I read the BBC News every day, and last Saturday when I saw the title "Lessons in morality at West Point", I stopped to read the article. We don't normally associate military academies with classes in moral philosophy, but that was what the article was about. As you already know, moral philosophy is one of my main areas of academic interest, so I read it quickly, and then emailed it to myself. I had a feeling it might come in useful this week, and it has.
In the article, David Edmonds reports that cadets at the prestigious West Point Military Academy in the US are now having classes in moral philosophy along with training in how to kill more efficiently (2010). The reason is that when they are on the battle field, soldiers have to make decisions that very literally mean life and death for other people, and perhaps also for themselves, so it is important that they have some understanding of what is and is not the right, or just, thing to do. And they also have to decide if the orders they are given should be obeyed because sometimes generals order soldiers to do things that are morally wrong. In the course of his report, Edmonds also introduces what has become a very well known thought experiment in moral philosophy, although he incorrectly cites Judith Jarvis Thomson as the source when philosopher Philippa Foot first used it in an essay she published in 1967, where she called the trolley a tram in the British fashion (Foot, 2002). Because he is British, and writing in the BBC News, Edmunds actually talks about trams as he describes the "trolley" problem. Edmunds describes Thomson's simplest form of the trolley problem, which consists of two parts: first, imagine you are watching a runaway tram speed towards five innocent people tied up on the tracks. If you do nothing, they will all be killed in the collision. But you can stop the collision. If you flick a switch, you will change the tram to a different track with only one man tied up to be killed. Would you flick the switch and kill one man to save five? Next, imagine that you are watching from a footbridge over the street. This time, there is no switch to flick, but standing next to you, also watching, is a fat man. He is so fat that if you push him over the rail, he will fall in front of the tram and stop it, thereby saving the five people, although he will be killed. Would you push the fat man off the bridge and kill one man to save five? As Edmunds tells us, most people think it is right to flick the switch, but most think it wrong to push the fat man off the footbridge. Edmunds finally asks: "Why might it be acceptable to turn the tram and kill the man on the track but not acceptable to push the fat man?" (2010, ¶ 26), and that is the trolley problem.
That last paragraph was a bit longer than I would have liked, but I wanted to include enough detail to explain the trolley problem clearly. So, what would you do? Would you flick the switch and kill the thin man on the tracks? Would you push the fat man to his death?
If you answer "Yes" to both questions, there isn't a big problem.
If you answer "No" to both questions, there isn't a big problem.
But if you answered like most people; that is, "Yes" to killing the thin man, "No" to killing the fat man, why did you answer differently? In both cases, one man dies to save five people. What do you think is the morally relevant, the important, difference between the two situations?
And if you did answer both questions the same way, why do you think most people make the wrong moral decisions here?
This is completely irrelevant to why I wanted to respond to Edmunds' article, but as I was summarizing his report for my second paragraph, I remembered the tram tracks that are still in the roads in Sydney and Melbourne, although there have been no trams in those cities for many years now. I think that there also used to be trams in Bangkok, on Charoen Krung Road. Does anyone know more about that?
I obviously think it's a good thing for soldiers to be thinking about such questions. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Should soldiers obey every order, or only orders that are just and morally right? How about you? Would you obey any order given by a government official?
And since this is a response writing activity, feel welcome to comment on anything you like.
When you comment, it is useful to turn on the "Subscribe by email" function.
Do not use use bold formatting in your own response writing. I did it yesterday and today so that you could easily see where I was citing a source. I will not do it in my future posts.
__________
In the article, David Edmonds reports that cadets at the prestigious West Point Military Academy in the US are now having classes in moral philosophy along with training in how to kill more efficiently (2010). The reason is that when they are on the battle field, soldiers have to make decisions that very literally mean life and death for other people, and perhaps also for themselves, so it is important that they have some understanding of what is and is not the right, or just, thing to do. And they also have to decide if the orders they are given should be obeyed because sometimes generals order soldiers to do things that are morally wrong. In the course of his report, Edmonds also introduces what has become a very well known thought experiment in moral philosophy, although he incorrectly cites Judith Jarvis Thomson as the source when philosopher Philippa Foot first used it in an essay she published in 1967, where she called the trolley a tram in the British fashion (Foot, 2002). Because he is British, and writing in the BBC News, Edmunds actually talks about trams as he describes the "trolley" problem. Edmunds describes Thomson's simplest form of the trolley problem, which consists of two parts: first, imagine you are watching a runaway tram speed towards five innocent people tied up on the tracks. If you do nothing, they will all be killed in the collision. But you can stop the collision. If you flick a switch, you will change the tram to a different track with only one man tied up to be killed. Would you flick the switch and kill one man to save five? Next, imagine that you are watching from a footbridge over the street. This time, there is no switch to flick, but standing next to you, also watching, is a fat man. He is so fat that if you push him over the rail, he will fall in front of the tram and stop it, thereby saving the five people, although he will be killed. Would you push the fat man off the bridge and kill one man to save five? As Edmunds tells us, most people think it is right to flick the switch, but most think it wrong to push the fat man off the footbridge. Edmunds finally asks: "Why might it be acceptable to turn the tram and kill the man on the track but not acceptable to push the fat man?" (2010, ¶ 26), and that is the trolley problem.
That last paragraph was a bit longer than I would have liked, but I wanted to include enough detail to explain the trolley problem clearly. So, what would you do? Would you flick the switch and kill the thin man on the tracks? Would you push the fat man to his death?
If you answer "Yes" to both questions, there isn't a big problem.
If you answer "No" to both questions, there isn't a big problem.
But if you answered like most people; that is, "Yes" to killing the thin man, "No" to killing the fat man, why did you answer differently? In both cases, one man dies to save five people. What do you think is the morally relevant, the important, difference between the two situations?
And if you did answer both questions the same way, why do you think most people make the wrong moral decisions here?
This is completely irrelevant to why I wanted to respond to Edmunds' article, but as I was summarizing his report for my second paragraph, I remembered the tram tracks that are still in the roads in Sydney and Melbourne, although there have been no trams in those cities for many years now. I think that there also used to be trams in Bangkok, on Charoen Krung Road. Does anyone know more about that?
I obviously think it's a good thing for soldiers to be thinking about such questions. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Should soldiers obey every order, or only orders that are just and morally right? How about you? Would you obey any order given by a government official?
And since this is a response writing activity, feel welcome to comment on anything you like.
When you comment, it is useful to turn on the "Subscribe by email" function.
Do not use use bold formatting in your own response writing. I did it yesterday and today so that you could easily see where I was citing a source. I will not do it in my future posts.
__________
References
Foot, P., (2002). Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In that case, if my lover, family or important people to me are in the people who are tied up on the tracks I will flick a swith and push the fat man without hesitation, but if they are completely stranger I might close my eyes and run away from the situation...
ReplyDeleteIs that worse decidion??? I can be a good soldier...
The first situation, I'm not sure this is will be possible. I will run to untie the one man and I will tell someone there to flick a switch after I untied.
ReplyDeleteThe second situation, I'm not going to push the fat man. I will throw my bag and everythings around there as much as I can find to stop or reduce the impact from the trolley to the five innocent people, and I will tell the fat man to help me too.
I think soldiers should obey the right orders and morrally right. Also, I will do this for a government official orders.
Apple (@ September 24, 2010 1:23 AM),
ReplyDeleteIt was a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not possible.
You don't have time to run and untie anyone. And except for the fat man, there is nothing big enough on the footbridge to stop the tram.
Whatever you do, at least one person will be killed by the tram in both situations. The choice between five dying and one dying is up to you; the number of people who are killed depends on whether you decide to flick the switch or push the fat man.
Oh.. very interesting topic !!
ReplyDeleteI think, it's difficult to decide a crisis situation in the future because we don't know every elements which're surrounding you at that time clearly so I just guess that I will be standing in the side of the most people who's consider to flick the switch but not push the fat man because five men were choosen already to be killed; on the other hand, fat man is merely the one who's watching. Moreover, I believe in destiny so if I'm the one in five people, I will accept my fate.
@Shu
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I will safe my family first but the one who dying should be me instead of fat man. Actually, it's just a guess so I'm not so sure what will I do if I'll be there.
@ Apple
you are clever !!
This writing reflecting to our lives that we will meet crisis situation like this at least once and we must choose. Sometimes, the decision can be wrong but you have to go on.
It’s very difficult topic. The first feeling emerged during reading this topic so I didn’t want to answer. At the same time, the answers appeared in my mind. The 1st situation I decide to flick the switch for saving five people as six people were on the tracks and I can save more life, and the 2nd situation I can not save five people.
ReplyDeleteMy decisions isn’t concerned in physical appearance-thin or fat. I don’t push the fat man in the 2nd situation since I am not right to decide his death.In some cases a fat man can be a chemistry professor who gives students the good opportunity and education.
Apple (@ September 24, 2010 1:23 AM),
I have the same opinion as you about soldiers should obey the right orders and morally right. The soldiers should obey the commands because it’s the best way to control a lot of men and to reach the important achievements.
The reality is that I has always obeyed a government official orders ;nevertheless, I always protest in my mind.
Apple and NK,
ReplyDeleteSo, if an order were morally wrong should the soldier disobey?
If a government official orders something unjust, should we disobey?
A slightly different (non-moral) question might also be worth considering: what would you or most people actually do if ordered by a government officer to do something immoral?
(NK suggested this question when she wrote that "the reality is that I has always obeyed a government official orders ;nevertheless, I always protest in my mind" (September 25, 2010 10:30 AM). Are you the same, or different? Do you think that most people are the same or different?
(Why isn't this last the same sort of moral question as in the trolley problem questions? What sort of question is it? Moral philosophers worry about the trolley problem. What sorts of academics might ask and try to answer this new question?)
Peter question (@ September 25, 2010 3:51 PM)
ReplyDeleteif an order were morally wrong should the soldier disobey?
- I think they should disobey if an oder were morally wrong, but It is hardly to hear the soldier disobey the order. I think maybe because they are scared of punishment.
If a government official orders something unjust, should we disobey?
- I think we should disobey, but should or should not, it is depend on how much is the effect on our life if we disobey. I mean if I can disobey with out a big problem to my life and my family, I will. In other hands, I might have to obey a government official orders if it cause me a lot of problem because I don't have any power.
So, according to NK worte:"the reality is that I has always obeyed a government official orders ;nevertheless, I always protest in my mind" (September 25, 2010 10:30 AM). I think most people and me will be the same because we don't have any power to against the goverment.
Would you flick the switch and kill one man to save five?
ReplyDelete- I'll try to do everything I can do to help him. I may shout at him to run or stand away there if it's possible.
Would you push the fat man off the bridge and kill one man to save five?
- I don't do that surely because it's murder though I can save five lifes.
if an order were morally wrong should the soldier disobey?
- The soldier should obey every order even the wrong order because of discipline. If he broke the rule, the effect would be bad to most people. As you know He has the weapons in his hand, and he can do everything when he is out of control.
If a government official orders something unjust, should we disobey?
- I think like Apple's opinion that is "I might have to obey a government official orders if it cause me a lot of problem because I don't have any power". For example, Burma, is the country which closes to thailand at the northern, is under control of the government completely. Burma people have to do and obey all things wrong because they don't have more power. If they broke, the result would be bad. The government can kill everyone who protest like the history of Burma during 1997-1998. A lot of Burma monks marched and protest their government then finally they were kill over 3000 persons.
How can I edit my comment? I put something wrong that is "The government can kill everyone who protest like the history of Burma during 1997-1998. A lot of Burma monks marched and protest their government then finally they were kill over 3000 persons".
ReplyDeleteI would like to change to "The government can kill everyone who protest like the history of Burma during 1987-1988. A lot of Burma people marched and protested their government then finally they were kill over 3000 persons. Later in 2007, a lots of monks also did same, and were killed because the government announces to increase fuel price to be a double prices. They can kill even the monks!
A,
ReplyDeleteYou can't edit comments.
You can delete a comment and repost it.
If I notice a serious error immediately after I post a comment, I write it again and delete the first version.
Never delete your comment later, especially if others have already commented after it.
You will find grammar and spelling errors in my comments because if those sort of minor errors don't affect the meaning, I don't worry about them.
And you can always write another comment ot correct a mistake in a previous one, as A has done @ September 26, 2010 8:54 AM.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I already understood.
ReplyDeleteIf someone would like to decide other lives, she would not be me. I would not like to point who are died or who survive. However, in this case, I will try to untie the person which is near me first, and I will ask the man who stands near me help me to untie other people.
ReplyDeleteSome parts from Net’s idea (@ September 24, 2010 8:08 PM), it leads me get that tied people know what will be happening with them, so I will try to help them as much as I can without deciding who should be died.
Peter question (@ September 24, 2010 8:08 PM)
I think when you decide to do something, you have to accept their condition. In the same way, when you decide to be a soldier, you should know first that you have to do everything under soldier’s discipline. If you think the order makes the conflict in your mind and you do not have power to solve it, you should try to leave from this situation such as quit.
Gift,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but as I've already explained in my reply to Apple, untying is not an option. In both situations, either one person or five people will die as a result of your decision (Peter, September 24, 2010 7:28 AM).
I like Gift's suggestion @ September 26, 2010 8:30 PM that accepting a position means accepting the rules that apply, even if those rules are unjust and morally wrong. I like it because it seems like the right sort of response to the problem. However, although I like Gift's argument, I'm not sure that I agree with it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do others think?
I'm trying out something new.
ReplyDeleteI've just put a survey form in the column on the right, so you can now vote on the trolley problem.
The votes are anonymous.
There are exactly four options, all of which are listed, so which option would you choose?
This topic is very interesting, and at the same time very hard when you are the person to decide who is going to live and who dye. I understand that in that situation, in that critic moment, I already realize what is going to happen in both cases if do nothing or if I decide to change the curse of the events. For me everyone is equally innocent because I don't know them. I would kill the thin and the fat persons. I will fell more guilty with the fat person, but not because his appearance, the reason is that I will use I direct physical contact to kill someone and that is harder to me. I know, the result is the same but subconsciously I will fell more guilty. It's easier press a button that puss someone to the railway even when the result is the same. But reading the comment and the votes, after my actions some people could think I am more a killer than a reasonable person.
ReplyDeleteOf course I think it is an important theme for a soldier, who is more than possible, is going to decide between life and death in many occasions. But I don't think a soldier, general... must to obey every order. Just remember the Stanley Kubrick's film "Paths of glory".
I'm glad to see that no one has chosen to kill the fat man on the bridge but not the thin man tied to the other track.
ReplyDeleteAs a couple of people have already commented, it's a very difficult pair of decisions to make, and thinking about it more doesn't necessarily make it easier. Although I've tried to make clear some of the difficulties that arise from different ideas, I've also tried not to tell you my own pair of decisions yet because I want you to try to decide for yourself first. Moral philosophers like the trolley problem because it forces us to think carefully about what makes our decisions right or wrong, just or unjust.
I do think that in each case there is only one choice that is morally right, or at least better. The situation is extreme and not one that any of us are likely to ever meet, although soldiers might encounter very similar life or death situations where they have to decide who dies and who lives, and doctors meet such situations - they have to decide who to save and who to let die when resources are limited, as they often are. However, the reasons for each choice do have consequences in our own daily lives. For example, if you chose not to kill the fat man, your reasons for that choice should also apply elsewhere, such as in your approval or disapproval of laws that force entertainment venues to close at 1:00 AM even if a lot of people want to stay out drinking, dancing and partying much later, perhaps until 7:00 AM instead of only 1:00 AM.
What's the connection? If you chose not to kill the fat man, do you also think that laws against late night fun are morally wrong choices? Hint: why do you think it's definitely wrong to kill the fat man? (People who chose to kill both the thin man and the fat man could consistently think that laws against late night entertainment are morally right - they might be wrong, but at least they are being consistent. So far, only one person has voted in favour of killing both the thin man and the fat man.)
And if you disagree with me here, feel welcome to explain why I'm wrong: why don't the moral reasons against killing the fat man also count against laws that restrict the hours of entertainment venues?
Even though I try to keep them short, sometimes my responses in comments get a bit long.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's not a problem - the questions are complex and might need more than one or two sentences to discuss.
Who voted to kill the fat man, but not to kill the thin man tied to the other track, and why?
ReplyDeleteWould you flick the switch and kill the thin man on the tracks? Would you push the fat man to his death?
ReplyDeleteYes, I would flick the switch and kill the thin man on the tracks and would push the fat man to his death, only if the five men are not Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and other two are some African dictators and the thin man or the fat man is a poor exploited by a dictator.
What do you think is the morally relevant, the important, difference between the two situations?
I think is morally relevant, the important difference between two situations because if you flick a switch, you are not completely conscious that you killed somebody, because you did not see him.
questions. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Should soldiers obey every order, or only orders that are just and morally right? How about you? Would you obey any order given by a government official?
I agree to teach moral philosophy is good for the soldiers. The soldiers have difficult tasks and this kind of decisions, kill the thin person or the fat man, if they do not think before to be in a stress situation, they can the wrong decision and they are going to regret all their life.
By definition, a soldier has always to obey every order but in reality they are humans and they can not do things against his principles very easy, when they can I think, they are not going to obey if the order is not moral right. I do not always obey for me it is important to follow my principles.
Thanks Cristina,
ReplyDeleteI can understand the reasoning behind deciding to do something that causes the death of both the man tied to the tracks and teh fat man standing next to me on the footbridge: many people reason that the situations are essentially the same becasue one person is killed to save five; it's pushing the fat man but not diverting the tram to kill the one tied up man that would puzzle me.
I think it is wrong to kill the fat man, unless we knew something highly relevant about him. Pushing him over the rail to stop the tram is using him as a tool without his consent, and even to save five perfectly innocent people, that still seems morally unacceptable to me. It's horrible to let five people die, but even worse to actively kill one person. (This is what I think connects with a lot of laws that are unjust, such as government forced closing times for entertainment venues in night-life areas of a city - it treats citizens not as people but as tools to be used for the benefit of others.)
The problem case for me is the one man tied to the track. Diverting the tram to save five is not directly intended to kill the one man, so it is not using him as a tool for the convenience of the five others. If I did not know he was on the tram line, it would be morally acceptable to kill him. It would be an awful thing to discover later, but not something I had any control over when I made the decision; however, knowing in advance that he will definitely be killed as a result of my decision to flick the switch worries me. Although it was not my wish to kill him, my intention in flicking the switch must include the knowledge that his death is part of the plan to save the other five. Although it seems different to using the fat man as a tool to save five lives, I'm not sure that it's relevantly different enough, so I would not kill him either. I voted to let five people die in both situations.
I like the way you suggest other criteria that would make a difference. In some versions of the trolley problem, we also know that the fat man is in fact the terrorist who tied up the five people about to be killed. If I knew that, I would certainly push him over to save their lives by killing him. Again, what we know can make an important difference to the moral calculus.
Similarly, if the one man, either the one tied to the track or the fat man next to, gave permission and asked to be sacrificed, I think that would make it morally right to kill both, but not without such consent.