I ran across an interesting morality quiz with some ramifications I am having trouble sorting out. I thought I'd share the quiz, and then later post the dilemma for consideration. Here goes.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally "obligatory", "permissible", or "forbidden".

1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railway worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is __________.
[For the sake of clarity, the one person is not the railway operator who can throw the switch, but some other person.]

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a small pond, and you are the only other person around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is ___________.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person's organs is _____________.


I would like some responses from others, and will post later with more discussion and the second part of the topic, the dilemma.

1) Obligatory.
2) Obligatory.
3) Forbidden.

I'm going to assume that your dilemma is the fact that you consider situations 1 and 3 to be very similar but their moral implications to be diametrically opposed. Situation 1 is intuitively solved by Utilitarianism, but this is not sufficient for situation 3. It leaves you feeling dirty, even though you have saved five people by killing one.

Correct?

If this is the case, the dilemma can be dealt with quite handily. The theory of Rule Utilitarianism states that we are obliged to pursue rules that result in the greatest happiness overall, not individual actions that result in the greatest happiness in a certain situation. The reason for this is that sometimes following individual acts can create the greatest happiness in that situation, but not the greatest happiness overall. In situation 3 of your quiz, Act Utilitarianism dictates that the surgeon harvest the organs, resulting in the most happiness in that one case. But then what happens? A precedent has been set: don't go to a hospital, the doctor will cut you up and distribute you. You can imagine what harms would result from that. Rule Utilitarianism anticipates this. The five would have to die in situation 3. This is less than optimal in that individual case, but overall, greater good is done. You can trust doctors. Hospitals can function.

I am of course assuming that this is your dilemma.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

#1 isn't so obvious. The lone person might have a legitmate reason for being on the track and had previously checked to make sure that it wasn't scheduled to be used at that time. The other five might be a bunch of twits playing on the track to show off how brave they are. Is it fair to kill one person to save five who are intentionally putting themselves at risk?

#3 is similar. Is it fair to sacrifice one person who took good care of himself to save five who didn't?

I'd say:

1. forbidden
2. obligatory
3. forbidden

unless we know more about the circumstances.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

I'd say the circumstances are irrelevant. But you're coming at the problem from a Deontological point of view (assuming the one killed by the trolley has a reason to be there, you assign him a greater individual right to not be run over than five idiots), while I'm coming at it from a Utilitarian point of view (which makes no distinction as to rights, just the greatest happiness produced by a course of action). Neither is more right than the other, both are just opinion and belief.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

1. Permissible
2. Obligatory
3. Forbidden

I'm going off of my own bias here, but after reading the responses in the thread I changed my first answer from Obligatory to Permissible as sacrificing one person instead of letting 5 die is no better than letting 5 die and allowing one person to live for whatever reasons.

Out of curiosity (and if it isn't too personal) may I ask why?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

People care about their own rights, so rights matter. The rest of society might be far happier knowing that the right of one person to live will be respected even if others foolishly choose to risk their lives. Happiness might be maximized by letting the five die. If I had to make such a choice I'd do them the courtesy of letting them be responsible for their own predicaments. I might decide differently with different information.

Alright, now I see what you're saying, sorry. I find myself in agreement. But the intent of the question seems to be that all six people are in the exact same circumstance. (i.e., one of them isn't going to be the next Hitler, nor the next Gandhi)

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Its not too personal at all. My personal beliefs are essentialy that of Utilitarianism, but I make exceptions for situations that have no clear answer and need to be worked with in multiple ways before a compromise between different philosophies is found. I'm still in HS and still learning the names and labels for a lot of things, but I understand a lot of philosophies of which I don't know the names for (as in Utilitarianism, thats a new name with which I can label a philosophy with).

In the case of #1, Permissible is the better answer because it shows concern for the life of the person who will die. The answer of Obligatory is too cold and machine like, almost as if you calculated the chances of survival for both options and chose the one with the greatest rate of survival. That idea is what turned me off to the answer of Obligatory. Also, the answer of Permissible states that the choice to save the five lives at the expense of one is still made.

I see. To me, though, "permissible" means that the choice to flip the switch and the choice to not flip the switch are morally equivalent; it is not a given that it will be flipped.

Also, ironically, Utilitarianism was intended as a way of literally calculating which decision in a moral dilemma would be the right one. One would compare the utility (happiness or goodness) resultant from the choices. The choice with the greatest utility always wins. Concern is given to the one life, but more (in fact, exactly 5 times) is given to the five lives. Thus, according to Utilitarianism, the choice to flip the switch is obligatory. Unless, of course (and thanks to Chuck for pointing this out) the circumstances are such that the value of the one life is more than that of the five (i.e. the guy will cure cancer in five years). In that case, Utilitarianism obliges you to not flip the switch. So in that sense, "obligatory" is calculating, but not cold. On the contrary, it is an attempt to ensure that the best possible outcome occurs.

Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone here. Just explaining my answers and Utilitarianism to boot. I find it all fascinating.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

They're not quite in the same situation. Five of them have made a very dangerous decision. One has made a somewhat less dangerous decision. That's seems important to me.

I completely understand. I may have been able to word what I said better, I'm sure. But I'm not quite sure how to phrase it so that Permissible works better than obligatory. I think its that Permissible allows emotion to be added to the Utilitarianist view, while retaining the choice that Utilitarianism concludes.

Chuck: No, it's the same situation. We just disagree as to what overrides the five peoples' right to live. You say their idiocy is enough. I say that it isn't. They'd have to be collectively worth less to humanity as a whole than the other person is (and I know that there is no way to quantify this; that's where our disagreement stems from).

Vaelroth: I see what you mean as well. "Permissible" is a softer word than "obligatory." "Obligatory" seems like it precludes free will; you do what you must without caring about the consequences because it is right. Right?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Exactly Supreme. You've got my drift.

A straight count of lives doesn't seem like the best way to decide. Rights and responsibility for one's own actions are important too. I don't think that a driver should kill me on the sidewalk to avoid killing five drunken jaywalkers. But, as you say, it's a difference of opinion.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Vaelroth: And I agree that "obligatory" is harsh. The decision is harsh. But you are morally compelled to do it because it is right, even if you fell crummy doing it. That's where the compassion comes in: you feel for the person you kill (and likely you'll feel guilty until the day you die) but it was still the right thing to do.

Chuck: And that's why ethics intrigue me so.

Anyway, I'm not advocating a straight count of lives. That's just one factor in determining who dies. I just give the right to life a lot of weight in how I decide. There are a lot of grey areas. In the scenario you give, for example, I would say that the driver is right to avoid hitting the drunks but that the drunks are wrong for running out into the street. The driver is not morally responsible for your death because he was doing his moral duty. The drunks are responsible for your death because they caused the driver to swerve while not doing their moral duty. That's where I'd slot responsibility in.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Well, consider that all six persons were drunk and just messing around on the tracks. The five guys are together messing around and the one person on the other tracks is also drunk and messing around by his lonesome.

Does that make things work out any better?

They are then all in the same condition (assuming all else is equal). So I'd flip the switch. But then I would anyway.

From my understanding of Chuck's viewpoint, he would as well since all six are doing equally idiotic things; all are equally responsible for being there. In that case, a strict count of lives takes over. Yes?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I couldn't assume that the one not in danger made the same decision as the other five.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Well, it's a hypothetical. But if it weren't, what would you do, not knowing that he was in the same state as the five? Some decision has to be made.

Edit: Oh, I see. They're more reckless since they're on the track that the trolley will go down if no change is made. But what if neither group was aware which track was more dangerous? Is the recklessness an objective thing or is it a subjective thing (i.e. it's only more reckless because they know it is)?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I'd say the driver is wrong to kill me to avoid hitting the drunks because they took the risk of incapicitating themselves and disobeying traffic laws. I should not have be the one to suffer the consequences of their action no matter how many of them there are.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.