Morality question

Great Debates
1

Trolly problem-
Suppose you are the driver of a trolly. The trolley rounds a bend, and there come into view ahead are five track workmen, who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the breaks, but alas they don’t work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can trun the trolly onto it, and thus save the five men on the straight track ahead. Unfortunately, Mrs. Foot has arranged that there is one track workmen on that spur of track. He can no more get off the track in time than the five can, so you will kill him if you turn the trolley onto him. Is it morally permissable for you to turn the trolley? Why or why not? Now consider this case:

Imagine yourself to be a surgeon, a truly great surgeon. Among other things you do, you transplant organs, and you are such a great surgeon that the organs you transplant always take. At the moment you have five patients who need organs. Two need one lunch each, two need a kidney each, and the fifth needs a heart. If they do not get those organs today, they will all die; if you find organs for them today, you can transplant the organs and they will all live. But where to find the lungs, the kidneys, and the heart? The time is almost up when a report is brought to you that a young man who has just come into your clinic for his yearly check-up has exactly the right blood type, and is in excellent health. Lo, you have a possible donor. All you need to do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them. You ask, but he says, “sorry. I deeply sympahtize, but no.” Would it be morally permissable for you to operate anyway?

Suppose you believe that it is morally permissable to turn the trolley but not to operate. What is the morally relevent difference between the two situations?

2

If memory serves me right, we just did this question, but here goes anyway. . .

In the case of the runaway trolley, the only choice (as presented in the OP) available to the driver is only how to minimize the consequences of an inevitable wreck. Turning the trolley is the best course of action because it results in one death (assuming the trolley driver lives, which I guess isn’t really relevant) rather than five. But there will be a death. Or five deaths. And the trolley driver isn’t causing the deaths. He may, by his actions, reduce the number of deaths.

The surgeon, on the other hand, is in a very different situation. He has five aililng patients in desperate need of organs. He has one very health patient who possesses those organs. He must, of course, do everything medically possible for his five sick patients. This does not extend to running out into the waiting room of the clinic, putting a bullet into the brain of the healthy patient (thus preserving the needed organs) and distributing the organs amongst the ill patients.

There is no analogy. There is no comparison between the two situations. Apples and oranges. Not even close.

Although he might, if he is a good man, give lunch to those who are just hungry.

3

Peterdude.

Welcome to the boards. You don’t have the ability to search, but indeed this was just debated in Great Debates in March of this year.

So, I’ll close this one, LINK to the old thread so that you can read it.

Two further points. First, if you enjoy the place, by paying the small subscription fee you can search for this kind of thing yourself.

Second, if a question has a probable factual answer, then you open it in GQ. If it involves opinions, then it goes in another forum. In this case, it rises to the level of a great debate.

samclem GQ moderator