I love thought experiments. As Julian Baggini writes in his book, 'The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten':
"The Purpose of thought experiments is to strip away things that compilate matters in real life in order to focus clearly on the essence of a problem... Thought experiments help because, like scientific experiments, they aim to isolate key variables, the specific factors under examination, to see what difference they, and they alone, make to our understanding of the world."
So to this end, I aim to post a weekly though experiment for the users of Hubski to engage in. Well, I'll keep posting them if this goes down well. So here we go, this weeks food for thought:
Kill and Let Die
Greg has just one minute to make an agonizing choice. A runaway train is hurtling down the track towards the junction where he is standing. Further down the line too far away for him to reach, forty men are working in a tunnel. If the train reaches them, it is certain to kill many of them.
Greg can't stop the strain. But he can pull the lever that will divert it down another tack. Further down this line, in another tunnel, only five men are working. The death toll is bound to be smaller.
But if Greg pulls the lever, he is deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If he leaves it alone, it will not be him who causes deaths among the forty. He must bring about the deaths of a few people, or allow even more to die. But isn't it worse to kill people than it is simply to let them die?
The rails are humming, the engine noises getting louder. Greg has only seconds to make his choice. To kill or let die?
Note: I may present points of debate that I may not necessarily agree with to stimulate discussion.
This seems to be the real question here: Is it better to intervene to cause the death of a few rather than to let events play out that will cause the death of many? The decision is agonizing because it's only human not to want to associate yourself with the death of others. Also, in addition to this, we worry about imperfect information, and wonder if our choice might be made worse after we get more accurate information about the situation. Personally, assuming that the situation is simply 'allow 40 to die' or 'kill 5 instead', the best outcome is to kill the 5. If I were in the group of 5, I would want things to play out in that way. Of course, no one wants such a situation to arise in the first place. However, IMHO not intervening when you can is the same as intervening. Actually, I think there's an argument to be made that it's only because some people have made such difficult choices in the past that we aren't ruled by tyrants. IMHO there's nothing fundamentally wrong with making difficult choices. I think what most important, is that the choices involve scrutiny and consequence commensurate with the impact of those choices. We should identify where in society these choices are made, and scrutinize the hell out of them. Here's a way to make the choice even more agonizing: include your child in the 5. If that's the case, I won't intervene, and will face the consequences.But if Greg pulls the lever, he is deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If he leaves it alone, it will not be him who causes deaths among the forty.
Okay, instead of a runaway train, let's change the situation to a long-term financial depression. Greg is now the leader of a nation of people who are suffering through a severe financial crisis which is causing widespread poverty and hunger. A small group of people in this nation has a disproportionately high number of financiers and bankers in it. Should Greg sacrifice this much smaller subset of people in order to allow the much larger group of people in his nation to work their way out of the depression without interference from these financiers? Yes, I just pulled a Godwin. The depression is the Great Depression. The nation is Germany. The smaller subset of people who are disproportionately bankers and financiers are Jews, and the sacrifice is concentration camps. The thing is, we can frequently know when we are doing something wrong, but we frequently cannot know what the specific outcomes will be. We just aren't that smart. In fact, we are sometimes so dumb that other people can't believe we really did something so awful just because we didn't know better, and then attribute our actions to malice. Yet, throughout the Nuremberg Trials we were repeatedly told that no one believed themselves to be acting out of malice. Yes, they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they believed the particular outcome they predicted would make it right.Is it better to intervene to cause the death of a few rather than to let events play out that will cause the death of many? ... Personally, assuming that the situation is simply 'allow 40 to die' or 'kill 5 instead', the best outcome is to kill the 5.
I don't think that Germany took an approach that helped the larger population, either. At any rate, this thought-experiment is much more simplistic, and here, I suggest that course only because we have such a degree of certainty about the outcome. And in any case, I think the actors should be held accountable when they are wrong. Here's a flipside: Was it right for the US to join the allies in resistance? That guaranteed the loss of many American lives without a certain outcome. Most every moral situation is the result of someone else's actions. Perhaps the workers should have been in this tunnel, except for poor labor practices. When we stand aside, we choose to stand aside.Yes, I just pulled a Godwin. The depression is the Great Depression. The nation is Germany. The smaller subset of people who are disproportionately bankers and financiers are Jews, and the sacrifice is concentration camps.
Oddly enough, it was the Third Reich who declared war on the U.S. Until then, we had only been suppling Britain and defending the shipping lanes we were using to do so. The U.S. would most likely not have entered the war in Europe if it hadn't been threatened by the declaration. However, Just War Theory concerns itself with when war may be ethically justified. Consequentialists, on the other hand, would have had to predict whether or not American involvement would end in a better result, and between British aerial and naval actions, widespread resistance movements in Europe, and the overwhelming numbers of the Soviet troops, along with the barely-suspected, subsequent Cold War, which began over disputes on how the conquered Axis countries would be managed by the Allies, that would not have been an easy task.Was it right for the US to join the allies in resistance?
I agree with this. Only seconds isn't anywhere near enough to contemplate the complex emotional and moral implications of this. Rationally, to let die in this circumstance will outweigh killing.
Hmm... Yes. There is a difference. Maybe I need to clarify my original statement. In this situation, I stand by my words. A life taken from inaction is no better than one taken from action in this situation, because either way, my action was one with benevolent intent. If one is acting with malevolent intent, things change. In that situation, I'd say that it makes you a worse person to kill than to let die. However, the net good (or bad) created from your actions still remains the same in either way, even in this context.
Obviously he should. He has the power to save 35 lives with the flick of a switch, arguing that as long as he doesn't touch the switch then he's absolved of guilt and can't do wrong is a seriously chickenshit way of thinking about morals. This is no different from diverting a crashing plane towards a rural area instead of a city so it hits fewer people, something I think nobody here would ever suggest was some kind of difficult moral choice. Of course, I could just as easily frame the thought experiment in another way that doesn't jive so well with our instinctive perceptions of right and wrong. A doctor has 40 patients who are perfectly healthy except for specific medical problems in some of their hearts, lungs, etc. The doctor can go out and kill 5 healthy people, getting enough organs to save the 40. In that case I think the utilitarian logic becomes somewhat terrifying and seems wrong. I think it's because of the idea that any person at any time could be fed to the utilitarian machine, regardless of how careful they are not to stand on the tracks. On the other hand, anyone could go to the doctor and discover some genetic organ defect and die without a donor. Just as horrible, just as random, much more senseless, but less scary because we're used to it. I think, if I were in perfect hypothetical scenario land, and had a chance to have things run by absolute utilitarian rules in situations like that - I think I would go for it. My chances would be better, simple as that. Come to think of it, that's another way of considering the thought experiment. If you told a group of 45 men that you would be forced tomorrow to choose between letting one group of 40 die of them die or letting another group of 5 of them die, and you didn't know who would be in which group yet - they would BEG you to kill the 5.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. (I'm sure some people saw that coming). Right/wrong from the perspective of Greg and right/wrong in the eyes of other people/society/the law might not always be the same thing. If Greg had not pulled the lever, looking back he might feel guilty for letting 40 people die, while other people will sympathise with him not being able to make a decision in time (and therefore doing nothing). Vice versa with pulling the lever - he might think it was justified, other people might call him a murderer. The tabloid press will pick a side, as it always does. Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a famous example of this, too. It's made more complicated because not everyone had all the facts back then (no doubt people will be arguing about the details for a long time). I wonder if not knowing all of the consequences makes it easier or harder to decide. On the one hand, you can't know for sure which decision is right in advance. On the other hand, not knowing the consequences relieves you of some of the responsibility for your actions (future events are determined by chance). But that leaves you with a new dilemma: do you pick the action that has probability 0.1 of saving 100 lives, or probability 0.2 of saving 50? I feel like this hasn't really solved the problem, just put it into a different form. Maybe Greg should have flipped a coin to choose what he would do. How about a coin with 1/9 chance of leaving the lever and 8/9 chance of pulling it? (I think I have got the numbers right)
Greg can't stop the train, and, if Greg is human, he can't predict specific outcomes either, but, what Greg can do is choose to cause harm or not. Greg should not direct the train towards the five people the train is not already heading for. This would be Greg causing harm. Those who argue that Greg could save 40 lives by taking five lives ignore the fact that Greg cannot predict whether the 40, or even 35 of the 40 would notice the train and get off the tracks. He also cannot predict whether switching the tracks would cause the runaway train to derail and cause even more deaths. He also cannot predict whether the five other workers might even be working on a remote switch which they could use to send the train down a track which isn't being worked on as long as Greg doesn't change the tracks first, saving everyone. In a very real sense, the futures that Greg cannot specifically predict do not exist, but the present does exist; it's the only time we can live in. Greg should choose to cause no deliberate harm in the present, while doing harmless things which could reasonably create general good in the future. In this case, shouting a warning to the 40 the train is heading for.
Suppose (never mind how), Greg knows that 40 WILL die if he does nothing, and 5 WILL die if he pulls the lever. He also knows for sure that shouting, or any other action, is futile. Is your answer now different?
No. See the second part of my previous response, or my latest response.Is your answer now different?
Then nature of the thought experiment is that the variables are set in place. There is no chance that either group would notice the train, the specific group will die in its entirety if the train is headed towards them. Similarly, the train will not derail if he chooses to switch the track, it will head towards the group of 5 and kill them. The point is to get rid of those contingent, context-specific factor and really hone in on the matter at hand, does he kill the group of 5 or let the 40 die? You say this, and it's a perfectly agreeable statement. But is it not also true that by being there, knowing the consequences and having the capability to make a decision, that he is responsible either way? He is choosing who will die whether he pulls the lever or not. A person is responsible for what they choose not to do as much as what they choose to do.Greg should not direct the train towards the five people the train is not already heading for. This would be Greg causing harm.
That may be, but one of the flaws of this thought experiment, as I see it, is that we are supposed to decide what Greg should do. To me, that doesn't matter. What matters to me, is what Greg would do and no one can answer that but Greg. If it were me, well, I'd have one hand on that lever, desperately trying to get someone on the phone, hoping that I could reach someone before the critical moment. If I couldn't get anyone on the phone in time, at least I'd be able to report what happened while it was fresh and hopefully get some help a little more quickly.
True, having the outcome be A or B rather than open ended makes certain aspects iffy, but I believe we supposed to be debating on what Greg should do. Greg is merely a medium for the problem to be presented by, if we try and add character traits and flaws to him we are merely clouding the problem.
The nature of a good thought experiment is that it not abstract away relevant realities. Our inability to predict specific outcomes cannot be ignored. If it is, the thought experiment becomes irrelevant to any context where it could possibly matter. Yes, and Greg should choose not to direct the train towards those it was not heading for.Then nature of the thought experiment is that the variables are set in place.
A person is responsible for what they choose not to do as much as what they choose to do.
No it doesn't, by adhering to the rules of the thought experiment you can then use your analysis and conclusions and apply them to other situations in the world. For example, you agree with me that a person is as responsible for their choice to do as their choice to not do. So would it be fair to claim that we are responsible for the deaths of people starving in the developing world whom we could quite easily provide food and water for with no great cost to ourselves? We are letting them die.Our inability to predict specific outcomes cannot be ignored. If it is, the thought experiment becomes irrelevant to any context where it could possibly matter.
If you know of a way for me to do that, I'd like to hear it. I think everyone would. We can, and I have, contributed to charities, which unfortunately do not solve the problem, but we have little influence over the system that creates malnutrition. If you really insist that Greg possesses the supernatural ability to predict specific outcomes, then the question becomes one not of Greg's choice, but of Greg's belief that he possesses divine powers. That's fine, we can look at it that way too. If Greg believes that he knows the exact outcome of either choice, does he also believe that he can assess the value of all the lives in the situation? Does he believe he knows that there is no Jonas Salk or Mahatma Gandhi among the five he believes he will kill in exchange for the 40 who he believes he knows contains no Caligulas or Hitlers? Does he believe he can value human life by counting? I don't think he can know those things any more that he can know specific outcomes, but if he believes he can, he's doing what most of Greek tragedy concerns itself with: having hubris. His belief in his omniscience will cause tragedy.So would it be fair to claim that we are responsible for the deaths of people starving in the developing world whom we could quite easily provide food and water for with no great cost to ourselves?
Maybe we couldn't solve it as individuals but as a society it's possible. We could demand our governments to spend more to help. It's estimated that it would take $30 billion a year, the US Government last year spent 3.3 trillion. It's a relatively small amount in comparison and it I'm sure over countries could contribute. "It's less than half of 1% of the world's combined gross domestic products, not an unreasonable sum to invest in ending the misery and degradation of hunger." Is the fact that we done insist this be done as a society making us responsible for their deaths? I think you're looking too much at the situation and not at the problem. I'll be presenting experiments with far less believable premises than this one, but that's not the point. It's merely a medium for one to analyse the essence of a problem and it doesn't matter if it's not technically possible, it's a hypothetical situation. He knows the results of his choices either way and that's just how it is. Greg has no personal affiliation to either group or individual within and knows nothing about them that may make them a positive or negative influence to the world in the past, present or future. I think that the point of number weighting is that it presents a possible motive for Greg to pull the lever and kill the lesser amount right from the get go, without much forethought. There's definitely no right or wrong answer, i'm just presenting these points to challenge your thinking.If you know of a way for me to do that, I'd like to hear it. I think everyone would. We can, and I have, contributed to charities, which unfortunately do not solve the problem, but we have no influence over the system that creates malnutrition.
If you really insist that Greg possesses the supernatural ability to predict specific outcomes, then the question becomes one not of Greg's choice, but of Greg's belief that he possesses divine powers.
That's fine, we can look at it that way too. If Greg believes that he knows the exact outcome of either choice, does he also believe that he can assess the value of all the lives in the situation? Does he believe he knows that there is no Jonas Salk or Mahatma Gandhi among the five he is certain he will kill in exchange for the 40 who he believes he knows contains no Caligulas or Hitlers? Does he believe he can value human life by counting?
By not diverting he is choosing to "cause harm." He is no longer able to wish he weren't a part of this. For me, the most interesting part of the question is Further down this line, in another tunnel, only five men are working
further down the line is pretty vague. How far? Far enough to buy time?
We can distinguish between what harm Greg initiates and what harm has already been initiated. Certainly, if Greg could prevent a harm already initiated without initiating harm himself, he should, but the situation presented doesn't allow for that. I don't think that means the five are farther away than the 40. It probably just means everyone but Greg is farther away than the switch.By not diverting he is choosing to "cause harm." He is no longer able to wish he weren't a part of this.
further down the line is pretty vague. How far? Far enough to buy time?
First of all, I like the idea of doing this and I look forward to participating when I can. So thanks. As for the question at hand, assuming there are no variables yet to be divulged, the answer seems pretty obvious. He knows that he has the ability to divert the train, therefore he is a participant in this weather he acts or not. He must divert the train and allow it to go further down the track to the second tunnel. He will kill less people, and have more time for some sort of an anomaly to arise and save the day. It seems the only logical answer. In fact, if it could be proven that he knew he could do this and didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if he were found criminally negligent.
Good reasoning! I'll make it clear that there's no chance for any anomaly occur, what is presented is how the situation will play out with no chance of divergence. Considering your answer then and out of the context of this thought experiment, would you say there is a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die? An example for this could be is there a difference between: A) A doctor letting someone who is terminally ill die rather prolong their lives agains their wishes and B) The doctor euthanising them to an easily painless death if asked? One is killing and the other is letting die. One is letting die, the other is killing.
I don't see the analogy here as being apt. Immediate death is coming to either one of two sets of people, regardless of what Gregg does. In the case of the doctor, death at some point is coming to the patient. You can ease suffering by making that death come sooner. This is a completely different scenario. As the Buddhists say, "life is suffering," and to be born is essentially a death sentence, therefore the question of euthanasia is one of degrees. At what point is the potential for tremendous suffering great enough to warrant assisted suicide? Who determines what level that suffering is? Lot's of subjectivity in there. Not a lot of subjectivity in a train hurling towards one of two groups of people.
I think there is a legitimate out for the utilitarian logician here, based on the fact that this scenario will never obtain in reality. In the ivory tower, the utilitarian says that "It is better for five people to die than more than five" and this is logically equivalent to saying "In thought experiments, it is better to take an action which leads to five deaths than more than five deaths, ceteris paribus." In the real world, we do not enjoy this kind of mathematical certainty. What if pulling the lever derails the train and hundreds are killed? What if the tunnel with forty workers collapses as the train kills the five in the other tunnel? NotPhil makes this point, though I wonder if he will keep to the non-interventionist high road if there are no workers on the alternate track, and therefore a chance of saving everyone. In the real world, uncertainty and values apply. Greg may or may not be willing to interfere with fate if there's a good chance it will save forty and put five at risk. He may also consider whether he knows and cares about any of the potential victims. This also helps with the horrifying scenario of chopping up one healthy person to get organs which will save a number of sick people. Killing someone for their organs is exceedingly objectionable, and certainly not worth it to have a chance of saving two or three others, assuming the transplants go well. But if a pandemic threatens with high probability to destroy the human race, and a misanthropic scientist is threatening to destroy the effective antidote he invented, it may be justified to call the snipers in.
Well, the point of thought experiments like this is that they're freed from the many problems of reality. They isolate the key variables so that we can see how they alone make a difference to our understanding of the world. If your answer to the tidy landscape of thought experiments different to a real world counterpart, it can give you a deeper understanding of why and how you're accessing things.
Agreed that thought experiments are valuable tools that enable us to analyze principles without the distracting details of the real world. We can ignore questions about the relative worth of human lives, probabilities, and individual preferences. Therefore I conclude that, in the thought experiment, it is better to divert the train because forty is greater than five, and my reservations about altering the course of events I am not responsible for are not as important as keeping as many people alive as possible. The conclusions we draw in the thought experiment apply to the real world to the extent that there are no specific, relevant circumstances that contradict the simplifying assumptions we made in the thought experiment. If we find out that the forty workers are in fact automatons, or they are men who have committed capital offenses, or they are comatose centenarians, or they are fertilized eggs, we may reconsider our conclusions. I maintain that there is a specific, relevant circumstance that applies to every real-world scenario to which this thought experiment might be illuminating. In posing the problem, you guarantee that "The death toll is bound to be smaller" if Greg diverts the train. This is a certainty that we will never have in the real world, and this ambiguity will inevitably affect the way we think about the decision.
Killing and letting die are only different, relative to me - the outcome is the same for the rest of the world. It is somewhat selfish by definition, to make such a distinction. Pull the lever and save the greater number, all else being equal.
I agree with NotPhil. If these 45 people are interchangeable, to Greg, then I don't see why he has to be there in the first place. He should probably call whoever is in charge, if only to cover his own ass and also to get some medical personnel down there. That said, actively choosing to kill the five people would be wrong. So would letting 40 people die, but there's no indication that those 40 people would all die at once if the train goes down that tunnel. I'm pretty confident that at least some of them have a good chance of survival. Plus, that way he can go grab the five dudes he could have killed to help any of those 40 people who may have survived the train. It's likely better to have 5 people who are not in shock helping injured people. Then again, if all 40 people would definitely die and Greg somehow knew that, then ok, pull the lever.
Pulling the lever or not pulling the lever are both actions. Either way he is killing people. The moment he realized he could shape the outcome he became a participant. He can either participate in killing many or a few. He can either kill people sooner or slightly later. For me the "later" part is a big thing. Time = opportunity.
True, but that Greg can't know how many people may die by not diverting the train was a big influence on my decision. I realize that I assumed that Greg was not The Boss, but I'll stick to my guns here and say that I think he should make a phone call, since people are going to be injured or killed either way and he can't actually see what happened from his current vantage.