3

If I understand correctly, according to utilitarianism, in the trolley problem, the ethical action is to pull the lever, causing one person to die and saving five.

Is there a variant of utilitarianism that judges if an action (but not inaction) is the ethical choice by looking only at the bad consequences, without looking at the good ones?

For example, the bad consequences of pulling the lever would be that one person dies, so it would be unethical to pull the lever, and therefore the ethical action to do nothing at all (no matter the consequences of doing nothing).

This doesn't seem to be negative utilitarianism, as that seems to only minimize negative suffering, without making a difference between actions and inactions.

To avoid extreme examples (for example, not pulling the lever kills 100 people, pulling it only slightly hurts someone), it could be modified to say that good actions are those where bad consequences are much less than good consequences. Is there a name for this theory as well?

  • 1
    The distinction between action and inaction is typically maintained by non-consequentialists and denied by consequentialists, utilitarians in particular, see Doing vs. Allowing Harm. If morality is judged on consequences alone, the inaction is just the action of not acting, there is no basis upon which to tell them apart. So no, there is no such variant. – Conifold Oct 09 '19 at 03:51
  • If I suddenly disappeared right before I could make a choice, then the trolley would not switch tracks, so that's the inaction... Based on this ethical theory, it's unethical to have caused harm (someone was hurt, and wouldn't have been hurt if you just stood still and done nothing). –  Oct 09 '19 at 03:58
  • Ethics is about guiding behavior. Any ethical theory, utilitarianism included, only applies when a decision is involved, when it is within one's power to act, or not act. When one "suddenly disappears", or is hit upon the head and left on the tracks by a hurricane, there is no behavior to guide, ethics is simply moot. – Conifold Oct 09 '19 at 04:15
  • That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the inaction is not doing anything (literally standing still), such that the outcome will be what would have happened if I hadn't noticed the trolley and intervened by killing a person who wasn't going to die. –  Oct 09 '19 at 04:19
  • After rereading your first comment, I think I understand. You're saying that utilitarianism doesn't make a difference between doing and not doing something. So the theory I'm looking for really isn't a variant of utilitarianism but something completely different. –  Oct 09 '19 at 04:27
  • Your post is phrased in a very consequentialist way, except for wanting to distinguish actions and inactions. What you should think about is: based on what? Non-consequentialists do it based on some sort of "intrinsic nature" of the act dictated by maintaining virtue, some code of moral duty, etc. So you have to choose: either you supplement your consequentialism with some overriding principle, or you drop the distinction. If you choose the former, the ramifications will go beyond this particular issue. You won't just get negative utilitarianism plainly concatenated with the distinction. – Conifold Oct 09 '19 at 04:54
  • Willfully standing still is not the same as not noticing, just as willful ignorance isn't innocence. Choosing to not act is still a decision, and an act. Ethical difference will not come from physical descriptions here, it has to come from something else. – Conifold Oct 09 '19 at 04:58
  • I agree that willful ignorance isn't innocence. If there was no one on the other track, the obvious ethical choice would be to pull the lever. But if there is someone on the other track, and you pull the lever, that person will die because of you (because of your existence). From the point of view of that person, I wasn't in danger, yet someone decided to sacrifice my life to save other people I'm not responsible for. –  Oct 09 '19 at 05:07
  • So I guess that the difference is that the since it's not unethical to be unwilling to sacrifice your life for others, it would be unethical to force someone else to do it. I think the best action in this situation would be to ask the person whether they're OK with dying to save five others, and only if they reply "yes" in time, I pull the lever. –  Oct 09 '19 at 05:08
  • "Because of you" is shaky here, by the same token, the five people will die "because of you" otherwise, see the doctrine of double effect. If it would be unethical to force someone else's sacrifice, we are leaving consequentialism behind, it wouldn't if morality is judged by the consequences. So why would it? What your answer is will determine what ethics you are looking for. But you will then have to reconcile it with your otherwise consequentialist intuitions. Under double effect, the death is not "because" of you, it is a side effect. – Conifold Oct 09 '19 at 09:34
  • 1
    The notion of what is a negative outcome and what is a neutral one is not solvable, either. Numbers exist on scales with midpoints, but there is no natural, absolute zero or unit of measure. The zero position that separates mere existence from suffering depends on notions of human nature. Hunger is suffering. Is envy suffering? Is boredom? Or are those neutral effects of human nature in the presence of others having things or opportunities -- something humans inflict upon themselves? Then since we all do actively choose to have things are you causing their suffering? Or is it just there? –  Oct 09 '19 at 13:47
  • Any ethical theory that does this, when combined with chaos theory, will tell you to always do nothing. You are slightly thirsty, and are considering the action of getting yourself a glass of water. According to chaos theory, the air molecules you nudge go on to hit other molecules in a chain reaction that leaves all the weather a month later completely different. This weather includes hurricanes that kill people. Oops. A utilitarian would say that if you don't act, there will be different hurricanes, and there is no reason to expect one to be worse, it all cancels out except for your thirst. – Donald Hobson May 25 '20 at 20:55

0 Answers0