Questions of Ethics

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually--and I didn't make this clear at the outset--I am saying that there are limits on the utilitarian position. If, in the course of saving five people, I take an action that results in the death of one person but that action does not use that person as an instrument to achieve my goal of saving people, then the action is morally defensible. If, on the other hand, the only way to save the five people is to use a sixth person, against his will, as an instrument then it is not morally defensible.

I base this off an old Ursula K. Le Guin story where there is a utopia but with a catch--in order for this utopia to exist one child must be spend his entire life locked in a basement with no human contact. In this case, the child is an *instrument* to some other end. *Because* the child suffers, we have a utopia. The child then is merely an instrument for the happiness of the greatest number. That is a trade-off that I would have a hard time finding morally defensible. On the other hand, in modern capitalist nations we have societies that are less equal than it is imaginable for them to be because there is a balance between freedom and equality. This is a trade-off that it is at least possible to defend morally, certainly in principle.

Does that make sense? For me the crux comes down to whether we are using others as instruments to some end, which I do not think is defensible or if they are casualties of circumstance.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.

This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?

I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.

Originally Posted by tapu

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely a means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Semantics

You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.

This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?

I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.




I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.




Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

But Semantic, if you don't flip the switch and five people die you are now responsible for the five people who died. No matter *what* you do, you are going to be responsible for some number of people dying. The question is whether you are more comfortable with that being one person or multiple people.

To see why this is the case, consider the alternative. Let's say you flip the switch but the switch is broken and the train plows into the five people, killing them all. You made an attempt to save their lives but were thwarted by a mechanical failure. In that case, no one could say you were responsible because without foreknowledge that the switch was broken and without the means to fix the switch in a timely manner, there's nothing you could have done to prevent the switch from malfunctioning.

On the other hand, if you could do something that would save the lives of five people and you chose not to, then would it not be reasonable to argue that your inaction constituted an action whose consequences are foreseeable? Again, it is the difference between driving drunk and killing someone and having a mechanical failure and killing someone. Is it possible that you could drive drunk and not kill someone? Yes, happens all the time. However, if you drive drunk and you kill someone it would be very difficult for someone to argue that it was not foreseeable that diminished capacity would not be a consequence of your drinking to excess.

So I don't think that not pulling the switch actually gets you around the responsibility of causing deaths. If you were not fast enough to get to the switch, you couldn't be held responsible. If the switch fails, you couldn't be held responsible. If, however, you were within comfortable reach of the switch and you chose not to use it, given that the likely consequences are foreseeable you would be responsible for the deaths of five people.

I understand that one consequence is because of your inaction but you had the means to effect a different outcome and you chose not to take that action and in doing so, you chose the death of five people.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

AJ, I do think there's a diff between Semantics acting and not-acting. As it is, the "universe" has decided the train will hit 5. He is not adding to that forward impetus by doing nothing.

If he switches the track, he is intervening. He personally is aiming the train at the one.

I want to say here though that I'm only claiming there's a difference in quality of the act. I think it's possible that by varying circumstances a new way, we can expose whether this is morally significant or not.
I gotta' think.....

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by tapu

AJ, I do think there's a diff between Semantics acting and not-acting. As it is, the "universe" has decided the train will hit 5. He is not adding to that forward impetus by doing nothing.

If he switches the track, he is intervening. He personally is aiming the train at the one.

I want to say here though that I'm only claiming there's a difference in quality of the act. I think it's possible that by varying circumstances a new way, we can expose whether this is morally significant or not.
I gotta' think.....

This is where I get hung up.


-Semantics (raised by Taoists)

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Semantics

I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.

I "might could have" said "fate" as well as "God's plan" there. I was contrasting free will and destiny, and proposing that in a deterministic schema what you do may not really be your decision. I could have been clearer on that.

[Semantics]

Thank you for your replies, both of you.

I will have to think more on what has been said here, and one never knows, this discussion could one day be the salvation of five people on a train track.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Semantics

Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.

Here is a real-world example. Back in, I believe, 1982 or 1983 a B-52 took off from Mather AFB in Sacramento and almost immediately ran into engine trouble. After Mather AFB was built, a whole subdivision grew up around the base advancing almost to the fence line. B-52s are equipped with a way for the crew to escape should the aircraft develop a mechanical problem. The crew *could* have gotten out. However, had they done so the aircraft would have plowed into some houses just on the other side of a field that went right up to the fence line. The pilot, making a command decision, rolled the B-52 over (making the ejection seats worthless) and flew the crippled aircraft into a field killing all nine crew members instantly.

I remember this incident because my house was one of the houses that was spared. The pilot made a decision, there was no communication with the tower, but it's clear that the plane changed course so it was a deliberate action on the part of the guys at the yoke. In doing so he caused the death of eight other people.

This is a very close analogy to the train scenario. In this case, the pilot did not use his aircrew as an *instrument* to achieve an end, given the nature of the situation there was no way for him to save his aircrew AND people on the ground. He did not intend the death of the aircrew, it was an unavoidable consequence of the only action he could take that would spare the lives of people on the ground.

Using someone as a means to an end is very different. Staying with this example (and stretching the mechanics of flight to do so), let's say that the aircraft was simply too heavy and by tossing aircrew out he could keep the plane aloft long enough to circle back and land safely or carry out his mission. NOW he is causing the death of his crew and they are mere instruments for achieving the goal of lightening the load of his airplane.


Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Ugh. Under utilitarianism (in the shorthand way I know it), the second scenario is better. It just comes down to math: One more person is left living--the pilot.

Well, now, that's not very attractive as moral principles go.

I think the using/letting-leave/instrument/agent/passive etc approaches are proving richer for thinking about the ethics. Of course, with that come the uncomfortable complications

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

Ugh. Under utilitarianism (in the shorthand way I know it), the second scenario is better. It just comes down to math: One more person is left living--the pilot.

Well, now, that's not very attractive as moral principles go.

I think the using/letting-leave/instrument/agent/passive etc approaches are proving richer for thinking about the ethics. Of course, with that come the uncomfortable complications

This is why utilitarianism is of only very limited usefulness unless it is tempered by something like a Kantian imperative such as "human beings are ends to themselves". Without that we wind up exactly where you state--whatever will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number is the correct action. However, if we insert the Kantian imperative then we can say:

Provided that it does not use people as a means to an end and all other things being equal, we should probably consider those actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number the action most likely to be correct.

I would say that this is a more useful formulation of what Bentham and Mills were on about.

Cheers
Aj

[tonaderspeisung]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This is why utilitarianism is of only very limited usefulness unless it is tempered by something like a Kantian imperative such as "human beings are ends to themselves". Without that we wind up exactly where you state--whatever will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number is the correct action. However, if we insert the Kantian imperative then we can say:

Provided that it does not use people as a means to an end and all other things being equal, we should probably consider those actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number the action most likely to be correct.

I would say that this is a more useful formulation of what Bentham and Mills were on about.

Cheers
Aj

with kant thinking wouldn't one have to find that 5 is always a better outcome than one

i personally give life the number value of zero - not as having no value but a number representation for both infinite potential and an absolute value of it's end

in this case 5x0=0 and 1x0=0
so i still can't conclude that actively participating is of greater good than non

[tapu]

If you carry the 0 value out that way, wiping out the human race would be equal to sacrificing 1.

And maybe it is in a sense.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tonaderspeisung

with kant thinking wouldn't one have to find that 5 is always a better outcome than one

i personally give life the number value of zero - not as having no value but a number representation for both infinite potential and an absolute value of it's end

in this case 5x0=0 and 1x0=0
so i still can't conclude that actively participating is of greater good than non

I'm not sure that one would have to conclude that Kantian ethics would require one to conclude that five is always the right outcome. It depends upon what rule is being applied.

If the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people always save multiple people" I do not think the Kantian imperative requires us to conclude that or act in that manner. Without any real effort we can all come up with reasons why that rule should not be applied.

If, on the other hand, the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people and where this can be achieved without treating people as instruments instead of ends and where all other things are equal then the likely correct action is to save the most people" then I think that we might want to apply the Kantian maxim that we should not act on any principle that we would not be comfortable with if it were to become a universal law.

Even if I am the person who will die, I am actually rather comfortable with the idea that all other things being equal, we try to do what will be of greatest benefit to the largest number of people.

Keep in mind that things are not always equal. If I can save my son or I can save you and your child, I'm saving my son. That might seem to contradict but my level of concern for your well-being is necessarily dwarfed by my level of concern for my son's well-being. So the life of my son, compared to the life of the other 6 billion of y'all, is more important to me. All things are not equal in that situation. Even if we might wish that I would feel otherwise about my son, there are millions of years of primate evolution disagreeing with what we might wish.

If I understand your calculus, though, it militates for never doing anything to save people except, perhaps, your own kin. If the argument you are making is that if you save the five people they will still die eventually and if you save the one he will die eventually, then doesn't that just invite a nihilistic stance of not doing anything? Or am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

I am glad you said this. I understand that statements like "X is not morally defensible" are out of fashion but I think that the above statement is as close to a moral absolute as we are likely to find. In fact, I would argue that all our talk of rights or social justice are predicated on human beings having intrinsic value and not being instrumental vehicles to achieve some end or another. This is why slavery is a moral stain because it takes a group of people and makes them instruments. This is why I think that both libertarians and conservatives of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s got it entirely wrong on the subject of civil rights. All the arguments used by conservatives to bolster the position of segregationists that did not just revolve around outright racist tropes were essentially grounded in the idea that while racial segregation was regrettable, it was a necessary evil to maintain either political stability or economic 'freedom'. In this construction, blacks were--still--merely present in the Americas as a means to an end but did not have intrinsic value.

Cheers
Aj