Ethics

[El_Machinae]

Um ... aren't 2) and 3b) the same question?

I also felt I had an obligation to keep the violinist alive.

 

[Xenocrates]

Well, 76% would divert the trolley onto the single man but only 26% would push the chunky bloke.

I guess the difference is that his weight makes him a useful train-stopper, whereas the single man is chosen because he is on his own.

I can't untangle that one either. Maybe it's because the single man in 2) has a 50% chance of dying depending on the position of the switch and people are assuming it's random, whereas the big guy would definitely live if you weren't there. Perhaps it's because he is closer to you and you have a more intimate connection with his death? Ethics by proximity? Bombing is 'better' than knifing?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Well, 76% would divert the trolley onto the single man but only 26% would push the chunky bloke.

I guess the difference is that his weight makes him a useful train-stopper, whereas the single man is chosen because he is on his own.

You're on the right track (pardon the pun). The difference is that the fat man's injury/death is part of the plan. Whereas in the track-switching case, the single man's injury/death is not part of the plan, although it is expected.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wow ... morally I can't see the difference. Maybe I need to sit and think.

 

[Perfection]

II wonder if it has to do with Fat people being percieved as jolly.

 

[Samson]

Just thought I would let you know that the official results are out. No supprises;

1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST
25 percent said yes, 75 percent said no of 57,779 votes cast.

2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
The results: 77 percent said yes, 23 percent said no of 65,363 votes cast.

3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
The results: 25 percent said yes, 75 percent said no of 52,178 votes cast.

4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
The results: 75 percent said yes, 25 percent said no of 51,107 votes cast.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The principle known as the doctrine of double effect distinguishes between sending the train down the one-man track (permissible) versus using the fat guy to stop the train (impermissible). The link has a good discussion.

 

[Xenocrates]

The term 'double effect' was new to me, but the link explained it pretty well.

The BBC's answers were analysed thus:

1)

As expected, most of you believe it's morally acceptable to disconnect yourself, but a significant minority think otherwise.

It would be interesting to find out how you selected your answer. Is there a duty to save the violinist? Does he have a right to life that would be violated by disconnection, or does he just have a right not to be killed? Is unplugging yourself killing him or letting him die, and does it actually matter morally which it is?

I suspect many will say that you are not killing him, but letting him die. For some people, this is how Thomson's case differs from abortion. When you abort a foetus, you are not just letting the foetus die. There is usually an intention to kill the foetus, whereas there's no intention to kill the violinist.

Those who remain connected need to confront the following issue: as I write, thousands are dying of preventable diseases in Sudan. The World Health Organization says that funds are urgently required. You could save some of them, just like the maestro, by giving up far less than nine months. Does consistency require you to make some personal sacrifice to others whose lives could also be saved by your actions?

* If abortion could be carried out by severing the umbilical cord, the situation, would be identical in my view though, except for the fact that you didn't create the violinist. The intention of the abortion subject is not to kill the foetus, but to be free from the symptoms of pregnancy and the upbringing. If they could achieve that without killing the foetus, I'm pretty sure most people would take that option. *

2)

Again, the results are roughly three-quarters in favour of flicking the switch and one-quarter against. This is a surprising result. I'd have expected a greater consensus on diverting the trolley.

For those who wouldn't flip the switch, the consequences alone don't determine the morality of the act. Some moral rule (perhaps the duty not to kill innocent people) must have trumped any duty to maximise overall consequences (by saving as many people as possible).

How many people would need to be on that main track for you to change your mind? Is the moral rule absolute, or can it be overridden if the consequences reach a certain point - 10 people on the main track? Or 100 or 1,000?

3)

The results are reversed in this case, as philosophers expect. The consequences are the same, but most opt to let the five people die. It appears that the end justify the means in the simple trolley case, but not in the modified version.

How can those who vote to flick the switch but not to push the fat man explain this apparent discrepancy? Is there a relevant moral rule present in this case but not the last? Is there a psychological dimension - you can see the fat man next to you and need to physically nudge him - that shifts the balance? Does this say something about the role of emotions in moral judgement?

4)

It's expected but nonetheless puzzling that the majority of you are not willing to push the fat man off the bridge, but are willing to blast him out of a hole to save five people. What are the relevant differences, if any, between the previous case and this one? Is it that you are trapped and self-preservation prevails?

It seems that our intuitive ethics cannot really be analysed logically. When our governments present a policy to us and explain it in terms of ethics, such as 'Saddam is killing people, so we need to kill some people to stop him', or 'the Iranians may kill some people in the future so we need to definitely kill some people now to prevent that', I think we all need to be cautious and see through the words to the intention behind.

In the past governments didn't need to develop ethical arguments because there wasn't democracy; at least not this type of democracy. Now, however, most democratic governments frequently use ethics to justify their actions/inactions. But are they genuine ethics or not?

 

[Souron]

1) It would be better and kinder to stay connected. Nobody should be prosecuted or even shunned for choosing otherwise, however.

2) Yes, but again it is not an obligation.

3) No. It is up to him to jump himself.

4) It should be up to Jack. Jack should ask to be blown up. If Jack doesn't, you can't blame him for not having his wits about him. He did get stuck in a whole after all.

Edit: This list what I think the moral thing to do is. I'm in no way saying that this is what I would actually do in this situation. I would probably disconect myself, not act when the train is comming, not think about jumping off the brigde, and try to find another way out with the stick of dinomite.

 

[warpus]

If abortion could be carried out by severing the umbilical cord, the situation, would be identical in my view though, except for the fact that you didn't create the violinist

That's not the important distinction, though.

The important distinction between the two scenarios is that you are responsible for the situation that the fetus is in, whereas you did nothing to contribute to the situation that the violinist is in.

That is a VERY big distinction in my books.