aviel wrote:Kate wrote: If that is the right thing to do in that situation, it shouldn't mather how often it is done
This doesn't follow at all; it presumes there aren't some consequences that might magnify disproportionately through repetition. E.g. if I have a computer algorithm that takes O(n^2 + 1000n) steps to complete, and another that takes O(n^3) steps, then the "right" thing to do if I'm only dealing with n < 30ish situations is to use the n^3 algorithm, but for other situations I'd used the n^2 one. When killing a janitor to steal his organs, you might have the first order consequence of more organs, but continuing it you'd have the second order consequence of nobody wanting to work in hospitals, but this is not the kind of behaviour that can really emerge from a single trolley instance.
But that's kind of a tangent. It's not about the number of times you're doing it, it's about the fact that it being non-precendential means it doesn't have other implications, and in other situations there are usually better options than "kill 1 to save 5".
And like I pointed out, since it is setting a precedent, it does have other implications. In fact, it has more implications than something that's already been established, because you are making a rule for the situation that people will live by forever more. If it is established that the morally right thing to do in a situation where the absolute only way to save 1< people is to kill 1 person, and you know for a fact that you will save them by doing so, then that applies to all situations like that.
That means no one will want to go outside because they'll be afraid of being killed to save other people.
If you get away with it legally, it means no one will want to be around you, because you might kill them. In fact, no one will want to be around any utilitarian, because they might kill them if they decide it's for the greater good.
Which, frankly, they might.
Here's a fun read!ETA 4:05PM EST: And remember, the question doesn't say that this is a one time thing that will never happen again. That's not a guarantee. You might run into it again. Someone else might run into it. And your first case is the one that we refer to for the right course of action.
Again, if you can find me a realistic situation where an answer to this trolley problem implies an answer to that situation, then you'll have made your point. But as such, the only situation mentioned is the organ donation situation, and this doesn't apply because the organ situation is precedential and because there are better alternatives in the organ donation situation. Are there any others?
I maintain that if the only factor is more lives = better, that it counts. But, it seems to be more than that. So I'll let it go for now.
Okay. Instead of China harvesting organs, here is a real life decision that doctors are faced with.
Keep in mind that some hospitals have their own in-house organ specialists and give priority to their own patients when organs become available.
You are Dr. Avi. You know of five patients in this hospital who are dying because they need organs. Your hospital's organ team is the best of the best; they have a high success rate that makes it so you know that it's likely that they'll all live through the surgery given their ages. Organ rejection is always a danger, but it's lower for some organs than others and at the very least, it buys them some time. You have no time to wait for legislation that makes organ donation mandatory; that could take years to happen. Your patients are dying
now. Using the "other solutions" argument doesn't work here, anymore than saying "Well they should build something that will keep people from becoming immobilized on trolley tracks," would work for the other scenario, because there is no time.
A car crash victim comes in. He's very healthy, except for his brain injury. You are sure you can save him, but if you leave him be, he'll be brain dead. He's an organ donor and a perfect match. If you don't do anything, it'll be blamed on a hospital error, or a misdiagnosis. That might open you up to a suit or probation, but it's a small price to pay for saving lives, and it happens all the time. No one will ever know you did it on purpose to get his organs, so there won't be any fear associated with it. It won't even be the worst hospital error that's happened that year, or that month probably.
If that's too passive for you to think it's the same, switch it out for, you could give him a medication that causes his brain to bleed, leading to brain death. Again, it can easily be blamed on an error.
What do you do, Dr. Avi? This is a one time situation, never to be repeated. This is possible in the real world, right now. I'm going to go ahead and say it probably doesn't happen because the business of saving lives is a difficult situation and doctors are highly trained and usually won't risk their careers just to save a few extra people, especially if that means killing someone, but this isn't about what doctors do but what they SHOULD do. Again...one-time. You will never do it again in your life and it cannot be traced back to a decision to kill him for his organs, so it won't have any of the consequences that come with people knowing what you did.
Second, related scenario. You are still Dr. Avi. You are the best surgeon in the world. A highly dangerous foreign dictator lands on your operating table. He has every legal right to be there and you are compelled to save his life. You know that if you do, he's going to go back to forcing children to be soldiers and having his detractors tortured and all that jazz. The next in line is his son, who is far less vicious and has been making noises about reform. Do you let the knife slip? It would save countless people.
...it's just easier to do doctor things because doctors have life and death in their hands, and despite the stringent regulations, it is relatively easy to make something look like an error instead of intentional as long as it's a one-time thing and the person involved has no relation to you at all.
As Marcuse pointed out, the trolley problem is there to get an initial gut reaction from you, and at that point you can examine if that initial reaction holds up to similar situations and why or why not.
Gut reactions should not be the means by which we arrive at moral conclusions.
That is literally the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying this is a way to
examine how we come to our moral conclusions so that we can apply reason to them and see if they stand up. What you know about yourself is that if it is a one-time deal and you can kill one person to save five more, you will. You also know that it is only because you know the outcome; if you cannot predict the outcome with 100% certainty, you won't take that chance. You know that it means that you have a cap on the value of life; one life is not worth an infinite amount to you, and lives can be bartered for other lives if it's done in a reasonable way. It means that it's not just a matter of 5>1. It means you need to make a multitude of decisions, and it means you make those sorts of decisions about other moral problems as well. It can reveal a flaw in your gut reaction, which can reveal a flaw in your logic.
If this problem doesn't do that for you, then you're right that it is useless
for you but it's pretty clear that it's not useless for everyone, and it helps them do those things, which means it serves its purpose. So you can say that you find it to be useless for yourself, and I'll accept that. But I won't accept that there is a clearcut right answer here, and I won't accept that it's useless for everyone.
ETA: Sorry, had to fix my quotes. Twice.