Is inaction morally wrong?

[Marvin_Edwards]

So first, we can't "prove" that anything is morally right or wrong, because morality isn't factual, there are no moral truths, you can't get a moral stance accurate or correct, etc. Morality is the way that individuals feel about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than etiquette. There aren't correct/incorrect, true/false ways to feel.

There might not be any absolute moral rule, since there will be exceptions to any general principle. But we might weigh the difference between two courses of action in terms of which one is better or worse than the other. The trolley example is a bit deceptive, because it suggests at the outset that we can save 5 people by killing 1 person. So, the immediate response is well, saving 5 must be better than saving 1.

In the case of the trolley we are tempted to do that. But if we switch to the doctor wanting to save 5 people by killing 1 person and harvesting their organs, the situation is slightly different.

If we just look at the immediate results, we might be tempted to save the 5 at 1's expense. But there are other consequences that also follow. No one would want to be that 1 person (except maybe Spock). And if we're not willing to be that person, then we ought not sacrifice the 1 for the many.

With the trolley, it would seem to be a once in a lifetime event. But with the doctor harvesting the organs, it could happen every day, putting us all at risk, and making us all afraid to walk into a hospital. So, the moral evaluation changes with the situation, and when we consider the long-term consequences and not just the short-term.

[Steve3007]

I can see another argument about the wearing of socks coming on.

[Sculptor1]

Since the trolley problem is not ever going to be confronted by us, we'd really have to take some more likely scenarios.

How many times have you walked past a homeless person and done nothing to help, knowing full well that there is room on your floor for them to sleep on?
How many times have you not bothered to vote, or not bothered to become involved in the political process?
Since we all know that there are starving people all over the world, what is our excuse for sitting still and typing nonsense onto PDF.
And since we all know that, since I started typing more than one child has died from lack of nothing more simple than clean water.

So- do you really want to ask for a moral justification for inaction; or are you just the best example of it we could find?

These examples are different from the trolley case. In the trolley case you have to choose between 1 death and 5. In your case, with inaction, you aren't going to cause any harm. As I said in my other reply, nobody is obliged to prevent everything bad that happens. By helping a homeless person you are doing good; by not helping a homeless person you are just not doing wrong

What do you not understand by the phrase "Since the trolley problem is not ever going to be confronted by us, we'd really have to take some more likely scenarios."?
When confronted by some day to day examples, you run for cover.
The Trolley example offers a problem about "inaction". Through your inaction EVERYDAY of your life you are allowing a child to die from lack of clean water, and yet you sit there on your hands and do nothing. Seriously who gives a flying fig about your trolley problem when you are in breach of the most simple and obvious fault by inaction.
Why are you not doing more?
Why do you prefer to think about a problem that is NEVER going to happen when you are in fact through inaction allowing the death of innocent children in the third world?

[Terrapin Station]

There might not be any absolute moral rule, since there will be exceptions to any general principle. But we might weigh the difference between two courses of action in terms of which one is better or worse than the other.

Of course we do that, but what we're doing is contemplating how we feel about the options, determining what our preferences are. The world outside of our dispositions has no preferences. So we can't get our preferences right or wrong.

The way we feel, our preferences are very important to most of us. There isn't something inherently inferior about them just because they're only how we feel, they're only our preferences.

[Marin]

Yes, I am aware of the legal implications that may arise in the trolley case. If you pulled the lever, chances are you are going to be punishment. If you don't act, you probably won't. I was looking more for a philosophical discussion that a legal one

But this is the world we live in, not a world where one can pull a level to kill someone and have one's story believed. Even then, as per euthanasia (where the trolley problem can apply), it's not unusual for people who are doing the greatest good possible being sent to prison for doing so.

The fact is that the law isn't always based on morality or vice versa. I think that the person who choose to save the 5 by killing the 1 shouldn't get punished, for his intent in doing so is justifiable

I can see another argument about the wearing of socks coming on.

I'm too afraid to ask about this in case it turns out it's morally wrong to wear socks

These examples are different from the trolley case. In the trolley case you have to choose between 1 death and 5. In your case, with inaction, you aren't going to cause any harm. As I said in my other reply, nobody is obliged to prevent everything bad that happens. By helping a homeless person you are doing good; by not helping a homeless person you are just not doing wrong

What do you not understand by the phrase "Since the trolley problem is not ever going to be confronted by us, we'd really have to take some more likely scenarios."?
When confronted by some day to day examples, you run for cover.
The Trolley example offers a problem about "inaction". Through your inaction EVERYDAY of your life you are allowing a child to die from lack of clean water, and yet you sit there on your hands and do nothing. Seriously who gives a flying fig about your trolley problem when you are in breach of the most simple and obvious fault by inaction.
Why are you not doing more?
Why do you prefer to think about a problem that is NEVER going to happen when you are in fact through inaction allowing the death of innocent children in the third world?

What do you not understand by the phrase "These examples are different from the trolley case." and my argument that followed soon after?
You are ignoring my point by saying that it's never going to happen and introducing examples that don't have the same moral implications as the trolley case. It may never happen, but it is completely possible. What's the point of talking about of a moral dilemma when you're going to throw it out as soon as it's "never going to be confronted by us"?
About your argument, are you suggesting that we are responsible for every evil/death/harm we could have prevented (no matter how remote), then anyone who is not a 24/7 vigilante who roams the world and helps people immoral? Why do you think that not being Batman is wrong? As I said previously "it is permissible to let bad things go unfixed (even though it's supererogatorily good to fix them), it's only impermissible to cause new bad things yourself.


Unrelated comment: The fact that I have to wait over half a day for my post to be approved because I don't yet have 10 posts or 3 days since I joined is really annoying

[Marvin_Edwards]

There might not be any absolute moral rule, since there will be exceptions to any general principle. But we might weigh the difference between two courses of action in terms of which one is better or worse than the other.

Of course we do that, but what we're doing is contemplating how we feel about the options, determining what our preferences are. The world outside of our dispositions has no preferences. So we can't get our preferences right or wrong.

The way we feel, our preferences are very important to most of us. There isn't something inherently inferior about them just because they're only how we feel, they're only our preferences.

Then again, how we feel can be changed with new information.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course we do that, but what we're doing is contemplating how we feel about the options, determining what our preferences are. The world outside of our dispositions has no preferences. So we can't get our preferences right or wrong.

The way we feel, our preferences are very important to most of us. There isn't something inherently inferior about them just because they're only how we feel, they're only our preferences.

Then again, how we feel can be changed with new information.

Definitely. It's just important to keep in mind that that information is different than how we feel.

[harrisonriley72]

Hello,
It's nice to consider the problem with all the time in the world, like many people do. However, we should try to make the scenario as realistic as possible if we want to know whether an action is truly "wrong" morally. Realistically, if I were in this scenario, I would probably not have time to think through what is morally "right." Therefore, my decision would largely be based on instinct, and I don't believe you can hold a person accountable for their instinct. I think that the ability of a person to think about their decision before making it adds a whole dimension to morality that we tend to ignore.

I also think it's interesting to extend and consider what a person's instinct-based action would likely be, especially for an average-Joe, non-philosopher type of person. I'm only speculating, but I think they would act according to what morals most resonated with them growing up. I think it's also likely that they would simply make use of whatever morals their parents or their upbringing drilled into them. Thus, from a legal standpoint, if you were to punish someone for doing what you view as the wrong action, you're likely discriminating against people of different backgrounds, which is generally looked down upon in the legal system.

Furthermore, since your question is stated "Is inaction morally wrong," certain biological factors could be the sole reason for inaction. A person's processing speed could make the difference between whether they act or not.

Thanks

[Frank Pray]

These days, people might consider and update to the problem, given the legal implications in the modern world.

Can you prove conclusively that those five people were going to be killed? What if you were wrong? What if no one else was aware of the issues? Chances are that, if you acted, you would be locked up for murder.

Your elaboration of the basic hypothetical shifts the problem completely to account for a host of other factors. Your scenario would involve a jury trial based on charges of first or second-degree manslaughter. And of course, since you are now focused on the understanding and intent of the switch operator, you as the defense attorney would need to call a psychiatrist or psychologist to explain how a human being, and particular the defendant, perceived the situation under extreme stress.

All of which is tangential to the more intriguing original question posed in its pure form with a limited set of facts, and debated by Marvin and Sculptor1: what about the moral implications of letting humans die when there is no legal obligation to save them? Another way to frame that question is: do ethics transcend the law? That is, the law will impose no punishment for an optional act, while an ethical system may very well make inaction culpable. As a practical matter, the law could never catalog the many "crimes" of omission, since there so many opportunities to act, and nearly all of them are ignored, and mostly they are matters of private conscience in the category of "should" rather than a must. For example, I should donate more to a particular charity because I have been hoarding my wealth. But what law would impose a mandate to that effect?

The early Christian world view was premised on an active love of your fellow beings, which in some cases would entail personal sacrifice. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the oppressed, the ignorant, or just the emotional or spiritually lost were not to be ignored but were to be loved by active engagement in easing their suffering. Putting aside the religious overtone of this historical reality, the fact is that it influences the current ethical system many people hold unconsciously. While the law focuses on prohibiting, ethics focuses on prescribing. While the law would prohibit an active step to kill a person to save five, an ethical system would possibly prescribe killing one person to save five other equally innocent people. So this difference is why I found your expanded hypothetical interesting: it draws out that law is not the final arbiter of the right ethical decision.

[Sy Borg]

Frank Pray

Frank, I admit that I had not had that thought before. There was just as aspect of the OP that made the problem visceral enough to me to imagine the issue truly, as opposed to going through the issues as hypotheticals.

I expect that most here would routinely place their personal ethics above the law, at least when we can get away with it :) Chance are that the behavioural limits we impose on ourselves are much more strict than those placed on us by law. That is, the number of illegal activities that we engage in will be dwarfed by the number of legal activities that we reject for their immorality, eg. exploiting legal loopholes in ways that harm others.

[Jorgen Pallesen]

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Thank you for your time

This is exactly why we need strong leaders that can take the unpopular decisions, else nothing gets done.

In socialistic and communistic jobs, they prioritized solidarity highest above all, ending up in no one dared fire completely incompetent workers and, inept people got promoted because of nepotism and comradery!

If you want a well functioning society you need to have balls and do the right thing!

[Frank Pray]

I expect that most here would routinely place their personal ethics above the law, at least when we can get away with it Chance are that the behavioural limits we impose on ourselves are much more strict than those placed on us by law.

We're in agreement on this point. My reasoning is that a city, county, state, or nation does not have the necessary enforcement mechanisms to compel the level of compliance needed for a society to function coherently. For example, the law of contracts is premised on an exchange of promises as part of a binding transaction. But what if people did not internalize the ethics of keeping promises made contractually? What if people, as you say, routinely broke their promises because they could get away with it, or worse, made promises they had no intention of keeping? If enough of us thought that way, the resulting deluge of lawsuits would soon overwhelm the courts, and the costs and delays of "justice" would be too great to hold defendants accountable. Worse yet, the marketplace of transactions would be in chaos and no one could trust anyone else. In other words, if I enter a contract with you it's not that I trust the law, but that I trust you. A lawsuit is a poor substitute for your timely delivery of the goods or services I've paid to receive. Therefore ethics transcend the law, and the law is in the service of ethics.

[Sy Borg]

Oh, I'm not thinking about breaking promises when we can get away with it. I'm thinking of activities that are prohibited by law that cause no harm vs immoral activities that are permitted by law, eg. little people smoking weed vs billionaires who use loopholes to pay zero tax.

[evolution]

Hello, I've been thinking about the general form of trolley problem lately. I think the majority of you would know what it is, but I'll add a description of what the general form of the trolley problem involves in case someone doesn't:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."

And of course, the obvious question of the dilemma: "What is the right thing to do?"

And, of course, the obvious answer of the supposed "dilemma": "What is the right thing to do?" is there is NO right answer. This is because of the absolutely ludicrously small number of variables and facts you have provided to us. Obviously without ALL of information, variables, and facts, then we are not well-informed enough to provide a well-informed answer/reply.

The so called "trolley problem" is not an actual 'problem' that has anything at all to do with reality. This created problem with a supposed an solution is just like most so called "paradoxes". They are just words written in particular ways to trick and fool people into thinking particular ways.

I decided to create this thread not to talk wheter is is morally bette to save 5 lives over 1, as that has been discussed plenty of times, but whether inaction is morally permisable

What is it that makes some thing supposedly "morally impermissible"?

Obviously EVERY adult takes inaction, which is and causes immorality or morally wrong. Is your inaction, which is and causes moral wrong, morally permissible?

What is it exactly, which permits or does not permit something morally?

Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation?

Not with just those miserable small amount of "facts" that you have provided.

Is it wrong to wash one's hands of the responsability, of the burden to choose between 1 life and 5?

I thought you did not want to talk about whether it is morally better to save/choose 5 lives over 1.

I am in favor of choosing to kill 1 over the 5 but I couldn't condemn someone for not choosing at all, for they do not hold any responsibility for what is happening and I you can't obligate someone, without violating his rights to freedom, to involve himself in the situation.

But how do you know that they do not hold any responsibility for what is happening. They have made the 5 people be there, when the 1 was, for example, not made to be there or was not even meant to be there.

Again, there are just way to many variables that need to be addressed first before any real discussion could be taken seriously around this so called "problem".

No matter what you choose, someone is still going to die in the end. If I have to choose between 1 death and 5 deaths, I rather not be given the power to choose at all.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Thank you for your time

Well you have heard mine, but you wanting to hear EVERY one's thoughts about this I think may not be at all possible.

[Sculptor1]

But this is the world we live in, not a world where one can pull a level to kill someone and have one's story believed. Even then, as per euthanasia (where the trolley problem can apply), it's not unusual for people who are doing the greatest good possible being sent to prison for doing so.

The fact is that the law isn't always based on morality or vice versa. I think that the person who choose to save the 5 by killing the 1 shouldn't get punished, for his intent in doing so is justifiable

I can see another argument about the wearing of socks coming on.

I'm too afraid to ask about this in case it turns out it's morally wrong to wear socks

What do you not understand by the phrase "Since the trolley problem is not ever going to be confronted by us, we'd really have to take some more likely scenarios."?
When confronted by some day to day examples, you run for cover.
The Trolley example offers a problem about "inaction". Through your inaction EVERYDAY of your life you are allowing a child to die from lack of clean water, and yet you sit there on your hands and do nothing. Seriously who gives a flying fig about your trolley problem when you are in breach of the most simple and obvious fault by inaction.
Why are you not doing more?
Why do you prefer to think about a problem that is NEVER going to happen when you are in fact through inaction allowing the death of innocent children in the third world?

What do you not understand by the phrase "These examples are different from the trolley case." and my argument that followed soon after?
You are ignoring my point by saying that it's never going to happen and introducing examples that don't have the same moral implications as the trolley case. It may never happen, but it is completely possible. What's the point of talking about of a moral dilemma when you're going to throw it out as soon as it's "never going to be confronted by us"?
About your argument, are you suggesting that we are responsible for every evil/death/harm we could have prevented (no matter how remote), then anyone who is not a 24/7 vigilante who roams the world and helps people immoral? Why do you think that not being Batman is wrong? As I said previously "it is permissible to let bad things go unfixed (even though it's supererogatorily good to fix them), it's only impermissible to cause new bad things yourself.

"supererogatorily "?? Really?

Sorry - we a re fresh out of trolleys carrying potential victims around here. What we do have is a world full of death and suffering, in which are actions can make a difference, yet so few make any effort.
I don't know where you live, but I an tell you that in the land you live there are people suffering from out inaction. So really what's the difference?

There was an extension to the trolley problem you might be interested in asked of people that agree with certainty that they would definitely sacrifice one person to save the five or ten in the trolley. But told that to save the ten in the trolley they have to throw a fat person off the bridge to change the track they seem to change their minds.
This hinges directly on the reason why you personally allow so much suffering in the world without a thought. Personal distance is important. Killing from a distance is easier than getting your hands on the problem.