Questions of Ethics

[Nat]

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

[Words]

I can't answer as to what the bystander 'should' do, because I don't believe anyone has the right to decide what another 'should' do in such a situation.

If, however, the bystander were me, no, I wouldn't flip the switch (or at least I *think* I wouldn't). It would be awful living with the knowledge that I could have prevented the death of five people, worse still, though, knowing that I'd sent someone to their death who otherwise would have lived.

That said....until something like this were to actually happen, there's no way on earth of knowing what I would do, only what I think I would probably do.

Words

[Okiebug61]

If I read this correctly you are talking about "Normative Ethics" which addresses how one should act morally deciding what is right or wrong in regards to ones actions.

I would have to say that I would not flip the switch because there is no way for me to absolutely know that 5 people are going to die and what the true outcome of my action would be.


This question seems to touch on the following. Do we react or act in a situation. A reaction is often described as an emotional action while an action is described as a thought out action.

So many factors have not been uncovered that saying I would automatically flip the switch is not agreeable for me.

[always2late]

This is actually a pretty "famous" philosophical debate....countless papers have been written changing the variables to see if that would change the outcome, for example, the five are criminals the one is not. Or, the one is young where the five are old. I have to confess I've never debated the question when the potential victims were on an even playing field.

I don't know that I would flip the switch...because I don't think I have a right to decide who will live and who will die. I would leave it to fate, or destiny, or God, or whatever higher power one believes in. Now, I am gonna call myself out and say my logic is flawed because if it were only one person on the track and I could flip the switch and save them...I would. And in that way I WOULD be deciding whether they live or die. Sigh...just call my logic fickle I guess. :)

[Sparkle]

Assuming I knew the consequences of both action or inaction...

I would flip the switch.
And I wouldn't see myself as "playing god" by doing it. I'm a bystander being given the knowledge and tools to make this decision, if I don't make an active decision no one else will and tragedy will occur either way.

My rationale is a simple matter of numbers.
One person dead, and the lives of one network of people changed forever.
Or five people, and five networks of people changed forever.
I would want to minimize the tragedy.

Given the opportunity I would rather make an active choice than stand by and watch.

[tapu]

I would torture myself in the dilemma until it was too late. So... I guess that means 5 die, instead of the one, which I think would qualify as a decision in this scenario.

I don't think I could deliberately turn a train toward a person, regardless of where it was headed to start with.

On the other hand, if I place Young Son among the 5, well, yes, I would instinctively turn it. And in the reverse situation, I wouldn't turn it, of course.

I'm not sure how much, if any of this, falls into the category of morality as I think we're defining it here. In the latter condition, instinctively is a key word.

[atomiczombie]

I would flip it if I was certain of the outcome. One death is better than five in my view. That being said, the reason I would flip it would be the determining factor with respect to whether this would be a moral action or not, not the outcome. Morality is ultimately rooted in intent.

[girl_dee]

Yes how would I know the outcome? If I knew for sure I'd flip it.

Came back to edit: the question was should the flipper flip the flip switch, Yes. The flipper should.

There are so many variables, what if the one person killed were a child, or wheelchair bound or whatever.. it could be debated throughout infinity.
I am assuming this is even playing field.

[Gemme]

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

Someone made mention of there being 5 that were going to die and then taking one in their place that would have lived. The question's too vague for me to make that conclusion. The one that could die may be in the same group as the original 5. On the outskirts and partially struck, for example.

So, that leaves me with a very simple issue. Are 5 lives the same as 1 life? Assuming that all are, as mentioned, on an even playing field...one is not a criminal/priest/mother/child/etc...then no, they are not the same. Five people have five times the ability to heal, nuture, teach, hurt, help, aggravate, charm, or amuse as one person. There are five lifelines versus one that would be majorly affected by the outcome of this.

I choose quantity, since the quality has been pre-determined as equal.

Assuming I knew the consequences of both action or inaction...

I would flip the switch.
And I wouldn't see myself as "playing god" by doing it. I'm a bystander being given the knowledge and tools to make this decision, if I don't make an active decision no one else will and tragedy will occur either way.

My rationale is a simple matter of numbers.
One person dead, and the lives of one network of people changed forever.
Or five people, and five networks of people changed forever.
I would want to minimize the tragedy.

Given the opportunity I would rather make an active choice than stand by and watch.

I agree.

I see myself "playing God" if I DON'T flip the switch, actually. It's only humane to want to help another in a crisis.

[scootebaby]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

[Greyson]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?



I believe this would be my decision; If they were children or young adults, yes. If the others were adults, I don't know.

[Okiebug61]

The plot thickens

http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

[atomiczombie]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

Yes I probably would sacrifice myself to save 5 others I don't know.

[AtLast]

I would most likely flip the switch. Then try to figure out how to live with myself.

[Jett]

As I said on Nat's FB I would throw the switch, purely because 5 ppl dead as a result of my inaction seems worse than 1 person dead because of my action... feels the lesser of two evils.

Either way there is a choice to make, to act or not... both carrying substantial consequence and for me the bottom line would be how many will be alive after I make it, 1 or 5.

And as I said before, if it was me on the other tracks frankly ... hell no I wouldn't, never pretended to be a saint ;)

Heh, excellent Natalie, should be interesting.

[Corkey]

I'd flip the switch, even if I were the one. All things being equal and putting the train back on it's normal course.

[Gemme]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

For me, it doesn't change anything. I don't view death as most and I'm not afraid to die. I don't relish pain, but if we're talking the impact of a train, I think it would be over very quickly for me.

And, yes, I would save 5 others even if it meant my own demise.

[tonaderspeisung]

all things being equal, i don't think there is enough information to make an ethical argument for or against.
that said i'm a staunch believer in personal accountability. if a bunch of people want to hang around the train tracks, with out regard for personal safety or the dilemma they have put a bystander in, they have made their own decision and are solely accountable.

[tapu]

I came back in here because when I was doing other things just now, I kept picturing these fleeting scenarios of two diverging train tracks, and on one set were 5 oldsters tottering around, and on the other was this little toddler beseeching me with arms up. I'd have to say I'm pretty sure that, in the depths of my unconscious, the toddler was starting to pull ahead of the pack.

[JustJo]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

It it was 5 children...probably yes. If it was 5 adults...probably not.

When it's the 5 versus 1 and I live either way...I'm not so sure. I tend to think I'd lean towards saving 5 lives by sacrificing one...but I also think sacrificing the one would feel like murder if I took an action that caused their death. Not sure if I could do that...

[chefhottie25]

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

I have a question...is the person who can flip the switch also the single fatality victim?

[Nat]

I have a question...is the person who can flip the switch also the single fatality victim?

Not in the original question but this was proposed as a variation. Both questions are on the table. :)

[tapu]

I haven't been able to address this in strict terms of morality. I guess if I were operating from a Utilitarian viewpoint, I would save the 5, regardless of the extra condition(s) we are playing with.

It's a different thing to say "This is what I would want to do," than it is to answer the question of what is the moral thing to do. Sure, the two approaches bear on each other but you need a moral argument that can hold as a general principal for the latter, such as "creates the greatest good for the most people."

It may be impossible or at least very difficult and subjective to decide how to measure the greatest good, but regardless, internally you would be following a defined moral principle.


(I know: thread killer.)

[imperfect_cupcake]

it would not matter if they were young or old or criminals or nuns or artists or scientists. I'd flip the switch. If the one person who would die is me? No. I wouldn't. Or I don't think I would. who knows, if I saw one train heading for another, I might not actually *think* about death of anyone and just attempt to do *something*.

considering that when my mom was ill, I would have killed 10,000 bunnies, my own cat, someone else's grandma, to stop her from dying, so if it would cost the life of five people I don't know to keep the life of one person I love alive, nope, wouldn't throw the swtich then either. And no, who those five people were/how old they were would not make a difference to me.

but if it's all equal, as in the question, then yes, I would throw the switch.

[Sparkle]

I haven't been able to address this in strict terms of morality. I guess if I were operating from a Utilitarian viewpoint, I would save the 5, regardless of the extra condition(s) we are playing with.

It's a different thing to say "This is what I would want to do," than it is to answer the question of what is the moral thing to do. Sure, the two approaches bear on each other but you need a moral argument that can hold as a general principal for the latter, such as "creates the greatest good for the most people."

It may be impossible or at least very difficult and subjective to decide how to measure the greatest good, but regardless, internally you would be following a defined moral principle.


(I know: thread killer.)

I realized after I posted that instead of referring to an anonymous bystander, I subconsciously substituted myself in that roll and answered from the first person "what *I* would do"

Because that is how I process these type of questions; I can not have an expectation of someone else (whether hypothetical or not) that I would not place on myself. So to examine the ethics of a question, I filter it first through my experience and beliefs (morality).

My answer remains the same, however, regardless whether tis I or an anonymous bystander; because my answer is not based on an emotional response to "who" the people are (or aren't) - it is about the ethical obligation we have as human beings to act rather than to stand by and let things happen.

I think an interesting side discussion would be the distinction between ethics and morals - because while they appear interchangeable as synonyms there are key differences that impact how we view and respond to this train scenario.


Interesting thread, Nat, thanks!
Not a thread killer, Tapu. :)

[LaneyDoll]

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

Assuming that the conditions are as stated in the question, yes, the bystander should flip the switch. There is nothing to say if the five "chosen" are serial killers, rapists etc and that the single "chosen" is an innocent child, a scientist with a cure for cancer etc.

I am looking at this from the point of view of sacrificing one to save five.

Is this not something that is done every day? Emergency professionals must make these choices on a regular basis. Two cars trapped/two houses burning/two boats sinking and only time to save one-so do you choose the one that will save the most lives?

But, add the "human element" into this:

The original five are all strangers and just oneof my loved ones is standing in a crowd of the one million who could be chosen. At that point there is no question at all; the five die in order to prevent the possibly loss of my loved one.

:sparklyheart:

[tapu]

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!


:sock: :sock: :sock:

[T4Texas]

It's obviously a no win situation because somebody is still going to die. But my rationale is that to save five lives would be better and so unfortunately the one would have to be sacrificed even if it were my own. Life is like that, we have to make choices and sacrifices every day or pick the lesser of two evils. Perhaps not to this extent, but still in ways that impact our own lives and our moral beliefs, sometimes with tragic consequences.

[Julie]

I am going to base my response on the original OP.
I will place myself as the bystander - It is the only way I can get in her/his head.

If I am given the responsibility of stopping the horrific death of five people, when clearly they ALL will die in a fatal accident and not knowing which of the one people will die if I stop the train - I most certainly would flip the switch.

I will not base this decision on who they are as human beings sharing this world with me, because the OP stated they are strangers.

Clearly, this will not give me a *god* complex - It is simple. I am placed in a situation where I must act quickly. Somehow intuitively I must know, one will die and four will live. Sadly, five will die if I do not.

I also will not allow myself to look at them as men, women or children - serial killers or the next mother theresa. I need to look at them all as innocent.

Flip the Switch **
And I will sleep well afterward. Even if it means I learn the next day, they are all serial killing rapist.

[LaneyDoll]

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!

I agree. However, I am basing my response on this comment by the OP, "it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch."

There are few variables I can imagine that would prevent me from sacrificing 5 to save 1. At the moment, the introduction of loved ones is the main one I can think of.

Ok, let's add this to the mix---what if, you were to find out that you would suddenly be privy, for the rest of your life, to effects of the deaths (of the 5 only) on their loved ones.

Soooo, is anyone else thinking of the movie "The Box"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

:sparklyheart:

[tapu]

Julie--I think you're making the same, incorrect, assumption I made at the very beginning:

I think the correct way to read it is that the One Person is NOT also a member of the Five Persons.

That may not be what you thought at all, but since I did.... Of course, in the case of keeping all 5 from dying, and making it be only one of those dying, then yes, the answer is simple: save those other four.


(man, if no one else thought this at any point, i am going to feel D-U-M-M.)


sic

[tapu]

There is kind of an argument for letting the train hit 5 strangers rather than turning it to hit one (equal "value") stranger and that is if your moral position is not to interfere in the course of events.

While the question of what constitutes interference (action? how about inaction? natural forces? non-organic forces?....), it's still a possible moral principle to establish, I think.

[Julie]

Tapu - I am a literalist. I never read between the lines. One of which I am trying to change.

"A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?"

Nowhere did I read in this context, there were six people on the tracks. I read - five people on the tracks and one bystander who was not on the tracks. Equals Six People.

Therefore, my assumption is based on the calculation of people the OP stated in her question. Six People including the Bystander. Five Dead or One Dead. Which leaves Four Survivors.

Julie

[tapu]

Yes, Julie, I'm sorry--I was trying to establish that it was at least a "possible" way to read it without asserting that it was the only reading for the way it was worded.

Suffice to say, I read it as you did, but then I realized something else is what was meant.

Hell, I could be wrong on the second count... but I don't think so.

[Julie]

It comes to to personal interpretation. If you are not literal in your response, then you can read it any way you wish. Or perhaps, what you view as literal is contrary to what I believe. It is why, we choose different responses to the question.

There is no right or wrong - it is simply based on your own response.

I think the one thing I would air caution to. To question yourself and to state the response of another was read incorrectly. It is simply a matter of ethics, as stated. How would you respond?

No disrespect - but if I were to evaluate your response. You would have over analyzed it and all five people would be dead. Then, you might have a mini nervous breakdown for just standing there over thinking. :-)

Julie

[tapu]

Eeee, yeeessss, well, it's a strange day here. Hope to see you again.

[betenoire]

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

If I would personally be killed in saving those five people by flipping the switch - I would absolutely not flip the switch. I don't think that's even a question of ethics. The sense of self-preservation is strong with this one.

Even if those five people were not strangers, I would not flip the switch if the result would be that I die. Better that I live with their deaths than they live with mine.

[Nat]

Tapu - I am a literalist. I never read between the lines. One of which I am trying to change.

"A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?"

Nowhere did I read in this context, there were six people on the tracks. I read - five people on the tracks and one bystander who was not on the tracks. Equals Six People.

Therefore, my assumption is based on the calculation of people the OP stated in her question. Six People including the Bystander. Five Dead or One Dead. Which leaves Four Survivors.

Julie

Sorry for my badly worded question. There are 5 on one track and 1 on the other.

[Julie]

Sorry for my badly worded question. There are 5 on one track and 1 on the other.

My logic escaped me. So literal I am.
Of course it makes sense --

5 people on one track - 1 person on another track.
Bystander now has to choose - save the five people and be responsible for changing the tracks, where the 1 person will surely die.

GOD - I much preferred the other scenario.

FUCK!
Now my head is swarming. I would completely over process it, think far too long on the implications and the five people would die. I would end up like Tapu in a nut house, after suffering a complete utter nervous breakdown.

I would flip the switch. Five people would live and one would die. Of course this would not be without sheer guilt for the loss of one life. Tough one.

Julie

[tapu]

Tapu's been pretty clear on this from the beginning. But again, pleasure to meet you.

[dreadgeek]

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

I'm going to try to stay within the boundaries as you've drawn them. Thus, given this situation where, for instance, it may be impossible for any of the people to clear the tracks then the correct move is to flip the switch. Presuming that I have no reason to prefer the one person (it is not someone I know well) over the five then the utilitarian calculus is that since a choice *must* be made (and doing nothing still constitutes a choice in this situation) saving the five people outweighs the one.

I'm presuming this is taking place in this universe so if a train is on its way along a track and there are only two possible ways for it to go, it won't disappear, turn to smoke, or fly suddenly.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!


:sock: :sock: :sock:

But why should that, of all things, make us despair? We should not be at all surprised that one would prefer their own offspring over a stranger.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

If I would personally be killed in saving those five people by flipping the switch - I would absolutely not flip the switch. I don't think that's even a question of ethics. The sense of self-preservation is strong with this one.

Even if those five people were not strangers, I would not flip the switch if the result would be that I die. Better that I live with their deaths than they live with mine.

As much as we may not wish it to be so, this is who we are. As it was put quite well a couple of hundred years ago:

"Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its
myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an
earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe,
who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would
be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful
calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very
strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he
would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of
human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could
thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was
a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the
effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of
Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And
when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane
sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his
business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with
the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had
happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself
would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his
little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but,
provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound
security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and
the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object
less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own."

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I often waffle when push comes to shove your kid in front of the train.

[TickledPink]

Flip the switch already!

6 lives, if I read this correct, 5 saved if said switch if flipped. It's like traige, in a way, no right or wrong, just saving the most lives.

[tapu]

Close enough!

[dreadgeek]

Flip the switch already!

6 lives, if I read this correct, 5 saved if said switch if flipped. It's like traige, in a way, no right or wrong, just saving the most lives.

Precisely. I hate to go all Star Trek on folks but sometimes life really does hand you a Kobyashi Maru scenario. While we might wish that the world were filled with nothing but non-zero sum games, there really are zero-sum games and there really are scenarios where there is no 'good' choice there is only the least undesirable choice.

In our Panglossian world we would like to be able to teleport/levitate/disintegrate the train. In the real world, a train on a track will continue moving along the path of track until some outside influence causes it to change course. That means that if, for instance, there are only two tracks the train could be on and there is no physical way any of the workers on the track could get out of the way *someone* is going to die. That is my understanding of the scenario and if this scenario was inspired by an identical one in Justice by Michael Sandel then that was clearly spelled out in Sandel's scenario.

As a quick aside, I think that, as humans, we do get to say that there are things people should not do. I am perfectly comfortable saying that, for instance, while people are free to hold racist views they should not be allowed to have those racist views become the problem for others. For example, if one holds a racist view that blacks are intellectually inferior one should not be allowed to make that my problem in hiring or promotions. Whether the law provides that restraint or some ethical standard that says "my racism cannot enter into a professional context" is irrelevant to me. What matters is that someone is not in a position to make their racist views my problem.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

all things being equal, i don't think there is enough information to make an ethical argument for or against.
that said i'm a staunch believer in personal accountability. if a bunch of people want to hang around the train tracks, with out regard for personal safety or the dilemma they have put a bystander in, they have made their own decision and are solely accountable.

Does that apply even if they are working on the track? They should have, perhaps, foreseen the possibility that trains can go out of control and found a different field if they didn't want to be crushed by a train?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

This is actually a pretty "famous" philosophical debate....countless papers have been written changing the variables to see if that would change the outcome, for example, the five are criminals the one is not. Or, the one is young where the five are old. I have to confess I've never debated the question when the potential victims were on an even playing field.

I don't know that I would flip the switch...because I don't think I have a right to decide who will live and who will die. I would leave it to fate, or destiny, or God, or whatever higher power one believes in. Now, I am gonna call myself out and say my logic is flawed because if it were only one person on the track and I could flip the switch and save them...I would. And in that way I WOULD be deciding whether they live or die. Sigh...just call my logic fickle I guess. :)

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

Cheers
Aj

[tonaderspeisung]

Does that apply even if they are working on the track? They should have, perhaps, foreseen the possibility that trains can go out of control and found a different field if they didn't want to be crushed by a train?

Cheers
Aj

I don't think a right action can be determined even with the railroad worker variable entered into the equation.

the bystander still has the knowledge that death will occur regardless of action or inaction on their part.

a numbers argument can be made for or against but i don't think shear numbers alone can dictate a good or right outcome.

i would still put accountability with the people on the tracks. i would assume as employees they had safety training and would be aware of the dangers surrounding them.

i don't think knowledge that a train can lose control and cause tragedy is cause for abandoning a certain line of work but if they didn't want to be crushed i would expect them to take every precaution for personal safety needed to avoid it.

[tapu]

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

[meant to multi quote with Always2Late, but failed]

I think the drowning guy joke bears on this. I'll synopsize it for anyone who hasn't heard it.

Guy drowning, another guy comes along in a boat and tries to save him, but the drowning guy says, No, the Lord will save me. This happens two more times: guys in boats, but the drowning guy says No, the Lord will save me.
Finally, the guy drowns and goes to Heaven and there's the Lord. Guy says, Lord, why didn't you save me? And the Lord says, "Hey, I sent three boats!"

One may be the means of Fate--whatever one does. How then does one "decide"... or does one?

[Semantics]

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

[dreadgeek]

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I would flip the switch to save the 5 people. Then I would have to go talk with a few close friends about what I did.

[dreadgeek]

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I would take this even one step further:

"It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one's own religion without question, because--to put it simply--it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so, or because "that is what all Muslims [Hindus, Sikhs ...] believe, and I am a Muslim [Hindu, Sikh...], should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing.

The argument for this is straightforward. Suppose I have a friend, Fred, who is (in my carefully considered opinion) always right. If I tell you I'm against stem-cell research because "my friend Fred says it's wrong and that's all there is to it," you will just look at me as if I was missing the point of the discussion. This is supposed to be a consideration of reasons, and I have not given you a reason that I in good faith could expect you to appreciate. Suppose you believe that stem-cell research is wrong because that is what God has told you. Even if indeed exist and has, personally, told you that stem-cell research is wrong--you cannot reasonably expect others who do not share your faith or experience to accept this as a reason. You are being unreasonable in taking your stand. The fact that your faith is so strong that you cannot do otherwise just shows (if you really can't) that you are disabled for moral persuasion, a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate. And if you reply that you can but you won't consider reasons for and against your conviction (because it is God's word, and it would sacrilegious even to consider whether it might be in error), you avow your willful refusal to abide by the minimal conditions of rational discussion. Either way, your declarations of your deeply held views are posturings that are out of place, part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we others will just have to work around you as best we can." (Daniel Dennett)

My view has become even more pessimistic than Dennett's.

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

While we've all had all this brain time to think about it, the 5 have died because we were so busy trying to make up our collective minds.

I'm a do'er, it is natural and normal to act, even if my life is the one sacrificed. It is not hero syndrome it is basic human compassion.
Some one or several are going to die, the less blood spilled the better.

[dreadgeek]

While we've all had all this brain time to think about it, the 5 have died because we were so busy trying to make up our collective minds.

I'm a do'er, it is natural and normal to act, even if my life is the one sacrificed. It is not hero syndrome it is basic human compassion.
Some one or several are going to die, the less blood spilled the better.

Absolutely! It is interesting that you mention being a doer. Back when I lived in the Bay Area, I had a tendency to respond to situations. For example, I once caught a shoplifter running out of the Circuit City on Van Ness when the security guy let the shoplifter slip through his hands and I tackled him.

In that same period, I ended up saving a guy's life who was owner of a little corner market who got shot outside the store. My military training kicked in and by the time that the actual first responders got there, I had organized my housemates so that one was keeping his wife calm, one was holding the flashlight so I could see where I needed to have pressure, one was doing something else I don't remember and one was inside the store watching over things. The cops and the paramedics asked who had put all of the organization together and they said "her". It was at that moment that I realized what I had just done and then the shakes hit me because I realized "oh my goodness, I think I just saved this guy's life". I didn't have time to think when I first heard the gunshots, there was only enough time to act and think about it later.

Sometimes there's only enough time to respond to a situation, not to deliberate our way through it.

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

Absolutely! It is interesting that you mention being a doer. Back when I lived in the Bay Area, I had a tendency to respond to situations. For example, I once caught a shoplifter running out of the Circuit City on Van Ness when the security guy let the shoplifter slip through his hands and I tackled him.

In that same period, I ended up saving a guy's life who was owner of a little corner market who got shot outside the store. My military training kicked in and by the time that the actual first responders got there, I had organized my housemates so that one was keeping his wife calm, one was holding the flashlight so I could see where I needed to have pressure, one was doing something else I don't remember and one was inside the store watching over things. The cops and the paramedics asked who had put all of the organization together and they said "her". It was at that moment that I realized what I had just done and then the shakes hit me because I realized "oh my goodness, I think I just saved this guy's life". I didn't have time to think when I first heard the gunshots, there was only enough time to act and think about it later.

Sometimes there's only enough time to respond to a situation, not to deliberate our way through it.

Cheers
Aj

Ex Law Enforcement USAF, so yea I get it. While at a retail giant in the distribution center a guy got his hand stuck in a conveyor belt. I heard the scream and bolted, got up the stairs and yep hand getting mauled, so I cut the belt. Got his hand stabilized and off to the ER with him. I had saved his hand according to the Doc.
Another time guy had a heart attack while scuba diving, I dove in and helped haul him out radioed for back up and began CPR. Guys wife later said I had given her time to say good bye, he died several days later.

Shit happens every single day, and the doers do what is necessary to make a difference, even putting their lives on the line to help. I think it separates the doers from the thinking about it folks. Not everyone is cut out to be a doer.

[dreadgeek]

I have a question for those who have said either that they wouldn't flip the switch because it is unpredictable what would happen if the train went either way (e.g. we can't know that if someone was hit by a several ton train that they would die).

Given the weight of a train compared to the weight of a human being, given the mass of a train compared to the mass of a human being, given that humans are made of more fragile stuff than trains, and given that it is a fact that any object in motion will continue to stay in motion unless it is acted upon by another force, why do you believe that we can't know the most likely outcome? I'm not saying the definite outcome--it is possible that, for instance, you could jump from a balloon at the upper-most edge of the Earth's atmosphere without the use of a parachute and wind up living to tell the tale. It is *possible* but the most likely result of such a jump is that your bones would be liquified by the impact and you would die. So since the most likely result of train plowing into one or more bodies is that those bodies will be broken beyond repair, why is that little bit of uncertainty sufficient to make you choose the non-action which results in the deaths of five people?

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Never thought I'd say this, but things are getting a little too concrete for me now. I don't read this as having anything to do with whether or not one is a "doer" or whether there is time enough to do something or nothing. As with suggesting that you couldn't really know what would happen, this is of no consequence to a philosophical discussion. The conditions of all this are set, to start with. When I urge concrete details, I mean consistent bases for moral decisions.

OF COURSE, carry on; I just find my own mind getting muddled as to what the moral arguments are, or even what to take seriously as argumentation. If that's out of place--let me know--that's cool. I'm just finding my way around still.

[dreadgeek]

Never thought I'd say this, but things are getting a little too concrete for me now. I don't read this as having anything to do with whether or not one is a "doer" or whether there is time enough to do something or nothing. As with suggesting that you couldn't really know what would happen, this is of no consequence to a philosophical discussion. The conditions of all this are set, to start with. When I urge concrete details, I mean consistent bases for moral decisions.

OF COURSE, carry on; I just find my own mind getting muddled as to what the moral arguments are, or even what to take seriously as argumentation. If that's out of place--let me know--that's cool. I'm just finding my way around still.

Tapu;

Like you, I read the initial conditions for the thought experiment to be set at the outset by the original poster. I have tried to hew pretty closely to those initial conditions. Also like you, I'm curious as to what criterion people use for making their moral choices.

Cheers
Aj

[tonaderspeisung]

i read the initial post as a question of which is the right sided action
not a question of should an action be performed or not

upon rereading my initial posts i should clarify i find both actions equally right and i don't see either as a wrong sided outcome given the facts in the initial scenario.

i would hold the people at the tracks accountable/responsible for being active participants in their own fate.

i am curious for those who find the utilitarian view so handily the right sided solution
should the many have that much advantage when the outcome of the few in this case is so absolute?

that is the one fact that keeps this a zero sum on both sides for me.

[tapu]

That's good. Basically, "Is it a moral question?" (a Question of Ethics) I have to think about that.

As for the utilitarian interpretation, honestly it was the only moral theory I could think of that could be clearly applied. I would love to hear an alternative. (Well, I gave one alternative based on... let's call it "personal passivity," but it seemed weak and incomplete.)

Though I know that this train thing is a standard scenario posed in the application of moral principles, I'm thinking now that your question about the essence of the question is worth considering. Now I think I will quit talking and go away and do just that. >:-) Thanks.

[Sparkle]

Given the very clear parameters of the problem set forth by the OP, I do view the ethical question as cut & dried: take action or do not take action. The bystanders' choice will have consequences either way.

The theoretical scenario reminds me of an actual situation I found myself in a few years ago -

I was driving in rush hour traffic on a four lane divided highway, the traffic was moving very swiftly (70+mph) but each lane was very congested. I was southbound in the passing lane, when I saw the the wheels of the car next to me turn suddenly towards me. The driver did not indicate and did not look over his shoulder to ensure it was clear and safe to pass. I saw very clearly what was happening and I had a window of about 3-milliseconds to make a decision:

Stay put and take the hit from the car coming in to my lane OR take defensive action and avoid the hit.

Unlike the theoretical situation we were given, I did not know with any certainty the consequences of my decision. But what I did know was that there were a LOT of people very close to us on the road the only clear thought I had was "minimize the damage".

I chose to take defensive action by pulling hard and fast to the left, I avoided the collision, and the other driver pulled himself back in to his lane. The cars closest to me were able to slow down and take their own defensive action to avoid becoming a part of the accident. Despite my very best efforts I was unable to regain control of my steering column and finally my car lost traction when it hit the gravel, rolled down the hill that divided north and south bound lanes, flipped over and crashed in a spectacular fashion.

I still have no idea what would have *actually* happened had he sideswiped me at 70mph but I am pretty certain, based on the laws of physics, that it would have resulted in a multiple vehicle accident.

I didn't make my decision because I have a hero complex or because I considered my own life more or less valuable than anyone else's. I made it because I had been given that millisecond of time when I could clearly see what was happening and had the ability to make a conscious active decision.

I don't believe that fate or the hand of god had anything to do with one drivers' careless action nor with my decision making process.

Making a decision and taking action was *to me* the right thing to do.

[dreadgeek]

i read the initial post as a question of which is the right sided action
not a question of should an action be performed or not

upon rereading my initial posts i should clarify i find both actions equally right and i don't see either as a wrong sided outcome given the facts in the initial scenario.

i would hold the people at the tracks accountable/responsible for being active participants in their own fate.

i am curious for those who find the utilitarian view so handily the right sided solution
should the many have that much advantage when the outcome of the few in this case is so absolute?

that is the one fact that keeps this a zero sum on both sides for me.

Given the initial conditions I can't see how this could not be a zero-sum scenario. Someone is going to die no matter what action is done. So the question then becomes whether one person dies or five people die.

As far as the utilitarian case to be made, the answer is based upon it being *incidental* that the one person on the alternative track will die as opposed to using this person *for the purpose of stopping the train*. Let's change the parameters just a tiny bit, instead of flipping a switch which diverts the train imagine that you are standing on a bridge above the track. Again you see the train. Next to you is someone. If you push them off the bridge they will land on the switch which will divert the train but this will cause their death. Under those circumstances it would be wrong to push the person. Why the two different outcomes? Because in the original scenario, the death of one person on the alternate track is an unhappy side effect so it makes it zero-sum but still defensible. In the second scenario we are using the person as an *instrument* to achieve a desired end. In the first scenario we are not using the person as an instrument, he just happens to be a bystander who, unfortunately, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. We might regret his death but his death is not the instrument we use to achieve saving the five people.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Interesting distinction, but I don't see how that bears on a utilitarian argument for 5 > 1.

And, aside, but it just popped into my head: How would all that reflect on Dexter? Isn't he killing one to save many? Would certain moral principles sanction that, and do they hold water?

[dreadgeek]

Interesting distinction, but I don't see how that bears on a utilitarian argument for 5 > 1.

And, aside, but it just popped into my head: How would all that reflect on Dexter? Isn't he killing one to save many? Would certain moral principles sanction that, and do they hold water?

Actually--and I didn't make this clear at the outset--I am saying that there are limits on the utilitarian position. If, in the course of saving five people, I take an action that results in the death of one person but that action does not use that person as an instrument to achieve my goal of saving people, then the action is morally defensible. If, on the other hand, the only way to save the five people is to use a sixth person, against his will, as an instrument then it is not morally defensible.

I base this off an old Ursula K. Le Guin story where there is a utopia but with a catch--in order for this utopia to exist one child must be spend his entire life locked in a basement with no human contact. In this case, the child is an *instrument* to some other end. *Because* the child suffers, we have a utopia. The child then is merely an instrument for the happiness of the greatest number. That is a trade-off that I would have a hard time finding morally defensible. On the other hand, in modern capitalist nations we have societies that are less equal than it is imaginable for them to be because there is a balance between freedom and equality. This is a trade-off that it is at least possible to defend morally, certainly in principle.

Does that make sense? For me the crux comes down to whether we are using others as instruments to some end, which I do not think is defensible or if they are casualties of circumstance.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I see the argument for a difference between collateral death and "instrumental death," but I don't know that it has any bearing in a utilitarian morality system.

Now I have only the rudimentary understanding of utilitarianism that most everyone has. I'm sure there's much more to say about it than "more good, more people" = "moral." I have to go look up Mills or whomever to see if the "instrument" type of issue is addressed.

Hey, anyone know that book series "Philosophy and Lost," "Philosophy and House"? I bet there's a "Philosophy and Dexter."

[DapperButch]

I haven't read the thread, just the question.

I would certainly hit the switch. One dead or five dead. It is simple math for me. Or at least, this is what I think I would do and hope that I would have the guts to do. Less deaths and less lives ruined if I hit the switch.

I am curious to see others' responses, as the length of the thread suggests to me that it is less of a black and white issue for some.

[dreadgeek]

I see the argument for a difference between collateral death and "instrumental death," but I don't know that it has any bearing in a utilitarian morality system.

Now I have only the rudimentary understanding of utilitarianism that most everyone has. I'm sure there's much more to say about it than "more good, more people" = "moral." I have to go look up Mills or whomever to see if the "instrument" type of issue is addressed.

Hey, anyone know that book series "Philosophy and Lost," "Philosophy and House"? I bet there's a "Philosophy and Dexter."

There's a fantastic discussion of the problems with utilitarianism in Michael Sandel's book Justice. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the subject of Bentham, Mills and utilitarianism. I'm actually not a utilitarian, in any meaningful sense.

The construction you illuminate above is, to my mind, one of the core weaknesses of a pure utilitarian philosophy (as opposed to utilitarianism modified by something else).

Cheers
Aj


Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

Actually--and I didn't make this clear at the outset--I am saying that there are limits on the utilitarian position. If, in the course of saving five people, I take an action that results in the death of one person but that action does not use that person as an instrument to achieve my goal of saving people, then the action is morally defensible. If, on the other hand, the only way to save the five people is to use a sixth person, against his will, as an instrument then it is not morally defensible.

I base this off an old Ursula K. Le Guin story where there is a utopia but with a catch--in order for this utopia to exist one child must be spend his entire life locked in a basement with no human contact. In this case, the child is an *instrument* to some other end. *Because* the child suffers, we have a utopia. The child then is merely an instrument for the happiness of the greatest number. That is a trade-off that I would have a hard time finding morally defensible. On the other hand, in modern capitalist nations we have societies that are less equal than it is imaginable for them to be because there is a balance between freedom and equality. This is a trade-off that it is at least possible to defend morally, certainly in principle.

Does that make sense? For me the crux comes down to whether we are using others as instruments to some end, which I do not think is defensible or if they are casualties of circumstance.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

[Semantics]

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.

This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?

I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.


RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.


Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely a means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

[dreadgeek]

You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.

This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?

I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.




I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.




Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

But Semantic, if you don't flip the switch and five people die you are now responsible for the five people who died. No matter *what* you do, you are going to be responsible for some number of people dying. The question is whether you are more comfortable with that being one person or multiple people.

To see why this is the case, consider the alternative. Let's say you flip the switch but the switch is broken and the train plows into the five people, killing them all. You made an attempt to save their lives but were thwarted by a mechanical failure. In that case, no one could say you were responsible because without foreknowledge that the switch was broken and without the means to fix the switch in a timely manner, there's nothing you could have done to prevent the switch from malfunctioning.

On the other hand, if you could do something that would save the lives of five people and you chose not to, then would it not be reasonable to argue that your inaction constituted an action whose consequences are foreseeable? Again, it is the difference between driving drunk and killing someone and having a mechanical failure and killing someone. Is it possible that you could drive drunk and not kill someone? Yes, happens all the time. However, if you drive drunk and you kill someone it would be very difficult for someone to argue that it was not foreseeable that diminished capacity would not be a consequence of your drinking to excess.

So I don't think that not pulling the switch actually gets you around the responsibility of causing deaths. If you were not fast enough to get to the switch, you couldn't be held responsible. If the switch fails, you couldn't be held responsible. If, however, you were within comfortable reach of the switch and you chose not to use it, given that the likely consequences are foreseeable you would be responsible for the deaths of five people.

I understand that one consequence is because of your inaction but you had the means to effect a different outcome and you chose not to take that action and in doing so, you chose the death of five people.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.



I "might could have" said "fate" as well as "God's plan" there. I was contrasting free will and destiny, and proposing that in a deterministic schema what you do may not really be your decision. I could have been clearer on that.

[tapu]

AJ, I do think there's a diff between Semantics acting and not-acting. As it is, the "universe" has decided the train will hit 5. He is not adding to that forward impetus by doing nothing.

If he switches the track, he is intervening. He personally is aiming the train at the one.

I want to say here though that I'm only claiming there's a difference in quality of the act. I think it's possible that by varying circumstances a new way, we can expose whether this is morally significant or not.
I gotta' think.....

[Semantics]

Thank you for your replies, both of you.

I will have to think more on what has been said here, and one never knows, this discussion could one day be the salvation of five people on a train track.

[Semantics]

AJ, I do think there's a diff between Semantics acting and not-acting. As it is, the "universe" has decided the train will hit 5. He is not adding to that forward impetus by doing nothing.

If he switches the track, he is intervening. He personally is aiming the train at the one.

I want to say here though that I'm only claiming there's a difference in quality of the act. I think it's possible that by varying circumstances a new way, we can expose whether this is morally significant or not.
I gotta' think.....

This is where I get hung up.


-Semantics (raised by Taoists)

[dreadgeek]

Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

Here is a real-world example. Back in, I believe, 1982 or 1983 a B-52 took off from Mather AFB in Sacramento and almost immediately ran into engine trouble. After Mather AFB was built, a whole subdivision grew up around the base advancing almost to the fence line. B-52s are equipped with a way for the crew to escape should the aircraft develop a mechanical problem. The crew *could* have gotten out. However, had they done so the aircraft would have plowed into some houses just on the other side of a field that went right up to the fence line. The pilot, making a command decision, rolled the B-52 over (making the ejection seats worthless) and flew the crippled aircraft into a field killing all nine crew members instantly.

I remember this incident because my house was one of the houses that was spared. The pilot made a decision, there was no communication with the tower, but it's clear that the plane changed course so it was a deliberate action on the part of the guys at the yoke. In doing so he caused the death of eight other people.

This is a very close analogy to the train scenario. In this case, the pilot did not use his aircrew as an *instrument* to achieve an end, given the nature of the situation there was no way for him to save his aircrew AND people on the ground. He did not intend the death of the aircrew, it was an unavoidable consequence of the only action he could take that would spare the lives of people on the ground.

Using someone as a means to an end is very different. Staying with this example (and stretching the mechanics of flight to do so), let's say that the aircraft was simply too heavy and by tossing aircrew out he could keep the plane aloft long enough to circle back and land safely or carry out his mission. NOW he is causing the death of his crew and they are mere instruments for achieving the goal of lightening the load of his airplane.


Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Ugh. Under utilitarianism (in the shorthand way I know it), the second scenario is better. It just comes down to math: One more person is left living--the pilot.

Well, now, that's not very attractive as moral principles go.

I think the using/letting-leave/instrument/agent/passive etc approaches are proving richer for thinking about the ethics. Of course, with that come the uncomfortable complications

[dreadgeek]

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

I am glad you said this. I understand that statements like "X is not morally defensible" are out of fashion but I think that the above statement is as close to a moral absolute as we are likely to find. In fact, I would argue that all our talk of rights or social justice are predicated on human beings having intrinsic value and not being instrumental vehicles to achieve some end or another. This is why slavery is a moral stain because it takes a group of people and makes them instruments. This is why I think that both libertarians and conservatives of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s got it entirely wrong on the subject of civil rights. All the arguments used by conservatives to bolster the position of segregationists that did not just revolve around outright racist tropes were essentially grounded in the idea that while racial segregation was regrettable, it was a necessary evil to maintain either political stability or economic 'freedom'. In this construction, blacks were--still--merely present in the Americas as a means to an end but did not have intrinsic value.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Ugh. Under utilitarianism (in the shorthand way I know it), the second scenario is better. It just comes down to math: One more person is left living--the pilot.

Well, now, that's not very attractive as moral principles go.

I think the using/letting-leave/instrument/agent/passive etc approaches are proving richer for thinking about the ethics. Of course, with that come the uncomfortable complications

This is why utilitarianism is of only very limited usefulness unless it is tempered by something like a Kantian imperative such as "human beings are ends to themselves". Without that we wind up exactly where you state--whatever will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number is the correct action. However, if we insert the Kantian imperative then we can say:

Provided that it does not use people as a means to an end and all other things being equal, we should probably consider those actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number the action most likely to be correct.

I would say that this is a more useful formulation of what Bentham and Mills were on about.

Cheers
Aj

[tonaderspeisung]

This is why utilitarianism is of only very limited usefulness unless it is tempered by something like a Kantian imperative such as "human beings are ends to themselves". Without that we wind up exactly where you state--whatever will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number is the correct action. However, if we insert the Kantian imperative then we can say:

Provided that it does not use people as a means to an end and all other things being equal, we should probably consider those actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number the action most likely to be correct.

I would say that this is a more useful formulation of what Bentham and Mills were on about.

Cheers
Aj

with kant thinking wouldn't one have to find that 5 is always a better outcome than one

i personally give life the number value of zero - not as having no value but a number representation for both infinite potential and an absolute value of it's end

in this case 5x0=0 and 1x0=0
so i still can't conclude that actively participating is of greater good than non

[tapu]

If you carry the 0 value out that way, wiping out the human race would be equal to sacrificing 1.

And maybe it is in a sense.

[dreadgeek]

with kant thinking wouldn't one have to find that 5 is always a better outcome than one

i personally give life the number value of zero - not as having no value but a number representation for both infinite potential and an absolute value of it's end

in this case 5x0=0 and 1x0=0
so i still can't conclude that actively participating is of greater good than non

I'm not sure that one would have to conclude that Kantian ethics would require one to conclude that five is always the right outcome. It depends upon what rule is being applied.

If the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people always save multiple people" I do not think the Kantian imperative requires us to conclude that or act in that manner. Without any real effort we can all come up with reasons why that rule should not be applied.

If, on the other hand, the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people and where this can be achieved without treating people as instruments instead of ends and where all other things are equal then the likely correct action is to save the most people" then I think that we might want to apply the Kantian maxim that we should not act on any principle that we would not be comfortable with if it were to become a universal law.

Even if I am the person who will die, I am actually rather comfortable with the idea that all other things being equal, we try to do what will be of greatest benefit to the largest number of people.

Keep in mind that things are not always equal. If I can save my son or I can save you and your child, I'm saving my son. That might seem to contradict but my level of concern for your well-being is necessarily dwarfed by my level of concern for my son's well-being. So the life of my son, compared to the life of the other 6 billion of y'all, is more important to me. All things are not equal in that situation. Even if we might wish that I would feel otherwise about my son, there are millions of years of primate evolution disagreeing with what we might wish.

If I understand your calculus, though, it militates for never doing anything to save people except, perhaps, your own kin. If the argument you are making is that if you save the five people they will still die eventually and if you save the one he will die eventually, then doesn't that just invite a nihilistic stance of not doing anything? Or am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

DREADGEEK: "the life of my son, compared to the life of the other 6 billion of y'all, is more important to me."

I know exactly what you mean, but I did have an uncomfortable feeling when I read that: Would I not sacrifice my son to save the world?

Guess that doesn't really bear on the question at hand.... But I'm back to throwing poor little Asa under the train! >:-\

[dreadgeek]

DREADGEEK: "the life of my son, compared to the life of the other 6 billion of y'all, is more important to me."

I know exactly what you mean, but I did have an uncomfortable feeling when I read that: Would I not sacrifice my son to save the world?

Guess that doesn't really bear on the question at hand.... But I'm back to throwing poor little Asa under the train! >:-\

It was uncomfortable for me to type it! It's one of those things that I know about myself that I might wish were otherwise but it's not.

As an aside, when my son was in his mid-teens I found myself going fully Cosby on him and saying "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out, make another one look just like you and in 15 years no one will know the difference". :)

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

The discomfort for me was that I realized I might very well make that choice. Saving my son at the cost of destroying the world (and I'm speaking only of its human inhabitants) is not itself a livable scenario. Of course, I'd be dead, too, by my own hand, but 6 billion wouldn't be. That, to me, seems the moral choice and it's not just about the numbers. It's about the human endeavor having its own value, similar to how atomicZ framed the evaluation.

How do you view the interaction between that moral reasoning and the morality of evolution which would originate at least in the saving of one's own progeny?

(See why I felt sick?) >:-)

[tonaderspeisung]

If I understand your calculus, though, it militates for never doing anything to save people except, perhaps, your own kin. If the argument you are making is that if you save the five people they will still die eventually and if you save the one he will die eventually, then doesn't that just invite a nihilistic stance of not doing anything? Or am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj

i don't think so - for me it is a starting point of reference giving an intangible property (life) a value for the scenario equation.

i believe the equation allows for other factors to be added or subtracted e.g. family, military/police training, immobilizing fear

but we were only given the multiplying factors 5 and 1 so if i was asked to judge either outcome i would have to find both equally ethical

i can't find 5>1 to be the obvious answer
for me that leads down the road to 6 billion>5 and the unpleasant argument that five fewer people could be a greater advantage for the many

[tapu]

Then we reject 6bn > 1, as well. So, 6bn = 1. That would mean that killing one person is equal to killing 6 billion. And I'm not entirely displeased with that conclusion. Are you?

[dreadgeek]

i don't think so - for me it is a starting point of reference giving an intangible property (life) a value for the scenario equation.

i believe the equation allows for other factors to be added or subtracted e.g. family, military/police training, immobilizing fear

but we were only given the multiplying factors 5 and 1 so if i was asked to judge either outcome i would have to find both equally ethical

i can't find 5>1 to be the obvious answer
for me that leads down the road to 6 billion>5 and the unpleasant argument that five fewer people could be a greater advantage for the many

Yet, every person who puts on the uniform of their national military or police or fire departments is saying, with their choice, that they are willing to lay down their lives for the benefit of the rest of us. Whether we realize it consciously it's what we do. Every Marine, when it comes down to cases, is expected to be able to fight. Every soldier in the Army is expected, if need arises, to be in the infantry. That means taking the risk of dying.

Just last month we celebrated a whole bunch of men--our fathers or grandfathers or great-grandfathers--who stormed up a beach in France to defeat a *genuinely* evil regime. Those that died did not set out to die, but they had to know as the ramps dropped that they were taking that very risk.

As far as the idea that if we grant that saving five and losing one is better than saving one and losing five, we must *also* admit that saving 6,000,000,000 and losing five is *also* better, I think the only way to get there is to over-apply the rule. Any rule, over-applied, will break in a messy fashion and lead to obviously ludicrous answers If we over-apply the rule you're using, we don't save anyone. If you're going to die, you're going to die, that's your fate, no one intervene. Using that logic all our medicine, all our public health, all our public safety is getting in the way of events that would otherwise happen if not for those interventions.

But there's no reason to think that human beings are going to over-apply that particular rule in that particular fashion. At least I don't see a particularly good reason to believe that we would.

Yes, if we decide that saving five even at the cost of one life is morally praiseworthy and then decide that this means that without condition we should always apply that rule regardless of circumstance and without doing any kind of reasoning about the situation (as time allows), then yes we could see someone making the argument that in order for the rest of us to live five people must die. However, this would be using those five people as an *instrument* toward that end.

Do you see any reason why the 5>1 solution ineluctably leads to the 6,000,000,000>1 because I just don't see it unless one over-applies the rule. I don't even see why we should expect people would tend to over-apply that rule.


Cheers
Aj

[Chancie]

Question:

Where does the saying, "save a life, save a whole world" come from? I'm not even sure it's Jewish. Thanks, Milty N.

Answer:

The Talmud asks why the human race was created as a single human being, as opposed to creating many people at once (like the animals which were created en masse1 )?

This teaches us that just as Adam was created in the beginning, and he was the entire human population of the world, likewise we need to look at each individual as if he/she were the entire population of the world. Therefore, when you save one life it is as if you saved the entire world.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a states:

"FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL... SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL..., SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD."

I personally do not believe that any of the famous religious texts come directly from a god/God's mouth, but I was thinking about this idea when I was reading the last few posts.

[tapu]

Ah. Again, 6bn = 1.