MORAL DILEMMAS

Jan F. Jacko
THE CONCEPT OF MORAL
DILEMMA
 The most common, but also the least precise, is the understanding of this
concept as a situation of subjectively difficult choice, the source of which is
a conflict of values that are mutually exclusive in practice – one of them
must be sacrificed in order to save the other
 The dilemma therefore always concerns a particular entity that has faced
an insurmountable clash of different responsibilities and does not know how
to proceed - a situation "without a way out".
 Moral dilemmas

 involve conflicts between moral requirements (imperatives)

 obeying one would result in transgressing another
 the trolley dilemma (developed by philosopher Philippa Foot
in 1967 and adapted by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1985)
Whence morality? That is a question which has troubled philosophers since their subject
was invented. Two and a half millennia of debate have, however, failed to produce a
satisfactory answer. So now it is time for someone else to have a go…Perhaps [biologists]
can eventually do what philosophers have never managed, and explain moral behavior in
an intellectually satisfying way.
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/ [16.04.2019]
Objective aspect:
- alternativ eity and dissuasion of the option of conduct – tertium non datur (est)
- ev il as a result of the choice
- no choice is also a choice
Subjective aspect:
- difficulty of choosing – we do not know the "key"
- moral residuum – guilt, moral responsibility for ev il (the problem of "dirty hands")
what you do not do, you will be guilty
Objective aspect:
- alternativ eity and dissuasion of the option of conduct – tertium non datur (est)
- ev il as a result of the choice
- no choice is also a choice
Subjective aspect:
- difficulty of choosing – we do not know the "key"
- moral residuum – guilt, moral responsibility for ev il (the problem of "dirty hands")
what you do not do, you will be guilty
Example I

In a classic 1967 work on moral dilemmas, Philippa Foot described a situation

widely known as a motoring dilemma or a trolley problem.
Example I

The rail vehicle has slipped out of the control of the person driving it and is running
at high speed. All they can do is switch the crossover and decide which track they
will continue on. One of the two selectable tracks is home to a group of five
workers, while only one works on the other. Surely everyone on the track will die.

 Should the motorist direct the vehicle to a track where there is only one person
and thus save the other five?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw
Example I

The rail vehicle has slipped out of the control of the person driving it and is running
at high speed. All they can do is switch the crossover and decide which track they
will continue on. One of the two selectable tracks is home to a group of five
workers, while only one works on the other. Surely everyone on the track will die.

 Should the motorist direct the vehicle to a track where there is only one person
and thus save the other five?
The Trolley Problem, a famous
thought experiment designed to
get you thinking about the moral
difference between actively
killing and letting die.
Philosophically speaking, a
utilitarian would argue it’s
morally right to pull the level
because it is the action that
results in the least amount of
harm, but a deontologist would
argue it’s morally wrong to pull
the lever because the action
means you are intentionally
engaged in harming someone.
Sources: https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111 [16.04.2019]
https://www.iflscience.com/brain/the-trolley-problem-has-been-tested-in-real-life-and-the-results-are-surprising/ [16.04.2019]
The footbridge dilemma- In this case, a
runaway trolley is again heading toward five
innocent victims. But you’re no longer the driver.
You and a fat man are standing on a footbridge
overlooking the track, and you realize that the
only way you can spare the five students is to
push the fat man off the bridge, on to the track
below. Push or no push?
Apparently one rule of thumb, emotionally
powerful, says we don’t push people off bridges.
Perhaps it’s the tactile nature of the act that
makes it seem more like murder than saving
lives.

Sources: https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111 [16.04.2019]

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2006/06/teetering-on-footbridge.cfm [16.04.2019]
Conclusion

Not everyone answers the dilemmas in the same way, and even
when people agree, they may vary in their justification of the
action they defend.

These thought experiments have been used to stimulate

discussion about the difference between killing versus letting die,
and have even appeared, in one form or another, in popular
culture, such as the film Eye In The Sky.
Source: https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111 [16.04.2019]
Example II

The judge (or clerk) shall decide the criminal case accompanied by the riots.
The crowd is demanding a harsh sentence for the accused, who the judge
believes is innocent. However, the crowd takes five hostages belonging to the
same minority as the accused and is sure that if they do not meet their
expectations, they will die as victims of lynching.

 Is it possible to argue that a judge faces a similar choice as a motorist,

namely the sacrifice of one life to save five others?
 Are the two situations morally different?
Example III: Aircraft dilemma

Ferdinand von Schirach in the drama Terror - your verdict presented a moral
dilemma related to the need to make decisions in extremely difficult
circumstances.
The hero of the drama, German military pilot Major Lars Koch, contrary to the
order, on his own responsibility shot down a Lufthansa plane hijacked by Islamic
terrorists flying with 164 passengers on board from Berlin to Munich. The hijackers
wanted to hit the Allianz Arena in Munich during a German-England football
match watched by 70,000 spectators. Koch stood trial. He was accused of killing
164 innocent people who were passengers on the plane. He killed 164 people to
save 70,000 fans at munich's stadium.
 Discussion

 Is it possible to acquit a man who knowingly caused the deaths of 164 innocent people?
 Can a man who saved 70,000 viewers be found guilty?
 Who has the right to judge that one person's life is worth less than the other and one hundred
people less than a thousand?
 Can 164 lives be sacrificed to save 70,000?
 Does man have the right to put his own intuitive sense of morality and ethics above the
Constitution?
 Do I have the right to kill to be able to save?
 Do I have any right at all to decide someone's life
Example - Verdict

 What verdict should be delivered in the Larsa Kocha case?

 Is he guilty or innocent?

 Please cast your votes by placing a mark on a piece of card:
 + if guilty
 - if he is innocent
Example

 In Germany, following the events of 11 September 2001, The Bundestag passed a law that,
in a similar case as an attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, the Defence Minister had the
right to allow the downing of a passenger plane with hostages, and the then minister
acknowledged that such an order would be issued.
 However, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional. The FTK
considered that the downing of a civilian aircraft would be constitutionally legitimate only
if there were only terrorists on board
 Tk judgment of 30 September 2008, ref. Act K 44/07
Article 122a of the Law of 3 July 2002 – Aviation Law [...]
incompatible with Article 2, Article 30 and Article 38 in
connection with Article 31(3) of the Polish Constitution

'However, if, as may be considered a typical situation, the decision to destroy a civil aircraft is to
be justified by the need to protect the lives of other persons on the ground in a probable field
of destruction, the question arises whether Article 38 of the Constitution allows state authorities,
in accordance with the law, to dedicate the lives of those on board to saving the lives of
others. Is it possible to consider that the lives of passengers on a plane overrun by terrorists,
which is likely to come to an imminent end anyway, have less value than the lives of others, in
particular those at risk of a terrorist attack? The Constitutional Court has no doubt that a
person's life is not valued by reason of his age, state of health, expected duration or any other
criteria. Every person, including passengers on a plane in state airspace, has the right to be
protection of life by that state. Giving the state the right to kill them, if only in defence of the
lives of others, is a denial of that right."