What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?
Let’s take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Morality
Posted by
Sowmya
at
1:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


5 comments:
Interesting!
However, the odd thing is, I actually treated the two cases alike. I actually feel its wrong to change the course of the trolley to kill that one person even if that saves 5 lives. and when I gave it a thought, my reason was that - killing someone and not bothering to save the life of someone - is not the same. I feel killing someone is a *CRIME* and not bothering to save the life of someone is serious negligence (less than a crime). So, case 1 (to let the trolley take its course) woule be serious negligence (to not save the life of 5 people), but case 2 (changing the course of the trolley) would be one good deed (saving 5 people) + a *CRIME* (killing that guy, who wouldnt have died if I werent there). So, to me, it looks like serious negligence, however bad it is, is better than one good deed + a *CRIME*.
or in other words hurting someone with one's action is a more serious offense than hurting someone with one's inaction..
The two events are obviously not identical and we are genetically hard wired to see the difference. Was that not a topic that was done with in the 70s?
sowmya,
The analogy provided in the extract isn't parallel at all.
The first one is clearly either/or situation. The second one need not be.
In the second situation: Just imagine that the five people lost their organs because of say, addiction to alcohol, drugs, cigerrets, etc.... and the one person who does not have any of the above habits just walks in. Now, how do we kill him for no mistake of his, or worse, killing him for the mistakes commited by others, encourages further mistakes and nothing else.
Post a Comment