Trolley Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike Dye:
This problem would fall under the Churches teaching of picking the lesser of two evils…In other words if you were the pilot of a crashing plane and had to chose between crashing into a school full of children or a single family residence you must choose the single family residence. If given the choice of crashing into the single family residence or an empty field you must choose the empty field of course. The same principal applies to this question.
Click to expand...
I just answered question #1last night . In regard to question#2That would not be moral. The saving of the five would be the direct result of an evil act(intentionally killing the fat guy) It would be committing an evil act to attain a good. Such actions can never be justified; they do not fall under the double effect principle.
 
Judging from the poll, nobody seems to want to push the fat man! 🙂
 
Mike Dye:
This problem would fall under the Churches teaching of picking the lesser of two evils…In other words if you were the pilot of a crashing plane and had to chose between crashing into a school full of children or a single family residence you must choose the single family residence. If given the choice of crashing into the single family residence or an empty field you must choose the empty field of course. The same principal applies to this question.
Click to expand...
I do not think this is true. Please show where the Church teaches that one may pick an evil.

You may never pick an inherently evil action no matter what the circumstances are even if the out come will be good.

Again, from the Catechism.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The principle of double effect is that the secondary effect is not intended.

In your example, the intent of the pilot is to crash his plane into a single family dwelling and there by kill those in it. That is the intent, while it does appear to be a better choice it is still unacceptable becuase it is still a morally evil act and no one may do evil so that good may result from it.
 
Mike Dye:
I just answered question #1last night . In regard to question#2That would not be moral. The saving of the five would be the direct result of an evil act(intentionally killing the fat guy) It would be committing an evil act to attain a good. Such actions can never be justified; they do not fall under the double effect principle.
Click to expand...
Number 1 falls into the same category as number 2 does. As the intent of pulling the switch is to change the path of the trolley into a single person. That is not a case of double effect.

That is like saying that pulling the trigger on a pistol is ok as the killing that will result is a double effect, after all, all I wanted to do was pull the trigger.
 
Pushing the fat man onto the tracks is certainly wrong for the reasons that have been stated above.

As for example #1, It depends on how you phrase the answer:

Are you turning the trolley away from the 5, or towards the 1?

If you turn the trolley away from the 5, then the death of 1 is an unintended side effect and qualifies for double effect. You are changing direction so that 5 do not die.

If you turn the trolley towards the 1, then you are killing him so that 5 will live.

Restated in syllogism form:

If I change tracks, the 5 will live.
I change tracks.​

The 5 live.

Compare that with:

If I steer the trolley through the 1, the 5 will live.
I steer the trolley through the 1.​

The 5 live.

In the first, the 1 is incidental.
In the second, the 1 is integral.
 
Angainor said:
1) You are standing next to a switch in a trolley track and you notice that a runaway trolley is about to hit a group of five people who are unaware of their danger. However, if you switch the track, the trolley will hit only one person. What do you do?
  1. You are standing on a bridge over a trolley track beside a fat person. Again you notice that the runaway trolley is headed toward five unaware people. Do you push the fat person onto the track to stop the trolley?
This is (apparently) a standard ethics “problem” in ethics classes. I wondered what everyone thinks.
Click to expand...

This “ethics” problem is a moral relativism and God Complex problem. I absolutely HATE these things. They put us in a position that most likely will never ever happen in life. There is NEVER an answer that allows for all to be saved. HORRIBLE! YUCK! Can you tell I really really hate these?

(That’s why I have my girls in Catholic school. So they dont’ have to put up with this junk!)

I will wait until I have this exact problem occure - and then I will pray and act.
 
The first one is easy. Pull the switch and scream at the guy to get out of the way. Come on now, if there is time for me to pull the witch across, there is time for him to step away. Even if not:
  1. The goal of pulling the switch is to save the 5 people who are unlikely to all get out of the way in time.
  2. The act of diverting the trolley away from the 5 is, itself, morally good.
  3. Although the possible death of the one is tragic, it is neither desired, not required to bring about the positive goal (saving the other 5). In this case, he may have a chance to get out of the way.
  4. The unintended negative side effect is not out of proportion to the good object acheived. (Thus you couldn’t argue that its OK to throw the switch to save ONE guy you like at the expense of 5 you don’t)
The second one would be harder, but still conclusive. You can’t directly kill a man in order to save another 5. Pushing him off the overpass kills him, probably not the trolley. If the scenario were changed to put us both at grade, it would still be wrong to push him in front of the trolley, but morally permissible to jump there myself.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Pushing the fat man onto the tracks is certainly wrong for the reasons that have been stated above.

As for example #1, It depends on how you phrase the answer:

Are you turning the trolley away from the 5, or towards the 1?

If you turn the trolley away from the 5, then the death of 1 is an unintended side effect and qualifies for double effect. You are changing direction so that 5 do not die.

If you turn the trolley towards the 1, then you are killing him so that 5 will live.

Restated in syllogism form:

If I change tracks, the 5 will live.
I change tracks.​

The 5 live.

Compare that with:

If I steer the trolley through the 1, the 5 will live.
I steer the trolley through the 1.​

The 5 live.

In the first, the 1 is incidental.
In the second, the 1 is integral.
Click to expand...
Its only incidental if you don’t its there. Otherwise its rationalization.

The only way I can see this working is if you do not know that there is one person on the track that you are switching the trolley onto. If you do know then I can not see any way around it, even if you play the semantics game. You are still killing one.
 
manualman said:
1. The goal of pulling the switch is to save the 5 people who are unlikely to all get out of the way in time.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The goal of pulliing the switch is to sacrifice one person to save three people. We do not know if yelling can do anything or that the 5 people are unlikely to all get out of the way. Maybe the one person is a person in a wheel chair and the 5 people are professional athletes. Can’t add information that is not contained in the question.
  1. The act of diverting the trolley away from the 5 is, itself, morally good.
Click to expand...
Until you add the known fact that diverting the trolley will send it into the path of a person. If we did not know this then I would agree with you but the fact is we know that there is a person on the other track so it is morally evil.
  1. Although the possible death of the one is tragic, it is neither desired, not required to bring about the positive goal (saving the other 5). In this case, he may have a chance to get out of the way.
Click to expand...
No possilble in the question. It is either five die or one dies and you have the switch and in this question it is required that one die for five to live. Again, one may not do evil for a good result.
  1. The unintended negative side effect is not out of proportion to the good object acheived. (Thus you couldn’t argue that its OK to throw the switch to save ONE guy you like at the expense of 5 you don’t)
Click to expand...
Again, one may not do evil for a good result. So it does not matter how many people are on either track.
The second one would be harder, but still conclusive. You can’t directly kill a man in order to save another 5. Pushing him off the overpass kills him, probably not the trolley. If the scenario were changed to put us both at grade, it would still be wrong to push him in front of the trolley, but morally permissible to jump there myself.
Click to expand...
This one we agree on.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I do not think this is true. Please show where the Church teaches that one may pick an evil.

You may never pick an inherently evil action no matter what the circumstances are even if the out come will be good.

Again, from the Catechism.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The principle of double effect is that the secondary effect is not intended.

In your example, the intent of the pilot is to crash his plane into a single family dwelling and there by kill those in it. That is the intent, while it does appear to be a better choice it is still unacceptable becuase it is still a morally evil act and no one may do evil so that good may result from it.
Click to expand...
For a comprehensive review of basic morality I would recommend reading part III of the Catechism of the Catholic Church entitled “Life In Christ,” (sections 1691-2557), Church approved moral principles that frequently apply in bioethical cases.First of all StPaul clearly teaches in Romans 3:8, CCC section 1753, the end never justifies the means,We can never murder a single person even if it would save an entire city, I thought I conveyed that message in plain and simple language that anyone could understand.Having said that I will continue, I will try to put this in the easiest to understand words…Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils …If faced with two or more UNAVOIDABLE evils we must choose the lesser one…Get it…UNAVOIDABLE…CHOOSE THE LESSER ONE!
 
Byzcath,

as noted by others above, by your logic a woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy may not have the tube removed. Since the church has specifically OK’d this act, I wonder if you’d like to comment on how that could be.
 
40.png
manualman:
Byzcath,

as noted by others above, by your logic a woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy may not have the tube removed. Since the church has specifically OK’d this act, I wonder if you’d like to comment on how that could be.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for just as it is certain that switching the track will lead to the death of the one and save the five, it is quite certain that removing the tube will kill the developing child and save the mother.
 
Mike Dye:
For a comprehensive review of basic morality I would recommend reading part III of the Catechism of the Catholic Church entitled “Life In Christ,” (sections 1691-2557), Church approved moral principles that frequently apply in bioethical cases.First of all StPaul clearly teaches in Romans 3:8, CCC section 1753, the end never justifies the means,We can never murder a single person even if it would save an entire city, I thought I conveyed that message in plain and simple language that anyone could understand.Having said that I will continue, I will try to put this in the easiest to understand words…Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils …If faced with two or more UNAVOIDABLE evils we must choose the lesser one…Get it…UNAVOIDABLE…CHOOSE THE LESSER ONE!
Click to expand...
But you are not faced with two or mor unavoidable evils in this case unless it is your job to pull the switch.

The second case there is no way you can push the man onto the tracks.

As a side not, using all caps is the equivalent of yelling. I would hope that you would not yell if we were sitting in a room together having this discussion. If you must resort to yelling in an attempt to win an arguement then something is wrong.

This is a philosophical debate and there is no right answer.
 
40.png
manualman:
Byzcath,

as noted by others above, by your logic a woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy may not have the tube removed. Since the church has specifically OK’d this act, I wonder if you’d like to comment on how that could be.
Click to expand...
I see what your saying but I am looking at it this way. The intent in the ectopic pregnancy is to save the life of the mother. For me, the intent in this example is to kill the one person on the track.

I would do nothing.

Also, as I said my reply above. Unless it is your job to pull the switch I do not see how you could do it. After all, I do not do anything for the ectopic pregnancy. A doctor does. If I cut into a woman to save her I will end up killing both.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
The intent in the ectopic pregnancy is to save the life of the mother. For me, the intent in this example is to kill the one person on the track.

I would do nothing.

Also, as I said my reply above. Unless it is your job to pull the switch I do not see how you could do it. After all, I do not do anything for the ectopic pregnancy. A doctor does. If I cut into a woman to save her I will end up killing both.
Click to expand...
But you can see, can’t you, that it’s very possible that my intent in switching the tracks is specifically the saving of the five? That I’m completely aware that one will die, but I’m in no way attempting to kill her?

Likewise, as a doctor, I can intend to save the woman’s life, but I’m just as aware as I am in the above example, that I’d be directly causing a death?

Peace.
John
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I see what your saying but I am looking at it this way. The intent in the ectopic pregnancy is to save the life of the mother. For me, the intent in this example is to kill the one person on the track.
Click to expand...
How do you get the idea that the intent is to kill the person? How is the intent not to save the 5 people?
 
A twist: If it is not morally wrong to take action to save the five (as I agree it is not), as long as it is not your intent to kill the one (although you are aware this will result) then…

If the track were reversed already, and I sincerely wished to save the one person, clearly I would not switch the track if the death of five were certain, YET it wouldn’t be immoral, if, as above, my intent were to save the one, and not to cause the death of the five.

Isn’t it clear that, in a way, we really are saying five lives are worth more than one?

{And, if in the pregnancy problem, there were two babies involved, would that mean the procedure to save the mother would be less defensible?}

Peace,
John
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
How do you get the idea that the intent is to kill the person? How is the intent not to save the 5 people?
Click to expand...
First, I had a thought while in the shower that I want to put forward to Mike Dye.

Can you show us where the Church teaches that when one is given two unavoidable evils that one must choose the lesser of the two? Offical Church documents please. I ask this because I did give supporting Church Teachings, in the form of the Catechism, to support my claim that no one may do evil for a good result.

Second, can you show how this is a choice between two unavoidable evils? There is no way to know that if you do nothing that someone will die.

This idea sort of gets to what I am thinking.

There is no way for us to know if some will die if we do nothing as people cross tracks every day without harm. There is no way for us to know if the people on the tracks will move off before the trolley gets there. After all there is enough time for us to switch the track so isn’t there enough time for them to move off the tracks on their own?

This is how this differes from an ectopic pregnancy as we know that the mother will die if we do nothing.

For me, the intent appears to be sacrifice one to save five. That is the way I read it. You may view it differently but then that is what philosophy is all about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top