When I was in the car with my friend, he came up with a basic morality question (he said he got the idea from previews for an upcoming movie). It’s pretty simplistic, but I don’t know much about morality. Here is the situation:
There is an “unstoppable” train filled with thirty children travelling on a path directly to a nuclear power plant. If the train hits the plant everyone on the train and 100,000 surrounding people will die. The only possible chance one has of stopping the train is blowing up the train and killing everyone on board before it hits. Is it morally justified to do so?
I argued no, because I would be taking the peoples’ lives without their consent. I am just curious what conclusion one would come to using the non-agression principle (which allows for self-defense), as well as under other morality systems.
If the 100,000 surrounding people are innocent like the children, I would of course recommend that we should blow up the train. Why wouldn’t we choose to kill just 30 innocent people over choosing to let 100,030 innocent people die, especially when the 30 who we would kill in the first possibility are included in those who would die in the second one?
Maybe, but I thought for one decision you are actively killing the children, for the other you aren’t. One has nothing to do with you morality; if I let nature happen I don’t think that could be declared immoral, but killing people is. That was just my general thought process, how is my thinking “wrong” (Because morality is really subjective).
I’m guessing that, in a natural order legal system, those with a security interest in the nuclear power plant would (and should) act in its defense. Given the scenario, this would entail killing innocent bystanders. There would likely be subsequent legal liabilities. How those would be settled is a question for which we can only guess the answer by looking at how similar scenarios are handled in our courts (where a corporation or individual secures the integrity of his property without malice but inadvertently causes harm to the property or lives of others in the process).
Remember, not doing anything is as much of an action as doing something.
As an actor in this position, you must choose between two incompatible outcomes: In the first one, 30 innocent people die; and, in the second, 100,030 innocent people die. Not only that, but also the 30 people who would die in the first are included in those who would die in the second. As an actor in this position, you have an idea about some causal connections: If you don’t control your body in such a way that the train explodes, those 100,030 people will die; but, if you do control your body in that way, only 30 of those people will die. Knowing those causal connections gives you a chance to act, but your action is necessarily geared toward the outcome.
Not controlling your body in a particular way is just as much of an action as controlling your body in that way. Actions affecting the outside world start in your mind and end in your body. Deciding to not control your body in that way is nothing except deciding that you prefer those 100,030 people dying to just 30 of those dying, unless of course you have some metaphysical ideas about morality which would lead you to think that there is something more to this situation than a choice between those two outcomes, which could mean that you wouldn’t just decide between a situation in which 100,030 innocent people die and a situation in which just 30 of those die, but that you would decide between a situation in which 100,030 innocent people die and you feel guilty because you played an “active role” in them dying and a situation in which just 30 of those die and you don’t feel guilty because you played a “passive role” in them dying.
im no legal expert but something leads me to believe that a private defense firm would have something written in to prevent, or at least neutralize such an incident.
even under a public system the possibility of some 100,000 petition signatures rolling in asking for clemency is definitely there.
I Ryans reply is pertinant. Morality is always involves a mental activity. Many years ago my family moved to a country which difined morality differently than Americans did. One day my father was waliking along a canal in which a man was drowning. The many bystanders were watching and doing nothing. My father asked them if they could swim. “Oh, yes” they said. Then why, my father asked, does no one jump in and rescue the drowning man. “Because”, he was told, “the person who rescues the man is taking responsibility for his life. The rescuer must then support him for the rest of his life. The rescuer must also support all his children until they are of majority age.”
The major religion of this country believed in reincarnation.Theirs was a moral decision.
The key question is who you are in the scenario. Do you own the train? The Nuclear power plant? Did you set the train on its unstoppable course? Did you place the people on the train without their consent? If you have nothing to do with the train, the people or the Nuclear power plant, it is not unjust to do nothing. It would not be immoral to destroy the train, since it is about to be destroyed anyway (technically it might still be unjust, but of course you didn’t set the train on its self-destructive course). But you really have no obligation to do so unless you feel you want to.
I’ve heard a similar scenario which doesn’t entail the train destroying itself (which slightly changes things): An unstoppable train is coming to a cross in the track. On one line is a group of 5 children playing and on the other is 1 railway worker. Do you change the track the train is on? Similarly to the first scenario, if you have nothing to do with the train or the location of the children/railway worker, you have no obligation to do anything.
'm guessing that, in a natural order legal system, those with a security interest in the nuclear power plant would (and should) act in its defense. Given the scenario, this would entail killing innocent bystanders. There would likely be subsequent legal liabilities. How those would be settled is a question for which we can only guess the answer by looking at how similar scenarios are handled in our courts (where a corporation or individual secures the integrity of his property without malice but inadvertently causes harm to the property or lives of others in the process).
such dilemmas are flawed from the beginning because they always imply god-thinking. That a MAN has to decide either kill less or let die many.
I would simply do nothing. Not initiating use of force is a principle here and an answer. At least to me, because people will always try to jsutify violence no matter what. It doesn’t have to be innocent children. It can be a train full of rapists. To kill is easier than to justify it So I better don’t kill.
And yeah, many pointed out, that DRO’s should take action.. but that’s just shifting burden from one person to the other. Like when people don’t want themselves go into Iraq but “support the troops” and fund violence. That’s immoral.
Quick question: Doesn’t this also assume you perfectly know the outcome of both actions?
These scenarios all assume you know that blowing up the train will prevent the power plant from blowing up and that if you don’t the power plant will definitely explode from impact. It appears to me that without this perfect knowledge inaction will never be an immoral choice.
Yes, but even if you did perfectly know the outcome I am still disposed to thinking that inaction would not be immoral. I am not a utilitarian, so the ending outcome in lives is irrelevant to me. I guess the means of the action would be more crucial in regards to judging morality, for me.
It’s that, the people protecting the factory will probably try to protect it. Redundant, right?
So, they should probably face some legal circumstance for their action, but it is not on par w them just blowing up the train outright. Like current self-defense laws in many states one can still be prosecuted for excessive use of force.
So I better don’t kill.