Which of These Two Scenarios is Morally Permissible?

[Mister Emu]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths

And saving five lives meets this goal more than saving one life does, doesn't it?

Indeed... but letting an innocent die to save people does not. It distorts/perverts it.

But no act is required at all. If you do nothing, the person dies of his disease.

The choice of doing nothing is an act.

Given her beliefs, it was an entirely logical and loving act for her to kill her children. I'm just glad that all the other people out there with similar beliefs haven't considered the implications of those beliefs to the extent that she did.

I don't think the lack of other people who share similar beliefs killing their children is a evidence of lack of consideration of their beliefs. They may add "God has ordered not to murder, and God knows best, therefore I won't murder my children."

If a person is free to choose and has knowledge of the possible outcomes, then the outcome he chooses is the one he desires.

He may not desire all of the consequences of that outcome though. They may be neutral or unwanted side-effects. When I have an allergy outbreak, I take benadryl. Besides easing the discomfort of the outbreak benadryl also makes me drowsy. I know this. This does not in anyway mean that when I have an outbreak and take benadryl that I intend to be tired/go to sleep.

But this gets back to the issue of intent. If my intent is solely to go to work, then where's the moral wrong?

The proper intent does not change the intrinsic wrongness of the act. The moral wrong is in denying lifesaving aid to the innocent man drowning.

If there's moral wrong in leaving a man to drown, even if I don't particularily desire his death, then why isn't there moral wrong in leaving five people to die, even if I don't particularily desire their deaths?

When acting in a moral manner you lack the means to save them.

But you do have access to it. Fail to save the life of the one, and the lifesaving aid will necessarily present itself.

But I do not. The one man's organs are his, not mine. They are only available once I have made the, in my opinion, immoral choice to let him die.

Okay... so if you do bear responsibility for those deaths, at least in part, then why don't they factor into your moral decision-making?

While in a real life situation I would certainly consider the weight of the decision, the morality of refusing aid to the one man would not change.

You may not directly intend them, but I'm arguing that when you intend a course of action that necessarily implies some other thing, then you indirectly intend the other thing.

I am disagreeing. The recognition of consequence is not the same thing as intention...

He's responsible for the totality of the ac

Indeed, however, that does not mean he intended everything that follows from the act.

I am not saying you do not bear responsibility for the consequences. But that responsibility does not change the nature of the act which caused the effect. Also, that responsibility does not reflect on intention.

Would the situation be any different to you if the man was healthy? He'll live 60 more years, but each of the five will live 60 more years as well? Would it be moral to kill him?

What if he was healthy, but the people who needed transplants were conspiring to kill him? If you do nothing, the same as the OP scenario, he dies. If you tell the police he lives. Would it be any more or less moral to save him?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Indeed... but letting an innocent die to save people does not. It distorts/perverts it.

Just as leaving five people to die distorts and perverts saving the one.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

The choice of doing nothing is an act.

Hmm. That's a question I got into some rather involved discussion over with Storm earlier in the thread. I argued that a person has the option to do nothing unless some special duty of care is present. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I don't think the lack of other people who share similar beliefs killing their children is a evidence of lack of consideration of their beliefs. They may add "God has ordered not to murder, and God knows best, therefore I won't murder my children."

I suppose so, but you do see how the logic of the situation works, right?

Similarily, any religion with an afterlife that's nicer than Earth needs to have a prohibition on suicide; otherwise, the most logical course of action in terms of rational self-interest is to kill onesself.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

He may not desire all of the consequences of that outcome though. They may be neutral or unwanted side-effects. When I have an allergy outbreak, I take benadryl. Besides easing the discomfort of the outbreak benadryl also makes me drowsy. I know this. This does not in anyway mean that when I have an outbreak and take benadryl that I intend to be tired/go to sleep.

I agree that the side effects may not be desirable, but my point is that they need to be taken into account in the decision-making. If you decide to take Benadryl while ignoring the fact you'll become drowsy, then you haven't made a fully informed decision.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

The proper intent does not change the intrinsic wrongness of the act. The moral wrong is in denying lifesaving aid to the innocent man drowning.

But why?

- it's not because of the intent; there's nothing wrong with intending to go to work.
- it's not because of the action; the action of walking along a path isn't intrinsically immoral.
- it's not because of the outcome; if we had to consider outcome in our decision-making, then the five lives would be a factor in our decision in the other scenario.

What's left?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

When acting in a moral manner you lack the means to save them.

But that's the question: is it moral to choose not to act?

Bonus question (and what Storm and I got into a bit of an argument about): if it's not moral to choose to act, then doesn't this mean that we're compelled to be maximally good all the time?

For instance, is it immoral to be a traffic engineer instead of a paramedic? My job, at its best, might save people time in their commute. I don't save lives on a daily basis. Is this less moral than a profession where one does save lives regularily?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

But I do not. The one man's organs are his, not mine. They are only available once I have made the, in my opinion, immoral choice to let him die.

But by the same token, the medicine is yours, not his. Just as you can't compel him (while alive, anyhow) to give up his organs, he can't compel you to give up your medicine.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

While in a real life situation I would certainly consider the weight of the decision, the morality of refusing aid to the one man would not change.

Early in the thread, atotalstranger suggested that our gut reactions are an indication of our morality. Do you think the fact that in reality, you might consider those five lives means that morally, you should?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I am disagreeing. The recognition of consequence is not the same thing as intention...

Indeed, however, that does not mean he intended everything that follows from the act.

I am not saying you do not bear responsibility for the consequences. But that responsibility does not change the nature of the act which caused the effect. Also, that responsibility does not reflect on intention.

I think we may be quibbling over semantics a bit. My point is that the entirety of the outcome that's within your responsibility should be factored into your moral decision-making. Whether you want a particular thing to happen or not, if you know it's going to happen, then you're obligated to consider it.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Would the situation be any different to you if the man was healthy? He'll live 60 more years, but each of the five will live 60 more years as well? Would it be moral to kill him?

Well, 60 years is more than a month, but still, one life of 60 years is less than five lives of 60 years.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

What if he was healthy, but the people who needed transplants were conspiring to kill him? If you do nothing, the same as the OP scenario, he dies. If you tell the police he lives. Would it be any more or less moral to save him?

Hmm. Interesting. It might be possible for me to consider it moral to save him. I think I might value the life of one innocent man more than the lives of five murderers. I also think it's justified to prevent murder, even if this is to the detriment of the murderer.

Edit: yes, I think it would probably be more moral to save him.

[Mister Emu]

Just as leaving five people to die distorts and perverts saving the one.

Not having the means, after acting morally to save the one, to save the five does not distort or pervert the morality.

Hmm. That's a question I got into some rather involved discussion over with Storm earlier in the thread. I argued that a person has the option to do nothing unless some special duty of care is present. What do you think?

Disagree. Disregarding the physical, the option of apathy is not always present. If you are uninformed, perhaps. But certainly not with perfect knowledge.

I suppose so, but you do see how the logic of the situation works, right?

Somewhat...

I agree that the side effects may not be desirable, but my point is that they need to be taken into account in the decision-making. If you decide to take Benadryl while ignoring the fact you'll become drowsy, then you haven't made a fully informed decision.

Indeed. But I don't think taking into account the consequences reflects on intention.

But why?

- it's not because of the intent; there's nothing wrong with intending to go to work.
- it's not because of the action; the action of walking along a path isn't intrinsically immoral.
- it's not because of the outcome; if we had to consider outcome in our decision-making, then the five lives would be a factor in our decision in the other scenario.

What's left?

The act of turning your back on the drowning man, which is its own act.

But that's the question: is it moral to choose not to act?

The option of not acting is not always neutral, and can be wrong.

if it's not moral to choose to act, then doesn't this mean that we're compelled to be maximally good all the time?

I might word it differently, we have an obligation to avoid wrong whenever we have the conscious opportunity.

For instance, is it immoral to be a traffic engineer instead of a paramedic? My job, at its best, might save people time in their commute. I don't save lives on a daily basis. Is this less moral than a profession where one does save lives regularily?

Ah, but clearer roads leads to more efficient paramedic driving, saving valuable time between injury and aid

But by the same token, the medicine is yours, not his. Just as you can't compel him (while alive, anyhow) to give up his organs, he can't compel you to give up your medicine.

Indeed, he cannot compel you. One is, however, compelled by morality to administer it, in my opinion.

Early in the thread, atotalstranger suggested that our gut reactions are an indication of our morality. Do you think the fact that in reality, you might consider those five lives means that morally, you should?

I think one should consider the weight of certain, likely, and possible consequences when acting, yes.

I think we may be quibbling over semantics a bit.

Perhaps we were I was just saying that because you recognise a consequence does not mean you wanted it to happen.

My point is that the entirety of the outcome that's within your responsibility should be factored into your moral decision-making. Whether you want a particular thing to happen or not, if you know it's going to happen, then you're obligated to consider it.

We have little disagreement here. We differ on how much influence that has though, I think. Especially indirect, but still real, consequences.

Well, 60 years is more than a month, but still, one life of 60 years is less than five lives of 60 years.

Indeed, so would it then be the moral thing to do, to kill him?

Hmm. Interesting. It might be possible for me to consider it moral to save him. I think I might value the life of one innocent man more than the lives of five murderers. I also think it's justified to prevent murder, even if this is to the detriment of the murderer.

Edit: yes, I think it would probably be more moral to save him.

Indeed, that was perhaps too easy... what if it were only one of the five? Four innocent men and one murderer would live, one innocent man would die...

What about if it were a relation of one of the five?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Not having the means, after acting morally to save the one, to save the five does not distort or pervert the morality.

Wait - why "after"? In either situation, the outcome flows necessarily from that first initial decision. It's one decision, not two.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Disagree. Disregarding the physical, the option of apathy is not always present. If you are uninformed, perhaps. But certainly not with perfect knowledge.

But this gets into the problem I touched on: for most people, we can find many examples of where we don't act despite knowledge that our action could create a positive change. For example, we're here online when we could be down at the lake patrolling the shore with binoculars and a life ring.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

The act of turning your back on the drowning man, which is its own act.

See... I don't think it is. I think the action itself is the same with or without the drowning man; the moral difference comes from the outcome.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I might word it differently, we have an obligation to avoid wrong whenever we have the conscious opportunity.

But every person has many such opportunities, yet they don't act on them.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Ah, but clearer roads leads to more efficient paramedic driving, saving valuable time between injury and aid

Heh... not so much. More often than not, my job is about accommodating growth in a way that will increase delay and congestion, but not too much.

But you get my point, right? Any job can be placed on a scale of "goodness". Most of us are qualified for (or could have been qualified for) jobs higher up the "goodness" scale than the jobs we have. That gap between what we could do and what we actually do represents "goodness" foregone... inaction, effectively.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Indeed, he cannot compel you. One is, however, compelled by morality to administer it, in my opinion.

Is the first man morally compelled to offer up his organs for the good of the five?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I think one should consider the weight of certain, likely, and possible consequences when acting, yes.


Perhaps we were I was just saying that because you recognise a consequence does not mean you wanted it to happen.

And I was just saying that we're morally culpable for all the foreseeable consequences of our choices, not just the ones we wanted to happen.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

We have little disagreement here. We differ on how much influence that has though, I think. Especially indirect, but still real, consequences.

Well, let me put it this way: if a million lives lay in the balance instead of five, would this change your decision? If not, then I don't think the consequences are a factor in the decision in any significant way.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Indeed, so would it then be the moral thing to do, to kill him?

It would be more moral than killing the five people, IMO.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Indeed, that was perhaps too easy... what if it were only one of the five? Four innocent men and one murderer would live, one innocent man would die...

Four people living is still more than one.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

What about if it were a relation of one of the five?

If the one who died were related to one of the five? I don't see how that would affect the morality of the situation.

[Mister Emu]

Wait - why "after"? In either situation, the outcome flows necessarily from that first initial decision. It's one decision, not two.

Yes, it is one decision. Whether to give the medicine to the one man. Once you have done that, you lack the requisite organs to save the five.

Hypothetically, you could make the least moral decision and allow the one man to die, and then allow the five to die.

But this gets into the problem I touched on: for most people, we can find many examples of where we don't act despite knowledge that our action could create a positive change. For example, we're here online when we could be down at the lake patrolling the shore with binoculars and a life ring.

We're not morally perfect...

See... I don't think it is.

We will have to disagree. I see the decision as an isolated event.

But every person has many such opportunities, yet they don't act on them.

Indeed, we are flawed.

But you get my point, right?

Indeed, I do.

As I said, I am not sure I view people as obligated to make the decisions which will, possibly, lead to the absolute greatest good. I am, however, sure that we are obligated to forgo wrong decisions.

Is the first man morally compelled to offer up his organs for the good of the five?

I'm not sure... I believe, in a vacuum, it would be a moral decision. However, I just can't say that anyone is obligated to surrender their life.

And I was just saying that we're morally culpable for all the foreseeable consequences of our choices, not just the ones we wanted to happen.

I don't think we are morally culpable for indirect consequences.

For instance, say a man has a gun to an innocent woman's head and a policeman is there who knows two things. The first being that this man is going to kill this woman. The second is that if he stops him, the man's offspring is going to have a poor life of deprivation.

I do not believe the policeman is culpable for what happens to the child if he acts in the moral manner here, stopping the murderer.

Well, let me put it this way: if a million lives lay in the balance instead of five, would this change your decision? If not, then I don't think the consequences are a factor in the decision in any significant way.

Re-reading, I think I agreed improperly. I was saying you need to consider the consequences of your actions, for their weight will be born by you. I do not however, believe that good ends justify otherwise wrong acts.

It would be more moral than killing the five people, IMO.

Do you consider letting an innocent man whose death would provide something necessary for the life of the five live killing them?

Four people living is still more than one.

Indeed, so would it be moral to allow an innocent's murder, that it was in your power to stop, if it provided a numerically greater amount of "happy" years of living?

If the one who died were related to one of the five? I don't see how that would affect the morality of the situation.

No, if the murderer were related. So it was none of the five performing the murder...

[Hell's Bells]

Morals are subjective, hence there is no "right" answer. Personally, I believe both scenarios are morally permissible. The more lives saved, the better. However, there are exceptions.