Self-defense: The Trolley Case

[TeresaBenedicta]

This may be a strange request, but I ask that no Christians views be expressed in response to the situation I will shortly be putting forth. I only mean that the Christian answer is fairly obvious and that I am more interested in philosophical argument here. If any one is familiar with the Principle of Double Effect, that may be helpful.

Here's the Situation:
You are tied to a railroad track and a villain has set a trolley toward you. If it hits you, you will surely die. However, there is a switch right next to you that provides a way for you to deflect the trolley onto another track. There is another person tied to the other track and if you flip the switch and deflect the trolley, the trolley will kill the other person.

Are you morally permitted to flip the switch?

[CatherineM]

You are allowed to kill to save your life, but the assumption is that it will be the person trying to kill you, not an innocent.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1787570' date='Feb 21 2009, 10:30 PM']You are allowed to kill to save your life, but the assumption is that it will be the person trying to kill you, not an innocent.[/quote]

While it is true in the case of self-defense that one is not permitted to commit an action that will have a negative effect on an innocent, there is the question as to whether or not the principle of double effect can be used to defend the action. So long as you don't intend the death of the innocent, but only to save your own life, is it permissible?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1787579' date='Feb 21 2009, 08:40 PM']While it is true in the case of self-defense that one is not permitted to commit an action that will have a negative effect on an innocent, there is the question as to whether or not the principle of double effect can be used to defend the action. So long as you don't intend the death of the innocent, but only to save your own life, is it permissible?[/quote]

You have reminded me of why I truly hated law school. I'm taking my headache to bed.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1787746' date='Feb 22 2009, 12:31 AM']You have reminded me of why I truly hated law school. I'm taking my headache to bed.[/quote]

Heh, my apologies. I wasn't [i]intending[/i] to inflict my own sufferings on others...

I'm writing a paper on this particular situation, and when I look at things from a purely philosophical mode, I am finding myself force to conclude that it -is- permissible to flip the switch. Yet I don't feel comfortable with that conclusion.

[HisChildForever]

I would add that even if flipping the switch kills the other innocent person, [b]you[/b] are not the reason why he or she is tied to the tracks. So would the real responsibility for that individual's death be on you, or on the person who tied you both down?

[Archaeology cat]

Not fully awake yet, so I apologise if this is actually clear in the scenario, but is the person tied to the track aware that another person is tied to the other track?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1787958' date='Feb 22 2009, 02:38 AM']Not fully awake yet, so I apologise if this is actually clear in the scenario, but is the person tied to the track aware that another person is tied to the other track?[/quote]

I would assume so as if you had no knowledge of what lay on the other side, you would switch it. So their would be no dilemma.

Since the question is stated as such, it appears you do have knowledge that flipping the switch will kill someone else.


I think you can flip the switch. If their is no "God" foundation moral, there are no absolutes...I don't see where the wrong could come in.

I feel that my answer is you throw the switch.
__________
edit

After submitting it, I realize that you ask if it is morally okay to throw the switch.

Which makes it appear that morals exist outside of the Christian God.

So if you assume that morals still exist...................then you need to explain the basis for where those morals come from before you say that you can throw the switch.

.....I feel like I am just rambling....


----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/harry+gregson-williams/track/from+western+woods+to+beaversdam"]Harry Gregson-Williams - From Western Woods To Beaversdam[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

Edited February 22, 2009 by eagle_eye222001

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1787988' date='Feb 22 2009, 04:06 AM']I would assume so as if you had no knowledge of what lay on the other side, you would switch it. So their would be no dilemma.

Since the question is stated as such, it appears you do have knowledge that flipping the switch will kill someone else.


I think you can flip the switch. If their is no "God" foundation moral, there are no absolutes...I don't see where the wrong could come in.

I feel that my answer is you throw the switch.
__________
edit

After submitting it, I realize that you ask if it is morally okay to throw the switch.

Which makes it appear that morals exist outside of the Christian God.

So if you assume that morals still exist...................then you need to explain the basis for where those morals come from before you say that you can throw the switch.

.....I feel like I am just rambling....[/quote]

I. Yes, the you know that the other person is tied to the track. As was just stated above, if you didn't know, then you would very readily flip the switch. Which, it seems to me, only furthers the point that the action itself is NOT wrong (ie flipping the switch) itself, and therefore if done with the right intention (saving your life), one could accept the side consequence of that action (the death of the other innocent). It seems to me, at least, to fit the entire criterea for Double Effect.

II. Ah, yes, you're bringing in further complication. Should I pull a phenomenological [i]epoche[/i] and say that we are just bracketing the Christian God, not doubting or saying God doesn't exist? Or I suppose I could reword my question: "Is it [i]just[/i] for you to pull the switch?" ((In fact, I'll likely do that for my paper-- thank-you)). Essentially what I'm trying to do here is come up with a philosophical line of reasoning that responds to this question.

((As a complete side note, I find that this may bring up some interesting points about revelation and God's work in morality. I'm really hoping for a philosophically sound argument to prove that one should NOT flip the switch, but I'm having trouble finding one that is not flawed. But, it's not too much of a worry if the philosophical answer is different than the Christian answer: It merely shows that there is only so far the reason alone can take us and that the revealed truth of Jesus Christ brings us up a level, so to say.))

[txdinghysailor]

I don't care if I'm morally allowed to flip the switch or not, I'm just not gonna flip it. I figure that that other person who could die is probably a better person than me, so they should live. Also, they'll probably end up doing a lot more good in their life then I ever will. Obviously them living would be more beneficial for society than me, so it makes logical sense to not flip the switch. Besides, that way at my funeral they'll say I was a "hero" .

Edited February 22, 2009 by txdinghysailor

[T-Bone _]

Isn't this the same situation that the Joker out the ferry passengers in at the end of the Batman movie?



It it my opinion that you may be morally permitted to flip the switch (this akin to the double effect in medicine, like that in treating ectopic pregnancies) , but could you live with yourself afterwards?

[CatherineM]

If someone is so cruel to do this kind of thing, they would also be willing to trick you into thinking that pushing the switch would save your life, but in fact actually would kill you instead. So you have no real way of knowing what the switch would in fact do.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788222' date='Feb 22 2009, 01:19 PM']Isn't this the same situation that the Joker out the ferry passengers in at the end of the Batman movie?[/quote]

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?

[RandomProddy]

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"
-John 15:13.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1788322' date='Feb 22 2009, 01:07 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]
Are you allowed to separate natural law from religious morality?

[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.