Kruse Kronicle

Trolley vs Hospital

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

I've just finished reading a stimulating book by David Schmidtz called Elements of Justice. Schmidtz is a professor of both philosophy and economics at the University of Arizona. He has some great thought experiments. He presented the following in his discussion on "need."

Two Scenarios

Trolley

A trolley is rolling down the track on its way to killing five people. If you switch the trolley to another track on which there is only one person, you will say five and kill one.

Hospital

Five patients are dying due to lack of suitable organ donors. A UPS driver person walks into the hospital. You know she is a suitable donor for all five patients. If you kidnap her and harvest her organs, you save five and kill one.

What would you do in each scenario and why?

Next week I'll give some insight Schmidtz had with this problem.

See follow-up: Reflection on Trolley vs Hospital

Comments

10 responses to “Trolley vs Hospital”

  1. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    …seems to me that if you just do the best you can, without trying to play God in either scenario, you’ll possibly have your five needed organs (maybe more?)…we can never value one life more than another, unless it is our own.
    I defer to Spock here concerning the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one…because he was giving up his own life to save the many (and he got it back later…the hints of resurrection even in Star Trek!)

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    (Mike, raising one eyebrow) Fascinating!
    Are you sure you aren’t using Captain Kirk’s Kobayashi Maru strategy here? 🙂 (Actually you are near to one of Schmidtz observations, which I’ll get to in a later post..)
    Still, most would switch the track in the first instance but Schmidtz, who has lectured around the world, hasn’t found folks who would kill the UPS driver. From a utilitarian standpoint, saving five seems better than saving just one. I wonder what the ethical line is that we feel we cross in the Hospital scenario vs. the Trolley scenario.

    Reply
  3. neil Avatar
    neil

    Great ethical question. I hate it when context messes with my deontological approach 😉

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Life would indeed be so much simpler if context weren’t always rearing its ugly head. 🙂

    Reply
  5. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    I don’t understand the issue. In the first case you have a trolley that is either going to kill 5 people or 1. You choose 1. In the other issue you have 5 people who are going to die and you randomly choose to kill a stranger who would not otherwise have been involved to save them. These are not comparable issues.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I think the issue is that in the Trolley case, the lone person is in no danger unless you put him/her there in an effort to save the five, just as in the hospital case.

    Reply
  7. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    Hmm. I don’t see it. I see 6 people stuck on trolley tracks, and a choice between 1 or 5 deaths. No choice. But that’s not your point, or Schmidtz’s (say that 5 times fast.)
    The line is at harvesting.
    When I once suffered severe culture shock, it was because I felt like none of the foreigners around me cared about me. If I fell in the street, there was no safety net of culture to see me safely to the hospital. I felt alone in the world. I learned how much I rely on the invisible world of support around me.
    That is what’s at risk when we talk about measuring one man’s death against anything. If I’m a ledger entry, I am alone in the world and that is not a tolerable situation.
    With the trolley there’s a speeding fate coming for 5 people and the decision is made to save the 5 at the loss of the 1. It’s an awkward decision, but it can be made because it is weighing two evils and choosing. There’s no ledger of values. 5 infinite evils is worse than 1 infinite evil. Case closed.
    With the hospital, there was no evil directed at the UPS worker. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, the UPS worker is harvested against her will for the good of others. And that could happen to anyone. Suddenly the feeling that we are alone in the world becomes a reality.
    As soon as people begin to measure the good that comes from my death, I become a hunted animal. My life is only as valuable as my output.
    If the trolley incident is told in a more appropriate way, you will get a different answer.
    A trolley is rolling down the track on its way to killing five people. If you throw one person on the tracks right now, the trolley operator will stop in time to save the other five.
    This puts the scenario back in line with the hospital scenario, and you’ll get a different answer. No one will throw an innocent in front of a train, but every now and again one person will offer to jump in front of the train. When there’s a choice between five and one, we can choose one; but when the choice is between five and a true innocent we can only choose to be that innocent. Anything else destroys the fabric of trust on which society depends.

    Reply
  8. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    codepoke,
    That was the whole point of my comment: that we are not to make decisions on whose life we may forfeit—unless that life is our own.
    Michael,
    Yes, I guess it is a bit of the K-Maru scenario…out of the box thinking that chooses to find a C when neither A or B are acceptable.

    Reply
  9. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    You weren’t supposed to notice me copying off your paper, Peggy. ;-J

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Codepoke
    “… or Schmidtz’s (say that 5 times fast.)”
    LOL
    I think you’re onto something. Thanks for the insights. Good stuff.
    Peggy,
    K-Maru may indeed be the way. I’ll say more about this one next week.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading