that probably wouldn’t occur in nature: if they observed it (it being the phenomenon they’re attempting to explain) in the natural world, they couldn’t be sure whether their hypothesis was correct, because there could be a million other factors influencing the result. So they try to create an artificial simulation in a lab to test for one specific thing. Even if that lab scenario wouldn’t occur in nature, it might well explain what is happening in nature.

Isolating the variable here can be done with real scenarios. And you do not risk people seeing through the fiction and coming up with other options.

 

[Rau]

Speaking to the double effect -
We are getting so nuanced as to make any bearing at all on real possibility a stretch.
What good is a thought experiment that has no practical application?

It’s purpose is to draw out the distinction between moral object and consequences and to properly identify the source and nature of the evil involved.

I agree it is more relevant to one studying the principles of moral theology than to everyday life.

 

[BobCatholic]

You make an error by confusing the evil outcome (which the hero lessens) with the evil act (of the initiating perpetrator).

And who is the “initiating perpetrator”? The story doesn’t say. So therefore, there is none.

Again, not a moral issue, so my point stands untouched.

It is designed to make sure someone chooses evil. There is no choice. It is used to push the “lesser of two evils” idea, which is the same as pushing evil since even a lesser evil is still an evil. Resistance is futile, there is no choice.

No choice, no moral question.

 

[dshix]

And who is the “initiating perpetrator”? The story doesn’t say. So therefore, there is none.

Again, not a moral issue, so my point stands untouched.

It is designed to make sure someone chooses evil. There is no choice. It is used to push the “lesser of two evils” idea, which is the same as pushing evil since even a lesser evil is still an evil. Resistance is futile, there is no choice.

No choice, no moral question.

No, it’s not. Read my post #7. The act in this case, pulling the lever, is objectively non-moral. This act has two effects, one good and one evil. If the good effect is greater than the evil effect, and the person acting does NOT intend the evil effect directly, the action can be permitted.

The distinction between this and the idea of “lesser of two evils” (which you correctly denote as wrong) is that here, we are not actually willing any evil. We are willing good, and tolerating the evil, similar to how God tolerates evil in the world in order to bring about greater goods.

 

[BornInMarch]

And who is the “initiating perpetrator”? The story doesn’t say. So therefore, there is none.

Again, not a moral issue, so my point stands untouched.

It is designed to make sure someone chooses evil. It is used to push the “lesser of two evils” idea, which is the same as pushing evil since even a lesser evil is still an evil.

Choosing to allow maximum harm by inaction (instead of minimum harm by action) is something I understand (even if not agree with), but either way you should have to acknowledge that you chose inaction. Not acknowledge it - choosing one thing and saying “there is no choice” - is cowardly.

Pontius Pilate said “I am innocent of this man’s blood. It is your responsibility!” when he killed Jesus. He knew Jesus Christ was innocent, he knew the mob wanted to kill Jesus, but instead of acting to save to save Jesus he chose to let the mob kill Jesus and to pretend that there was no choice.

 

[Rau]

And who is the “initiating perpetrator”? The story doesn’t say. So therefore, there is none.

Again, not a moral issue, so my point stands untouched.

It is designed to make sure someone chooses evil. There is no choice. It is used to push the “lesser of two evils” idea, which is the same as pushing evil since even a lesser evil is still an evil. Resistance is futile, there is no choice.

No choice, no moral question.

IMHO, you are seriously mistaken. There is much written on the trolley problem and it’s various variations - I’ve never seen any philosopher or theologian interpret it as you do.

In the presented case, there is no evil choice made in this variant of the scenario. And of course you have other choices: Tom’s option and the do nothing option (on grounds of being unable to decide a proper course). One would do no wrong in acting in accordance with either of these. Nor in flipping the lever to save 4.