Ethics

Spring 2012

Espen Gamlund
Associate Professor of Philosophy,
University of Bergen
[email protected]
Contents
 1. Morality and Ethics
 2. Ethics – Four Branches
 3. Central Concepts
 4. Ethical Theories
 4.1 Consequentialism
 4.2 Deontology
Morality and ethics
 Morality/morals = The moral beliefs, views and attitudes of
given individuals, societies and groups – for example religious
groups.

 Ethics = Systematic reflections on moral views and standards

(values and norms) and how one should assess actions,
institutions and character traits.
Why ethics?

 Other disciplines (sociology, history etc) can tell

us how the world is.
 But these disciplines cannot tell us how we should
act and live in the world.
Morality and ethics
 We all have some experience with, and idea or understanding
of, morality (e.g. as part of our up bringing):

• Moral emotions (shame, guilt, resentment, indignation)

• Moral norms (not to kill, not to steal, to keep promises, to

respect the rights of others)
Morality and ethics
 Judgments about the
future (what should be
done)
 ”We should take action to prevent
global climate change”

 Judgments about the

past (assigning praise and
blame)
 ”The rich countries of the world
are responsible for climate change”
Ethics – Four Branches

 1. Descriptive ethics (”how the world is”)

 Factual investigation of moral standards. Describes

moral praxis (moral opinions, attitudes and actions) up
through history and today – historians, sociologists,
psychologists.
Ethics – Four Branches

 2. Normative ethics (”how the world should be”)

 Systematic investigation of moral standards (norms and

values) with the purpose of clarifying how they are to be
understood, justified, interpreted and applied on moral
issues – philosophers, theologicians.
An example

 Factual claim: ”The Chinese government is allowing its

people less freedom of speech than the Norwegian
government”.
 This claim can be verified through observation.

 Ethical claim: ”The Chinese government should allow its

people more freedom of speech than it currently does”.
 This claim cannot be verified through observation. Instead it must be
justified by good moral reasons.
2. Normative ethics continued
What actions and decisions are right or wrong from an
ethical point of view?
What makes an action or a decision morally right or
wrong or good or bad?
 How should we organise basic social institutions
(political, legal economic), and how should such
institutions distribute benefits and burdens (rights, duties,
opportunities and resources) among affected parties?
Normative ethics continued

Questions of justice (e.g. what is a fair distribution of

benefits and burdens in society?)
 Political philosophy
 Moral assessments of a person’s character or character
traits (e.g. honesty, generosity).
 Assessments of motives and intentions behind acts
 Assessments of moral and legal responsibility.
Ethics – Four Branches
(3) Metaethics = The study of ethical terms, statements and
judgements.
• Analysis of the language, concepts and methods of resoning in
ethics. It addresses the meaning of ethical terms such as right,
duty, obligation, justification, morality, responsibility.
•Moral epistemology (how is moral knowledge possible?)
•Investigates whether morality is subjective or objective,
relative or nonrelative, and whether it has a rational or an
emotional basis.
Ethics – Four Branches
 (4) Applied ethics = Applied ethics is a part of normative
ethics that focus on particular fields
 “The philosophical examination, from a moral standpoint, of
particular issues in private and public life that are matters of moral
judgment” (Brenda Almond).
 Bioethics
 Animal ethics
 Environmental ethics
 Intergenerational ethics
 Climate ethics
 Business ethics
 Computer ethics etc…
Central concepts

Values = What is regarded as a good.

 Examples: Friendship, education, freedom, autonomy, etc.

 Moral norms = Moral duties and rights.

Examples: Duty not to kill, right not to be tortured
Central concepts
Moral duties = Norms that prescribe how one should act.

 Positive duties – A duty that requires some form of (positive) action

– e.g. the duty to help people in need.

 Negative duties – A duty that just requires that agents refrain from
certain courses of action – e.g. the duty not to inflict harm on others
or the duty not to lie. One can fulfil ones negative duties without
lifting a finger.
Universal duties – Duties owed to everyone.

 Special duties – Duties that arise as a result of previous

acts (e.g. signing a contract) or special relations to others
(e.g. special duties to one’s children, family and friends).
Central concepts
 Moral agents = Persons (competent persons) who can have
moral duties towards others and who can be held accountable
(or responsible) for their actions and decisions.

 Moral subjects = The class of beings who should be taken

into account in our moral assessments and reflections. All moral
agents have duties towards all moral subjects, in the sense that
all moral subjects have moral status (or moral standing).
Central concepts
 Moral status = ‘To have moral status is to be morally considerable,
or to have moral standing. It is to be an entity towards which moral
agents have, or can have, moral obligations. If an entity has moral
status, then we may not treat it in just any way we please; we are
morally obliged to give weight in our deliberations to its needs,
interests, or well-being. Furthermore, we are morally obliged to do
this not merely because protecting it may benefit ourselves or other
persons, but because its needs have moral importance in their own
right’ (Mary-Ann Warren. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other
Living Things, (1997), Oxford: Oxford University Press).
 > Central debates about moral status concern the moral status of
human embryos (e.g. debates about abortion), animals, nature and
future generations.
Ethical theories
What is an ethical theory?
The aim of ethical theories is, among other things, to present
and defend systematic answers to the two following questions:

(1) What moral standards (norms and values) should we take

into account when assessing actions, decisions and institutions?

(2) How should such moral standards be justified?

Moral reasoning
• A normative ethical theory seeks to demonstrate how moral
judgments can be defended or justified.
• Moral reasons and considerations.
• Ethics is about weighing different reasons and considerations
against each other (for and against).
Moral reasoning
John Locke (1632-1704): No
moral rule can be proposed,
whereof a man may not justly
demand a reason

The most important question

in ethics (and philosophy):

Why?

Espen Gamlund,
An example
 Claim:

 ”Euthanasia is morally wrong!”

Why?
 Justification:

 ”Life is holy” or ”doctors should save lives, not take them”

Another example
 Claim:
 ”We have a (positive) duty to save the lives of the poor” (Peter
Singer).

Why?

 Justification:
 We can save lives without considerable cost to ourselves and to
our own well-being (we won`t have to sacrifice much).
Another example

 Claim: ”We have a moral obligation to become vegetarians”

Why?

 Justification:
Animals are sentient beings, and we ought not to inflict pain
and suffering on them. Also, we can abstain from meat
without being made worse off.
 Example: Growing GM Food
 For
• Growing of GM food can have good consequences, because plants become easier to
grow or they contain more nutritients.
• In this way we can feed more people, and poor farmers can make more money.
 Against
• GM plants might spread into nature and become a kind of weed.
• Perhaps there are unknown health-related consequences associated with eating
these plants.
 Decision – what to do?
• Decision under uncertainty / Risk analysis /Precautionary
approach
Moral reasoning

 Moral reasoning, like all reasoning, involves at least two

things: a set of reasons, and a conclusion that these reasons
are meant to support. When you put these things together,
you have what philosophers call an argument.
 An argument is simply any chain of thought in which reasons
(philosophers call these premises) are offered in support of
a particular conclusion.
The Role of Moral Theory
 Moral philosophy is primarily a matter of thinking about the
attractions of various ethical theories.
 Moral theorizing is the result of a perfectly natural process of
thinking. We are questioning beings, interested in seeking out
ever deeper explanations of things. And we are uneasy if
there is no chance of a unifying explanation, and account that
can coherently organisze the various aspects of our thinking
and experience.
Ethical theories
Two types of ethical theories
(i) Teleological theories
 Value based theories = An act is morally right if it promotes the
good or what has value.
(a) Consequentialism (and utilitarianism)
Whether an act is morally right depends solely on consequences or
the goodness of consequences.
(b) Virtue ethics
Whether an act is morally right or good depends on whether it is in
conformity or conflict with certain virtues (or character traits).
Ethical theories
(ii) Deontological theories
Whether an act is morally right or wrong depends on whether
it is in conformity or conflict with moral duties and rights.

(a)Kantian deontology (monistic & absolutistic)

(b)Rossian deontology (pluralistic & pro tanto)

4.1 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND
UTILITARIANISM
 Consequentialism

 Utilitarianism

 Act Utilitarianism
Objections to act utilitarianism

 Rule utilitarianism
4.1 Consequentialism

 Two types of consequentialism

(1) Egoistic and particularistic consequentialism
One only takes into consideration how the consequences of an
act will affect oneself or a given group – e.g. ones family, fellow
citizens/compatriots, class or race. Moral rightness depends on
the consequences for an individual agent or a limited group.
(2) Universal consequentialism
One takes into account how the consequences of an act will
affect all the parties involved. Moral rightness depends on the
consequences for all affected people or sentient beings.
Utilitarianism
 ”The only reason for
performing action A rather
than alternative action B is
that doing A will make
mankind (or, perhaps, all
sentient beings) happier
than will doing B” (J.J.Smart,
”An Outline of a System of
Utilitarian Ethics”, i Smart &
Williams, Utilitarianism: For and
Against. Cambridge, 1973: 30.)
Utilitarianism

 For the utilitarian, the only thing that has value are states of
affairs.
 Utilitarians deny the deontologist’s claim that some actions
have inherent moral value – as required, forbidden, etc.
 For the utilitarian, if an act has value as right or wrong, then
it can only be derivatively, because of the good or bad states
of affairs that it produces.
 Utilitarianism

The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of

utility:
The principle of utility
The morally right action is the one that produces the best overall
consequences with regard to the utility or welfare of all the affected
parties.
 > Jeremy Bentham’s slogan: The right act or policy is the one that
causes ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ – that is,
maximize the total utility or welfare of the majority of all the affected
parties.
Utilitarianism

 But which states of affairs are valuable and which states of

affairs are not?
 Utilitarianism tells us that it is the happiness or well being of
sentient beings that is the valuable thing.
 Attractive aspect of the theory: we can understand what is
good about happiness and bad about suffering, without
appealing to anything mysterious or intrinsically valuable.
 It is part of the psychological make-up of sentient beings that
they are repelled by pain and attracted by pleasure.
Utilitarianism
(1) Welfare hedonism
The good is the experience or sensation of pleasure and the
absence of pain – pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is
the only intrinsic bad (J. Bentham).

(2) Higher and lower pleasures

The good is what promotes the entire range of valuable
mental states, and mental states can be rewarding and valuable
without being pleasurable (J. S. Mill).
Utilitarianism
 Mill thinks that some kinds of happiness or pleasures are better
than others.
 Intellectual pleasure, the satisfactions of finishing a project,
or a long-term friendship… are better than…
 “base”/”animal” pleasures taken in eating, or sex.

 “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”

 Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal
appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not
regard anything as happiness which does not include their
gratification…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the
question (Mill, Utilitarianism, pp. 56-57).
Utilitarianism
(3) Preference satisfaction
What is good is desire satisfaction or the fulfilment of
preferences (whatever they are), and what is bad is the
frustration of desires or preferences. “The more you get of what
you want (satisfy your preferences), the happier you are”.

(4) Informed preferences

The good is to satisfy ‘rational’ or ‘informed’ preferences. On
this view, the aim is to satisfy those preferences which are based
on full information and correct judgements, while rejecting
those who are mistaken and irrational.
y

alarm clock brush teeth coffee newspaper tube accident lecture dinner falling asleep

Fig 2.1 The measurement of well-being

Torbjørn Tænnsjø, Understanding Ethics. An Introduction to Moral Theory. Second Edition.

Edinburgh University Press, 2009, p. 20.
Utilitarianism
 Impartiality

Everyone is equally important, and one should give equal

weight to each person’s (or sentient being’s) good or
utility/welfare (all who count equally).

 > Utilitarianism is an agent-neutral theory.

Utilitarianism
 The question of moral status

Since utilitarianism assumes that all who count should count

equally, it is important to consider the question of who should
count or who should be ascribed moral status. It is interesting
to note that prominent utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham and
Peter Singer hold that all sentient beings should be ascribed
moral status, in the sense that moral agents have duties towards
all beings who can experience pleasure and pain.
 Utilitarianism
The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those
rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of
tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no
reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the
caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the
number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os
sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the
same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty
of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog
is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal,
than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case
were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor,
Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? (Bentham 1781/1988:311).
Utilitarianism
If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to
take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of
the being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be
counted equally with the like suffering – in so far as rough
comparisons can be made – of any other being. If a being is not
capable of suffering, or experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there
is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience
(using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for
the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the
only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To
mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or
rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose
some other characteristic, like skin or colour? (Singer 1993:57-58).
Utilitarianism
 Two types of utilitarianism
(1) Act utilitarianism
The classic form of utilitarianism developed in the nineteenth
century.

(2) Rule utilitarianism

Different versions of this type of utilitarianism play an
important role in contemporary moral philosophy
Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism implies that one should assess whether an

act is right or wrong directly in view of the principle of utility.
This means that the morally right action is the one that has the
best overall consequences for the welfare or utility of the
majority of the affected parties.
Act Utilitarianism

 An act utilitarian decision procedure

When we face a choice between alternative courses of action,
we should chose the course of action that has the best expected
consequences for all (or the majority of) the affected parties.
Thus, act utilitarianism prescribes the following decision
procedure for assessment and choice of alternative courses of
action on the basis of the principle of utility:
Act Utilitarianism
 Identify alternative courses of action:
A1, A2, A3, …

 Identify the expected consequences of the alternative courses

of action and determine their value (both positive and negative)
or utility:
A1’s consequences, A2’s consequences, and so on.

 Assessment and choice of action on the basis of the principle

of utility.
Example
 I have promised to spend the evening with a friend. But then
another friend calls to say that she needs someone to help her
prepare work for the next day, and that ehe can’s find anyone
else who will do it.
 How do I decide what to do?
 I must weigh the importance of the promise against the
importance of helping my friend – weigh the costs and
benefits of each course of action.
 The optimal course of action is the one with the greatest
balance of benefits over costs – empirical matter of
calculating costs and benefits.
Act Utilitarianism

3.1. Objections to act utilitarianism

The outlined classic version of act utilitarianism seems to face

some serious problems.
 Bernard Williams: ”the
simple-mindedness of
utilitarianism dis-
qualifies it totally…[t]he
day cannot be too far off
in which we hear no
more of it” (Smart &
Williams, Utilitarianism
for and against, 1973, s.
150)
Act utilitarianism
(1) Act utilitarianism requires too much of the agent’s ability to judge.
o In order to decide what is right and wrong to do, we need to have
knowledge of several things:
i. Know all available course of actions and their consequences.
ii. We must put a value on each of the available courses of action.
iii. We must compare these different courses of action in order to
decide which action has the best expected consequences.
 But this is almost impossible.
 Mill’s answer: conventional wisdom/ previous experience
 We shouldn’t spend too much time on deciding what to do.
Act Utilitarianism
(2) Act utilitarianism seems to be too permissive
In some situations, it might require us to do morally
problematic or doubtful things in order to bring about a good
result.
No actions are ruled out in advance.
 Permits actions that conflict with widely recognised moral duties and
rights.
 The duty not to harm innocent persons.
 The right not to be tortured.
Act Utilitarianism

 Permits actions that allow the use of persons only as means.

In this connection, act utilitarianism can come into conflict
with a fundamental principle in deontological ethics – i.e. the
Kantian principle that one should treat other persons with
respect and that one should never use other persons only as
means.

 Ends justify the means

Act Utilitarianism
 > The transplant case:
Imagine that there is a situation where five patients in a
hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in
room 1 needs a heart, the patient in room 2 needs a liver, the
patient in room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in
room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests, and his tissue is
compatible with the other five patients. Furthermore, a
specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five,
but he will die as a result of this operation that will save the
lives of the five others. There is no other way to save any of the
other five patients.
 Act Utilitarianism
(3) Act utilitarianism seems to be too demanding
The requirement to maximize the total utility or welfare among
all affected parties in the world (and perhaps also future
generations) would demand all our time and efforts. In order to
do what act utilitarianism requires, I would have to devote
virtually all my time, energy and resources to maximizing utility
in the world. ‘The degree of self-sacrifice required would make
the lives of the saints look self-indulgent’ (D. McNaughton 1998).
 This raises the question of where one should draw the line
between (a) moral duties and (b) acts that are regarded as
good and praiseworthy but not moral duties or requirements
– i.e. supererogatory acts.
Act Utilitarianism

(4) Act utilitarianism rules out special duties

It leaves no room for the special duties which we take

ourselves to have to those who are close to us – such as family
and friends.

 > Special duties = agent-relative duties.

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism can be regarded as an attempt to

develop a version of utilitarianism that can avoid the
outlined objections to the classic version of act
utilitarianism.
Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism = The morally right action must be in

accordance with moral rules or norms that can be justified on
the basis of the principle of utility. Agents should decide what
to do in concrete situations by applying rules whose acceptance
will produce the best consequences – that is, rules such as ‘Do
not harm innocent others’, ‘Do not steal others’ property’. The
question is not which action will produce the greatest utility,
but which moral norm or rule will produce the greatest utility or
welfare.
 Rule Utilitarianism
(i) A two-step procedure
In rule utilitarianism, assessments of the rightness or wrongness
of actions proceed through a two-step procedure:

(1) An assessment of moral norms (or rules) on the basis of the principle
of utility:
One should assess which moral norms (or set of moral norms)
that will produce the best overall consequences for all the affected
parties, if one assumes that all (or almost all) will follow or accept
such norms. Such a list of will probably include moral rules such
as ‘Do not lie’, ‘Keep your promises’.
Rule Utilitarianism
(2) An assessment of the rightness and wrongness of actions in
concrete situations in view of the moral norms that are justified in the
first step:
One should determine how to act in a concrete situation on
the basis of the moral norms justified in step one – even if an
alternative course of action will have better consequences for
all the affected parties in a given situation. For example, if the
norm ‘Do not lie’ is on the list of norms that can be justified in
view of the principle of utility (see step one), then it is not
permissible to lie (or act in conflict with this duty) even though
lying would produce the greatest utility in the case under
consideration.
Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism

The principle of utility The principle of utility

Moral norms

Assessment or choice of action Assessment or

choice of action
4.2 Deontology
 1. Deontology versus Consequentialism
 2. Two kinds of deontology
 Kantian deontology
 Rossian deontology
 3. Issues in contemporary deontology
Deontology versus concequentialism
 ‘Deontological’ (from the Greek deon, “duty” or “obligation”)
 Deontological theories are most easily understood in contrast to
consequentialist theories.
o While consequentialists hold that we should choose the
available action with the best overall consequences,
deontologists hold that we should act in ways constrained by
moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are
defined (at least partly) independently of consequences.
o Whereas consequentialists claim that we should always strive to
promote the best consequences, deontologists claim that our
moral obligations (whatever they are) are in some ways
independent of consequences.
How do we determine whether lying or
killing is morally right or wrong?
The consequentialist`s answer: The deontologist`s answer:
oBy appeal to consequences oBy appeal to norms, rights or
The rightness or wrongness of obligations
lying or killing must be The rightness or wrongness of
explained by its consequences: if lying or killing cannot be
it has good consequences, then explained simply by its
it may be right to lie or kill. On consequences. The actions of
the other hand, if it has bad lying or killing are (often)
consequences, then it may be wrong in themselves,
wrong to lie or kill independently of whether they
have good consequences.
Deontology versus consequentialism
Deontology Consequentialism
Duties of special relationships Agent-neutral theory
(agent-relative duties) (especially act
Not only are we permitted to consequentialism)
do more for those close to us, Each of us have reason to
but we are often required to put promote everyone`s good.
their interest first.
It would be wrong to neglect
our own children, even if we
could thereby do more for
(many) other children.
Options
 Am I permitted to care more about my own welfare than about
the welfare of others?
 Act utilitarianism says no: we have impersonal reasons to try to fix
the world (maximise the good)
 Deontology says yes: I have personal reasons to care more about
myself and my family than about others (strangers).
Supererogation
 When have I done enough by way of helping
others?
 Act utilitarianism: you will never come that far; there is no point
at which you are permitted (or have the option) to do no more.
 This leaves out supererogation (acting beyond duty)
 Deontology: there comes a point, perhaps hard to determine, at
which you have an option not to do more. But if you make an
extra sacrifice, we admire and praise you for it – it is
supererogatory.
Examples of supererogation

 The doctor travelling to a plague ridden society to save lives

 The beneficient person who donates (a lot of) money to charity
 The victim who forgives the wrongdoer
 The soldier throwing himself upon a live grenade to save his
comrades
 ???
Supererogation
 Often difficult to say whether or not an action goes beyond
duty because the boundaries are ill-defined.
 Example 1: what is a nurse`s role obligations to desperate,
terminally ill patients who cling to the nurse for comfort in
their few remaining days?
 Example 2: What about treatment of HIV-infected
patients? Is treatment of such patients optional or required?
 Example 3: Fire-fighters entering the twin tours on 9/11,
required or supererogatory?
Deontological constraints

 A duty not to harm anyone.

 A duty not to lie, kill innocent people, or torture.
 These prohibitions constrain us in what we may do to any
person (not just those close to us), even in pursuit of good
ends.
 Some acts are good or bad in themselves.
 Some acts are ruled out in advance.
Deontological constraints

 How stringent should these constraints be?

 Kant (Kantian deontology): absolute or exceptionless – we
should not lie or kill no matter what.
 Ross (Rossian deontology): pro tanto – we should not lie or
kill unless there are very good reasons to do so (overriding
reasons).
 Two kinds of deontology

Kantian deontology Rossian deontology

Absolutistic Pluralistic
Absolute norms and Pro tanto norms and
principles. principles
Rossian deontology

 Ross thinks we have several pro tanto duties, for example:

 A pro tanto duty to help others
 A pro tanto duty to keep our promises
 A pro tanto duty of gratitude
 A pro tanto duty of non-injury

 The idea is that these things matter morally, they make a

difference to what we should do
Ross versus Kant
 Ross` objections to Kant`s deontology. Morality is constituted by
categorical rules for Kant: we should never infringe on them, even
if we have good moral reasons to do otherwise – as when we need
to lie to protect someone in danger (cf the Nazi case).

 Why does Kant think it is wrong to lie to the Nazi?

 The problem with Kant`s theory is how to handle situations of

conflicting obligations and considerations.
Rossian deontology
 Rights and duties are not absolute standards, but rather
strong moral demands or considerations that may be
overridden by other moral considerations or principles.
 Absolute duties – must be fulfilled no matter what the
competing considerations are in a particular case.
 Pro tanto duties – must be fulfilled unless there are overriding
considerations in a particular case.
 The same reasoning applies to moral rights.
Easy, hard and tragic choices
 Morality is about making moral choices, and we all make
such choices.
1. Some choices are easy – e.g. we don`t consciously decide to
comfort a close friend whose sun was just killed; we just do.
2. Other choices are hard – e.g. should we have an abortion, or
should I tell my sick father that his sister just died?
3. Still other choices are tragic (dilemmatic) – e.g. Sophies choice,
or the doctor`s choice, geoengineering.
Question
 Should I kill one innocent person in order to save five (is
it permissible for me to kill one innocent person in
order to save five)?
o The act utilitarian`s answer:Yes, you should (it is permissible and
sometimes even obligatory).
o The deontologist's answer: No, you should not (it is impermissible
to do so). It is a violation of the duty not to harm the innocent and
the innocent person's right to life
Trolley Case

You are at the wheel of a runaway

trolley quickly approaching a fork in the
tracks. On the tracks extending to the
left is a group of five railway workmen.
On the tracks extending to the right is a
single railway workman.
If you do nothing the trolley will
proceed to the left, causing the deaths of
the five workmen. The only way to avoid
the deaths of these workmen is to hit a
switch on your dashboard that will cause
the trolley to proceed to the right,
causing the death of the single workman.
Is it permissible for you to hit the
switch in order to avoid the deaths of the
five workmen?
Fat man Case
A runaway trolley is heading down
the tracks toward five workmen who
will be killed if the trolley proceeds on
its present course.You are on a
footbridge over the tracks, in between
the approaching trolley and the five
workmen. Next to you on this
footbridge is a stranger who happens
to be very large.
The only way to save the lives of the
five workmen is to push this stranger
off the bridge and onto the tracks
below where his large body will stop
the trolley. The stranger will die if you
do this, but the five workmen will be
saved.
Is it permissible for you to push the
stranger on to the tracks in order to
save the five workmen?
Transplant Case
A brilliant transplant surgeon has five
patients, each in need of a different
organ, each of whom will die without
that organ. Unfortunately, there are no
organs available to perform any of
these five transplant operations.
A healthy young traveler, just passing
through the city the doctor works in,
comes in for a routine checkup. In the
course of doing the checkup, the
doctor discovers that his organs are
compatible with all five of his dying
patients. Suppose further that if the
young man were to disappear, no one
would suspect the doctor.
Is it permissible for the doctor to
use the organs from the traveller to
save the lives of the five patients?
Empirical studies
• Trolley Case
 Most people have the intuition that it’s permissible to turn the trolley onto the
side track. The BBC did an online poll to test this, and 77% of 14,000
respondents agreed that you ought to turn the trolley onto the side track. And
in another online survey 90 % said you ought to do this.
 Fat Man Case
 Most people have the intuition that it’s impermissible to push the one from the
footbridge onto the path of the trolley in order to prevent the trolley from
killing the five.
 Transplant Case
 Most people have the immediate reaction that it would be a moral outrage for
the doctor to do this.
The problem

 How do we explain why it is permissible to kill

one to save five in the Trolley Case, but
impermissible to kill one to save five in the Fat
Man Case and in the Transplant Case?
The solution?
 The Doctrine of Double Effect ( a doctrine going back to
the catholic teaching of Thomas Aquinas)
 This doctrine (principle) prohibits the intending of an evil
such as for example the hitting of an innocent person with a
trolley; it prohibits intending an evil either as an end in itself,
or as a means to some greater good. But the doctrine, by
contrast, says it’s sometimes permissible to do that which you
merely foresee will bring about an evil so long as you don't
intend the evil.
 In both the Fat Man Case and the Transplant Case
we intend an evil, such as the killing of an
innocent person as a means to save five persons.
In the Trolley Case, however, we merely foresee
that our turning the trolley onto the side track
will kill one person.
Deontology versus
consequentialism again

 Act utilitarians generally think it is permissible to kill

one innocent to save the five in all three cases. This is
because you should always do the most good, and five
persons alive are better than one person alive.
 Most deontologists think it is permissible to kill one
to save five in the Trolley Case, but impermissible to do
so in both the Fat Man Case and the Transplant Case.
Other examples
 What is the relevance of the Doctrine of Double Effect for real life situations?

 Euthanasia: Many believe that it is permissible to administer morphine to

relieve pain foreseeing that a patient will die as a consequence, whereas it is
impermissible to administer morphine with the intention of killing a patient.
 Self-defense: It is permissible for you to kill another person in order to save
your own life. Here you intend to save your life, the death of the other person
being a side-effect of your saving your own life.
 Terrorism and warfare: It is impermissible to drop a bomb onto a city, e.g.
Hiroshima, with the intention of killing innocents, even if it is done in pursuit
of the worthy goal of bringing about an end to this war. However, it is
permissible to drop a bomb on a military target, e.g. on a munitions factory,
even if a comparable number of people will die as a result of this. The point is
that it is never permissible to intend the death of innocents in warfare, whereas
it is sometimes permissible to foresee that the same number of people will die
in pursuit of a military objective.