Fantasic Hypo Moral question

[Keller]

"The Trolley Problem" take from Epstein's Cases and Materials on Torts.

For the purpose of brevity I've truncated the "problem."

Assume you're a trolley driver in San Francisco. You're heading down a steep slope when you realize your breaks have given out and you've got no way to bring the trolley to a stop. Straight ahead in the middle of the track are five workmen who've not the time to remove themselves from the track before you hit them. They will surely die if you stay your course.
A second option would be to change course and veer left. If you choose this course you will surely kill one person who hasn't the time move from the track.
Is it morally permissable to change course? Are you required to change course?

Let's change scenarios and imagine you are a world-famous surgeon (yes you, Chica). You specialize in organ transplant and your skills are such that you'll never have an organ fail to take. Under your care you've 5 patients. Two who need a lung, two who need a kidney, and one who needs a heart. If they do not receive their transplants within the next 6 hours they will die.
Into your office walks a healthy 24 year old male of the same blood-type as your previous five patients. Is it morally permisable to remove his organs and transplant them into your five patients? Is it a moral obligation? Why?

[Celephais]

I'm sorry I just got off the racist hurricane thread so my first thought upon reading this was: "What color are they?".

I believe the correct moral thing to do would be to "stay the course" because you do not have the moral right to remove someone elses right to live, at any cost. The other people, even if it's more, were going to lose their lives to a factor that was not your doing.

You have to kind of think of it as "you didn't exist" how would it turn out... well the five workmen would die, and the five patients would die. Why do you have the right to trade their lives for someone else?

That said in the case of the trolly, I would turn, in the case of the surgeon, I would let healthy man live. (My view, not the philisophical moral view)

Edit to add:
Let's say your trolley was going to hit five people, if you pulled up onto the left curb you would hit only 1 of them, if you pulled onto the right curb, you would still hit the other 4, if you stayed the course, you'd hit the same 5. In this case you have the power to save a life, but not at a cost of a life that wouldn't be taken if you stayed the course. obviously you are morally obligated to pull onto a curb. Which curb is potentially still up to debate (what if the left crub one was a nobel prize winning scientist in the field of medicine), but as long as you pulled to at least a single curb, you're morally right (in my take on the philsophical obligation)

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Celephais]

[Farquar]

Brings back memories from 1L.

The first is the easier of the two. Fatalities are inevitable in the first situtation, so the moral thing to do would be to minimize them. Veering left would be the proper thing to do. The counterargument. of course, is that the workmen have assumed certain risks in their job, and that they were in the best position to avoid or insure against the risk.

For the second, the value of a human life is considered infinite. Five times infinity equals one times infinity. So, its not moral to kill the healthy one.

[Celephais]

Farquar -For the second, the value of a human life is considered infinite.
I am not going to disagree with you, I just have two questions for you. The first five lives were going to die in six hours due to outside causes (needing organs...) the healthy man was not going to.
1. Does that change their value?

Your argument for the second hypothetical could be applied to the first, you have to realize that both hypotheticals are the same, an outside cause (trolly breaks) has shorten the potential lifespan of five men. You had nothing to do with that. So if you veer left, all the sudden you had a hand in removing that mans life, his life was not in peril prior to your intervention, and neither was the healthy mans. Reducing casualties is a good thing, but hypothetically these two theories are no different...

OH! here we go: So you don't act in time and hit the five workmen, standing to the left of them is the guy you didn't hit, you moonlight as a surgeon and realize you can save the lives of the five workmen if you cut up the healthy man. From a moral standpoint you have to answer both the same, from a "what would you do in that situation" it's feasible to act differently.
2. Does this change your view, if so which way are you leaning now, if not, what would you feel about this third hypothetical?

Edit: Forgot to "ask" the second question. (I think I edit every post I make)

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Celephais]

[Celephais]

I would really like to hear other people's take on this (and the posters) so... bump.

[Electrawn]

Ok...I bite.

http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/Certainty.html

I'll borrow Certainy Principle.

The first scenario is a split second decision. There is no time to think. Even though the actual odds of 5 men dying versus one man dying may be differnet than your perception, your perception will be in terms of black or white...5 or 1.

The second situation is not split-second. You can have an 400 for 400 success rate. The doctor knows the average success rate of surgery and knows that if he kills 1 guy to save 5, he still has a big risk of 6 dead.

I see it as 1 or 5, or 5 vs 6.

This is also a case of unnatural harm versus natural harm. The first scenario has an act of unnatural harm already in play (the brakes failing). Both the workmen and the bystander are in the process of having unnatural harm caused on to them.

The doctor in scenario two would have to engage in unnatural harm (killing another human being) to save patients from natural harm. Humans will not engage in an act of unnatural harm to save someone from natural harm.

(This is ignoring the fact that the surgeon has time and manpower to kill someone, gut their organs, test for the six types of donor compatibility and insert and reconnect all the other organs in 6 hours.)

[Celephais]

Elec, the way the question is worded it's saying the surgeon has 100% chance of success, really the second scenario is a way for you to see the exact same delemia in a view that might make you second guess yourself, remember it's hypothetical so certainties are possible.

Again, hypothetical, so if that trolley car excuse was applied in a Austin-Power's steamroller manner and you had plenty of time to decide but your two outcomes the same, does that change things?

The single bystander in the first instance does not have natural harm impending on him, he wasn't in the path of the trolley when the breaks failed, only your turning the wheel, creating unnatural harm, will harm him.

Does that change your view? Comments?

This is a moral question so there is no right or wrong, it is all very thought provoking though. (I have a hard time accepting killing the five workmen over the other man but from a philosophical standpoint, to me, that's the moral answer)

[Electrawn]

Ok, I'll enter the hypotheticality.

Dink. I uncurl a fifth dimension. Everyone lives and dies at the same time.

Touche.

Pre:
Unnatural harm->Workmen.
Action:
Redirect unnatural harm to Bystander (Value 1), Stay on course with unnatural harm to Workmen. (Value 5)
Post:
Redirect unnatural harm to Bystander.

Pre:
Natural harm->Patients
Action:
Let natural harm take course (Value 5), Perform unnatural harm on Healthy. (Value 1)
Post:
Let natural harm take course.

If choosing between two unnatural harms, choose the lesser casualty count. If choosing between natural and unnatural harm, choose nature.

shrug.

[Celephais]

Now I'm curious about your definition of natural harm, what if those five people needing surgery need it because of an unnatural cause (some sort of violence)? You can redirect that unnatural harm at the one healthy person and save the five in need.

A rock falls off the top of a mountain due to an earthquake (natural cause right?) and is traveling down a path and will surely kill five people running up the mountain on it's current path, you could push it off it's current path onto the side of the path, but that would kill a spectator. Wouldn't your interaction be unnatural and the death of the five on the current path be natural (from your post)? Just because it was an earthquake vs brake failure determines who lives or dies?

[Caiylania]

You don't have the right to take the healthy guys life.

what if you took one of the five who are going to die and used his /her healthy organs on the other four? then one person who was going to die will... but four lives would be saved.

of course then it is choosing which of the 5...

[Celephais]

Caiylania, the question then becomes, do you have the right to take the life of the one bystander to save the five workmen? The workmen are just as doomed to die had you performed no action as the five sick people if you perform no action.

(And again, these are hypothetical questions, and the spirit of the original poster's scenario was you couldn't use the sick to save the sick... and if you could... you kill the guy who needs the heart, because otherwise you're only saving three people ;) )

[Caiylania]

Can't blame me for trying :(

Me? I would try to save the workmen, and if the 24 year old guy wanted to do it I would. but who knows until one is in that situation.

[Tisket]

Let's change scenarios and imagine you are a world-famous surgeon (yes you, Chica). You specialize in organ transplant and your skills are such that you'll never have an organ fail to take. Under your care you've 5 patients. Two who need a lung, two who need a kidney, and one who needs a heart. If they do not receive their transplants within the next 6 hours they will die.
Into your office walks a healthy 24 year old male of the same blood-type as your previous five patients. Is it morally permisable to remove his organs and transplant them into your five patients? Is it a moral obligation? Why?


Why kill the healthy guy? Take the lungs and kidneys from the guy who needs the heart and transplant to the other four. The heart guy dies but he was going to anyway. Surgeon saves four and doesnt kill the healthy guy. Not advocating this as right just saying...

edited to add: only read the original post, none of the following posts so missed where this was mentioned as a possiblity. Doh.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Tisket]

[Celephais]

I think you guys are missing the spirit of the hypothetical: You haven't done anything to cause any harm to anyone. Without you five people are going to die. You can save all five of them by killing a person who wasn't going to die if you did nothing.
Is this acceptable?

Both hypotheticals were presented to make you take both sides of the argument. I'm telling you that both hypotheticals are the same, and the differences shouldn't matter in a moral/philosophical point of view, they might make a difference in a society view, or a personal view, that's why I posted what I would do and what I see as philosphically correct.

[HarmNone]

The train scenario is very close to Epstein's original. However, the second part (the surgeon scenario) contains an impossible hypothesis (that the surgeon is guaranteed 100% success). That, to me, makes it invalid as a comparison.

[Sean of the Thread]

Morality is all relative.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by HarmNone
The train scenario is very close to Epstein's original. However, the second part (the surgeon scenario) contains an impossible hypothesis (that the surgeon is guaranteed 100% success). That, to me, makes it invalid as a comparison.

This gets my vote. Rejecting the hypothetical is a time honored tradition in philosophical discussions.

C/Valth

[Gan]

First scenario = minimize the damage -go for the 1 over the 5 because life has the same value.

Second scenario = the healthy man has the same right to live as the 5 sick patients.

Originally posted by Keller

Straight ahead in the middle of the track are five workmen who've not the time to remove themselves from the track before you hit them. They will surely die if you stay your course.


Under your care you've 5 patients. Two who need a lung, two who need a kidney, and one who needs a heart.

I run over the 5 guys (since it's not my fault the brakes are broken!), then I take their organs over to the doctor. Even if they are the wrong blood type, this guy has a 100% success rate.

5 lives lost through no fault of my own, and I save 5 people's lives by scooping up the corpses and harvesting their organs. PLUS, I saved the 1 guy that Dr. Frankenstein was considering cutting up to save his 5 patients.

All in a day's work. :duh:

[Celephais]

Originally posted by Ganalon
First scenario = minimize the damage -go for the 1 over the 5 because life has the same value.

Second scenario = the healthy man has the same right to live as the 5 sick patients.
Read both of your answers in a row. Why doesn't the one guy have the same righ to live as the five workmen? Tea gets it, it's not his fault the breaks are broken (It's your fault you steered the trolly into the guy who was out of the path, so you steered it to spare five workmen, how is that different than "steering" the organs out of the healthy man into the sick?)

[Keller]

We finally discussed these hypotheticals in class.

The reason we have such a hard time entertaining the second scenario is because if we lived in a world where this was possible we'd end up making our doctors sign contracts that they wouldn't cut us up to save other patients. It would provide a negative social function if people were apprehensive to visit a doctor for fear of unconsented mutilation. Or so says Scott Bice.

Edited to add: Of course this implies that the trolley situation is extraordinarily rare in comparison.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Keller]

[Celephais]

Good old scotty bice, how's that bum knee of his holding out? His kid doing well in cinncinati?

[Terminator X]

1) I would move the trolley off of the tracks in a heart-beart and then have a lot of sessions with a good shrink for a long, long time.

2) Since I, being the world famous surgeon that I am, will probably maintain a much higher level of life-saving capacity not sharing a jail cell with Dr. Kevorkian, I will have to opt out of organ theft.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Celephais
Good old scotty bice, how's that bum knee of his holding out? His kid doing well in cinncinati?

Do you actually know him?

From our three weeks of class I've not established much of a personal relationship but the next time I've got the opportunity I will ask about his kid.

[Celephais]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Celephais
Good old scotty bice, how's that bum knee of his holding out? His kid doing well in cinncinati?

Do you actually know him?

From our three weeks of class I've not established much of a personal relationship but the next time I've got the opportunity I will ask about his kid.

HAHA, I haven't a fucking clue who he is :lol:

I just thought it was funny you mentioned his name, because there is zero chance of any of us knowing who he is, I was just messing with you.

[Sean of the Thread]

You guys are dumb.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Celephais

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Celephais
Good old scotty bice, how's that bum knee of his holding out? His kid doing well in cinncinati?

Do you actually know him?

From our three weeks of class I've not established much of a personal relationship but the next time I've got the opportunity I will ask about his kid.

HAHA, I haven't a fucking clue who he is :lol:

I just thought it was funny you mentioned his name, because there is zero chance of any of us knowing who he is, I was just messing with you.

He's actually a decently renowned figure in the legal community. I had assumed that with your recent limeatar fixation you're more in the CG community than the law community. And students also call him Scotty Bice when he's not around.