Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[vulcanlogician]

First, a definition:

Intrinsic (from Mirriam Webster)
adjective
belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing 
Synonyms: built-in, constitutional, constitutive, essential, hardwired, immanent, inborn, inbred, indigenous, ingrain, ingrained (also engrained), innate, integral, inherent, native, natural

Foundational to Christian ethics is the sanctity of all human life. This is rooted in the belief that humans have intrinsic purpose and value because we are made in the image of God (Imago Dei). There is no intrinsic value of humans under a naturalist worldview. The distinction can be seen in your two scenarios and the ensuing discussions on them.

In the trolley scenario, acting or not acting are both choices with no clear moral superiority (even based on a Christian ethical model). In fact, I think the deciding factor as to whether someone does pull the lever is bravery to face the personal consequences. The "what-if" discussions on value to society of the lone man have nothing to do with it because the ethical foundation of Imago Dei and the entailing intrinsic value is way more important than utility. 

In the transplant scenario, taking an otherwise innocent life is morally objectionable based on the belief that all life has intrinsic value and we don't have a right to set that aside for some other purpose (even saving more lives). And again, any "what-if" discussions on the utility of those involved is irrelevant. 

I think that even most atheist in western society believe that individuals have intrinsic value (just for being human). This is not a conclusion from their worldview--but the influence Christianity has had on the culture for a millennium. That is one reason why people say the US was founded on Christian principles--because a lot of our views on freedom have to do with this issue.

First things first--you struck a nerve with US being founded on Christian principles:

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” – John Adams.

I'm sure you could find quotes from the founding fathers speaking from a contrary position, but I started with that because I like grandstanding. During the middle ages, through the Renaissance, and well into the Enlightenment, many in Europe held the belief that absolutist monarchy was ordained by God. It is easy to open up a Bible and find where Paul justifies this mindset. Nothing in the Bible explicitly endorses the liberal notions found in our constitution. Most of our distinctly "American" ideas come from John Locke: inalienable rights; a balance of power between legislative, judicial, and executive branches; separation of church and state--and so on.

It's funny how Christians claim credit for classical liberalism when the fact is, Christianity ruled Europe from the dark ages to the Renaissance and there was nothing but monarchy. Not long after religion started to lose its grip, ideas of a free and democratic society began to spring forth. It would be a post hoc fallacy for me to claim that the waning influence Christianity was therefore responsible for the emerging liberal views, but the fact remains, it makes it harder for Christians to argue the inverse. I'll give you this: John Locke was a Christian--so you have that. And any confirmed non-deists who were involved in drafting out constitution were probably Christian too.

The issue really is murky, though. I concede that point. Perhaps Christians do deserve credit for stamping out slavery in Europe. And Quakerism (aka "HERESY!") did have some influence on our founding fathers. Martin Luther King Jr. (who I consider just as fundamental to the American identity as any founding father) used Christian principles in his fight for justice. But again, King's morality was more like Quakerism than typical protestantism, even though he was a Lutheran minister.

***

I think the trolley problem transcends religion. As long as you value human life (one way or another) it's going to matter whether you pull the switch or not. 

My comment about obedience and conformity is simply what I gathered from observing some evangelicals and listening to what they had to say. You have to admit, you've heard Christians go on about "obedience." Usually the fundies and evangelicals-- not so much mainlines and Catholics. Look at it this way. The first stage of moral growth emphasises obedience and moral growth. In the mind of a child at this stage of moral development, there is no difference between doing the right thing and avoiding punishment.To emphasise a moral outlook centering around punishment and reward (instead of principle/mutual benefit) might inhibit healthy moral growth.

Now, you could argue that the golden rule is a good maxim... it's based on mutual benefit and reciposity. (Higher level morality according to Kohlberg.) Plus that, many-- if not most-- Christian adults are fully-developed moral beings. Obviously, Christian values don't necessarily hinder moral development. I admit that, but at the same time I have serious problems with Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc. beating the drum of obedience and conformity. In the final analysis, secularism wins again. Because a secular person can take any given religious principle (like inherent value of human life) and adopt it without running the risk of simultaneously adopting a bunch of backwards garbage.