Contents Morality and ethics Why ethics?

 1. Morality and Ethics  Morality/morals = The moral beliefs, views and attitudes of
Ethics  2. Ethics – Four Branches given individuals, societies and groups – for example religious  Other disciplines (sociology, history etc) can tell
Spring 2012 groups.
 3. Central Concepts us how the world is.
 4. Ethical Theories  But these disciplines cannot tell us how we should
Espen Gamlund  Ethics = Systematic reflections on moral views and standards
 4.1 Consequentialism (values and norms) and how one should assess actions, act and live in the world.
Associate Professor of Philosophy,  4.2 Deontology institutions and character traits.
University of Bergen
[email protected]

Morality and ethics Morality and ethics Ethics – Four Branches Ethics – Four Branches
 We all have some experience with, and idea or understanding  Judgments about the
of, morality (e.g. as part of our up bringing): future (what should be
 1. Descriptive ethics (”how the world is”)  2. Normative ethics (”how the world should be”)
done)
 ”We should take action to prevent
• Moral emotions (shame, guilt, resentment, indignation) global climate change”  Factual investigation of moral standards. Describes  Systematic investigation of moral standards (norms and
moral praxis (moral opinions, attitudes and actions) up values) with the purpose of clarifying how they are to be
• Moral norms (not to kill, not to steal, to keep promises, to  Judgments about the through history and today – historians, sociologists, understood, justified, interpreted and applied on moral
respect the rights of others) past (assigning praise and
psychologists. issues – philosophers, theologicians.
blame)
 ”The rich countries of the world
are responsible for climate change”

An example 2. Normative ethics continued Normative ethics continued Ethics – Four Branches
(3) Metaethics = The study of ethical terms, statements and
 Factual claim: ”The Chinese government is allowing its What actions and decisions are right or wrong from an Questions of justice (e.g. what is a fair distribution of judgements.
people less freedom of speech than the Norwegian ethical point of view? benefits and burdens in society?) • Analysis of the language, concepts and methods of resoning in
government”. What makes an action or a decision morally right or ethics. It addresses the meaning of ethical terms such as right,
 Political philosophy
 This claim can be verified through observation. wrong or good or bad? duty, obligation, justification, morality, responsibility.
 Moral assessments of a person’s character or character
•Moral epistemology (how is moral knowledge possible?)
 How should we organise basic social institutions traits (e.g. honesty, generosity).
(political, legal economic), and how should such •Investigates whether morality is subjective or objective,
 Ethical claim: ”The Chinese government should allow its  Assessments of motives and intentions behind acts
institutions distribute benefits and burdens (rights, duties, relative or nonrelative, and whether it has a rational or an
people more freedom of speech than it currently does”.
 Assessments of moral and legal responsibility. emotional basis.
 This claim cannot be verified through observation. Instead it must be opportunities and resources) among affected parties?
justified by good moral reasons.

Ethics – Four Branches Central concepts Central concepts

 (4) Applied ethics = Applied ethics is a part of normative
ethics that focus on particular fields Values = What is regarded as a good. Moral duties = Norms that prescribe how one should act. Universal duties – Duties owed to everyone.
 “The philosophical examination, from a moral standpoint, of  Examples: Friendship, education, freedom, autonomy, etc.
particular issues in private and public life that are matters of moral
 Positive duties – A duty that requires some form of (positive) action
judgment” (Brenda Almond).
– e.g. the duty to help people in need.  Special duties – Duties that arise as a result of previous
 Bioethics  Moral norms = Moral duties and rights. acts (e.g. signing a contract) or special relations to others
 Animal ethics Examples: Duty not to kill, right not to be tortured (e.g. special duties to one’s children, family and friends).
 Negative duties – A duty that just requires that agents refrain from
 Environmental ethics
certain courses of action – e.g. the duty not to inflict harm on others
 Intergenerational ethics
or the duty not to lie. One can fulfil ones negative duties without
 Climate ethics lifting a finger.
 Business ethics
 Computer ethics etc…
 Central concepts Central concepts Ethical theories Moral reasoning
 Moral agents = Persons (competent persons) who can have  Moral status = ‘To have moral status is to be morally considerable, What is an ethical theory? • A normative ethical theory seeks to demonstrate how moral
moral duties towards others and who can be held accountable or to have moral standing. It is to be an entity towards which moral judgments can be defended or justified.
agents have, or can have, moral obligations. If an entity has moral The aim of ethical theories is, among other things, to present
(or responsible) for their actions and decisions. status, then we may not treat it in just any way we please; we are and defend systematic answers to the two following questions: • Moral reasons and considerations.
morally obliged to give weight in our deliberations to its needs, • Ethics is about weighing different reasons and considerations
 Moral subjects = The class of beings who should be taken
interests, or well-being. Furthermore, we are morally obliged to do against each other (for and against).
this not merely because protecting it may benefit ourselves or other (1) What moral standards (norms and values) should we take
into account in our moral assessments and reflections. All moral persons, but because its needs have moral importance in their own into account when assessing actions, decisions and institutions?
agents have duties towards all moral subjects, in the sense that right’ (Mary-Ann Warren. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other
all moral subjects have moral status (or moral standing). Living Things, (1997), Oxford: Oxford University Press).
 > Central debates about moral status concern the moral status of (2) How should such moral standards be justified?
human embryos (e.g. debates about abortion), animals, nature and
future generations.

Moral reasoning An example Another example Another example

 Claim:
 Claim:
John Locke (1632-1704): No
 ”We have a (positive) duty to save the lives of the poor” (Peter  Claim: ”We have a moral obligation to become vegetarians”
moral rule can be proposed,
 ”Euthanasia is morally wrong!” Singer).
whereof a man may not justly
demand a reason Why? Why?
Why?
The most important question  Justification:
 Justification:
in ethics (and philosophy):
Animals are sentient beings, and we ought not to inflict pain
 ”Life is holy” or ”doctors should save lives, not take them”  Justification: and suffering on them. Also, we can abstain from meat
Why?  We can save lives without considerable cost to ourselves and to without being made worse off.
our own well-being (we won`t have to sacrifice much).

Espen Gamlund,
Universitetet i Bergen,
[email protected].
no

Example: Growing GM Food Moral reasoning The Role of Moral Theory Ethical theories
 Moral philosophy is primarily a matter of thinking about the Two types of ethical theories
 For
 Moral reasoning, like all reasoning, involves at least two attractions of various ethical theories. (i) Teleological theories
• Growing of GM food can have good consequences, because plants become easier to
grow or they contain more nutritients. things: a set of reasons, and a conclusion that these reasons  Moral theorizing is the result of a perfectly natural process of  Value based theories = An act is morally right if it promotes the
• In this way we can feed more people, and poor farmers can make more money. are meant to support. When you put these things together, thinking. We are questioning beings, interested in seeking out good or what has value.
 Against you have what philosophers call an argument. ever deeper explanations of things. And we are uneasy if (a) Consequentialism (and utilitarianism)
• GM plants might spread into nature and become a kind of weed.  An argument is simply any chain of thought in which reasons there is no chance of a unifying explanation, and account that Whether an act is morally right depends solely on consequences or
• Perhaps there are unknown health-related consequences associated with eating (philosophers call these premises) are offered in support of can coherently organisze the various aspects of our thinking the goodness of consequences.
these plants. a particular conclusion. and experience. (b) Virtue ethics
 Decision – what to do? Whether an act is morally right or good depends on whether it is in
• Decision under uncertainty / Risk analysis /Precautionary conformity or conflict with certain virtues (or character traits).
approach

4.1 CONSEQUENTIALISM AND 4.1 Consequentialism

Ethical theories UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism
(ii) Deontological theories  Two types of consequentialism  ”The only reason for
 Consequentialism performing action A rather
Whether an act is morally right or wrong depends on whether (1) Egoistic and particularistic consequentialism
it is in conformity or conflict with moral duties and rights. One only takes into consideration how the consequences of an
than alternative action B is
 Utilitarianism act will affect oneself or a given group – e.g. ones family, fellow that doing A will make
citizens/compatriots, class or race. Moral rightness depends on mankind (or, perhaps, all
(a)Kantian deontology (monistic & absolutistic)
 Act Utilitarianism the consequences for an individual agent or a limited group. sentient beings) happier
than will doing B” (J.J.Smart,
Objections to act utilitarianism (2) Universal consequentialism
(b)Rossian deontology (pluralistic & pro tanto) ”An Outline of a System of
One takes into account how the consequences of an act will Utilitarian Ethics”, i Smart &
 Rule utilitarianism affect all the parties involved. Moral rightness depends on the Williams, Utilitarianism: For and
Against. Cambridge, 1973: 30.)
consequences for all affected people or sentient beings.
 Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Utilitarianism
The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of (1) Welfare hedonism
 For the utilitarian, the only thing that has value are states of utility:  But which states of affairs are valuable and which states of The good is the experience or sensation of pleasure and the
affairs. The principle of utility affairs are not? absence of pain – pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is
 Utilitarians deny the deontologist’s claim that some actions The morally right action is the one that produces the best overall  Utilitarianism tells us that it is the happiness or well being of the only intrinsic bad (J. Bentham).
have inherent moral value – as required, forbidden, etc. consequences with regard to the utility or welfare of all the affected sentient beings that is the valuable thing.
 For the utilitarian, if an act has value as right or wrong, then parties.  Attractive aspect of the theory: we can understand what is (2) Higher and lower pleasures
it can only be derivatively, because of the good or bad states  > Jeremy Bentham’s slogan: The right act or policy is the one that good about happiness and bad about suffering, without The good is what promotes the entire range of valuable
of affairs that it produces. causes ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ – that is, appealing to anything mysterious or intrinsically valuable. mental states, and mental states can be rewarding and valuable
maximize the total utility or welfare of the majority of all the affected
 It is part of the psychological make-up of sentient beings that without being pleasurable (J. S. Mill).
parties.
they are repelled by pain and attracted by pleasure.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism
 Mill thinks that some kinds of happiness or pleasures are better (3) Preference satisfaction
than others.  Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal What is good is desire satisfaction or the fulfilment of
 Intellectual pleasure, the satisfactions of finishing a project, appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not preferences (whatever they are), and what is bad is the
or a long-term friendship… are better than… regard anything as happiness which does not include their frustration of desires or preferences. “The more you get of what
 “base”/”animal” pleasures taken in eating, or sex. gratification…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied you want (satisfy your preferences), the happier you are”.
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different (4) Informed preferences
 “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the x
The good is to satisfy ‘rational’ or ‘informed’ preferences. On
question (Mill, Utilitarianism, pp. 56-57).
this view, the aim is to satisfy those preferences which are based alarm clock brush teeth coffee newspaper tube accident lecture dinner falling asleep
on full information and correct judgements, while rejecting Fig 2.1 The measurement of well-being
those who are mistaken and irrational.
Torbjørn Tænnsjø, Understanding Ethics. An Introduction to Moral Theory. Second Edition.
Edinburgh University Press, 2009, p. 20.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Utilitarianism

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

Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism

 Two types of utilitarianism  Identify alternative courses of action:
(1) Act utilitarianism Act utilitarianism implies that one should assess whether an  An act utilitarian decision procedure A1, A2, A3, …
The classic form of utilitarianism developed in the nineteenth act is right or wrong directly in view of the principle of utility. When we face a choice between alternative courses of action,
century. This means that the morally right action is the one that has the we should chose the course of action that has the best expected  Identify the expected consequences of the alternative courses
best overall consequences for the welfare or utility of the consequences for all (or the majority of) the affected parties. of action and determine their value (both positive and negative)
majority of the affected parties. Thus, act utilitarianism prescribes the following decision or utility:
(2) Rule utilitarianism
procedure for assessment and choice of alternative courses of A1’s consequences, A2’s consequences, and so on.
Different versions of this type of utilitarianism play an
action on the basis of the principle of utility:
important role in contemporary moral philosophy
 Assessment and choice of action on the basis of the principle
of utility.
 Example Act Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism
 I have promised to spend the evening with a friend. But then  Bernard Williams: ”the (1) Act utilitarianism requires too much of the agent’s ability to judge.
another friend calls to say that she needs someone to help her 3.1. Objections to act utilitarianism simple-mindedness of o In order to decide what is right and wrong to do, we need to have
prepare work for the next day, and that ehe can’s find anyone utilitarianism dis- knowledge of several things:
else who will do it. qualifies it totally…[t]he i. Know all available course of actions and their consequences.
The outlined classic version of act utilitarianism seems to face
 How do I decide what to do? day cannot be too far off ii. We must put a value on each of the available courses of action.
some serious problems.
 I must weigh the importance of the promise against the in which we hear no iii. We must compare these different courses of action in order to
importance of helping my friend – weigh the costs and decide which action has the best expected consequences.
more of it” (Smart &
benefits of each course of action. Williams, Utilitarianism  But this is almost impossible.
 The optimal course of action is the one with the greatest for and against, 1973, s.  Mill’s answer: conventional wisdom/ previous experience
balance of benefits over costs – empirical matter of 150)  We shouldn’t spend too much time on deciding what to do.
calculating costs and benefits.

Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism

(2) Act utilitarianism seems to be too permissive  > The transplant case: (3) Act utilitarianism seems to be too demanding
In some situations, it might require us to do morally  Permits actions that allow the use of persons only as means. Imagine that there is a situation where five patients in a The requirement to maximize the total utility or welfare among
problematic or doubtful things in order to bring about a good In this connection, act utilitarianism can come into conflict hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in all affected parties in the world (and perhaps also future
result. with a fundamental principle in deontological ethics – i.e. the room 1 needs a heart, the patient in room 2 needs a liver, the generations) would demand all our time and efforts. In order to
No actions are ruled out in advance. Kantian principle that one should treat other persons with patient in room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in do what act utilitarianism requires, I would have to devote
 Permits actions that conflict with widely recognised moral duties and respect and that one should never use other persons only as room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests, and his tissue is virtually all my time, energy and resources to maximizing utility
rights. means. compatible with the other five patients. Furthermore, a in the world. ‘The degree of self-sacrifice required would make
specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five, the lives of the saints look self-indulgent’ (D. McNaughton 1998).
 The duty not to harm innocent persons.
but he will die as a result of this operation that will save the
 The right not to be tortured.  Ends justify the means
lives of the five others. There is no other way to save any of the
other five patients.

Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism

 This raises the question of where one should draw the line (4) Act utilitarianism rules out special duties Rule utilitarianism = The morally right action must be in
between (a) moral duties and (b) acts that are regarded as Rule utilitarianism can be regarded as an attempt to accordance with moral rules or norms that can be justified on
good and praiseworthy but not moral duties or requirements It leaves no room for the special duties which we take develop a version of utilitarianism that can avoid the the basis of the principle of utility. Agents should decide what
– i.e. supererogatory acts. ourselves to have to those who are close to us – such as family outlined objections to the classic version of act to do in concrete situations by applying rules whose acceptance
and friends. will produce the best consequences – that is, rules such as ‘Do
utilitarianism.
not harm innocent others’, ‘Do not steal others’ property’. The
question is not which action will produce the greatest utility,
 > Special duties = agent-relative duties. but which moral norm or rule will produce the greatest utility or
welfare.

Rule Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism 4.2 Deontology

(2) An assessment of the rightness and wrongness of actions in Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism  1. Deontology versus Consequentialism
(i) A two-step procedure concrete situations in view of the moral norms that are justified in the
In rule utilitarianism, assessments of the rightness or wrongness  2. Two kinds of deontology
first step:
The principle of utility The principle of utility
of actions proceed through a two-step procedure: One should determine how to act in a concrete situation on  Kantian deontology
the basis of the moral norms justified in step one – even if an  Rossian deontology
Moral norms
(1) An assessment of moral norms (or rules) on the basis of the principle alternative course of action will have better consequences for
 3. Issues in contemporary deontology
of utility: all the affected parties in a given situation. For example, if the
Assessment or choice of action Assessment or
One should assess which moral norms (or set of moral norms) 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 choice of action
that will produce the best overall consequences for all the affected
parties, if one assumes that all (or almost all) will follow or accept permissible to lie (or act in conflict with this duty) even though
such norms. Such a list of will probably include moral rules such lying would produce the greatest utility in the case under
as ‘Do not lie’, ‘Keep your promises’. consideration.
 How do we determine whether lying or
Deontology versus concequentialism killing is morally right or wrong? Deontology versus consequentialism Options
 ‘Deontological’ (from the Greek deon, “duty” or “obligation”) The consequentialist`s answer: The deontologist`s answer: Deontology Consequentialism
 Deontological theories are most easily understood in contrast to oBy appeal to consequences oBy appeal to norms, rights or Duties of special relationships Agent-neutral theory  Am I permitted to care more about my own welfare than about
The rightness or wrongness of obligations
consequentialist theories. (agent-relative duties) (especially act the welfare of others?
lying or killing must be The rightness or wrongness of consequentialism)
o While consequentialists hold that we should choose the Not only are we permitted to  Act utilitarianism says no: we have impersonal reasons to try to fix
explained by its consequences: if lying or killing cannot be
available action with the best overall consequences, it has good consequences, then explained simply by its do more for those close to us, Each of us have reason to the world (maximise the good)
deontologists hold that we should act in ways constrained by it may be right to lie or kill. On consequences. The actions of but we are often required to put promote everyone`s good.  Deontology says yes: I have personal reasons to care more about
moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are the other hand, if it has bad lying or killing are (often) their interest first. myself and my family than about others (strangers).
defined (at least partly) independently of consequences. consequences, then it may be wrong in themselves, It would be wrong to neglect
o Whereas consequentialists claim that we should always strive to wrong to lie or kill independently of whether they our own children, even if we
promote the best consequences, deontologists claim that our have good consequences.
could thereby do more for
moral obligations (whatever they are) are in some ways (many) other children.
independent of consequences.

Supererogation Examples of supererogation Supererogation Deontological constraints

 When have I done enough by way of helping  Often difficult to say whether or not an action goes beyond
others?  The doctor travelling to a plague ridden society to save lives duty because the boundaries are ill-defined.  A duty not to harm anyone.
 Act utilitarianism: you will never come that far; there is no point  The beneficient person who donates (a lot of) money to charity  Example 1: what is a nurse`s role obligations to desperate,  A duty not to lie, kill innocent people, or torture.
at which you are permitted (or have the option) to do no more.  The victim who forgives the wrongdoer terminally ill patients who cling to the nurse for comfort in  These prohibitions constrain us in what we may do to any
 This leaves out supererogation (acting beyond duty)  The soldier throwing himself upon a live grenade to save his their few remaining days? person (not just those close to us), even in pursuit of good
 Deontology: there comes a point, perhaps hard to determine, at comrades  Example 2: What about treatment of HIV-infected ends.
which you have an option not to do more. But if you make an  ??? patients? Is treatment of such patients optional or required?  Some acts are good or bad in themselves.
extra sacrifice, we admire and praise you for it – it is  Example 3: Fire-fighters entering the twin tours on 9/11,
supererogatory.  Some acts are ruled out in advance.
required or supererogatory?

Deontological constraints Two kinds of deontology Rossian deontology Ross versus Kant

 How stringent should these constraints be?  Ross thinks we have several pro tanto duties, for example:  Ross` objections to Kant`s deontology. Morality is constituted by
Kantian deontology Rossian deontology categorical rules for Kant: we should never infringe on them, even
 Kant (Kantian deontology): absolute or exceptionless – we  A pro tanto duty to help others if we have good moral reasons to do otherwise – as when we need
Absolutistic Pluralistic
should not lie or kill no matter what.  A pro tanto duty to keep our promises to lie to protect someone in danger (cf the Nazi case).
Absolute norms and Pro tanto norms and
 Ross (Rossian deontology): pro tanto – we should not lie or  A pro tanto duty of gratitude
principles. principles
kill unless there are very good reasons to do so (overriding  Why does Kant think it is wrong to lie to the Nazi?
 A pro tanto duty of non-injury
reasons).
 The problem with Kant`s theory is how to handle situations of
 The idea is that these things matter morally, they make a conflicting obligations and considerations.
difference to what we should do

Rossian deontology Easy, hard and tragic choices Question

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

Fat man Case Transplant Case Empirical studies

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

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