Kant and the trolley problem
Peace and blessings. I know your position that in the classic train problem, we would not point the train toward the one person (since killing one person is more serious than touching the train and having 5 people die). I also lean toward this answer (as a supporter of Kant’s approach). But I am left with 3 open questions:
- Where does the line cross? It seems clear to me that if there were a million people there, they would all prefer to murder the one. Is it subjective? And the more interesting question is: Is there an objective answer to the conflict between moral values in general? If we take Sartre’s hesitation about whether to save his mother or go to war as an example, is there an objective answer in the world itself, in the ideal of goodness? Or is it already subject to subjective consideration and there is no right or wrong answer here, moral or immoral?
- If the 5 people were someone I know and love, would you still think the moral thing to do is not to divert the train toward one? Moreover, if the train is moving toward one of my family members, and my diversion would divert and kill 5 (exactly the opposite case from the first problem), would it be moral to divert the train and kill 5, or would the moral thing be (as per the initial intuition without the family member) not to divert the train and let one die?
- The trolley problem is particularly interesting in the following formulation: The train line is curved, and if I don’t touch the trolley, it will hit five and go on to kill one as well. On the other hand, if I divert the trolley, it will hit one first, and he is very fat so that he will stop the trolley. On the surface, the logical thing to do is to divert the train, because in any case one will die. The question is whether I will save the 5 and kill one, or save no one and not touch the trolley. The intuition here really goes in the utilitarian direction, and on the surface it is difficult to follow a Kantian consideration here (not even a little, it seems that the entire consideration here is how many will die, because in any case one will die and therefore for the sake of utility I will murder one, instead of not murdering him and not gaining any benefit). Perhaps it is possible to explain this in terms of Kant’s theory and am I missing something here?
Thanks in advance, Itay
I’m not sure about that at all. I have a slight inclination in this direction but I’m not sure about it. I might be saying here that a lie is better not as a solution to the problem but in relation to the debate about the troll dilemma itself.
1. The kind of questions that I, and I suppose no one, has an answer for. Are you expecting a number? It’s the vague term “proportionality” that’s used so much in law. It doesn’t mean there’s no right answer, it’s just that I don’t know of a way to get to it.
2. My feeling is that no. In legal terminology, we can say that these are human rights and not civil rights, and in this there is no possibility of preferring those close to us. The rights of a citizen are rights that a citizen has from his country, and they are granted to him by virtue of being a citizen of it. Human rights are rights that are granted to you as a person, no matter whose side and in which country. Providing education is a duty of a state to its citizens and not to the whole world. But killing other people is also forbidden (unless they threaten my citizens). For example, if my son is threatened and I do not kill so-and-so, I am certainly forbidden to kill so-and-so. Although my obligation to my son takes precedence, it is only in civil rights and not in human rights. In short, whatever the limit is, it does not depend on my degree of closeness to the people in question.
3. I wrote an entire article about this, Separating Siamese Twins. See there: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259 4%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A8%25D7%2593%25D7%25AA-%25D7%25AA%25D7%2590%25D7%2595%25D7%259E%25D7%2599-%25D7%25A1%25D7% 2599%25D7%2590%25D7%259D&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjQ7pG2za7_AhWVdKQEHWzEDuQQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3WAys8O0xYOzArai_TfgHV
See also columns 437-8, 358, 253 and more.
I'll read the article regarding section 3, thanks
Regarding the first section, if I understand correctly, there is no answer from an epistemological perspective. But would you say that there is an ontological answer? There is an answer to every moral dilemma, it's just that we don't know it? Because if there is no answer, then there really is no room for judgment in dilemmas between moral values, and this is a problem, because it is clear that many actions that we judge in everyday life are actually dilemmas between different moral values. It feels to me that there must be an ontological solution, even if it is impossible to know it (or it can be known internally, in experience, without knowing how to substantiate it and explain it, let's say like seeing red).
Regarding the second section, if I understand correctly, your claim is that my proximity to a person (in your analogy, civil rights) is of low status in relation to her moral past (human rights) and only when they want to harm a person close to me, can I protect him and harm another? If that's the case, then even if someone from my family is part of the 5 that the train is about to run over, isn't it still inappropriate to move the train in the direction of one?
I don't know if there is an answer or not. What I do know is that I don't know the answer. Either way, there's no point in judging a person because he doesn't know either. See column 372 on judging a person according to his own system.
My closeness to a person has no moral weight at all. Therefore, when harming people, it should not be taken into account. When I talk about helping or giving to someone - there is a place (and even a proper one in my opinion) to prefer relatives. Even when you want to harm someone, I cannot prefer one over the other. But of course, my defense resources can certainly be directed to my relatives before another person. Two people are walking in the desert and I have one bucket of water that is enough for one of them, in my opinion I can give it to my relatives first. Even if two are drowning and I can save one, it is my right (and perhaps my duty) to save my relatives first. But in the matter under discussion, we are talking about doing an act that harms and not just an act that saves, and that is forbidden in my opinion.
This question was mentioned and discussed at the end of column 570 which just went up: https://mikyab.net/posts/81320
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
