Murder Ethics: A Focus on the Numbers

Death-related ethics puzzles pertaining to the effects of killing have circulated in a number of
books and journals. These puzzles, which suggest situations in which the subject must choose between a
number of choiceseach involving his killing of one or more peoplehave given rise to much debate
over the worth of individuals in various circumstances. For example, some believe that certain people
have more worth than others depending on their past and/or future successes.
The study of ethics is the study of the moral correctness of a particular conduct. The
aforementioned ethics puzzles thus question multiple concepts, including the correctness of deliberate
killing by action and killing by lack of action. Ethical dilemmas such as those just described have long
been a topic of debate. However, I will be basing my statements on one scenario in particular, a scenario
that I find both sufficient in summarizing the concept of the dilemmas I address and in which there is
enough information to properly dictate my views and conclusions. It is dubbed The Trolley Problem,
taken from an introductory essay in a book titled Ethics: Problems and Principles. In this scenario, an
unstoppable trolley is speeding down the tracks. There is one innocent bystander standing on the tracks in
the trolleys path. However, there is another path the trolley could takeif a nearby switch is thrown
which has five innocent persons standing on it. The subjectalso an innocent bystanderfinds himself
near the switch that could change the trolleys course. He has the choice to either (1) not take action and,
thus, let the one person die but save the other five, or (2) throw the switch and save the one but kill the
remaining five persons in the process.
Multiple views exist concerning what should be considered the correct action to be taken in
these situations. For example, a strict believer of utilitarianisma concept which follows the idea that
an action is correct if it benefits the majoritywould likely believe it better for the one person to die
rather than the five, as fewer deaths would bring less misery to humanity as a whole than would a greater
number of deaths. A strict utilitarian would likely not be concerned as to whether or not he must throw the
switch to kill the one instead of the five; he would do what he can to cause as few deaths as possible,
thustheoreticallybringing as little misfortune to humanity as possible, given the situation.

Another viewpoint others have taken is that of deontologisma doctrine that claims that moral
duty is binding, even if following that moral duty leads to painful results. A strict deontologist, if placed
in the trolley problem, would likely find it immoral to deliberately kill anyone. Thus, he would likely not
throw the switch whether doing so meant to kill one and save five or vice versa. Either way, if he throws
the switch, he would find himself responsible for the killing of someonean inherently immoral act, but
if he never touches the switch, he can claim that any deaths that occur were results of natural occurrences
in which he had no part.
My view tends towards that of a utilitarian. My claim is thatassuming we can never be certain
of the future actions of any individualthe death of fewer is always better for humanity than the death of
more, as all souls are of equal worth and potential. This view neglects all personal attachments, such as
any potential higher value the subject might place on his own lifeor that of a family member or
associateover some other unknown individuals. I believe that fewer deaths generally leads to less
misery in the world than more deaths would.
If only speaking in terms of logic, my view at first might seem unstable. On the surface, the worth
of peoples lives seems to vary greatly depending on, for example, a given persons accomplishments or
state of health. The biggest support for my claim is founded on Nelson Goodmans New Riddle of
Induction. In this entry, Goodman voices his doubts behind the certaintiesor the lack thereofrelated
to induction. His riddle statesin the roughest of termsthat even though all emeralds observed until
now have been green, whos to say that those same emeralds would not be of a different hue when
observed again after a certain date, X? Though he surely is not the first to raise such doubts, he introduces
a clear example as to why it is plausible to question assumptions of future occurrences that are based
solely on past events.
We can easily apply the concepts presented in this riddle to the individuals in the trolley problem.
For example, one might argue with my utilitarian view of the problem saying that though we cannot be
certain of peoples future actions, we can, for example, assume that the loss of five axe murderers lives
would be preferable to humanitys well-being over the death of one talented surgeon. I agree that we can

logically assume this to be the casejust like we can assume all emeralds observed in the future will still
be greenand I actually believe that if the trolley were headed for five axe murderers, most innocent
bystanders in control of the switch would allow the trolley to hurtle on and kill the five criminals, saving
the surgeon.
Though I believe this to be what the majority would do, I do not believe that this is what should
be done. You see, using the ideas from Goodmans New Riddle of Induction, just like we cannot know
for certain the future color of the previously green emeralds, we cannot know the future actions of a given
individual. Perhaps I should remind you that the doctrine I tend to followutilitarianismfocuses on
what actions would be of the most benefit for the majority. What if, after the incidents of the trolley
problem had been carried out, the surgeonthe one I believe most would savesurvives but commits
suicide immediately after the incident because of a harrowing guilt he feels for the five others deaths?
Now everyones dead. What good does that do for humanity? What if, on the flip-side of things, the axe
murderers (assuming they were not sentenced to death or life in prison) were saved and a number of
themout of sheer gratitude for their spared lives over that of a seemingly more valuable individual
(the surgeon)began to volunteer for humanity organizations across the globe? I believe its hard to
argue with the fact that such an outcome would greatly benefit humanity as a whole.
While many might find these hypothetical results unlikely, I believe it is safest to base ones
actions on facts. And when it comes to the individuals future, we have no facts. The only fact that the
bystander next to the switch hasbesides that of the past actions of those involvedis that he has the
choice to end one life and save five, or end five lives and save but one. I believe that induction can often
prove to be a good way to determineor guessfuture actions or events, but it is not a safe or accurate
method to measure the value of an individuals soul, predict with certainty that individuals future actions,
or determine his fate. I believe that the subjects past should be disregarded when deciding his fate in
scenarios such as the one presented; we should primarily focus on the number of individuals affected by
our actions.

Remaining arguments might incorporate superficial views of ones value or worth, such as
the idea that the worth of a young, healthy person is greater than that of a very old or brain-dead
individual, as the extremely old or brain-dead person, logically, has no future in which to benefit
humanity. However, these views, once again, are deduced through induction. As stated before, I believe
that we can never take it upon ourselves to determine the future state of any human being. Doing so
would deny any possibilities the future holds besides our own imposed predictions and theories.
While I may have not covered every possible opposing idea to my own, the concept of my view is
clearthe concern of the number of those killed takes precedence over the superficially defined worth
of the individuals involved. My ideals in these morbid ethics puzzles might be hard to follow.
Following what Ive described would inherently involve killing family members or world-renowned
benefactors, if such scenarios arose. Even I would often find this ideal Ive created difficult to execute.
Following such guidelines would likely cause me to make decisions that directly oppose what I find to be
logical or moral. However, when concerned with the benefit of humanity as a whole, we cannot assume;
we must make decisions based on fact, and fact cannot, in any way, incorporate assumptions of the
future.

Works Cited
"Puzzles of Ethics." Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Ed. John Perry,
Michael Bratman, and John Martin Fischer. New York: Oxford UP, 1986. 837-38. Print.