1 introduction

PHIL 250: EthicsQuan JinFall 2012Saint Louis University

What’s the Right Thing to Do?The trolley problem and the nature of moral predicaments

1. The Trolley Problem

It is a thought experiment, a test of our moral intuitions. (X-Phi)

It takes different forms.

Our version of the problem includes four scenarios. Each scenario involves an out-of-control train hurtling down a track toward four trapped hikers—and our protagonist, Steve, must decide what to do.

Researchers in Harvard conducted surveys showing what people tend to think is the morally right thing for Steve to do in these various scenarios.

Scenario 1

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

Is it morally permissible for Steve to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

Scenario 2

No: 88%

Yes: 12%

Is it morally permissible for Steve to push the large person onto the tracks?

Scenario 3

No: 44%

Yes: 56%

Is it morally permissible for Steve to throw the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

Scenario 4

Yes: 72%

No: 28%

Is it morally permissible for Steve to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

Complications

1. What happens when we change the order in which these scenarios are presented, e.g. 1 &2, 3&4?

2. What if it is you who have to decide what to do in these situations?

3. Does it matter if your beloved is among those that are affected in the scenarios?

4. Is there the right thing to do?

2. The Law Of Double Effect

Committing a harmful act (e.g., killing one person) is generally seen as morally acceptable only if it is an unintended consequence of a some other, often greater good (e.g., saving four people).

The psychological principle of “omission bias”: doing vs. allowing; or, action vs. inaction

Means vs. side effects

Side effects: 1) those that can be reasonably foreseen; 2) those that cannot.

3. Emotional Distance

Types of interpersonal relationship: parents-children, friends, lovers, couples, co-workers, etc.

These relationships make different claims on us, requiring us to act differently in similar situations.

We are morally obliged in different ways toward significant others than strangers.

The Confucius problem: To be partial or righteous?

4. Humans vs. non-humans

Of all things there are, what has a moral standing?

Humans (neuro-normals vs. psychopaths/acquired sociopaths)?

Animals (pets vs. wild animals)?

Inanimate objects (trees, birds, or the environment in general)?

5. What Makes It Wrong?

Three moral frameworks:

The Deciding Factor

Moral Framework

Philosopher

Consequences Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill

Rules Deontology Immanuel Kant

Character Virtue Ethics Aristotle

6. Ethics

Questions that interest moral philosophers:

1. Meta-ethics: basic concepts and principles, e.g., “good,” “free will,” “moral responsibility,” “moral obligation,” and “moral truth.”

2. Normative ethics: What’s the moral standard, i.e., the criterion of right and wrong?

3. Applied ethics: What’s the right thing to do in a (morally puzzling) situation?