Self-defense: The Trolley Case

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1788322' date='Feb 22 2009, 02:07 PM']It's similar. Although, in this case, there is no question as to the "worth" of another person's life (criminal vs. non-criminal) and there is much less confusion as to what will really happen.

I agree that something in us says that it's wrong to flip the switch... but why? Is there a philosophical reason for it, or must we conclude that preferring another person's life to your own is a concept that can come from God alone?[/quote]

That nagging feeling is easy to explain... You are causing the other persons death. Sure you can justify it by saying "I didn't put them there". But its your action which was the superseding\intervening cause - you may say the proximate cause - of their death.

The concept that killing another person is wrong is ingrained in us as humans. Its part of the natural law. Every society - whether Christian or not - has come to the same conclusion.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1788515' date='Feb 22 2009, 06:17 PM']Are you allowed to separate natural law from religious morality?[/quote]

Yes. There are certain truths that can be found and lived without God's revelation. If you look to some of the ancient philosophers-- Plato, Aristotle, etc, you'll find that they came to many of the truths that we hold as Christians. Augustine has a special love for Plato because of that.

[quote]That nagging feeling is easy to explain... You are causing the other persons death. Sure you can justify it by saying "I didn't put them there". But its your action which was the superseding\intervening cause - you may say the proximate cause - of their death.

The concept that killing another person is wrong is ingrained in us as humans. Its part of the natural law. Every society - whether Christian or not - has come to the same conclusion.[/quote]

I disagree. It is not your action that is killing the person. Let's look at the factors in play here:

What is the action? The action is flipping the switch. Is that action immoral? No-- because if there were not another person tied to the opposite track, it would be morally acceptable for you to flip the switch.

What is your intention? Your intention is to save your life-- a good and noble intention. You have 'right intention'. You are not intending the death of the other person, that is merely a side effect of the action.

So, there are two effects of your action: one good and one bad. The good effect is saving your life and the bad effect is the death of the other. In this case, the good effect comes directly from your action (pulling the switch) and is therefore [b]not[/b] subject to the argument "do the ends justify the means" (in other words, the good effect is not coming directly from the bad effect).

Now here is the question: Is the evil effect greater than the good effect? Is the death of one person greater than the life of the other person?

It appears to me that in this case, it is morally acceptable to flip the switch. However, the better choice would be not to flip the switch.

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1788687' date='Feb 22 2009, 07:59 PM']Yes. There are certain truths that can be found and lived without God's revelation. If you look to some of the ancient philosophers-- Plato, Aristotle, etc, you'll find that they came to many of the truths that we hold as Christians. Augustine has a special love for Plato because of that.



I disagree. It is not your action that is killing the person. Let's look at the factors in play here:

What is the action? The action is flipping the switch. Is that action immoral? No-- because if there were not another person tied to the opposite track, it would be morally acceptable for you to flip the switch.

What is your intention? Your intention is to save your life-- a good and noble intention. You have 'right intention'. You are not intending the death of the other person, that is merely a side effect of the action.

So, there are two effects of your action: one good and one bad. The good effect is saving your life and the bad effect is the death of the other. In this case, the good effect comes directly from your action (pulling the switch) and is therefore [b]not[/b] subject to the argument "do the ends justify the means" (in other words, the good effect is not coming directly from the bad effect).

Now here is the question: Is the evil effect greater than the good effect? Is the death of one person greater than the life of the other person?

It appears to me that in this case, it is morally acceptable to flip the switch. However, the better choice would be not to flip the switch.[/quote]

My earlier post was more addressing your 'nagging feeling' question than the morality of the problem as a whole. Even with all these justifications you've laid out, why does one still feel guilty in this matter? If its completely moral, why are you troubled?

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1788677' date='Feb 22 2009, 08:28 PM']That nagging feeling is easy to explain... You are causing the other persons death. Sure you can justify it by saying "I didn't put them there". But its your action which was the superseding\intervening cause - you may say the proximate cause - of their death.

The concept that killing another person is wrong is ingrained in us as humans. Its part of the natural law. Every society - whether Christian or not - has come to the same conclusion.[/quote]

Yep.
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1788687' date='Feb 22 2009, 08:59 PM']Yes. There are certain truths that can be found and lived without God's revelation. If you look to some of the ancient philosophers-- Plato, Aristotle, etc, you'll find that they came to many of the truths that we hold as Christians. Augustine has a special love for Plato because of that.



I disagree. It is not your action that is killing the person. Let's look at the factors in play here:

What is the action? The action is flipping the switch. Is that action immoral? No-- because if there were not another person tied to the opposite track, it would be morally acceptable for you to flip the switch.

What is your intention? Your intention is to save your life-- a good and noble intention. You have 'right intention'. You are not intending the death of the other person, that is merely a side effect of the action.

So, there are two effects of your action: one good and one bad. The good effect is saving your life and the bad effect is the death of the other. In this case, the good effect comes directly from your action (pulling the switch) and is therefore [b]not[/b] subject to the argument "do the ends justify the means" (in other words, the good effect is not coming directly from the bad effect).

Now here is the question: Is the evil effect greater than the good effect? Is the death of one person greater than the life of the other person?

It appears to me that in this case, it is morally acceptable to flip the switch. However, the better choice would be not to flip the switch.[/quote]
It would not be morally permissable because you are the direct cause of the other person's death.True, you didn't tie them to the tracks etc., but you directed the path of the train over them.

Imagine instead that two bad guys point guns at you, hands you a gun with only one bullet, and tells you you must kill the innocent person in order to save your own life. If you shoot one of them (or yourself), the other guy shoots you and the other innocent person goes free. Can you justifiably pull the trigger? Dosen't seem so. Sure you could say that it wasn't your fault that you were in that situation etc., but at the end of the day you directly killed someone. The reason being that you diverted the danger directly to the other person. It would be like if there was a bomb set to go off in your house and you threw it to your nieghbor across the street. You didn't put it there, and throwing it saved your life (your main intenet, we'll say you are best friends with your neghbor),and trowing things is not itself immoral, but you still directly caused someone else's death.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='WillT' post='1789371' date='Feb 23 2009, 03:04 PM']It would not be morally permissable because you are the direct cause of the other person's death.True, you didn't tie them to the tracks etc., but you directed the path of the train over them.[/quote]

You bring up an important distinction and it's been the thought I've been considering throughout this afternoon: Is this truly a case of double effect (where one action has two effects: an evil and a good), or is this a case of placing yourself into the causal chain of events?

The typical case for the Principle of Double Effect is the pregnant mother with uterine cancer. Unless the uterus is removed, the mother will die. If the uterus is removed, the child will not survive outside the womb. If the uterus is not removed, the mother will die before the child can survive outside of the womb, and so both the mother and the child will die.

Uterine Cancer Patient

Action: Removing the Uterus
Intention/Good Effect: Save mother’s life
Evil Effect: Child dies

Action causes both the good effect and the evil effect at the same time. Both the good and evil effect happen simultaneously.

Trolley Case

Action: Flipping the switch
Intention: Save one’s life
Evil effect: Switches the train to another track --> (causes) death of innocent

The action does NOT cause death of the innocent simultaneously as the saving of one's life. Flipping the switch has two effects: Saving your life and switching the track the train is on. Now that the train is on a different track, the innocent will die. There is a causal relation between the train switching tracks (which is an effect of your action) and the death of the innocent. You have thus put yourself into the causal chain of events and are therefore unjustified in your action.

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1789538' date='Feb 23 2009, 04:56 PM']You bring up an important distinction and it's been the thought I've been considering throughout this afternoon: Is this truly a case of double effect (where one action has two effects: an evil and a good), or is this a case of placing yourself into the causal chain of events?

The typical case for the Principle of Double Effect is the pregnant mother with uterine cancer. Unless the uterus is removed, the mother will die. If the uterus is removed, the child will not survive outside the womb. If the uterus is not removed, the mother will die before the child can survive outside of the womb, and so both the mother and the child will die.

Uterine Cancer Patient

Action: Removing the Uterus
Intention/Good Effect: Save mother’s life
Evil Effect: Child dies

Action causes both the good effect and the evil effect at the same time. Both the good and evil effect happen simultaneously.

Trolley Case

Action: Flipping the switch
Intention: Save one’s life
Evil effect: Switches the train to another track --> (causes) death of innocent

The action does NOT cause death of the innocent simultaneously as the saving of one's life. Flipping the switch has two effects: Saving your life and switching the track the train is on. Now that the train is on a different track, the innocent will die. There is a causal relation between the train switching tracks (which is an effect of your action) and the death of the innocent. You have thus put yourself into the causal chain of events and are therefore unjustified in your action.[/quote]

ok this may seem weird considering what I posted above, but I think you're a little wrong on this too.

The trolley case is probably a good 'double effect' example - just as good as the mother with cancer. The action of flipping the switch\removing the cancer is the superseding cause of the death of the innocent. It is justifiable because the intention and action were to help another innocent it just happened to kill another. So I think inserting some sort of time element doesn't really separate the two. Honestly you can make a case that they are both example of the double effect.

But my posts above are attesting to a different aspect of the problem. There is still this guilt that comes with the action. That mother is still going to feel terribly guilty for her action - even though not immoral - because it directly caused the death of another.

Take it to the more extreme. Say someone was about to shoot you and you shoot them and kill them. Self-defense right? Completely justifiable. But you'll still have a conscience and probably some guilt about it. Ask any solider about killing an enemy. Its probably not immoral but that doesn't make those feelings go away.

Its because its ingrained in us that we really aren't supposed to kill people.

Maybe its because there still is an evil that has been committed, but the culpability isn't there - so we regret the evil but are culpable for it.

[Winchester]

You are not obliged to die. You may flip the switch.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789665' date='Feb 23 2009, 08:41 PM']ok this may seem weird considering what I posted above, but I think you're a little wrong on this too.

The trolley case is probably a good 'double effect' example - just as good as the mother with cancer. The action of flipping the switch\removing the cancer is the superseding cause of the death of the innocent. It is justifiable because the intention and action were to help another innocent it just happened to kill another. So I think inserting some sort of time element doesn't really separate the two. Honestly you can make a case that they are both example of the double effect.

But my posts above are attesting to a different aspect of the problem. There is still this guilt that comes with the action. That mother is still going to feel terribly guilty for her action - even though not immoral - because it directly caused the death of another.

Take it to the more extreme. Say someone was about to shoot you and you shoot them and kill them. Self-defense right? Completely justifiable. But you'll still have a conscience and probably some guilt about it. Ask any solider about killing an enemy. Its probably not immoral but that doesn't make those feelings go away.

Its because its ingrained in us that we really aren't supposed to kill people.

Maybe its because there still is an evil that has been committed, but the culpability isn't there - so we regret the evil but are culpable for it.[/quote]

You can't have it both ways: It's either wrong or it's not wrong to pull the switch. Guilty feelings or no. If this is a case of double effect, then it's completely justifiable to pull the switch. If it's not double effect, then it's not justifiable to pull the switch.

I don't think the time element is the key factor. It's that flipping the switch is NOT the action the kills the other innocent. It is the train running over the innocent. Flipping the switch is not the direct action that leads to death. Instead, it is another event in a series of events that eventually leads to the death of the other innocent. Therefore the death is not a side effect of the action.

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1789747' date='Feb 23 2009, 09:19 PM']You can't have it both ways: It's either wrong or it's not wrong to pull the switch. Guilty feelings or no. If this is a case of double effect, then it's completely justifiable to pull the switch. If it's not double effect, then it's not justifiable to pull the switch.

I don't think the time element is the key factor. It's that flipping the switch is NOT the action the kills the other innocent. It is the train running over the innocent. Flipping the switch is not the direct action that leads to death. Instead, it is another event in a series of events that eventually leads to the death of the other innocent. Therefore the death is not a side effect of the action.[/quote]

One can feel guilty and have done nothing wrong. Its not having it both ways. You assume that if you do nothing immoral you won't feel guilty - yet this is not human experience.

You caused the train to run over the guy. In law we call this the 'proximate cause'. Sure you can string out the chain of events to infinity. Technically its not the train that killed him but the lack of blood to the organs or something like that. Think about shooting someone; you pull the trigger, but technically its the bullet that strikes them, or maybe the heart failure that is the event that kills them. But no we don't hold people responsible, legally, like that. We ask what was the proximate cause, the superseding cause that killed him. Its not the train or bullet - its your action.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789913' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:36 AM']One can feel guilty and have done nothing wrong. Its not having it both ways. You assume that if you do nothing immoral you won't feel guilty - yet this is not human experience.

You caused the train to run over the guy. In law we call this the 'proximate cause'. Sure you can string out the chain of events to infinity. Technically its not the train that killed him but the lack of blood to the organs or something like that. Think about shooting someone; you pull the trigger, but technically its the bullet that strikes them, or maybe the heart failure that is the event that kills them. But no we don't hold people responsible, legally, like that. We ask what was the proximate cause, the superseding cause that killed him. Its not the train or bullet - its your action.[/quote]

I. I don't assume that if you do nothing immoral you won't feel guilty-- I was attempting to refer to an earlier post where you had said it was not okay to pull the switch. I was confused as to whether or not you had changed your stance completely.

II. I'm still tempted to disagree. I think it is fairly logical to say that the train running over him is the cause of death. And that the train being on his track is why it ran over him. And then that you are the cause of the train being on his track. There are too many degrees of separation for you to be the immediate cause of his death-- your action is set into the chain of events that lead to his death. Which makes you culpable (same as shooting someone, as in your example). You can't pull the switch.

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1790310' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:41 AM']I. I don't assume that if you do nothing immoral you won't feel guilty-- I was attempting to refer to an earlier post where you had said it was not okay to pull the switch. I was confused as to whether or not you had changed your stance completely.[/quote]
To be clear, none of my posts have said its not okay to pull the switch. My posts have said that if you pull the switch you'll still probably feel guilty about it - regardless of the morality behind it.

[quote]II. I'm still tempted to disagree. I think it is fairly logical to say that the train running over him is the cause of death. And that the train being on his track is why it ran over him. And then that you are the cause of the train being on his track. There are too many degrees of separation for you to be the immediate cause of his death-- your action is set into the chain of events that lead to his death. Which makes you culpable (same as shooting someone, as in your example). You can't pull the switch.[/quote]

Two things. First off, you are the main cause of the train hitting the man. You have the choice of which tracks the train will be on. Once the switch is flipped either way, the events are certain - there is nothing that can change them. The train is coming down the tracks period. The real choice is which tracks, and thats your choice. You are the proximate cause of the persons death.

Secondly, just because you are the proximate cause of someone's death does not equal culpability. For example if you get into a car wreck, say you dodged a deer and hit someone, and killed the person, you are certainly the proximate cause of their death yet it was an accident. You will feel guilty because you have caused the death of someone, but you are not morally responsible. The better (probably best) example of this is shooting someone in self-defense. In that case you are the proximately cause of someone's death, will probably feel guilty about it, yet are not morally culpable.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1790365' date='Feb 24 2009, 01:31 PM']To be clear, none of my posts have said its not okay to pull the switch. My posts have said that if you pull the switch you'll still probably feel guilty about it - regardless of the morality behind it.



Two things. First off, you are the main cause of the train hitting the man. You have the choice of which tracks the train will be on. Once the switch is flipped either way, the events are certain - there is nothing that can change them. The train is coming down the tracks period. The real choice is which tracks, and thats your choice. You are the proximate cause of the persons death.

Secondly, just because you are the proximate cause of someone's death does not equal culpability. For example if you get into a car wreck, say you dodged a deer and hit someone, and killed the person, you are certainly the proximate cause of their death yet it was an accident. You will feel guilty because you have caused the death of someone, but you are not morally responsible. The better (probably best) example of this is shooting someone in self-defense. In that case you are the proximately cause of someone's death, will probably feel guilty about it, yet are not morally culpable.[/quote]

Then I'm awfully confused at what you're trying to say anymore. What exactly is your stance here?

[rkwright]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1790454' date='Feb 24 2009, 02:52 PM']Then I'm awfully confused at what you're trying to say anymore. What exactly is your stance here?[/quote]

Sorry I really don't mean to be confusing.

I jumped in here when you asked why people would feel guilty for pulling the switch when it would be morally acceptable. My response is that even if it is morally justifiable one still feels guilty because objectively causing the death of someone is wrong.

Look start with the basic premise that causing the death of someone is wrong. Then you add the exceptions\justifications. If one kills in self-defense its no longer wrong, or if its unintentional, ect. These are justifications for the killing and thus remove culpability from the individual.

So for your train example, you flipping the switch causes someone to die, which is wrong. The next question is there a justifiable reason for this? I think your double effect argument fits this fine. Last you ask, why does one feel guilty about this even though there is no moral culpability? My response was that people still feel guilty for killing someone even when justified.