Trolley question

[mexico]

**Two hypothetical situations:

1. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
2. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

What are your answers to each, and why?**

 

[streetpreacher]

You are going to get the Church and scriptures reference to do no evil in order for good to be a result. Acting upon this, you would be doing evil by killing one person to save the others.

Further into this one, when all souls are no longer living on this earth, the individual that was sacrificed will deem to elect their lives to be forfeit for the good of the whole, so one could justify their decision to save the others as the result of the one.

Looking further into this, the one being martyred could also have been put on this earth to do great works for God while the group could have been put on this earth to do great evil…so you are again, back to the church and gospel as the default.

Then back to the strictly worldly perspective, and the answer is quite obvious, sacrifice the one to save the few and have no concern for the state of your soul, for the world has no concept of the soul.

What would “I” do if faced with this scenario…“CHEAT”… Find a way to disable the train or the tracks and nobody would have to die…

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I tend to reject utilitarian reasoning - though I doubt that I’m moral absolutionist or a subscriber to deontology. Perhaps it’s more accurate to describe my thinking along the lines of virtue ethics?

Ultimately, I can’t choose to devalue the individual life.

 

[Tietjen]

Two hypothetical situations:

1. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

How far down the track are the five people? How far down the other track is the individual? Are there any other people nearby? How far away is the trolley? Too many unknowns to give a “one or the other” answer so I reserve the right to hypothetically slide the switch halfway and thus cause the empty trolly to derail and hit Nancy Pelosi’s San Franscisco office while its unattended.

**

1. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

**

No… Instead I’ll push Nancy Pelosi’s car off the bridge since I’m sure it weighs far more than the man (who wouldn’t have stopped an out of control trolley anyway) next to me. But hey… thats just me.

 

[Nooj]

1. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

No, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of murder. Instead, what I’d do is I’d throw myself off. At least I have my consent, the fat man has not given his. Although I’m a bit light, so maybe that won’t work.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In both instances it is not ours to decide that innocent people (not even one as opposed to five) should die. The guilt attached to the death of the five is the guilt of the mad philosopher, not the person who has it in his power to kill an innocent man to save the five, but elects not to kill anyone who is innocent.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

1. I would flip the switch; I am not killing one person, I’m saving five; I may be sending the trolley hurtling towards the one person but my intent is not to kill them, that’s just an unfortunate effect of saving the five.
2. I would not open the bridge; this time I am using a person’s death to directly save five pople. This is different from the first scenario, in which the person’s death is merely a tragic effect.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

1. I would flip the switch; I am not killing one person, I’m saving five; I may be sending the trolley hurtling towards the one person but my intent is not to kill them, that’s just an unfortunate effect of saving the five.
2. I would not open the bridge; this time I am using a person’s death to directly save five pople. This is different from the first scenario, in which the person’s death is merely a tragic effect.

So what do you think:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So what do you think:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism

All right, here’s the definition:

"Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says actions are moral when they conform to the rules that lead to the greatest good, or that “the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance.”

…I completely disagree. As a Catholic, I believe in objective morality; some actions are inherently good or evil. I do not believe rightness or wrongness depends on ANYTHING. What I am challenging is that the first action is objectively wrong. The frist action is not murder; it’s the saving of five lives that unfortunately leads to one man’s death.

The second action IS murder-it’s the direct, intentional killing of one man to save five. In the second action, you’re not saving five people, you’re killing one person to save five, as opposed to saving five people with the unfortunate effect that one dies. A subtle but vital difference.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

All right, here’s the definition:

"Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says actions are moral when they conform to the rules that lead to the greatest good, or that “the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance.”

…I completely disagree. As a Catholic, I believe in objective morality; some actions are inherently good or evil. I do not believe rightness or wrongness depends on ANYTHING. What I am challenging is that the first action is objectively wrong. The frist action is not murder; it’s the saving of five lives that unfortunately leads to one man’s death.

The second action IS murder-it’s the direct, intentional killing of one man to save five. In the second action, you’re not saving five people, you’re killing one person to save five, as opposed to saving five people with the unfortunate effect that one dies. A subtle but vital difference.

Interesting. I don’t necessarily disagree - I was just wondering what you think.

I expect that most people on this forum would have a far harder time developing an answer for the first hypothetical than they would with the second.

Pax,
OA

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Interesting. I don’t necessarily disagree - I was just wondering what you think.

I expect that most people on this forum would have a far harder time developing an answer for the first hypothetical than they would with the second.

Pax,
OA

I think you’re right. It’s an interesting “stock philosophy” question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Marc Anthony

I would flip the switch; I am not killing one person, I’m saving five; I may be sending the trolley hurtling towards the one person but my intent is not to kill them, that’s just an unfortunate effect of saving the five.

The evil of an act is not measured by how many victims there are. It is measured by the deliberate intent to kill an innocent person in order to save five innocent persons. The end does not justify the means.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, condemned by Pope Pius XII, is an instance of the argument that you may kill a limited number of innocent civilians in order to save the lives of many more innocent American soldiers advancing into Japan.

Did Jesus teach utilitarian ethics?

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc Anthony

I would flip the switch; I am not killing one person, I’m saving five; I may be sending the trolley hurtling towards the one person but my intent is not to kill them, that’s just an unfortunate effect of saving the five.

The evil of an act is not measured by how many victims there are. It is measured by the deliberate intent to kill an innocent person in order to save five innocent persons. The end does not justify the means.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, condemned by Pope Pius XII, is an instance of the argument that you may kill a limited number of innocent civilians in order to save the lives of many more innocent American soldiers advancing into Japan.

Did Jesus teach utilitarian ethics?

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Oh, geez. I KNOW Jesus doesn’t teach utilitarian ethics, and neither do I. You’re completely missing the distinction I made.

I am NOT deliberately intending to kill anybody in the first scenario, I’m intending to save five people. The desire to kill, for any reason, is nowhere in my thoughts.

Unfortunately, a man will be in the way of the trolley when I flip the switch. That’s a bumer. But I’m not killing him; I’m just changing the direction of the trolley away from five people. This unfortunate soul just happens to be in the way.

BTW, I’m in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that issue is extremely complicated and I don’t want to discuss it. It’s also a completely different argument from the trolley argument.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Marc Anthony

I would flip the switch; I am not killing one person, I’m saving five; I may be sending the trolley hurtling towards the one person but my intent is not to kill them, that’s just an unfortunate effect of saving the five.

The evil of an act is not measured by how many victims there are. It is measured by the deliberate intent to kill an innocent person in order to save five innocent persons. The end does not justify the means.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, condemned by Pope Pius XII, is an instance of the argument that you may kill a limited number of innocent civilians in order to save the lives of many more innocent American soldiers advancing into Japan.

Did Jesus teach utilitarian ethics?

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

I don’t think that was what Marc was saying. What’s interesting about the Trolley Problems (which are well known) is that rarely is there a “right” answer, and often you can get one to change his or her answers by tweaking the description of the victims.

For example, make the one person a child and the 5 people terminal cancer patients. Or make the one person the evil genius who put this horrible event into progress. Or make the one person a genius doctor and the five people mentally handicapped.

Ultimately, the the problem probably demonstrates is that eventually - for every person - the consequences of the decision drives the decision. How and when one gets there (for example a gross-sum benefit versus a rule-based decision) is what is interesting and varried.

Pax,
OA

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Marc Anthony

*I am NOT deliberately intending to kill anybody in the first scenario, I’m intending to save five people. The desire to kill, for any reason, is nowhere in my thoughts. *

Why did you switch from “intend” to “desire.” I didn’t say the **desire **was in your thoughts. I said the intent was in your thoughts.

Unfortunately, a man will be in the way of the trolley when I flip the switch. That’s a bumer. But I’m not killing him; I’m just changing the direction of the trolley away from five people. This unfortunate soul just happens to be in the way.

You’re not killing him?

BTW, I’m in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that issue is extremely complicated and I don’t want to discuss it. It’s also a completely different argument from the trolley argument.

O.K. I don’t want to get into that either, except to reiterate that Pope Pius XII condemned it, and I don’t know why he would have condemned it unless he saw in it the very same logic applied in the trolley case. Intending to kill innocent people is** never** justifiable. The end does not justify the means. That’s objective morality of the Catholic type.

Enjoy the debate. I’m gone.

 

[bschneid]

Oh, geez. I KNOW Jesus doesn’t teach utilitarian ethics, and neither do I. You’re completely missing the distinction I made.

I am NOT deliberately intending to kill anybody in the first scenario, I’m intending to save five people. The desire to kill, for any reason, is nowhere in my thoughts.

Unfortunately, a man will be in the way of the trolley when I flip the switch. That’s a bumer. But I’m not killing him; I’m just changing the direction of the trolley away from five people. This unfortunate soul just happens to be in the way.

I think there is a problem with your logic. When you are saving someone, in this particular instance, you are deciding they have the right to live. The “desire to kill” may not cross your mind, but you are inadvertently denying an individuals right to life.

I do agree it sounds strange to just stand there and let it happen, but I think impossibility of the situation doesn’t leave much room for a normal response.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think there is a problem with your logic. When you are saving someone, in this particular instance, you are deciding they have the right to live. The “desire to kill” may not cross your mind, but you are inadvertently denying an individuals right to life.

I do agree it sounds strange to just stand there and let it happen, but I think impossibility of the situation doesn’t leave much room for a normal response.

Yes; the key there is I’m INADVERTENTLY denying an individual the right to life. I am PURPOSELY giving five people the right to live, and INADVERTENTLY-not on purpose-causing somebody to die. It’s an unfortunate side effect.

In the second situation, I am not INADVERTENTLY causing somebody to die; this is somebody I am actively killing, to save somebody else. This is a subtle but important difference.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc Anthony

I am NOT deliberately intending to kill anybody in the first scenario, I’m intending to save five people. The desire to kill, for any reason, is nowhere in my thoughts.

Why did you switch from “intend” to “desire.” I didn’t say the **desire **was in your thoughts. I said the intent was in your thoughts.

Unfortunately, a man will be in the way of the trolley when I flip the switch. That’s a bumer. But I’m not killing him; I’m just changing the direction of the trolley away from five people. This unfortunate soul just happens to be in the way.

You’re not killing him?

BTW, I’m in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that issue is extremely complicated and I don’t want to discuss it. It’s also a completely different argument from the trolley argument.

O.K. I don’t want to get into that either, except to reiterate that Pope Pius XII condemned it, and I don’t know why he would have condemned it unless he saw in it the very same logic applied in the trolley case. Intending to kill innocent people is** never** justifiable. The end does not justify the means. That’s objective morality of the Catholic type.

Enjoy the debate. I’m gone.

I just want to say right now: I am NOT angry or anything. This is a fine debate, and I see it as that and nothing more.

Right. That established. You said:

“Why did you switch from “intend” to “desire.” I didn’t say the **desire **was in your thoughts. I said the intent was in your thoughts.”

The intent to save five people is in my thoughts; the intent to kill one is not. He just happens to be there; if there a way to save those five people without killing him, I would. But I don’t have that choice.

I do not intend to kill this man; I intend to save people.

“You’re not killing him?”

Nope; I’m saving five people. Him dying does not equal me killing him.

“O.K. I don’t want to get into that either, except to reiterate that Pope Pius XII condemned it, and I don’t know why he would have condemned it unless he saw in it the very same logic applied in the trolley case. Intending to kill innocent people is** never** justifiable. The end does not justify the means. That’s objective morality of the Catholic type.”

Well I disagree with the Pope then if he saw the issue in such simple terms. I can understand if he condemned it after a long, in-depth study of the war and circumstances surrounding it, but to condemn it using the logic of the trolley car case? I hope he didn’t do that.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t think that was what Marc was saying. What’s interesting about the Trolley Problems (which are well known) is that rarely is there a “right” answer, and often you can get one to change his or her answers by tweaking the description of the victims.

For example, make the one person a child and the 5 people terminal cancer patients. Or make the one person the evil genius who put this horrible event into progress. Or make the one person a genius doctor and the five people mentally handicapped.

Ultimately, the the problem probably demonstrates is that eventually - for every person - the consequences of the decision drives the decision. How and when one gets there (for example a gross-sum benefit versus a rule-based decision) is what is interesting and varried.

Pax,
OA

Thanks for the quick defense.

I agree; life is never quite as simple as a philosophical problem.

 

[bschneid]

Yes; the key there is I’m INADVERTENTLY denying an individual the right to life. I am PURPOSELY giving five people the right to live, and INADVERTENTLY-not on purpose-causing somebody to die. It’s an unfortunate side effect.

In the second situation, I am not INADVERTENTLY causing somebody to die; this is somebody I am actively killing, to save somebody else. This is a subtle but important difference

Would your answer be different if the question asked “who deserves to live?” instead of “who should you save?”

I wouldn’t describe it as inadvertently. You obvious realize the potential outcome of the situation, if you didn’t why would you flip the switch?

Doesn’t really matter though I think we are just arguing semantics at this point.