MORAL PHILOSOPHY

The Trolley Problem

Trolley Problem A: Bystander

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

Trolley Problem 1: Bystander

Here, we are told, it is at least permissible to not pull the lever. Perhaps, we are told, it is also obligatory to not pull the lever.

Trolley Problem B: Transplant

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

Trolley Problem 2: Transplant

Unlike the Bystander problem, we are told that here it is impermissible to perform the operations. On a utilitarian calculation, the cases are formally identical.

5
=

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Trolley Problem C: Fat Man

Trolley Problem 3: Fat Man

It seems immediately wrong to push the Fat Man. But, again, the numbers seem to line up. Further, in all four cases, you are an agent, you have to make a choice, and perform an action based on this choice. So why are our instincts so different in the cases?

5
=

1 5

Analysis
What happens if you choose not to act in each of the cases? In A, B, and C, it seems at least permissible that the result of your actions should align with who would have died had you not acted (or not been present to act).

A D

Where do ethical standards come from?

My society? My God? My religion? My philosophy? My own feelings?

Society
There are cultural (and/or individual) variations in peoples moral judgments: think about abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, redistribution of wealth and so on. Many relativists argue that this diversity entails moral relativism.

Religion
What do you think that religion says about morals?

ABSOLUTE
It says that they are absolutewell kinda If we think about our interpretation of halacha it is largely dependent on interpretation, though that interpretation once accepted does have an abolsute authority to support it.

Teleological theory of ethics...

Teleological comes from the Greek word Telos meaning end. The theory looks at the consequences , the results of an action, to decide whether its right or wrong. For a Teleological thinker, the end justifies the means, and thus a thinker from this school of thought would judge the rightness of an action by the end it produces.

Consequentialism
Def: Morality is determined by consequences
e.g. lives saved

Maximizing the good

Utility Pleasure Happiness

Principle of utility defined....

Utility here means the usefulness of the results of actions The Principle of utility is often described as the greatest good for the greatest number Good is defined in terms of pleasure and happiness and so an act is right or wrong according to the good or bad that results from the act, and the good act is the most pleasurable. Since it focuses on the greatest number, Benthams theory is Quantitative.

Consequentialism
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

Consequentialism
Striking implication of consequentialism: Impartiality
Def: I must be impartial to whose good my actions promote

Consequentialism
The happiness which forms the standard of what is right in conduct is not the agents own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested spectator. One persons happiness, is counted for exactly as much as anothers.
John S. Mill, 1863

Consequentialism
Striking implication #2: No act is inherently immoral
Torture Murder?

Deontology
Def: Morality consist in following principles.
e.g. never murder

Ignores consequences The ends never justify the means

Deontology
Philosopher: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Principles of duty:
(1) Universalize your action (2) Never treat people as means to an end

Deontology
Case: stealing a newspaper What if everyone did it?

Deontology
The criticism of consequentialism:
It treats people as means to an end
Torture Kidney donation William Brown

Summary
Principles v. Consequences Consequentialism is realistic Deontology protects our rights

Myth of the Ring of Gyges

Platos friend, Glaucon tells the story of a magical ring, which allows the person wearing it to be invisible. Glaucon says that if we had such a ring and could get away with anything, we would do so. We would be selfish if we could get away with it.

Myth of the Ring of Gyges

If you had the ring of Gyges what would you like to do? What immoral acts might you commit if you knew you would not be caught? Are there any things you still would not do even if you would get away with it? What are they? Why would you not do these things?