Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation? — Marin

Any answer - if there is any answer - will depend on an exact set specifications, well beyond what's given (or exactly on what's given). It seems, then, that the morality will have to be essentially defined in.

But I understand morality/ethics as the always prior attempt to formulate a general rule, which is then cut and tailored to the specifics. And before that the not-simple problem of deciding what the grounds of the morality are in the first place.

So, "is there any way you could prove..?" Of course and indeed there is, but what is that worth?

Apparently it is to most legislators. See culpable homicide. The 1 vs. 5 element would have an interesting effect.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Thank you for your time — Marin

Well...just to highlight how screwed up things are right now...my first thought was...

...is there any change that Trump and Pompeo are two of the five, because that might be a very strong bit of motivation for inaction.

Add McConnell, Graham, and Barr to the grouping...and there is no way I would flick any switches.

"Five people tied, unable to move" as opposed "one person just standing idly" enjoying the smell of rail grease and the sound of the arc welder inside the shed?

There are only two choices to make:
1. pull the switch and inform the idiot standing there that he is about to meet his maker if he doesn't shift his body or
2. "Inch Allah!" Nothing immoral about that - if you are a Moslem.

I'm pulling the switch.

On a more serious note...if you were to pull the lever and make the train switch tracks...and the guy on the other side were killed...you would be responsible for his being killed. You will have caused his death by something you did. At best...a first degree manslaughter charge would be lodged.

If you did not pull the lever...no fault...except to the five tied to the tracks. The person who tied them would be in deep doo-doo.

But would a jury of his peers not see the person as more of a hero than a murderer? Depends I suppose.

I guess it comes down to why are you in a control room of a public transport facility vital to national security? Where is the authorized person? He would radio dispatch and be advised on what to do thus absolved of responsibility. Did you break in? Are you trained or therefore have specific knowledge in even what the controls would do? You might be wrong and they might shift a different track causing a collision of greater magnitude. All of this can be escaping from the original premise but. Just facts.

I would like to hear they ways inaction could be proven morally wrong in this situation.

Apparently it is to most legislators. See culpable homicide. The 1 vs. 5 element would have an interesting effect.

Are you saying that inaction would result would be seen as culpable homicide? In this situation, by not doing anything, we are simply an onlooker. The runaway trolley killed the five people, not I. You could of course say that I have the moral duty to try to save the majority, but when does a moral duty to act create a legal duty of care and therefore give rise to potential criminal liability for breach of that duty? There are several things that must be proven, and one of them is that you have to prove that I have a duty of care towards either that 1 person or those 5. I don't. I have never seen them in my life and even if I had some degree of responsability for, say, those 5 people on the main track, I can't be prosecuted for "Didn't kill A to save B" as I can't be prosecuted under the law for not killing an innocent person.


Yes, I know the legal consequences of the trolley problem are favorable to inaction. What I wanted to talk about is the fact that inaction is almost always viewed as morally wrong. People often say that we have some sort of responsability towards the general welfare, but this would be a violation of my liberty as I haven't chosen out of my own volition to choose; I was coerced into doing the "right" thing. By doing nothing in the case of the trolley problem, I'm not thinking that I am doing the correct thing, but that I am just not doing wrong.

I would like to hear they ways inaction could be proven morally wrong in this situation. — Marin

Easy, define it that way - anyway you like. The point - my point - being that at some point the effort moves from seeking to find, to deciding and thereby determining. The movement from the one to the other imo a sign of intellectual maturity. If, then, you want inaction to be wrong, you can look for some Rosetta stone of ethics that will tell you it's wrong, or, you can adduce such arguments as you find compelling to make your case even if just to yourself.

Step one, though, is complete specification. In your example five people are tied to one track, and one is on the other. If he's just "on" then he can be off. I send the car his way. and he gets out of the way.

If you don't like my interpretation, look again at your presentation.

Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation? — Marin

If the intent behind the inaction is to enjoy the carnage, then it is wrong.

Why is my presentation not complete? I wrote that you have two options in this dilemma we are considering:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

If you choose to pull the level then one person dies.

If, then, you want inaction to be wrong, you can look for some Rosetta stone of ethics that will tell you it's wrong, or, you can adduce such arguments as you find compelling to make your case even if just to yourself.

Kantinianism in this trolley problem calls for inaction, because the action of killing a human being would be viewed as immoral.

Also, I'm not sure I'm following what your point is. Could you perhaps rephrase it so I could understand it better?

If the intent behind the inaction is to enjoy the carnage, then it is wrong.

Fair enough

Also, I'm not sure I'm following what your point is. Could you perhaps rephrase it so I could understand it better? — Marin

You can look for something or someone else to tell you what to do and why, or you can decide for yourself. Making your own decision, though, means you take ownership - which Kant would have you do - and taking ownership comes with the hazards of responsibility.

You inquire about inaction. What is that? You call it "doing nothing." Now that it's foregrounded, do you hear the oxymoron? What is, "inaction"?

I don't know to what extent this matters but I believe a fundamental moral principle is ought implies can which I take it means if one can't act in a desired way then, an ought is out of the question, freeing us from moral responsibility as it were. For instance, if I'm unable to save (can't) a drowning child for whatever reason then I'm free of the obligation (no ought) to save the child. In a sense the moment actions or inactions are beyond our capacity we're no longer operating in the moral domain.

In the trolley problem, we should save everybody and also not kill anyone but both are impossible - we can't do either. Thus, if ought implies can is a sound moral principle, the trolley problem is actually not a moral problem at all. The problem makes as much sense as telling a child that she should never eat candy and then offering her a choice between one and five candies.

I didn't mean that inaction is "doing nothing". With "(do nothing and "allow" the five people to die)" I was talking about how everything would play out if you chose inaction.
I think of "inaction" as "absence of action". It is an action that doesn't exist. If there is no action then there no effect. I think that inaction is neither moral nor immoral as you cannot define moral or immoral something that cannot exibit characteristics.

If you choose inaction, according to Kantianism, you make the decision to not utilize the life of that one person on the side track as a means to an end (saving the 5 people, that is, the majority), violating his autonomy as an individual, which is unacceptable. You are not responsible for anyone's life because this would be a violation of my liberty as I haven't chosen out of my own volition to choose

If you’re doing nothing, you’re doing nothing wrong.

I think of "inaction" as "absence of action". — Marin

It may seem contentious, but how do you know this? Or do you know this? Or do you just "think" it? Or just believe it? And assuming that "inaction" is a decision wrt a set of possibilities that includes action, then inaction is just a choice of an action, yes?

If you’re doing nothing, you’re doing nothing wrong. — Pfhorrest

How can you be doing nothing wrong if nothing is what you're doing? Or are all nothings wrong?

No I suppose. Though in some jurisdictions it can be argued if you witness someone having a heart attack and they begin pleading for you to call 911. And you have your phone, in your hands even, and can easily do so and instead you just sit there and watch them die. Then continue using your phone. Especially or most importantly on camera, you could face something. Wouldn't you want that if you were said person?

Why would you do nothing? Fear? Bystander effect?

I‘m sure others would not hold you responsible for doing nothing, but I suspect anyone with a conscience would have a hard time living with themselves afterwards.

I get what you are saying...and agree. But your problem is a bit too close to, "If your mother and I were both drowning...which one would you save?"

Luckily, I swim like an anvil, so whoever I attempted to save would be doomed.

There’s nothing better than heaven. But a ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than heaven?

If you’re doing nothing, you’re doing nothing wrong. — Pfhorrest

Well, yes there are lots of situations in which doing nothing is at the least wrong.

The point is that if you are not doing anything (“doing nothing”), then you are not doing anything that could be wrong.

Bad things may still happen, but there is a difference between good or bad outcomes and right or wrong actions. A right action can’t be one that causes a bad outcome, but bad outcomes can nevertheless happen despite nobody doing anything wrong.

Do you think there are no moral obligations to act? Its just about what not to do rather than what you should do? If not, how do you justify excluding the trolley problem from the list of actions morality compels you to do?

Do you think there are no moral obligations to act? — DingoJones

Yes.

So what is the ideal moral person in your view? The one who acts the least is the most moral?

No, there are lots of supererogatory goods that someone can do to be better than morally neutral, they just aren’t obligatory. Like how saying contingently true things makes your speech more correct than merely refraining from impossible self-contradictions, where such consistency is all that’s a strictly necessary truth.

The point is that if you are not doing anything (“doing nothing”), then you are not doing anything that could be wrong. — Pfhorrest

That just goes to the anything, but it's the nothing that's in question. I assure you there are situations where the nothing is wrong. And if you really believe there are not, or you cannot think of any, then I'll provide.

“Not doing anything” and “doing nothing” are the same thing. I rephrased specifically to avoid this confusion.

Please define

“Not doing anything” and “doing nothing” — Pfhorrest

so that I may reliably distinguish these - or this - from doing something.

A couple things...

What does “doing nothing/not doing anything” actually mean? It seems obvious that actions such as breathing should be included in “nothing,” but anything else? Is it only actions that have an effect on the outcome that should be considered?

Also, I think intentions are relevant to the discussion. If I have the urge to act, but suppress it, that is different than not having an urge at all. Maybe I intend to cause harm, so I flip the switch so that I can feel the gratification of knowing that I’m directly responsible for one death. Conversely, maybe I intend to derive pleasure from witnessing 5 deaths, so I do not flip the switch.

Lastly, can’t the same situation be phrased either as action or non-action, or even both? Let’s say I don’t flip the switch. Phrased this way, it is a non-act. But if I say I refrained from flipping the switch, isn’t “refraining” an action? Or I can combine both phrasings so that it appears that I did both (I didn’t flip the switch. I wanted to, but chose to refrain from doing so.).

Ok, but what Im asking is how you decided the prevention of greater loss of life in the trolley problem isnt obligatory. Walk me through your reasons for excluding it from obligatory in your diagram, I dont understand.