Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[vulcanlogician]

Vulcan, I agree with Steve that the 2 scenarios are not morally equivalent, though not sure I would use the "responsibility/no responsibility" way of explaining why. Ill leave that up to steve since it was his analysis.

For my own part, I'd use the principle of double effect like I explained in my first post.

---

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

Just to reiterate, I agree with you guys. I would not do the organ transplant. All three of us agree that the organ transplant is wrong.

But it seems that we also all agree that pulling the switch is morally right. The question is: WHY? 

CL, the doctrine of double effect can be applied to the trolley problem but it's hard to see why it would come to bear in one situation and not the other. IF "it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end" then it is morally wrong to pull the switch isn't it?

The reason I differentiate the two scenarios is because a doctor is individually responsible for each of his patients, and it is wrong for a doctor to violate that trust, even if a greater good is going to come of it. In the trolley example you are just a bystander who happens to be standing next to the switch. You are still morally responsible, but not for each person individually. It's normally a facet of moral responsibility that doesn't influence one's potential choices, but in oddball cases like the trolley experiment, it makes all the difference.

Keep in mind, I'm still fraught with the same misgivings anyone else has in the two situations. This is just the best thing I can come up with to solve the paradoxical intuitions inherent when comparing the two scenarios. There really is no right answer. The comparison was meant to provoke thought about what drives a moral decision.