I thought this might be fun for some people (though not to everyones tastes to be sure). This is a famous example (I've altered it into what I believe is the strongest version).

You need to accept the cases as written - if you alter the cases the solution is easy. The problem is coming to a solution ON THE ASSUMPTION that the cases are precisely as described.

CASE ONE

You are on a train. You have the controls for the train (and there isn't anybody else around). Up ahead on the tracks you can see 6 living people who are tied to the track. If you do nothing then those 6 people will be mowed by the train and they will die. You are able to press a lever to divert the train onto a left track before it hits the 6 people, though. You are unable to stop the train (or do anything else) because the brake is broken. There is 1 person tied to the left track and that person will die if you divert the train.

Should you:
A: Do nothing (1 person will live and 6 will die)
B: Do something (6 people will live and 1 will die)

CASE TWO

You are a surgeon on an isolated island. You are a (somewhat surprisingly) specialist surgeon who is very proficient in all kinds of organ transplants. You have precisely 7 patients under your care. 1 person needs you to operate on him. If you operate on the 1 person you can save his life. If you don't operate on him he will die. If he dies then you can harvest his organs to save your 6 other patients. If you do operate on him and save his life your 6 patients will die because they won't receive the organs they need.

Should you:
A: Do something (1 person will live and 6 will die)
B: Do nothing (6 people will live and 1 will die)

The problem is that the reason people give to justify their answer in the first case typically prescribes (on the grounds of consistency) that they answer in a way they find abhorrent in the second case. The cases (or variations on them) have generated quite a literature... What do people think?

[Perna]

The first case is straight forward (to me :-) kill the one, save the six. The second case is a bit more morally difficult. I would have to save the one and hope other organs or possibilities come along for the six (I disagree with the future, "god" situation that says the others would die). I would not be able to "harvest" organs by allowing someone to die whom I could have saved straight out; that would be my omelas situation.

[SeptemberMorn]

Sounds like situational ethics to me. Hu uh! Nope, not me.

> The first case is straight forward (to me :-) kill the one, save the six.

That is the way it seems to me, too.

> The second case is a bit more morally difficult.

Yeppers.

> I disagree with the future, "god" situation that says the others would die.

If you alter the case then the solution is easy/easier. In this case I need to ask you to grant that the case is as described. That it is known that the organ operations would indeed be successful if performed, and that it is known that the people who need the organ operations will die (very soon) if the organs aren't harvested from this particular one person.

If you accept the case as is...

Would that still be your answer?

(Some people do argue that a problem with the latter case is that it is implausible. Who cares about what people have to say about IMPLAUSIBLE cases when ethics / morality is meant to be about what we should do in cases we plausibly find ourselves in? This is a tempting line... I wonder if it would be possible to come up with an analogous case that was more plausible, however. We could do it with probabilities of survival vs death in both of the above cases)

> I would not be able to "harvest" organs by allowing someone to die whom I could have saved straight out; that would be my omelas situation.

But then... Diverting the train is killing a person, too...

Not to everyone's tastes, to be sure.

Have a nice day.

[Perna]

Yes, even if the second group of those not operated on would die, I'd still not "allow" someone to die so I could harvest their organs. That's like the omelas situation; allowing one child to live miserable so I could live well. I'd leave and take the child; in this case, I'd operate and the well man and I would move on. People are going to die all the time that I can't save; in your moral world, I'm only going to save those I "personally" can with my skills alone.

[Perna]

I think some of the problems with moral dilemmas is not knowing one's own standards/morals and being afraid to look and make a decision. If no decision is made, it is my opinion that many more "suffer" than would if one moved "forward" and made a decision. The poor people of Omelas aren't really living in Utopia because they have to bury their distaste, fear, horror at the child living in horrible conditions. You can't unknow things and situations don't just "go away" of you don't look at them. But a lot of people have difficulty learning that I think and don't step up to the plate.

I'm personally glad you posted these problems, Alexandra, so I can better understand myself and what I think and feel when faced with difficult decisions and get an opportunity to "practice" making hard decisions in a pretend fashion.

> Yes, even if the second group of those not operated on would die, I'd still not "allow" someone to die so I could harvest their organs.

Okay. That is what most people want to say about that case, too.

Then the problem becomes... How we can justify killing the one to save the six in the first case... While simultaneously justifying killing the six to save the one in the second case...

> People are going to die all the time that I can't save; in your moral world, I'm only going to save those I "personally" can with my skills alone.

Yes. But in both the above cases you have two options within your power:
Kill the one to save the six
Kill the six to save the one

Most people say 'greatest good for the greatest number' to justify their response to the first case.

But 'greatest good for the greatest number' doesn't justify their response to the second case. So... Something else seems to be going on in the second case. And what is going on in the second case doesn't seem to be going on in the first case.

Or maybe... We should change our judgement of one of the above cases such that they come into line?

(That is the problem that a lot of ethical theorists are worrying about)

BTW I'm not sure that I have a good solution.
I'm not sure anybody does...

If you come up with one...
You might become famous :-)

[Perna]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
Then the problem becomes... How we can justify killing the one to save the six in the first case... While simultaneously justifying killing the six to save the one in the second case...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Ah, there I think you're adding apples and oranges; the cases aren't related. That's like combining multiple people's misery to get "more" misery; you can't do that, people only feel what they themselves feel; I can't get any sadder than I am/do. I don't have to justify killing the one in the first case (to myself, and I'm all who matters because I only have to live with my own decisions) because the scenario was completely different.

> The poor people of Omelas aren't really living in Utopia because they have to bury their distaste, fear, horror at the child living in horrible conditions.

Yeah. Though... That might be changing the case from how it was described (where things were stipulated to be perfect).

Perhaps the objection is that the case is psychologically implausible? I have much sympathy for that objection.

All we need to dispense with that objection is a brain zapper that annihilates the memory for having been told the truth, however. The decision to take the little pink pill and never again remember the omelas...

If dissociation worked 100%...

I'm glad you enjoyed it Perna :-)

> Ah, there I think you're adding apples and oranges; the cases aren't related.

?
I tried to purposely construct them such that they had the same form. Lets see if I can do better.

CASE A
Do nothing: 6 people die, 1 person lives
So something: 1 person dies, 6 people live

Most people think that you should do something: It is better to have 1 person die and 6 people live than to have 6 people die and 1 person live.

CASE B
Do nothing: 6 people live, 1 person dies
So something: 1 person lives, 6 people die.

Most people think that the surgeon should do something. The problem is: How do we justify killing 6 to save 1 in the second case? Especially if 'doing the greatest good for the greatest number' was supposed to be our justification for killing the 1 (and not the 6) in case A.

Some people think... Our intuitions in the second case have something to do with a doctor having his duty to do everything in his power to save his patient. That is why I purposely stipulated that all seven people were his patients. Some people think that if the doctor let the one die and word got out then people would take themselves off organ donation lists - which would result in more deaths overall. That is why it is important that nobody ever hears of the doctors decision. Some people think that the second case is psychologically implausible (it is implausible that nobody will find out). That is why I made the island isolated...

I guess I'm not sure on what the relevant difference is supposed to be between the two cases that justifies our going one way on one case and the other way on the other case...

[Perna]

Ah, but if you introduce the decision to take the little pink pill; I ain't taking it :-) I'm taking the child and myself and moving on and the majority of people who took the little pink pill can deal with the collapse of their utopia. I'm not against utopias or their living well, just their living well at anyone else's obvious "expense". I think it's supposed to be a wake-up story, way too simplistic, but to get us thinking about our actions and how they might impact others. I don't think slumlords and other "bad" people read such tales though so I think we're safe from major societal change at the moment LOL

[Perna]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
Most people think that you should do something

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> But it's not in whether one should do something; one is doing something in both instances; killing the six by deciding to do nothing. That's an action, that decision. So what one does isn't as important to me as the humanity behind it. In the first case it's lesser of two evils; if there was a third choice where I could stop the train by killing myself, the "driver" I'd do that.

The second case is "playing god" by killing someone who could live as a sacrifice for others. I only get to sacrifice myself, not others. If I'm forced to sacrifice others, like in the first case, I'm going to sacrifice the least number.

> I'm not against utopias or their living well, just their living well at anyone else's obvious "expense".

One might wonder at how much current societies are 'utopias' when you look at the child labour etc etc etc that goes into supporting their current lifestyles... But I, too, have sympathy for not taking the little pill.

> it's not in whether one should do something; one is doing something in both instances; killing the six by deciding to do nothing. That's an action, that decision. So what one does isn't as important to me as the humanity behind it. In the first case it's lesser of two evils; if there was a third choice where I could stop the train by killing myself, the "driver" I'd do that.

I have sympathy.

There is a distinction that comes up in the euthenasia literature sometimes between 'killing' and 'letting die'. The distinction is problematic, but the general thought is that 'letting die' might be acceptable in cases where 'killing' isn't. For example, failing to resuscitate would be 'letting die' whereas injecting with a lethal dose of morphene would be 'killing'. The distinction is problematic, though. I tried to construct the cases such that case A was 'letting die' (the 6) and 'killing' (the 1) and case B was 'killing' (the 6) and 'letting die' (the 1). I aimed for that a-symmetry because sometimes people try and justify their different decisions in the two cases on the grounds that 'letting die' is alright but 'killing' isn't. But maybe... I didn't pull this off so well.

In the first case the idea is that if one doesn't move a lever then 6 die and 1 lives.
If one does move the lever then 1 die and 6 live.

In the second case the idea is that if one doesn't operate on the man then 1 die and 6 live.
If one does operate on the man then 6 die and 1 lives.

I do think this might be a promising line for justifying the relevant moral difference (perhaps)... But I'm not quite sure how to pull it off...

Why aren't both the first and second case of the 'sacrifice the one to save the many' form??? I guess they strike me as being similar... But then I don't think the doctor should fail to operate to harvest the organs either... Maybe the trouble is that the implausibility of the second case f's up peoples intuitions, rather... Perhaps...

[Perna]

The problem with both cases not being sacrifice-the-one-to-save-the-many, for me, is that the "decider" is one's self in the first case but an added person, the doctor has been added to the second. I have to decide what the doctor should do. In the first case, it's a "lever" not a human that is the deciding factor.

Okay... *You* are the doctor in the second.

(The thought here is that I'm doing what I can to bring the cases into line. The thought is that the solution is easier insofar as the cases are different, but the more similar they are the harder it is to justify going one way in one case and a different way in the other case. Trying to build the strongest examples to make things harder for ourselves).

> I have to decide what the doctor should do. In the first case, it's a "lever" not a human that is the deciding factor.

Okay... What if operating on the one consisted in *you* (the surgeon) pulling a lever that directed a machine to insert a breathing tube into the guy such that he would live. Similarly to how the lever in case A directs a machine to do whatever to make the train change track. In both cases... Pulling a lever alters the course of events that would happen if you failed to pull the lever. In the first case your pulling the lever causes 1 to die and 6 to live. In the second case your pulling the lever causes 6 to die and 1 to live.

If 'killing' (pulling the lever) was worse than 'letting die' (not pulling the lever) then we would expect that we would reccomend not diverting the train in the first case and letting the one die in the second case (which is the exact opposite of our intuitions). So the thought is... The 'killing' and 'letting die' distinction can't be what is driving our intuitions here (we reccomend 'killing' in one case and 'letting die' in the other).

[Perna]

In the first case I have to kill either one person or six but in the second I'm able to save someone and the others die, "natural" deaths or I sacrifice someone and the others live. I am unwilling to sacrifice anyone other than myself. I'm not sacrificing in the first case, I have no choice, one side or the other must die; there's nothing at all "moral" there, it's just guiding the train to do the least damage.

In the second case you have 7 people who need operations, one on the left track and six on the right. But, you have to take something from the left track to save the people from the right or, save the person on the left, no cost or transfer.

[Doh2007]

The "what should you dos" are fun exercises. I always get myself fouled up though, because I know you can't predict what you'll do in the first situation. There's no time to ponder the ramifications. You just react. So there can't be a "should."

I think you'd see people on the track and swerve to avoid them. You wouldn't have time to think about the consequences.

The second case revolves on the Hippocrates Oath: First, do no harm. You can't kill one person to save another.

[Doh2007]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:

> One might wonder at how much current societies are 'utopias' when you look at the child labour etc etc etc that goes into supporting their current lifestyles....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

This reminds me that John Stossel did research and found this:

When people were horrified that child labor was used in third-world factories to manufacture clothes for the U.S., companies stopped using child labor.

The children had to turn to prostitution to survive.

[Zorah]

This reminds us of the tests we use to determine at what age children start to conceive ethical dilemmas

It's waaay older than you ever would have thought, like about 12 years old. Until then, they all go, yes kill one to save more, but that REALLY isn't right, not ethical

this should be in GAMES alexandra_K, it is a Game !!!!! & not too funny either

[SeptemberMorn]

I agree with you, Zo! In high school, the teachers call it a game, but it's not. Besides, just how many of us would get caught in a predicament like that??

I fought against this kind of teaching when my middle son was in school. Went before the school board and everything. Wound up home schooling him. No one else has the right to teach MY kids values that I don't want them to have.

> No one else has the right to teach MY kids values that I don't want them to have.

If you think that kids are your personal property to do with as you please then this attitude would make sense.

The point of these exercises is to get people to THINK and REFLECT on what THEY BELIVE is the right thing to do and reflect on their REASONS as to why they think that a particular decision is the right thing to do.

I don't see anybody TELLING or INSTRUCTING what the right thing to do is. I'm actually opposed to anybody TELLING or INSTRUCTING another in what the right thing to do is. I'm all in favor of different people sharing their perspective such that one can MAKE UP ONES OWN MIND.

The point of the exercise isn't really a game.

There is some similarity to the case that was used to assess where people were at with respect to Kohlberg's moral stages. I haven't provided the particular case here, however.

It should be noted that assessing where people are at with respect to Kohlberg's moral stages is a matter of assessing the REASONS that people give for their response. It isn't a matter of WHAT they say you should do, it is a matter of WHY they say you should do it.

If this thread is not to your tastes then please feel free to ignore it.

It is possible for people to have a civil conversation about matters of ethics. Conversations where peoples opinion and reasons are respected even while they are questioned. This thread has been a pretty terrific example of that thus far - how about we work on keeping it that way?

Thanks.

> Until then, they all go, yes kill one to save more, but that REALLY isn't right, not ethical

So you think that the ethical thing to do is to allow the 6 to die (as opposed to killing the 1 in order to save the 6)?

I don't think anybody has said that thus far, but it is a view, yes.

Kant might agree with you, actually (though there are different ways we can understand Kant).

How come you think that the ethical thing to do is to allow the 6 to die? Do you think you should follow a maxim like 'thou shalt not kill' even when refusing to do so results in the death of more?

For a real world case there was a woman called Sophie who was alive during the Nazi reigeme. A Nazi soldier told her that she could choose whether the soldier would shoot her daughter or her son. If she refused to choose then he would shoot both.

Should she choose or not? How should she decide?

In that particular case she chose for the soldier to shoot her daughter because she figured her son would have more chance of surviving the concentration camp.

What would you do?

If we think about what we would do in cases like that when we aren't actually in them... Then we are more likely to do what we think (all things considered) is the right thing in the face of time pressure.

That is the thought.

[LMo]

In both cases, but obvious especially the 2nd, I would need way more information before I could jump to a decision...