Interesting morality thought experiments

[Yossarian]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_4942320

Answer the wee polls in this article.

It's interesting how some of the results skew depending on subtle differences in the scenarios.

[Warhammer]

Yeah, I love the violinist one. OK, in one you are forcibly kidnapped, but yet someone can justify your response to this as whether or not you are consistent regarding abortion? Let me say this, the only way to keep from getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant is to keep your pants on...

I hate situational ethics questions like these because you don't have enough information to go on. Much of it depends on the people involved, and you can't go applying the data from one of these to another situation based upon the information known in each circumstance.

Often, the same people that hold up these types of questions as great debate points also lambast Socrates and his methods because of his way of forcing people to answer the questions in the manner he frames them. Same dang thing.

[Cuckoo]

Yeah, I love the violinist one. OK, in one you are forcibly kidnapped, but yet someone can justify your response to this as whether or not you are consistent regarding abortion? Let me say this, the only way to keep from getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant is to keep your pants on...

Interesting stuff. But I agree; the connection to abortion seems a bit strained to me.

[TroyF]

In both situations, you could save a person by bearing a great burden for nine months.

WTF?

In one case you are kidnapped and tied to a hospital bed where you can't move.

In the other case, you deal with pregnancy, but still get to work through much of it, get to go visit family and do things during it and still have a life.

But both are great burdens? Are you freakin kidding me?

[jeff061]

The abortion one is obviously flawed. I liked the pushing vrs flicking a switch one though. Like eating meat and being against killing animals I guess.

[RendeR]

I don't see the issue with these, you never have an obligation to save someone one to one, but when the lives of many can be saved by the life of one, killem.

[Yossarian]

I agree the abortion one seemed a wee bit forced, I was inclined to switch the track (and kill the dude) but not to shove the dude off the bridge (which in effect results in the same action.

Those were gut reactions. In real life i'd probably just phone an ambulance and cover my eyes.

[Warhammer]

I agree the abortion one seemed a wee bit forced, I was inclined to switch the track (and kill the dude) but not to shove the dude off the bridge (which in effect results in the same action.

Those were gut reactions. In real life i'd probably just phone an ambulance and cover my eyes.

IRL, I'd yell, "Get the hell off the track you morons!"

[Yossarian]

oh yeah, that....

[Daimyo]

I was pretty consistent on the one to many; in neither case would I interfere -- at least i don't think so, but its really impossible to tell unless you're in the situation. I personally would not feel comfortable or that it was my place to be making the decision of who should live and who should die without having any other information about the people. I also don't know how I would deal with being responsible for the death on an innocent person and I'm not sure knowing I saved others would really be much comfort in that situation.

However, with the fat guy stuck in the hole you have to blow his ass up... that's just survival instinct.

[Desnudo]

I was pretty consistent on the one to many; in neither case would I interfere -- at least i don't think so, but its really impossible to tell unless you're in the situation. I personally would not feel comfortable or that it was my place to be making the decision of who should live and who should die without having any other information about the people. I also don't know how I would deal with being responsible for the death on an innocent person and I'm not sure knowing I saved others would really be much comfort in that situation.

However, with the fat guy stuck in the hole you have to blow his ass up... that's just survival instinct.

I'd blow myself up with him for being dumb enough to send the fat fucker through first.

[Brillig]

The abortion one - well, think of it this way, suppose the pregnancy was the result of rape. And as far as the future responsibility goes, consider that the child can be given up for adoption after birth...

As for the others, one of the problems with questions like these is that they give you perfect information. In the real world, you generally don't *know* how many people will die as the result of a certain action. This is why it seems intuitively ok to switch the trolley to a track that kills one person as opposed to five. Basically, if the question were in terms of switching from a track with a big crowd on it to one with a few people on it, it's a no brainer - there's no certainty that fewer people will be killed, but it's an obvious decision. Pushing someone on to the tracks *feels* different, because of the certainty that one person will die - but that's an artifact of how our minds process the question.

[John Galt]

The abortion one - well, think of it this way, suppose the pregnancy was the result of rape. And as far as the future responsibility goes, consider that the child can be given up for adoption after birth...


I think that helps with the analogy and eliminates the largest problem people have with that example. It at leasts represents a good starting point.

TroyF raises a different objection that I really don't understand. If the burden of pregnancy were such that you were bedridden for nine months, an abortion would ok then? Or in the violinist example, if you had to only give 1 hour a day for 9 months, would you then be obligated to stay? Are the differences in the burden carried really the most important factors in determining the ethical obligation?

[TroyF]

I think that helps with the analogy and eliminates the largest problem people have with that example. It at leasts represents a good starting point.

TroyF raises a different objection that I really don't understand. If the burden of pregnancy were such that you were bedridden for nine months, an abortion would ok then? Or in the violinist example, if you had to only give 1 hour a day for 9 months, would you then be obligated to stay? Are the differences in the burden carried really the most important factors in determining the ethical obligation?


The rape situation does help to a degree.

I'm not sure what's "not" to understand. The exact quote from the person making the ridiculous analogy was that each task was the same thing. All you'd have to be is burdened for nine months and a life would be saved.

Well, not only is the burden not equal in each case, it borders on absurdity. In one situation, you have been kidnapped against your will and thrown into a hospital bed where you must stay for nine months. Hell, you don't even have the 15 to 30 days available to you before you find out you are pregnant.

If you are going to use a comparison, it has to be at least somewhat similar.

The rape does make for a better similarity, but that only deals with a single scenario type and still has a problem with the way the person was placed in the situation. (in one case, despite some preventative measures taken, the final action was avoidable, in the other case the person is being forcibly kidnapped)

[John Galt]

The rape situation does help to a degree.

I'm not sure what's "not" to understand. The exact quote from the person making the ridiculous analogy was that each task was the same thing. All you'd have to be is burdened for nine months and a life would be saved.

Well, not only is the burden not equal in each case, it borders on absurdity. In one situation, you have been kidnapped against your will and thrown into a hospital bed where you must stay for nine months. Hell, you don't even have the 15 to 30 days available to you before you find out you are pregnant.

If you are going to use a comparison, it has to be at least somewhat similar.

The rape does make for a better similarity, but that only deals with a single scenario type and still has a problem with the way the person was placed in the situation. (in one case, despite some preventative measures taken, the final action was avoidable, in the other case the person is being forcibly kidnapped)

I guess I'm still confused as to why the burden is the MAJOR factor in the decision. You were pretty dismissive of the whole example when it only requires some minor tinkering to address your concern. Maybe the burden undertaken isn't the MAJOR factor for you, but if that's the case, I don't understand why you were so dismissive in the first place.

For me, abortion is a difficult question because there is another life (be it human or something else) involved. This analogy helps to show that even in the case of a fully developed human life, our obligations to sustain it by undertaking a 9 month burden are murky at best. I've always been confused by pro-life arguments that put emphasis on the responsibility of the parents. For me, it is about the unborn fetus/child. It doesn't know how it got there and it doesn't know whether its parents didn't know how to use a condom. It is a close call for me because the fetus/child is innocent in the whole thing. And I don't understand the rhetoric people use about teaching the parent's responsibility. The fetus/child doesn't deserve to have the decision based on those prior events, IMO. So, I'm ultimately pro-choice because I believe the fetus is not a human life, but even if I were pro-life it would definitely not be for reasons of parental responsibility.

[TroyF]

I guess I'm still confused as to why the burden is the MAJOR factor in the decision. You were pretty dismissive of the whole example when it only requires some minor tinkering to address your concern. Maybe the burden undertaken isn't the MAJOR factor for you, but if that's the case, I don't understand why you were so dismissive in the first place.

For me, abortion is a difficult question because there is another life (be it human or something else) involved. This analogy helps to show that even in the case of a fully developed human life, our obligations to sustain it by undertaking a 9 month burden are murky at best. I've always been confused by pro-life arguments that put emphasis on the responsibility of the parents. For me, it is about the unborn fetus/child. It doesn't know how it got there and it doesn't know whether its parents didn't know how to use a condom. It is a close call for me because the fetus/child is innocent in the whole thing. And I don't understand the rhetoric people use about teaching the parent's responsibility. The fetus/child doesn't deserve to have the decision based on those prior events, IMO. So, I'm ultimately pro-choice because I believe the fetus is not a human life, but even if I were pro-life it would definitely not be for reasons of parental responsibility.

I dismiss the thing for a ton of reasons, but the thing that struck me was the comment of the person who made this example. (it was their direct quote from the article I put at the top of my first response)

Obviously, THEY place a high degree of importance in that part of the arguement. If they place importance to it and it's their arguement, I think they should have tinkered with it to fix that part of it.

FWIW, I'm pretty much against both abortion and the death penalty, which seems to be a view of about 15% of the general population.

[John Galt]

FWIW, I'm pretty much against both abortion and the death penalty, which seems to be a view of about 15% of the general population.

Is it even that high? In my younger days, I was pro-life. And I was anti-death penalty. And I was a vegetarian. To me, that was consistent and made sense. I never met anyone else who was all three of those. I'm sure there are others, but I never really ran across them. Then again, I'm not a religous man and I bet a large portion of that 15% are Catholic. Maybe I just didn't have enough Catholic friends.

[Warhammer]

You know what, I'm surprised that no one has called any of these situations a straw man and gone on down the road....

That said, regarding the abortion/violinist question, the question for me is not about burden. The burden in this case is the same, it is a human life. The question to me is how we got to this point.

In the case of the abortion, the decision is based upon what the person did prior to the conception of the child. The ONLY way to 100% prevent the conception of a child is to not have sex. If you have sex, no matter how many precautions you take, you have to be prepared for the consequences.

In the case of the violinist, you are forcibly put into the situation, not by your own free will. In this case, someone has kidnapped you, and hooked you up to the violinist.

Now, you can try and couch the situations differently, but the fact remains that in one you are put there against your will, and in another you are put there by your own action. Even in the case of rape, you can argue that the cases of pregnancy due to rape are so few that using this as a method to justify abortion is ridiculous. Not only that, but the violinist situation is unrealistic.

If you want to be consistent, depending upon your thought process you must be consistent in both. If you are defining life as not being dependent upon artificial means, or capable of surviving without outside interference, there are plenty of people that should be left to die, if you use this as an excuse for abortion. Now, if you feel that the violinist should be allowed to live, you should be pro-life in your decision regarding abortion, if the burden is what you are basing your decision upon.

To me the question is not about the burden, it is about the decision making process to get into that situation. This is also the basis for the belief that abortions should be allowed in rape cases, it is not being inconsistent, it is all about the decisions made by the mother and should they be subject to a situation that has been forced upon her unwillingly (rape).

[TroyF]

Is it even that high? In my younger days, I was pro-life. And I was anti-death penalty. And I was a vegetarian. To me, that was consistent and made sense. I never met anyone else who was all three of those. I'm sure there are others, but I never really ran across them. Then again, I'm not a religous man and I bet a large portion of that 15% are Catholic. Maybe I just didn't have enough Catholic friends.


I was raised Catholic, but left the church for a variety of reasons. (still consider myself Christian, though I haven't actively been part of a church in a long time)

I always framed my belief in human life, so I never had to worry about the vegetarian part of the equation.

For awhile I flip flopped on abortion and I'm still not sure a government should decide that fate, but I'm pretty sure of myself at this point.

I understand the sides and why they are the polar opposite of each other (ie: Conservatives being pro-life and pro-death and liberals switching the two)

Even with the understanding there has always been a fascination with it. Kind of like you, I just feel I'm being consistent. I should print out this post and see where I am 25 years from now.

[Surtt]

My Initial thought was to throw the switch, but, after thinking about it I decided I would not.
Fate can be unkind. I did not start the train rolling, I did not put the people on the track, if I wasn't there they would die.
On the other hand If I throw the switch, I have murdered someone, no mater what my reason.

[John Galt]

Even with the understanding there has always been a fascination with it. Kind of like you, I just feel I'm being consistent. I should print out this post and see where I am 25 years from now.

I've changed a lot too, although I would be surprised if I changed too much more. I now eat meat, am still against the death penalty, but am pro-choice. Since, for me, the emphasis is about human life that seems right.

That is why I don't like the burden and/or responsibility arguments (like the one Warhammer is making). It seems to totally ignore the life involved and focus entirely on the actions of the parents. That always seems odd to me.

[Warhammer]

Is it even that high? In my younger days, I was pro-life. And I was anti-death penalty. And I was a vegetarian. To me, that was consistent and made sense. I never met anyone else who was all three of those. I'm sure there are others, but I never really ran across them. Then again, I'm not a religous man and I bet a large portion of that 15% are Catholic. Maybe I just didn't have enough Catholic friends.

I'm Pro-Life, pro-death penalty, and for eating all the cows I can. Plus, I'm Catholic.

I pro-life is very cut and dry. Life is life. I actually vascilate on the death penalty issue. Myself, I feel that there are some heinous crimes and why should someone live at my expense for the rest of their life rotting in a prison? The flip side is who am I to judge another person, and should that person not have the opportunity to repent of their past. On the whole though, I do support the death penalty because people should be punished for their actions. That said, I never base any of my votes or anything else based upon my views of capital punishment because of my conflicted views.

However, from the standpoint of a well functioning society things change a bit. What ever laws we have MUST be rigorously enforced, regardless of what they are. If we have laws that are punished by the death penalty, we must use the death penalty, or else there is no reason to have it on the books. Every crime that is unpunished will result in more crimes down the road because people see they can be bad and get away with it. Do I have any statistics to back this up with? No, but I have found that in my own life, that if I lie, swear, or do other unsavory things, the more I do them, the easier it is to do another. Whereas, if I am good about something, the harder it is to break that line.

Even in the case of abortion, if we have it as a protected right, it must be protected. However, that does not infringe upon my right to seek to change your mind through discussion, persuation, or to seek to change the law of the land.

As far as the cows are concerned, if God wanted us to be vegetarians, our teeth would have evolved differently.

[TroyF]

However, from the standpoint of a well functioning society things change a bit. What ever laws we have MUST be rigorously enforced, regardless of what they are. If we have laws that are punished by the death penalty, we must use the death penalty, or else there is no reason to have it on the books. Every crime that is unpunished will result in more crimes down the road because people see they can be bad and get away with it. Do I have any statistics to back this up with? No, but I have found that in my own life, that if I lie, swear, or do other unsavory things, the more I do them, the easier it is to do another. Whereas, if I am good about something, the harder it is to break that line.

I don't want to thread jack this into a death penalty debate, but I do want to say the reasoning here is flawed. Three reasons for murder:

1) Greed
2) Passion
3) Impulse

None of the three are prevented by consequence. In one of the cases, the person thinks they can't be caught. In the last case, they have zero control and penalties don't play into the equation anyway.

but am pro-choice. Since, for me, the emphasis is about human life that seems right.

That's what I struggled with for a long time. But I'm moving away from your conclusion.

[Warhammer]

That is why I don't like the burden and/or responsibility arguments (like the one Warhammer is making). It seems to totally ignore the life involved and focus entirely on the actions of the parents. That always seems odd to me.

Actually, I am consistent. The focus is on life. If I put the maestro in his condition, then I would say that I would be responsible to take steps to save his life. That is consistent with my feeling on the abortion argument. Now, the way this question was posed, I just happen to be the person that someone conked over the head to save this person's life. In this case, why should I be responsible to save this person's life?

Let me change the discussion slightly, let's give this violinist a specific condition, let's say he is suffering from kidney failure. I am a perfect match for him. Am I obligated to give him one of my kidneys? In the case presented, and the one I just laid out, you are the one person that can save his life. If you deny treatment he dies. What is the right thing to do? If you say that I should stay hooked up to him in the situation posed in the article, than organ farming is ok. Someone should conk me over the head, take my kidney and save the man's life. Yet, isn't that infringing upon my life and quality of life?

Now, let's change things slightly. I am responsible for this man's failing kidney. I was at fault for a traffic accident where something punctured his kidney (or something, cut me some slack, I'm making this situation up as I go, this isn't the best example as I don't choose to have a traffic accident). In this case, I put the man in this situation and from an ethical viewpoint, I should donate a kidney to save his life. Maybe a better example is a freak fencing accident where the foil puntures the armor and damages the kidney. I think abortion falls into this category. Even though we took all the precautions to prevent something from happening, what we did was risky behavior and I should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

I actually think this is a little more consistent than the whole value of life argument when applied to the cases of the death penalty and abortion. In the value of life argument, you get into the messy argument of what constitutes life? Does a mass of cells constitute life? Yes? Well, then we're all mass murderers when we shake hands, or when we cause someone to cut themselves and cause cells to die. But, at what point does that mass of cells become a life worthy of saving? 1000 cells? 1000000 cells? To me, we can take the whole slippery slope argument and actually stand on firm ground in my opinion. If 1000000 cells is worth saving, why isn't 999999, since they will become 1000000? So on and so forth. Since this is possible, sheer numbers should not be a barometer of how we base our decision.

Should life be considered life if you are dependent upon unnatural means to survive? If not, then we should take everyone on life support off life support.

If we base this decision upon the decision of the people involved, it becomes much easier to see which decision is ethical. In the case of the violinist, as framed, you can let him die. In the case of abortion, rape is the only situation which is analogus to the violinist situation. You can abort the baby in that case, and we are being consistent. In the case of the situation where we take precautions but the violinist is critically injured, you are responsible for giving the man a kidney. This is just like regular sex where you take precautions but still get pregnant (actually just had a friend that went through this), you should go through with the pregnancy. Everything is consistent here.

I can understand where someone may cringe at the methodology, but I feel that it is much more consistent. I would go into the death penalty ramifications of this as well, but I gotta run.

[Warhammer]

However, from the standpoint of a well functioning society things change a bit. What ever laws we have MUST be rigorously enforced, regardless of what they are. If we have laws that are punished by the death penalty, we must use the death penalty, or else there is no reason to have it on the books. Every crime that is unpunished will result in more crimes down the road because people see they can be bad and get away with it. Do I have any statistics to back this up with? No, but I have found that in my own life, that if I lie, swear, or do other unsavory things, the more I do them, the easier it is to do another. Whereas, if I am good about something, the harder it is to break that line.

I don't want to thread jack this into a death penalty debate, but I do want to say the reasoning here is flawed. Three reasons for murder:

1) Greed
2) Passion
3) Impulse

None of the three are prevented by consequence. In one of the cases, the person thinks they can't be caught. In the last case, they have zero control and penalties don't play into the equation anyway.

but am pro-choice. Since, for me, the emphasis is about human life that seems right.

That's what I struggled with for a long time. But I'm moving away from your conclusion.

It's funny, since that is another reason why I vascilate on this issue. Again, its why I don't base any of my voting record on this issue. I completely understand your reasoning, and have used this previously myself.

[Daimyo]

(or something, cut me some slack, I'm making this situation up as I go, this isn't the best example as I don't choose to have a traffic accident).
But you did choose to drive a car knowing the inherent risks that go along with that even when you take every practical precaution and practice "safe driving." I think it is a pretty good analogy actually.

[Daimyo]

The rape situation does help to a degree.

I'm not sure what's "not" to understand. The exact quote from the person making the ridiculous analogy was that each task was the same thing. All you'd have to be is burdened for nine months and a life would be saved.

Well, not only is the burden not equal in each case, it borders on absurdity. In one situation, you have been kidnapped against your will and thrown into a hospital bed where you must stay for nine months. Hell, you don't even have the 15 to 30 days available to you before you find out you are pregnant.

If you are going to use a comparison, it has to be at least somewhat similar.

The rape does make for a better similarity, but that only deals with a single scenario type and still has a problem with the way the person was placed in the situation. (in one case, despite some preventative measures taken, the final action was avoidable, in the other case the person is being forcibly kidnapped)
I've been thinking about this argument and it bothers me.

I think we can all agree that it is morally and legally wrong to take an action that results in the death of another person (there are exceptions to this that can be debated) so the question here is, is it also morally and/or legally wrong to not take an action when not taking the action results in the death of another person. To me your two arguments are that 1) Convenience matters and 2) cause matters even in cases of non-negligence.

Does Convenience matter? What if you didn't have to stay in the bed for 9 months, but you just had to come in one hour a day for 9 months would that make it legally wrong to refuse? What if you only had to come in once a week, but you had previousy planned a 3 month vacation that you won't be able to reschedule. Going the other direction, what if saving his life meant you'd never be able to walk again? Personally I'm uncomfortable with the idea that you only have a moral or legal obligation to save someone's life if its convenient... that decision is really a personal one IMO.

To the other point, assuming you were taking every practical precaution and not acting negligent but still somehow caused the situation do you still have an obligation? It sucks, but shit happens at times and often it happens when no one is at fault. Pro-lifers often say that people shouldn't have sex at all if they don't want to get pregnant, but what about driving? I'm sure there are people injured or killed all the time in no-fault accidents, but I doubt the same pro-lifers would say you shouldn't drive if you don't want to be accountable for killing someone in a no-fault accident. I'm also not really comfortable with the idea that you have have a moral or legal obligation to save someone's life if you caused the situation but did so even though you took every practical precaution and did not act negligent.

[Yossarian]

A small update with the results of the polls

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4971902.stm