Moral dilemma discussed in 'The God Delusion'

TwoShedsJackson

This hasn't got much to do with atheism as such but I figure this is where it may get some discussion as traffic seems pretty light in the Philosophy forum.

I'm reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' and on pages 255-257 he discusses the moral dilemma of saving five lives at the cost of one in various different scenarios.

One of the first ones is Denise, who is at a railway siding with an unstoppable train approaching. On the main line are five people trapped, on a siding is one person, also trapped. She has the choice of whether or not to operate the switch and send the train into the siding, killing one person but saving five. Most people will agree it is the right choice to send the train into the siding.

A couple of pages later Ned has the same dilemma except now the person on the siding is not trapped but is a very fat person, fat enough to stop the train, who just happens to be on the track, and the siding rejoins the main track at a point before the five people who are trapped. Now Dawkins says that most people will now think it wrong to divert the train onto the siding and mentions Kant's declaration that it is morally wrong to use an innocent being against their will merely as a means to an end, even if that means saving lives.

The difference between the two dilemmas is obviously that in the first, most people will see the unfortunate on the siding as 'collateral damage', whereas in the second, the man is being 'actively' used to save the others, which many people will instinctively, or unthinkingly, feel is wrong.

Having thought about the second dilemma it still feels 'right' to me that the switch should be pulled, killing one instead of five. I'll state here that I'm an atheist, but if I was religious I don't think I would feel any different.

Can anyone tell me is it 'immoral' to think as I do about the second dilemma, and how would anyone's system of belief, or lack thereof, influence their decision?

krudler

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Max Power1

its the same situation in both cases, albeit presented slightly different.

Case A - kill one save 5
Case B - Kill one save 5, but a slightly more emphasis is placed on the choice.

Id do the same thing in both situations, kill the one to save 5. Anyone who says otherwise (ie kill 5) is either lying, delusional, or just plain idiotic.

What if, in the second scenario, there is only one track and instead of being the person operating the switch, you and the fat person are standing on a bridge over the track.

The question now is would you push the fat person onto the track to save the other 5?

krudler

Exactly, how could anyone find it more moral to let 5 people die instead of 1? In what belief system would that be a preferable choice?

PDN

Fat people contribute very little to society anyway. So, by eliminating one fat person to save five skinny people, you also reduce the overall burden on the State's welfare and medical services. It's a win/win scenario.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

Fat people contribute very little to society anyway. So, by eliminating one fat person to save five skinny people, you also reduce the overall burden on the State's welfare and medical services. It's a win/win scenario.

Throw in smokers and students and you might be onto a way of rescuing the economy.

Tim Robbins

That's a really thought provoking part of the TGD alright. It's taken from the book by Martin Hausser, 'Moral Minds' - which I bought and also read.

I wouldn't push the fat person. I think that action carries a stronger sense of responsibility and hence guilt.

And if you take these experiments to their conclusion, i.e. should you give your mate 20 quid for their birthday or give the money to save a few lives in Africa? Nearly all of us give 20 quid to their mate even though when asked we might say we'd give the money to starving child and if we actually saw the starving child we definetly would.

So I don't know how accurate they are in the real world.

Peter Singer's 'The life you can save' is very good.

Rev Hellfire

I wonder what would happen if either of those single individuals where friends/family and the other five random strangers how many would save them at the expense of the greater number.

I suspect I would save a mate first, since that would have the lesser impact for me.
In the end of the day most people will do what's ultimately best for them, that's just life.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

What if, in the second scenario, there is only one track and instead of being the person operating the switch, you and the fat person are standing on a bridge over the track.

The question now is would you push the fat person onto the track to save the other 5?

I thought that was the original dilemma, maybe I'm wrong?

The idea is that in the first scenario, everyone is an unwilling participant - the girl on the platform and the five people on the tracks. They are all involved in the incident and they have no control over the decision that you make and are unable (unaware) to make that decision themselves. Somebody has to die and you're the only person who can make that decision.

In the second scenario (fat man on the bridge) you have to make the decision to involve the fat man in the scenario - turning him from an objective onlooker to a subject in the incident.

The main sticking point is that in the second incident, you have two dilemmas:
1. You are forcing the fat guy into a scenario in which he was not previously involved
2. You are taking away his ability to make the choice for himself.

In the first scenario, nobody else had a choice, only you did.

Marcus.Aurelius

Max Power1 wrote: »

its the same situation in both cases, albeit presented slightly different.

Case A - kill one save 5
Case B - Kill one save 5, but a slightly more emphasis is placed on the choice.

Id do the same thing in both situations, kill the one to save 5. Anyone who says otherwise (ie kill 5) is either lying, delusional, or just plain idiotic.

If the one you save happens to be Candice Swanepoel or Alessandra Ambrosio, you may consider those labels a small price to pay for their gratitude.

You might still sacrifice one of them to save the five, but you'll think a few seconds more before you do it.

mikhail

krudler wrote: »

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Or the one. If he's fat.

Nemi

krudler wrote: »

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA

Except when the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many

But, to be honest, I'm not sure those theoretical scenarios tell us a lot. Moral dilemmas are more likely to be cloaked in doubt about the implications of actions. So you don't actually know for sure that diverting the train down the siding is going to save more people than you kill.

pH

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, how could anyone find it more moral to let 5 people die instead of 1? In what belief system would that be a preferable choice?

In yours. Let me explain ...

You're a transplant surgeon, and you have 5 patients dying, one needs a heart, 2 kidneys, 1 liver and another lungs. They will all be dead in a few days without a transplant, and with a transplant you could be sure they'll all go on to lead full and healthy lives.

In walks a perfectly healthy man visiting someone in the hospital ...

Now you're seriously telling me you would have no qualms killing the man to harvest his organs to save 5 lives? Because if you are saying that you'd be in a tiny minority.

Goduznt Xzst

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, how could anyone find it more moral to let 5 people die instead of 1? In what belief system would that be a preferable choice?

You assume humans are objective, rational agents, capable of making a logical decision in this matter.

We are not.

Look at it this way. You have a choice between letting 5 unknown people die by your inaction. Or shooting an innocent man in the head while looking him in the eyes, which will free the other 5 men.

People can live with the consequences of their inaction. Hell I, and all of us, do it everyday. In my lifetime I'll have indirectly killed countless thousands, if not millions, of children the world over due to my inaction towards them, even though I, and we all, are capable of reducing their suffering, but hey, I need my Mocha in the morning, and my 4 vacations abroad a year.

People cannot, however, easily live with the direct consequences of their actions.

Ergo, I am happy to let die billions of innocents by turning a blind eye to their suffering and concerning myself solely with my own existence, but I will never actively kill another human.

Truley

It's a tough one. I honestly think that if I was put in that postition (the second positon) I would instinctivly do nothing, but try and think of a way to 'untrap' the five people right until the moment the train hits. I wouldn't be brave enough to make the final decision to divert the train. I reckon I would be eaten up with guilt and spend the rest of my life wondering if I had acted wrongly, and that something else could have been done. Also, by allowing the accident to happen it's easier to tell yourself the accident wasn't your fault anyway.

PDN wrote: »

Fat people contribute very little to society anyway. So, by eliminating one fat person to save five skinny people, you also reduce the overall burden on the State's welfare and medical services. It's a win/win scenario.

How very Christian of you.

Ush1

Truley wrote: »

How very Christian of you.

:pac:

I would say the devoutely religious are even more useless so I'd push a priest in front of a train before a fat man!

liamw

It's called The Trolley Problem. I've had a read of the article and there are lots of interesting scenarios presented. It seems, in general, that the decision is based on the potential collateral's perceived involvement in the given situation. If the collateral is a criminal of course the decision becomes much easier.

Unger therefore argues that different responses to these sorts of problems are based more on psychology than ethics – in this new case, he says, the only important difference is that the man in the yard does not seem particularly "involved". Unger claims that people therefore believe the man is not "fair game", but says that this lack of involvement in the scenario cannot make a moral difference.

dvpower

Truley wrote: »

How very Christian of you.

I don't think he was being serious.

equivariant

Truley wrote: »

How very Christian of you.

Poe's law?

Mrmoe

Surely the five people stuck on the track got their by their own incompetence, I say let them live by the consequences of their actions and die.

philologos

In reality one will never be able to calculate the impact of ones decisions with that level of precision. It's one of the reasons why I don't believe in moral consequentialism / utilitarianism to a great extent. I think it is much better to have an a priori (before the act) value system with room for a posteori (after the act) learning rather than a system where you have to attempt to calculate a posteori results a priori.

Just a thought, it's something I've studied to a level in philosophy class. I can understand why Dawkins would be championing it though, as it was the main secular moral framework of the 19th century.

herbiemcc

It is an interesting one. It's a bit like the question, "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler while he was a baby would you?". Most people just couldn't harm a baby - no matter what the ultimate outcome would be.

Or back to the fat guy on the bridge - could you effectively murder an innocent person to save others? I suppose if it was your entire family on the track vs an innocent stranger on a bridge would that make a difference?

I suppose basically if you aren't prepared to throw yourself on the track to save them then you shouldn't sacrifice someone else.

Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is much better to have an a priori (before the act) value system with room for a posteori (after the act) learning rather than a system where you have to attempt to calculate a posteori results a priori.

Presumably your system is God given though - so how do you have room in it for after the fact learning - or are you saying "Sorry God, on reflection, your rules didn't seem up to scratch for this situation, so next time it happens I'll just do my own thing!"

Jakkass wrote: »

I can understand why Dawkins would be championing it though, as it was the main secular moral framework of the 19th century.

I can understand why you're championing the ten commandments, as they were the main moral framework of the fifth century BC :rolleyes:

philologos

Corinthian wrote: »

Presumably your system is God given though - so how do you have room in it for after the fact learning - or are you saying "Sorry God, on reflection, your rules didn't seem up to scratch for this situation, so next time it happens I'll just do my own thing!"

After the fact learning = learning from mistakes, changing your behaviour in light of them. You've (intentionally?) misinterpreted what I meant clearly

Corinthian wrote: »

I can understand why you're championing the ten commandments, as they were the main moral framework of the fifth century BC :rolleyes:

Key word, secular, not 19th century. It wasn't a slight on utilitarianism to say 19th century, just a statement of fact.

Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

After the fact learning = learning from mistakes, changing your behaviour in light of them. You've (intentionally?) misinterpreted what I meant clearly

I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you, I was just asking a question.

Imagine Bob. Bob's moral code is based on strict adherence to the ten commandments as divinely revealed to Moses.

He finds himself at a train station one morning and is forced to make a decision between killing one person by pulling a lever to redirect a train or letting five others die by not pulling the lever. After a quick think about the moral implications, he decides that pulling the lever would make him directly responsible for killing the one guy, as that would clearly violate one of the commandments he does nothing, and the five people are killed.

He goes home that night and has another think about it. He decides that, after all, that wasn't the right thing to have done. How can he reconcile that with the divinely revealed rules that he's been following up to now?

Obviously, this is a contrived situation, and I think that you could make any system based only on literal interpretation of a set of rules look ridiculous by contriving something bizarre enough.

Jakkass wrote: »

Key word, secular, not 19th century. It wasn't a slight on utilitarianism to say 19th century, just a statement of fact.

Here maybe I did misrepresent you

Here's your original paragraph:

Jakkass wrote:

Just a thought, it's something I've studied to a level in philosophy class. I can understand why Dawkins would be championing it though, as it was the main secular moral framework of the 19th century.

and here's how I read it:

Originally imagined by Corinthian
Jakass sets himself up as an authority (it's something I've studied to a level in philosophy class), then takes the opportunity to rubbish Dawkins' ideas as antediluvian (I can understand why Dawkins would be championing it though, as it was the main secular moral framework of the 19th century.

Apologies if that wasn't your intent, it's just how it read to me.

philologos

Corinthian wrote: »

I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you, I was just asking a question.

Imagine Bob. Bob's moral code is based on strict adherence to the ten commandments as divinely revealed to Moses.

He finds himself at a train station one morning and is forced to make a decision between killing one person by pulling a lever to redirect a train or letting five others die by not pulling the lever. After a quick think about the moral implications, he decides that pulling the lever would make him directly responsible for killing the one guy, as that would clearly violate one of the commandments he does nothing, and the five people are killed.

The problem for me is in the amount of detail that you expect people to actually be able to know before working out an action. This is my problem with utilitarianism.

Your point also doesn't recognise that there is a difference between unintentional killing and murder. Murder is what is prohibited in the Ten Commandments. I.E - Premeditated killing. As such any act that would kill someone unintentionally, is a different matter. In fact unintended killing is actually dealt with in the Judaic law, in that in Ancient Israel people could go to cities of refuge in the case that they had killed someone unintentionally.

Corinthian wrote: »

He goes home that night and has another think about it. He decides that, after all, that wasn't the right thing to have done. How can he reconcile that with the divinely revealed rules that he's been following up to now?

See above. Your assumptions about the Ten Commandments are incorrect. He could have pulled the lever and still not violate the Ten Commandments.

Personally, I would have pulled the lever, and tried to send warning to the person on the track.

Corinthian wrote: »

Apologies if that wasn't your intent, it's just how it read to me.

You've misread what I was saying. I can understand why Dawkins used it as it was an influential secular moral theory. One needs to look up a bit about Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill to see where the comments about the 19th century fit in.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In reality one will never be able to calculate the impact of ones decisions with that level of precision. It's one of the reasons why I don't believe in moral consequentialism / utilitarianism to a great extent. I think it is much better to have an a priori (before the act) value system with room for a posteori (after the act) learning rather than a system where you have to attempt to calculate a posteori results a priori.

Just a thought, it's something I've studied to a level in philosophy class. I can understand why Dawkins would be championing it though, as it was the main secular moral framework of the 19th century.

Better assuming that your apriori system is actually any good, which in the case of christianity it's not so much. But I'm on your ignore list so anyway.....

clived2

Save ten thousand people you dont know by jumping in front of the train?

honest answers please.


Personally I dont think I could do it, However as an after thought I would probably kill myself because of the guilt

Pushtrak

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Better assuming that your apriori system is actually any good, which in the case of christianity it's not so much. But I'm on your ignore list so anyway.....

Now that you mention it, I'm curious if I've made it on anyone block list yet. Course that is unknowable. It isn't as if someone could say "Me".

aidan24326

Mrmoe wrote: »

Surely the five people stuck on the track got their by their own incompetence, I say let them live by the consequences of their actions and die.

Whether by incompetence or not, they are the ones on the track where the train is already headed, so fate has decreed that this aint their lucky day. In that sense to pull the switch and kill the other person would effectively be murder. The same applies whether it be 5 people or 25. You can't intentionally sacrifice one person's life to save an arbitrary number of others, if the natural order of events will lead to their deaths (of the 5) without you intervening at all.

herbiemcc wrote: »

I suppose if it was your entire family on the track vs an innocent stranger on a bridge would that make a difference?

For the vast majority I suspect it would.

I suppose basically if you aren't prepared to throw yourself on the track to save them then you shouldn't sacrifice someone else.

That about sums it up.

clived2 wrote: »

Save ten thousand people you dont know by jumping in front of the train?

honest answers please.

Personally I dont think I could do it, However as an after thought I would probably kill myself because of the guilt

No I wouldn't, because if they're 10,000 people I don't know and have no connection to, then their lives are of less importance to me than my own. And no I don't think I would feel overly guilty about that, because I didn't actively kill those people, I just chose to preserve my own existence. In that case if the 10,000 do get killed, the circumstances of their death were not of my making. That may sound selfish but I think it's a perfectly logical decision to come to. Being a dead hero is all well and good but you're still dead.

Cuddlytroll

There was a two-part BBC documentary on this philosophical conundrum. First part is here.

Dougla2

i think id sacrifice myself to save any number of people above 100 and definitely if it would save the world

fergalr

No one has mentioned the transplant situation yet:

If you were in favour of having the fat person killed to save the 5, what if:
You were a surgeon, in a hospital.
And you realised you could harvest the organs of one person - who would otherwise survive - to save 5 people - who would otherwise die.
Would you do it? Take the organs from one patient to save 5 others?

Dougla2

fergalr wrote: »

No one has mentioned the transplant situation yet:

If you were in favour of having the fat person killed to save the 5, what if:
You were a surgeon, in a hospital.
And you realised you could harvest the organs of one person - who would otherwise survive - to save 5 people - who would otherwise die.
Would you do it? Take the organs from one patient to save 5 others?

that not a surgeons choice to make though

fergalr

Dougla2 wrote: »

that not a surgeons choice to make though

Well, thats the moral dilemma, isn't it?
Many people would say that the choice of whether to push the fat person in front of the trolley/train, to save five others, isn't the person in the original dilemma's to make.

But there's generally a tipping point for people... ...like... if one of the patients the surgeon needed the organs to save was the only one who knew how to make a cure for a deadly virus about to kill millions. Would you say its still not their choice to make?

All the examples are contrived, but that doesn't doesn't dismiss their challenges.

MonkeyBalls

This is Bentham vs Kant, utilitarianism vs categorical moral reasoning.

The problem is, people try to explain and justify their choice logically (re the fat guy or the healthy patient), when the reality is, your emotions do your decision making for you, and the backwards-rationalisation machine in your head does the rest of the work.

Max Power1 wrote: »

its the same situation in both cases, albeit presented slightly different.

Case A - kill one save 5
Case B - Kill one save 5, but a slightly more emphasis is placed on the choice.

Id do the same thing in both situations, kill the one to save 5. Anyone who says otherwise (ie kill 5) is either lying, delusional, or just plain idiotic.

What people say and what they actually do are two different things. You probably wouldn't be able to push the fat guy onto the tracks, unless you're frothing psychopathic or complete sperg.

People have a visceral revulsion to the idea of killing the fat guy - over flipping the switch - for well established psychological reasons that I can't be bothered typing out here.