So, my friend, Tor Constantino has been agonizing over ethical dilemnae. (This has been in the queue for a long time. Tor, I apologize for not remembering and bringing this up during our weekend repast.) Between his pilfering of freely offered ketchup packets [Sorry, Tor killed his blog so the reference is no longer available] to why folks consider situational ethics of value. And, being the kind of black and white fellow that I am, I am inclined to join his camp.
For example, I have not a clue how most of these “Pro-Life” folks really think. (That’s their self-proclaimed moniker, not my appellation for them). After all, they seem to value someone before he (or she) is someone- and then abandon them forever. (Once born, they don’t want welfare to provide funds if they need it, health care if they can’t afford it, and the death penalty to be imposed. Really? That’s pro-life?) But, I digress…
It seems that science may be able to answer Tor’s question. We all know the old runaway trolley car scenario. Where folks are told, there’s a runaway trolley on the tracks that is bound to kill the five folks on the tracks, unless it’s diverted. And, that diversion will kill one person. Almost every one diverts the trolley (without even asking who is to be killed).
But, if one must throw someone onto the tracks to stop the trolley- that won’t fly. We don’t find killing folks on purpose for the greater good all that acceptable. This decision making process has been termed the “kin selection” or altruism principle, which assumes everything is adjudged to insure the success of our relatives- even if there is a cost to our own survival. (This is sometimes aslo called the Hamiltonian inclusive fitness principle [by academic types, of course].) The opposite philosophy is called “ethical formalism”, in which everything is viewed in absolute terms. When something is wrong, it is wrong all the time; and, if something is right, it is always correct. [Sometimes this is called the Kantian laws or universal prescriptions.] But, maybe these two opposing theories don’t really answer the question.
Drs. Kurzban, DeScioli, and Fein found more distinction amongst these principles in the trolley experiment. They published their research findings in Evolution and Human Behavior. Using 1290 volunteers, they not only asked the ‘regular’ questions, but they inquired whether and how the volunteers considered the morality of their actions (or inactions). They found that 28% would kill a stranger off to save the five on the tracks and 47% would push a brother onto the tracks to save five brothers. But, of those that rejected killing one to save five, some 85% found it morally wrong – regardless of whether these five folks were brothers or strangers.
Kurzban’s research study states that we employ two different systems to determine right and wrong. One system operates on the belief that killing is wrong- period. The other system tells us we must protect our kin. These two systems work in parallel- which means they can clash. Furthermore, the rule system (which one wins) is arbitrary in the execution (pun intended), which means it can be changed by us. 
The problem is that how we alternate between the two opposing rule systems may not be useful- or consistent. Which leads us back to Tor’s dilemna, all over again…
I don’t think one really knows what they would do in a situation like that until you’re in the situation. Which hopefully will never happen. The hypothetical is so much easier than the situational.
Marie recently posted..Yellah Habbibi (Inshallah)
The hypothetical is the only one that is morally acceptable. We have already had folks apply torture to others (thinking it was, indeed, real)- and that creates other moral dilemnae to consider.
Thanks for your thoughts…
Roy
Roy, great post (as always)! I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough treatment of the issue of ethics and “natural law.”
A great, “livable” standard that applies to both hypothetical and real-world scenarios for how we should live together is the following question.
Prior to deciding any action in an ethical dilemma, one should ask, “Would I want to live in a world where everyone made the decision I’m about to make?”
While no solution is perfect, I’ve found this to be an effective help with ambiguous decisions. Thanks again for the great thoughts!
Tor Constantino recently posted..Need a Laugh???
I loved your question, Tor. And, I would love for half the citizenry to even contemplate the thought- even if they failed to reach a conclusion- because in that one instant of doubt, many of their actions (to the contrary) would probably never occur….
Thanks for making this a more complete consideration of the issues.
Roy
I read this post several times, and really soaked it in, Roy. People’s ethics fascinate me, especially when you factor in the percentage of psychopaths that exist in society, that lack what we consider normal ethics. (Granted, and I am trying to remember the stat I think only 1% of the total population is a true psychopath but between 3 and 5% of of men and 1 and 3% of women show characteristics of anti-social behavior connected with the diagnosis) <—Sorry off topic musing of mine. Anywho…
Don't you think the arbitrary nature of people's ethics come from an internal rating system of what is right and wrong? While some people think stealing more than is proper Ketchsup packs is on par with stealing from someone's home. While others see that as ok but stealing from the home is not. I'm probably not doing a good job here, but a better example of this internal rating system might be the Catholics label of sins, some things are venial, and some things are mortal, degrees of blackness so to speak. Just as doing good things is a degree of measure, saving the life of someone is really good, while helping some one with their homework is only a small good. If we change the description in the trolly scenario to five criminals die if you don't divert the train, or you kill one saint would people be less apt to kill one to save many. I don't know, Roy, I'm just rambling and yes it is thanks to you and your fantastic post. Cheers my friend! When I grow up I want to be as smart and funny (loved the pun) as you are! <3
Lisa:
These are the thoughts that try philosopher’s souls…
And, yes, we all have our own ethical dilemnae.
Some result from deciding which grievous error(s) require our immediate attention, knowing full well we lack the time and capital to attack them all. How does one rate them?
Some result from the belief that property crimes are inconsequential. Others render their decisions using the concept (I would never use the word principle) that the aggrieved parties can afford it. And, not knowing the differential between mortal and venal (unless it means you are simply a bad person or destined to die for these faults), I can’t comment on that classification (except to say, I’m glad I’m not that judge if my impression is correct).
Thanks for sharing from the fire hydrant of ideas- they are the types of situations that make us all think…
Roy
Taken out of a context what people say they might do is often quite different to what they might actually do in the heat of the moment. I wonder if there was a better way to study this in terms of setting up a real situation (obviously with no one actually being killed!) what might change. Perception of possibility is quite different than actual action quite often don’t you think?
Bonnie recently posted..Is Character Crumbling?
Yes, Bonnie, as I wrote to Roberta- this study better explained our dual pathways of consideration and the “tension” that exists between the two of them.
And, you and I also had a similar discussion on your web site (http://myrivendell.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/is-character-crumbling/), where I disagree that people with character can simply say alas and alack and walk on by… Which clearly means (as I knew already) that I consider those that practice situational ethics to be devoid of character. (After all, I- and my children- are primarily absolutists in our outlook). And, I (and many, many others) have seen the detritus of the events to which these individuals afforded the opportunity to occur- from the Holocaust to Civil Rights, from a girl being raped in the street with no citizen involvement to children shooting children with guns…
Roy, I had not seen the “science” around the dilemma before so thank you.
I think the dilemma comes back purpose. So many situations are used as examples but when the situation actually arises, people act differently than the cerebral considerations.
While the 10 commandments say though shalt not kill and the laws in most countries say thou shalt not kill; we bend the rules constantly to fit the larger need without any seeming ethical conflict. Most of us just never think about it.
So the dilemma comes back to – does this action fit the purpose. And hypothesizing is often different than acting. We like to think we would act in a particular way but what we really hope is that we will never be put in a situation where we have to make the choice.
Roberta recently posted..Meaningful measurements for Business
Roberta:
You are correct. But, not all populations include the 10 commandments. Many individuals seem to think they are simply 10 suggestions, besides. And, you are correct- that hypothetical cases are never going to render definitive data.
And, that’s what made this research so enlightening. They were able to discern that we have two pathways that run parallel in our brains- and the contemporaneous, conflict resolution that ensues- and which one prevails is what we need to understand.
It is clear that some of us primarily use the absolutist approach and others employ the situational approach (wait- it’s ok, no one’s looking). And, there are individuals that lack all (or most) moral compass choices- those are our “psychopathic individuals” that cause many societal ills.
Thanks for your comment and continuing the discussion…
Roy
As someone wrote earlier, the hypothetical is always so much easier than the real. It’s hard to know what we would do in most situations until they actually happen to us. I want to write a long comment, but the truth is that this is not really something we can solve in a blog post or even really “solve” at all. We just have to live each day the best we can and take each situation as it comes. I love how thoughtfully you handled the subject matter, my friend!
Christi Johnson recently posted..Easy Ways To Make Money In This Economy – Blogging Done Right!
Glad you liked it, Christi.
And, to me, the key point in the study, was the dual/conflicting pathways that we use to “maneuver’ through these choices.
Thanks for dropping in and adding to the conversation…
Roy
My mother-in-law used to tell me that she would feel differently between a biological child and an adopted one. Her hypothetical was if both were drowning she would go for the biological one first. My reply was which one could swim? I would go for the one who needed more help. Then I got all my kids swimming within their first year. My adopted child was swimming when we met him.
C.S. Lewis talked about natural laws (not like gravity) that we all knew we should obey, but most of us do not. It may appear that some cultures don’t think it’s terrible to steal, but you keep asking them and they will get to a point where they will say one should’t steal “that”. Same for other laws that connect us to each other. Maybe we don’t steal, but we might tell lies (thought you were going to catch me, didn’t ya?). As some level we all situationally will do what we know is against a natural law.
Repenting and being forgiven gets real hard if you shoot and kill the person you should beg forgiveness of and it gets even harder if you meant it and would do it again. Oh everyone is up in arms, but wait. The deceased was a wife abuser and a pedophile. Now where are we on the scale of giving the murderer the death penalty?
This is not your hypothetical situation. This is a matter seen daily in courtrooms around the country.
Is it wrong to kill someone before they kill you? Roy, before you pick up your absolutism battle flag, what would you have done if you had been in the Warsaw Ghetto when the enemy came calling?–Annie
Ann recently posted..Business Blogging—What Does It Really Cost?
Great points you brought up, Annie. But, war is a different reality than non-war. Yet, your example is exactly what transpired in the Holocaust. Most of the Jews were people of the book- and never considered the reality of war and its requirements. (It’s the difference between David and Solomon. David was never allowed to build the Temple- because he was a warrior. Solomon, his son, got the chance to build that Temple.) Not that the Jews of the Holocaust necessarily could have been warriors. Some were, most (6 million or so) certainly were not.
I don’t know what I would have done had I lived during the Holocaust. I have often wondered about it. I do know that when folks leveled their guns at me, I felt anger. And fear. I fought back how I knew how- and with principles with which I believe (then and now). To stop the war in Vietnam. To stop the war machine in universities. To insure that everyone got the right to vote. In spite of the “law” with their guns aiming to kill and chase away those trying to change those facts for the Blacks of the South.
Roy
Gandhi would have been proud of you, but you weren’t black when blacks felt too oppressed to resist. You weren’t a soldier, forced by our government to shoot people who were not a direct threat or be courtmarshalled. You were not one of those people who others kept from voting. It is easy to feel for them, to be willing to look down a gun barrel for them or whatever, but you know in your white skin that you were not as likely to be harmed.
When I became 50, I got a gun and learned to use it. I left it behind when I left that home. I have a new one now that I need to practice with. I decided having reached what I thought was old age that I needed to be able to defend my home, my family and my freedom. I absolutely will fire that gun if any of these are threatened.
That is my absolutism.–Annie
Ann recently posted..Business Blogging—What Does It Really Cost?
Oh, Annie:
You are right. I did not expect to be facing a revolver and a few shotguns when I was visiting the “wonderful” South, I was registering folks to vote. But, I did.
I did not expect to find the Chicago police all too eager to violate the law and attack unarmed kids. But, I did.
I did not expect to be clubbed when I demonstrated against the war in Viet Nam. But, I was.
It’s not the expectation- and, to be honest, had I known about some of the welcoming reception, I am not so sure I would have volunteered my time (and my body).
No, I don’t believe having a gun will defend you. Unless you are lucky enough to find yourself attacked or robbed by one who does not have such arms.
Roy