Trolley Problem

[batteddy]

#2 is definitely wrong. You are directly causing a foreseen evil (even if you “hope” [unreasonably] that the fat man will not get hurt in the act of blocking the train) to get the good results. The ends do not justify the means.

#1 is okay. It is especially okay if the one person is a member of the five too. That is, if you are letting 1 out of the 5 die instead of 5 out of 5. But its okay even if the 1 person is seperate from the 5. It is double-effect. You are committing a neutral act (switching the track) that indirectly causes the unintened, though foreseen, effect of killing the one, but causes the directly intended good of saving the 5 which is proportionally greater than the death of the 1. Of course, if the 1 was an especially important person morally for the good of the world, then the evil of letting them die might not be proportionally outweighed by the good of saving the five. And of course your personal intent matters, if you are doing it to save the 5 and the death of the one is the unintended, though foreseen evil side effect, its good. But if you are doing it because you want to kill the 1 because you hate him, and the saving of the 5 is in your mind and will only a foreseen good side effect, it is wrong.

In Catholic thinking, the good of 5 lives does proportionally outweight the evil of 1 death in a double effect situation. But if you were only choosing between 1 on one track and 1 on the other, you could save whichever you wanted…just as a mother who has a ruptured uterus or something may remove it (with the unintended side effect of the baby dying) so that she doesn’t die in childbirth, or can heroically choose to let herself die in childbirth to give the baby life (if there are not too many other people dependent on her). Either is morally acceptable.

But if a mother had twins in her womb, and had to choose between either letting them both die unintentionally (though foreseen) by removing the uterus so that she would not die in childbirth, or dying in childbirth to save 2 lives…the two lives may outweigh the one (depending on how many other people are dependent on the woman, and to what degree…which is a more subjective judgement. But, for example, if she had a lot of other little kids who needed her to care for them…she might be able to choose her life over the twins)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

#2 is definitely wrong. You are directly causing a foreseen evil (even if you “hope” [unreasonably]
that the fat man will not get hurt in the act of blocking the train) to get the good results. The ends do not justify the means.

#1 is okay. It is especially okay if the one person is a member of the five too. That is, if you are letting 1 out of the 5 die instead of 5 out of 5. But its okay even if the 1 person is seperate from the 5. It is double-effect. You are committing a neutral act (switching the track) that indirectly causes the unintened, though foreseen, effect of killing the one, but causes the directly intended good of saving the 5 which is proportionally greater than the death of the 1. Of course, if the 1 was an especially important person morally for the good of the world, then the evil of letting them die might not be proportionally outweighed by the good of saving the five. And of course your personal intent matters, if you are doing it to save the 5 and the death of the one is the unintended, though foreseen evil side effect, its good. But if you are doing it because you want to kill the 1 because you hate him, and the saving of the 5 is in your mind and will only a foreseen good side effect, it is wrong.

It is not double effect, especially if the one is a member of the five.

This example can not be compared to an ectopic pregnancy because they are very different in one important manner.

That is, if you do nothing with an ectopic pregnancy both the mother and the unborn baby will die. In this example, if you do nothing all 6 will not die.

In Catholic thinking, the good of 5 lives does proportionally outweight the evil of 1 death in a double effect situation. But if you were only choosing between 1 on one track and 1 on the other, you could save whichever you wanted…just as a mother who has a ruptured uterus or something may remove it (with the unintended side effect of the baby dying) so that she doesn’t die in childbirth, or can heroically choose to let herself die in childbirth to give the baby life (if there are not too many other people dependent on her). Either is morally acceptable.

The Church teaches against proportionalism, please see Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis splendor.

 

[batteddy]

In a morally relativistic way, of course proportionalism is not allowed. But in double effect situations it is an important part of the ethical doctrine.

The moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, based on the writings of Aquinas, in particular states that an action having a double effect is permitted only under the following circumstances:

• The act may not be inherently wrong. It must in itself be either good or at least morally neutral.

• The person making the act must not actually intend to accomplish the bad effect, but must simply not be able to avoid it while accomplishing the good effect. If there is any way to accomplish the good while avoiding the bad, then that should be done.

• The good effect must be at least as directly an effect of the action as the bad effect is. In particular, the good effect must not be caused by the bad effect, which would be prohibited.

• The benefit of the good effect must be weighed against the harm of the bad effect, and the good must outweigh the bad. This comparison must be done with prudence and reflection.

 

[mjdonnelly]

ByzCath:

I don’t think that should matter.

But it would, for instance, if it were 5 adults and 1 child? Or vice-versa? 5 of your own children possibly?

Let’s say, among the 5, one was the Pope.

That is why the question really is unanswerable, there are enough variables.

 

[marcadam]

ByzCath:

The only reason I do not buy that this could be an example of the priniciple of double effect is that the fact is that the effect is the death of one person. The only way I could see that this might be such an example is that if you did not have first hand knowledge that pulling the switch would cause the death of one person.

But if that were the case, the situation would not be covered by double-effect at all, since the PDE only engages when the side-effect is known.

 

[marcadam]

precious_roy:

Angainor:

This is a thought problem. You can be certain that one person or five persons will die.

I guess that is why I am an engineer and not a philosopher.

Or a physicist, for that matter.

 

[precious_roy]

marcadam:

Or a physicist, for that matter.

Right. I cannot really see how a heavy man (lets say 400 pounds) could derail a train when a good 2 ton SUV could hardly do that (lets not consider my ability to actually move the 400 pound man onto the track). Also in this case, wouldn’t you be killing the train conductor?

 

[marcadam]

Lazerlike42:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

But doesnt the catechism say that these things ould not be allowed because the unintended effect had to be avoided? It says the legitimate defense is *not * an exception.

Or does it mean it in the sense that this defense is legitimate and is not an exception but in a different category altogether?

The latter. They differ specifically in intent, which is why the use of lethal force in self-defense can be legitimate. In murder, the intent is specifically the death of the individual. In self-defense, the intent is preservation of one’s life.

Another way to put it might be to say that “murder” is the subset of “killing humans” that is gravely immoral, with the specific example of legitimate self-defense.