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

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

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

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

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.

Close enough!

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

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

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

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.

[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?

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

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

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

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

Two questions
 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.....

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.

This is where I get hung up.


-Semantics (raised by Taoists)

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

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