Questions of Ethics

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.