1. The Fat Man Version of The Footbridge Case
Imagine that there is a runaway driverless trolley hurtling down a track towards five trapped people who are unable to move away. Upon impact they will all surely die. It so happens that you are on a bridge under which the trolley will pass before hitting the five; and seeing what is happening you know you can stop it by throwing a heavy weight in front of it. You suddenly realize that there is a fat man standing beside you and if you push him over the bridge and onto the track, you may kill him but you will save five people. Should you do it?
2. The Sidetrack Case
This is a variation of the above Footbridge Case. In this version, you see the same runaway trolley hurtling down a main track towards the five trapped people, but you find that there is a lever in front of you with which you can divert the trolley onto a dead-end side-track. Unfortunately, there is a trapped individual at the end of the side-track who will surely die if the trolley is to hit him instead. Should you pull the lever?
Possible moral responses
1. Everyday intuitive moral sense
Empirical research showed that most people will object to pushing the fat man over the bridge onto the track thereby killing him even though it saves five people. Yet, fewer people will consider it morally wrong to pull the lever to divert the trolley away from the five trapped people, but put it onto the sidetrack thereby killing that one trapped person at the end of it. Though, the end result is the same - one person killed, but five people saved - the moral responses are diametrically different. It is difficult to explain the contrasting moral judgements. Is it because pushing the fat man is deemed to be a direct threatening action to the fat man and therefore objectionable; whereas pulling the lever is merely to deflect danger from trapped people. Or is pushing the fat man objectionable because killing someone is worse that merely letting him die?
2. Consequentialism
This principle states that we ought to take the action that leads to the best possible overall result. According to this theory, saving five people by sacrificing one ( a net saving of 4 people) is morally recommended and therefore it makes no difference whether you push the fat man or pull the lever to achieve this objective. This seems to be in conflict with our everyday intuitive moral sense. So, is our everyday intuitive moral sense unreliable, or is consequentialism of little merit?
3. The deontological Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA)
This principle states that it takes more to justify doing harm than to justify allowing harm. It recommends that it is wrong to commit an act of killing, but not wrong to refrain from an act of saving. Clearly, pushing the fat man violates the DDA. Yet, even pulling the lever to divert the trolley onto the side-track is also a positive action that will kill that one man who is on that track. So, the DDA is also in conflict with our everyday intuitive moral sense.
4. The deontological Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Conclusions
Despite our diverse cultural differences across the globe, as a species, we seem to have quite a consistent everyday intuitive moral sense. So, we can't ignore or dismiss it even if we are hard-pressed to rationalize it. It may be wise to give sufficient weight to these snap moral judgements.
On the other hand, we should take into consideration the principles embodied in consequentialism, the DDA and the DDE in the more reflective moments of our moral lives.
