More often than not, ethical issues - in financial areas or other walks of life - are not totally black-and-white. What’s ethical from my point of view, might be outrageous in your opinion and vice-a-versa. However, most of us generally tend to paint things with a broad brush and conveniently ignore all lines of thought that do not match our personal yardstick of what’s “ethical”.
On this subject, here is some food for thought.
There is this particular problem of a railway trolley which is pretty popular among people who study ethics and/or philosophy. It’s not a financial problem as such, but I am sure that such situations arise in the financial world where we (I am including myself here) are quick to judge other people about their ethical (or unethical) behavior. A problem like the one described below has the potential to make us think twice before we become too judgmental. There are numerous versions of the problem, but I will choose just two to make a point.
- Case 1: A railway trolley is rushing towards a group of 5 people who are trapped on the railway track. If the trolley is not stopped or diverted, it will definitely kill all 5 people. You are observing the situation and the ONLY option you have is to press a button that will divert the trolley to a different track. However, there is 1 person trapped on the other track too and he will be definitely killed if you divert the trolley. What would you do?
- Case 2: Essentially the same problem as above, but instead of that 1 trapped person on the other track - there is a person (unknown to you) standing besides you. Now, the only option to save those 5 people is to push this person on the track in front of the moving trolley - a situation in which this unknown person gets killed, but the other 5 are saved (similar to Case 1). Would you push him?
Think over it for a while.
In both cases, there is a cost of action (you will kill someone) and there is also a cost of inaction (again, someone will get killed). Would you try and change the fate of the single person who is not really destined to die, in exchange for the life of other 5? What’s more ethical (or moral)? Do you think Case 1 deserves a different ethical consideration than Case 2?
Also, spend a moment on the mind-games that will result if you change the situation even slightly. For example, instead of 1 person on the other track, what if there were 3? or perhaps even 4? Would you kill 3 or 4 to save 5?
Discuss this with your family and friends and see how their responses differ from each other.
Sometimes, it takes a paradigm shift in your thinking to address many ethical/moral problems (financial or otherwise) - a rigid definition of “ethical” just won’t fit the bill. 
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Case # 2 is an open and shut case. In fact it is more than an ethical question, it is a legal one. To throw someone to their death, even to save multiple lives, would result in the perpetrator being charged with murder in any civilized society. That is clearly a case of murder. You cannot kill someone to save others.
To attempt to portray it any other way is hogwah. BTW what if the person standing next to you in Case # 2 is your mother. That fact should not change the moral circumstances. If you support murdering her, her being your mother cannot change your position.
I see no essential difference between the cases. In each you are taking an action that will kill one person, and you KNOW you are killing this person by your action. Aside from any legal issues (this is an ethics question, after all), I would save the five in each case. Knowing nothing about these six people, I would have to rely on probability. My goal would be to save the best person, and it’s more likely he’s among the five.
I strongly disagree with Joseph. Knowing who the people are would be a huge factor in my decision. I do not value every human life equally (and I’m sure my dear mother will be relieved to hear that faced with such a scenario, I would kill a stranger before her). You cannot take values out of ethics. A moral person seeks out and protects what and whom he values. That’s the purpose of a moral code, I believe — to guide you in those choices.
Mark, Who are you (or any mere mortal) to decide who is the “best person” to save? And even if you knew who is the “best person” who are you to play God and kill someone else in furtherance of that goal?
If the situation was I can only save this group (of 5 people) or that group (of 1 person), then you have a decision to make. But if the question is I must kill 1 person to save 5 people, you have no right legal, moral, or ethical to do as such.
BTW if your basis is merely numerical (5 vs. 1), then if your mother is the “1″ you have no basis to alter your decision. And especially what if one of the 5 people was a heroic FDNY firefighter who has saved (and is capable of continuing to save) countless lives, so is a “better person”, are you going to throw your mother on the tracks?
Point is you can’t play G-d and decide who to kill.
Sure to be a riveting discussion, golbguru.
I’m going to have to fall (so to speak) between Mark and Joseph on this one.
I make no ethical distinction between action and inaction. They are one and the same, in that they are meaningless without each other. Inaction is *an* action. And any given action always implies inaction in the sense of all other actions not taken.
I would act as Mark did in both cases, although it would not be probabilistic for me. I would always save the 5 vis the 1, even if I somehow knew — or was of the opinion — that the 1 was the “better” person.
But Mark, case 2 does not seem indistinguishable from case 1 to me. If I can save 5 by throwing 1 in front of the track, surely that other 1 next to me can also save 5 by throwing me in front of the track. I would expect two people who share my opinion to struggle to throw the other on the track. Perhaps both of us would die, but 2 is still less than 5.
Joseph, regarding the case of the 1 next to me being my mother, I always have the option of throwing myself in front of the track as the 1 instead. Realize that we’re discussing ethics here not the law and not whatever instincts would dominate the common human in the heat of the moment. The law may not like my ethical decision (were I able to actually effect said decision) but I would be at peace with it. And I’d quietly accept whatever the judge’s sentence as the fair cost of saving 5 people.
the problem posed is not an ethical dilemma at all. There is no gray area of right or wrong in the scenario. there is lesser of two evils in the scenario, which isn’t an ethical dilemma but a moral one.
the moral dilemma is do you sacrifice one for the greater good?
when your mother is involved, the moral dilemma is still the same. The question is whether you would let your bias influence the moral choice? It would become an ethical dilemma if you knew ahead of time that the situation was to happen and had the ability to inform just your mother not to be at the rail station or everyone else too.
moreover, the greatest probability would be that you would do nothing, because that is what most people do in these types of situations. So regardless of what you decide, chances are highest that the group of five would die. That is why we consider those who can make these decisions heroes.
applying the scenario to finance should be, do you sacrifice a large loss for the greater well being of your portfolio? the answer is yes, although it would be painful.
Steve, You should throw yourself on the tracks then (and not the person next to you), whether it is your mother next to you or not. You don’t have a ethical, moral, or legal right to save your own life by killing the person next to you (even if it is not your mother.)
Mark and Joseph: That is the kind of difference of opinion I was expecting.
Mark: “You cannot take values out of ethics. A moral person seeks out and protects what and whom he values.” - that is correct and almost reflects what Tim says later in his comment.
Steve: The law would probably take sympathy towards you. To figure that out, you have you picture yourself as a jury and decide for another person who is charged with such a “crime”.
Tim: I deliberately avoided the words “moral values”. More often than not, ethical boundaries are defined by moral “beliefs” - and as such, ethical yardsticks are as relative as moral beliefs. However, people still tend to view many decisions (with moral component involved) in terms of strict “right” and “wrong” or strict “ethical” and “unethical”. Just thinking aloud here.
Joseph: Most moral values are relative - what is morally correct from your point of view may not be that way from another person’s point of view.
Tim, I’m a little weak on the distinction between ethics and morality. Thinking they are one and the same, could you clarify how you distinguish them?
Joseph, I sense this is going to take a wrong turn, but would you be so kind as to educate me on my ethical and moral rights? Until today, I had never imagined there to be any extra-legal limits or guarantees with respect to what I personally believe to be right, wrong, or somewhere in between.
And legally, if someone was trying to throw me (whether the button pusher or the “other” person) on the track, would I be at odds with (for example) US law if I threw them on the track in lieu?
Another way to look at this scenario, is say the Iranian Ayatollahs captured 5 British Sailors (as happened earlier this year) and announced that if by a certain date Britain fails to turn Mr. Salman Rushdie over to Iran (for execution), the 5 British Sailors would be tortured and killed.
And we know that there is no other method of rescuing the Sailors, and we are certain the Iranian Ayatollahs will do as they threaten. And we also further recognize (and are certain, for this discussion) that the case of Mr. Salman Rushdie is unique and will not set any precedents.
So you could save 5 lives by surrendering Mr. Rushdie (1 person.) That would effectively be the same “ethical dilemma” as above.
Also, what the law is must be followed to remain “ethical.” You cannot be ethical by defying the law. (In a democratic society certainly.) So if the law is you cannot kill someone else to save your own life, that must be adhered too.
Another scenario that can be compared to above, is if the mafia captured you and your friend, and they told the 2 of you that you must kill Mr. John Doe or else they will kill both of you (and there is no way out of the situation), can you kill Mr John Doe (1 person) to save the 2 of you? It would be against the law. Against mores. And against any ethical considerations.
While our mores may differ, the law is the same for all of us (in any society.)
Steve, to answer your query, my position above is that it would be illegal, unethical, and immoral to throw someone else to the tracks.
So the answer is yes, you would be legally in the right of self-defense by throwing the person attempting to kill you to the tracks first.
In fact I would expect no less from anyone. If he wants to save those 5 lives, let him throw himself to the tracks to do so, not the next guy.
Steve, to elucidate what I am conveying, essentially you can believe in whatever mores and ethics you choose. But when it comes to you enforcing your ethics/mores on the guy next to you (on that train or elsewhere), your personal ethics/mores are superseded by the law.
So with the law prohibiting your saving your own life (or someone else’s life) by killing the next guy, you are so constrained.
So in summary, in fact there “extra-legal limits” on what you “personally believe to be right, wrong, or somewhere in between” if such action will negatively (physically) affect someone other than yourself.
In this example throwing someone on the tracks (instead of yourself) and killing him would be manslaughter.
Joseph, thanks for elaborating. Do I have it right by you that illegal is a subset of unethical? (i.e. you say there cannot be an ethical act that is illegal, but can there be unethical acts that are legal?)
And are you saying that morality is internal, ethics external (proscribed by law)? In my most fundamental faculties with reality, I have trouble with the boundary between internal and external, so perhaps that is why I am asking you about ethics and morality. I have no problem understanding the illegality of something though.
I still don’t find case 2 as cut-and-dried as you present, if you consider the other person as someone real who may resist, and may be able to throw you on the track as well. Let’s say you are either one of the two people on that trolley. The other one tries to throw you on the track. During the struggle, you gain the tactical upper hand, momentarily. You know your abilities / strength well enough to know that you can either throw the other guy off the trolley to *possibly* save your life (on the chance that he would have recovered and managed to eventually throw you on the track). Since you are defending your own life, do you choose to aim for the track, aim away from the track, or just throw the guy without aim? If you aim for the track, do you do so because you wish to decisively stop the guy who wants to kill you? Or do you do so to save the 5 people since you are legally/ ethically empowered to throw him off the trolley anyway, and might as well save 5 people while you are at it?
Steve, Firstly (according to Merriam-Websters) ethics refers to moral values (“a set of moral principles” per Merriam-Websters.) I can speak more of the legal aspect than the ethical/moral aspect (as those are grey areas and differ between various societies.) But I would say that if something is illegal, it is by definition also unethical. (But something that is legal is not necessarily ethical.)
In your example, you aim to stop the guy from killing you with the most effective and certain action that will stop him. Presumably throwing him on the tracks will be the most effective and certain method to stop him from throwing you to the tracks.
You have this legal/ethical/moral right (in fact obligation in my opinion) because he initiated action to kill you.
My point being is that he (or anyone) has no right to throw the next guy to his death in order to effect the saving of others (or even himself.) If he does attempt such action, his potential victim has every right of self-defense.
Joseph, you brought legality into this discussion. It was not mentioned by golbguru, so I answered it without respect to legality, well realizing that there would be legal repercussions to my actions and that I would be willing to quietly endure them.
Although my action in case 2 would be illegal, it is still a morally right action (as I internally define both morality and the stated action). If there are 5 people trapped on a track about to die, they are there not because they want to be there but because some turn of events put them there. Likewise, the person next to me on the trolley is not with me under those conditions because s/he wants to be there, but because some turn of events put her/him there at that place and time.
If I truly believe that all 5 will die, but by killing another I can save 5, I believe that my inaction will kill the 5. I would prefer to kill 1 than kill 5. Ideally that 1 would be myself, but if my instinct for self-preservation takes hold, my other choice is to (attempt to) throw another on the track. Either that person will do me a favor and throw me on the track first, or they will fail and I will throw them on the track. Both I and the other person may fail to manage the throw and 5 will die, but at least I tried to save them one way or another.
Not only is this moral to me, it is also logical. The prevailing human drive is to propagate, protect and elevate the species. In the most cold and quantitative terms, that is served by killing 1 vis killing 5. I would expect no less from a fellow human were I in the 5 or the were I the 1.
One more for Joseph: you say “Presumably throwing him on the tracks will be the most effective and certain method to stop him from throwing you to the tracks.”
The point of my addendum to case 2 was to present you a way out of killing the other guy. If he tries to kill you, do you take just enough action to save yourself, not killing him if you don’t have to? (I.e. throwing him off the side of the trolley is much less likely to kill him than throwing him on the track in front of the trolley.) Or do you use the *opportunity* to do what you can to actually and decisively kill him, perhaps motivated by the fact that you can, now legally/ethically, save 5 people by killing a prospective killer?
Golbguru,
Perhaps you should be getting an additional PhD in ethics
It’s hard for me to come to a conclusion as the button pusher. It seems too much like playing God. However, if I were driving the Trolley, I would choose the route of lowest fatalities.
Steve, Obviously I strongly disagree with your moral values here. I do not see killing an innocent man to save others as moral, but rather immoral/unethical. We can agree to disagree on this point of moral values.
But if the law states as such, one must put the law above whatever their moral beliefs are. This is a point that cannot be disputed, otherwise all of society falls apart (as everyone can ultimately claim the law violated their moral beliefs, and as such they are not subject to such law.)
In any event in our example, self-preservation or not, I cannot fathom how anyones moral values would allow one to kill someone to save themself. [This is a 1-to-1 trade off. You are not quantitatively saving any more people by throwing the guy next to you to the tracks, rather than yourself. So "self-preservation" does not alleviate that. See my example above where if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill a certain person (who will not be killed if you don't do it), or he will kill you--and you can count on his promise and you know there is no other way out. Can you kill the person you are ordered to kill to save yourself? Certainly not, self-preservation not withstanding. It would violate the law, mores, and ethics.]
Steve, then in your addendum to case 2 that would be a tough call. The guy did attempt to kill you. If you kill him, you are certainly justified. If you stop him from killing you without killing him, you are perhaps (commendably?) going above and beyond the call of duty.
So if you kill him and save others in the process, presumably you primarily killed him in self-defense and not primarily as an act of saving others. I can’t see how anyone could fault him for it.
Super Saver, Steve, and Austin: I don’t want to break you line of thought - but just want to add a another flavor to the discussion.
Right now we are just thinking about just 1 (or at most two perspectives). The problem becomes all the more interesting when you consider the following situations.
1. What will be your perspective if you were among the 5 trapped on the tracks - would you consider it ethical/moral to have the train diverted and kill the other guy?
2. What will be your perspective if you are the unknown guy trapped on the other track (or going to be pushed in front of the trolley) - would you consider it moral if someone diverted the train towards you in order to save 5 other guys?
3. What will be your perspective if you are an observer and not involved in the situation at all.
Super Saver presents another interesting perception “However, if I were driving the Trolley, I would choose the route of lowest fatalities.” - does being a trolley driver put you in a different position than the guy who has the control button?
I am sure your boundaries of ethical/moral considerations will change shape in different situations.
Joseph, my original point (1st para.) is that inaction in this case is deliberate, therefore I consider my inaction to result in the death of 5 innocents. I would rather deliberately act to kill 1 than to deliberately not act and kill 5, knowing that there was something I could have done to not kill those 5. I well realize I’m at odds with the law by acting, and protected by the law by not acting.
Agreed that we’ll not settle this between us, but we are gentlemen about it. I will say that I cannot fathom how anyone can put such blind faith in the law. After all, there are no lawmakers on that trolley with you to face the same dilemma. I’m certain that lawmakers largely do their best to protect us all with laws, but I do not have blind faith in the laws that they pen as they are human. I prefer to always think for myself in any given situation: what action or inaction best protects and elevates the species, to the best of my knowledge given the reality I face?
Re: self-preservation, I didn’t mean to say that my attempt at throwing 1 on the tracks was self-preserving. I meant that I do not have supreme confidence in my capacity to override my own instinct for self-preservation, and therefore I would have to enlist the help of another, most expeditiously by attempting to throw that person on the tracks in the hope that s/he would manage to instead throw me on the tracks in self-defense.
Re: preserving society, there is nothing morally wrong with violating the law, as long as one consents to the consequences of doing so. It is against every fiber of my being to put the law above my moral compass. Having said that, the law and my morality are generally aligned. As I said, lawmakers do their best, but no law is perfect.
golbguru, The ethical, legal, and/or moral obligations remain the same regardless of your position (driver, controller, guy in cabin [potential victim thrown to tracks], guy stuck with other 4 guys on track, or guy stuck alone on the other track.
If you are in a position to control the outcome, your duty remains the same regardless of which position you are in and regardless of who any of the other parties are (kin, comrade, or unknown.)
Of course these factors ultimately may determine what action you take, due to your kin, love, self-preservation, moral beliefs, etc. But you still must strive to fulfill your actual obligation. (And may pay a legal penalty if you violate it.)
Since there’s no way for me to decide which lives are more important, I’d pick the option that kills everybody. Fair is fair.
It seems to me this question is like asking somebody if they still beat their wife. Either way they answer, they incriminate them self.
Looks like a good case for the Principle of Double Effect, which deals with situations like these. The following conditions must be met before an action would be permitted by the principle.
1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effectâ€.
While the principle does allow for the diverting of the trolley (as in the first situation), it does not allow for stopping the trolley by means of another’s death (as in the second situation).
Lot of what in Yiddish is called pil-pul, back and forth and back and forth. Like pulling the little pills off your sweater, you just amek more little pills.
Any practical person will WANT to throw another off the trolley to save themselves. If that person has it in for you, then bye-bye ethics! It’s about survival. A not-so-practical person will think, hesitate, debate, and probably end up getting thrown off the trolley by the sociopath jerkwater. So, a lot depends on who is on the trolley with me, and what I know about the 1 and the 5.
I’d try to save everyone, before the last resort of sacrificing one to save the many.
As for the gun-to-the-head arguments, those are specious. That is not kill or be killed. Kill or be killed is another person intending to kill you, you take them on directly. The evil third party can NEVER be yielded to. If I pull the trigger so the evil gunman won’t shoot me, what have I become? Just like him. But, see the Milgram Experiments, it’s likely most people would fire away.
Our instinct for self-preservation is much much stronger than the instinct to sacrifice oneself. Our instinct for self-preservation is in fact rooted in our ethical mind.
Ed,
I’m not sure how you are fitting “pilpul” into this discussion. Pilpul is a Talmudic concept of textual analysis.
In any event, there is no legal (or moral) justification to kill an innocent third party to save either yourself or another person or persons.
Leave a Comment