The train morality problem

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Ben. In this situation that may well be true.

But that perception...
If they're not in the drawing, they don't exist.
when held by people in leadership and decision-making positions is what sometimes leads to great suffering and innocent deaths in "real life" imo....

:toilet:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Lazy_eye »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.
There's an interesting Mahayana perspective on this...

"The Buddha, in a past life as a ship's captain named Super Compassionate, discovered a criminal on board who intended to kill the 500 passengers. If he told the passengers, they would panic and become killers themselves, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight in 2000. With no other way out, he compassionately stabbed the criminal to death. Captain Compassionate saved the passengers not only from murder, but from becoming murderers themselves. Unlike him, they would have killed in rage and suffered hell. He saved the criminal from becoming a mass murderer and even worse suffering. He himself generated vast karmic merit by acting with compassion."

Thus it might be meritorious to kill the gunman if your intention is to prevent the terrible negative karma that would result for him otherwise.

As for the train problem, the last time I saw this, I said "flick the switch." Now I'm not so sure. It seems to me this choice depends on a questionable assumption that the value of life can be quantified -- i.e., that 5 people are "worth" more than 1. But what if those 5 people turned out to be escapees from a maximum security prison, where they were being held on death row, and the 1 person was Albert Einstein, the Dalai Lama, or a single parent with five small children? We can't know. I'm not sure, therefore, that a simple numerical majority settles the question.
David2
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The train morality problem

Post by David2 »

Lazy_eye wrote: As for the train problem, the last time I saw this, I said "flick the switch." Now I'm not so sure. It seems to me this choice depends on a questionable assumption that the value of life can be quantified -- i.e., that 5 people are "worth" more than 1. But what if those 5 people turned out to be escapees from a maximum security prison, where they were being held on death row, and the 1 person was Albert Einstein, the Dalai Lama, or a single parent with five small children? We can't know. I'm not sure, therefore, that a simple numerical majority settles the question.
The decision is actually more based on quantity than on quality in this case (imo).

Of course it is a difference if an insect or a human gets killed because the human has a larger capacity of feeling.

But there is not much difference between one human and another.
It is very possible that a cruel murderer changes his life completely and becomes more compassionately.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The train morality problem

Post by christopher::: »

David2 wrote: It is very possible that a cruel murderer changes his life completely and becomes more compassionately.
There's so many unknowns in this Universe, with mysteries of how karma works, such as depicted in this Star Trek episode....
THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER




SYNOPSIS...

When Dr. McCoy is accidentally injected with a powerful drug, he goes mad and beams himself down to a planet. On the planet, McCoy jumps through a time portal, vanishing from view.

Kirk and Spock who have beamed down to the planet, in pursuit of McCoy, also enter the portal. They all end up in New York City, in 1930. They can't find McCoy. Kirk falls in love with Edith Keeler. Spock builds a tricorder out of odds and ends.

Spock determines that Kirk's new girlfriend must die in order that the future not be horribly altered. Kirk lets his girlfriend get hit by a car. A very unhappy Kirk beams back up to the Enterprise with his crew.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Lombardi4
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Lombardi4 »

You may find the Wikipedia article on this same topic interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pārasamgate
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:57 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Pārasamgate »

This topic reminded me of an essay I recently read by Thanissaro Bhikkhu entitled, "Getting the Message": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ssage.html

It is an essay on killing and whether it can ever be justified. I don't know what Venerable Thanissaro would say about this train morality problem, but he does emphatically say that killing can *never* be justified and backs it up with quotations from the canon.
"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

— MN 21
In the essay he also relates a story that might be illuminating of what the Buddha would say about this train morality problem:
When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.
The essay does not reference the sutta of the story above. I wonder if anyone recognizes it and can reference the sutta? I'd like to read it.

Cheers!
User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: The train morality problem

Post by octathlon »

I think Buddhist philosophy allows a simple answer to this question. It's all about Intention. In ignorance and delusion we constantly cause suffering to ourselves and others. Not being omniscient, there's no way we can know exactly what effects any given action will have--that's why we follow the N8P to develop our morality, concentration and wisdom, and reduce the amount of suffering we cause.

The scenarios of the train and the killer are contrived and don't allow for tricks like pulling a lever halfway, or talking the killer out of out of it or just shooting him in the kneecap. It comes down to a math problem since the only variable is the number of people killed as a result of our choice. Basically what the scenarios are designed to do is show the difference in our emotional response to causing death directly (the killer) or indirectly (the train).

When we can look at it from a Buddhist perspective, it still works as a math problem, considering our best intention is to reduce suffering. With the train I would pull the lever to kill the least number of people and would be acting out of my best intention. Standing by and doing nothing out of fear of doing the wrong thing would be a less skillful action.

With the killer, again it would be a better intention to save the victims from death and their families from suffering pain and possibly developing hate and desiring revenge, as well as stopping the killer from suffering the kamma of killing them. Of course you would still cause suffering to the killer and those who care about him/her, but it would be less, like the one versus five in the train example.

Usually killing comes out of hate and anger, but in these scenarios you wouldn't be killing out of hate but of out of the intention to reduce the amount of suffering.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by reflection »

I would argue and think about it until it was too late to flick the switch. :tongue:
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The train morality problem

Post by DNS »

retrofuturist wrote: It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.

You have the means to kill him, and by doing so, save the five.

Or do you not kill him, and let him kill the five.

Arguably, that's a much more difficult choice.
In one way, it may be an "easier" choice: the gun man is not an "innocent" therefore, killing him might be easier. Whereas in the above train problem with the switch, they are all "innocent".

Here is another variation, also difficult to answer:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Image

According to some surveys (found by googling) most people will say flip the switch, but slightly fewer (but still a majority) will say to push the fat man. Interesting, when it is a "switch" most will say flip it, but when it involves "physically" pushing some guy onto the track, it is much harder to do.

Other arguments for pushing the fat man include "he might have had a short life anyway due to poor health"
David2
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The train morality problem

Post by David2 »

What we should remember is that situations where we have such choices are really rare.

I think most of us will never be in a situation like this where he could kill someone to save others (and at the same time be 100-% sure that he can save them by killing someone.)

So, one of those questions that should be put aside?

Maybe we should just focus on questions that are more relevant for our day-to-day or year-to-year life?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by daverupa »

Thanissaro mentions in Buddhist Monastic Code I that a bhikkhu does not incur a penalty if he makes no effort to save a drowning person, even if that person dies as a result. What does this tell us about the Vinaya's response to these dilemmas?

Reference - Page 80:
Inaction. Given the Vibhaṅga's definition of taking life, we can infer that inaction
does not fulfill the factor of effort here, for it does not cut off the life faculty. Thus if
a bhikkhu sits idly when seeing a flood sweep a person downstream, he commits no
offense — regardless of his feelings about the person's death — even if the person
then drowns. Recommending that another person sit idly as well would also not
fulfill the factor of effort here, because the category of command covers only the
act of inciting the listener to do any of the four actions that would fulfill the factor of
effort under this rule.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The train morality problem

Post by mikenz66 »

Interesting quote Dave,

The discussion of what "taking life" means is helpful.

However, the problem I see with using the monastic code (or lay precepts) as a basis for thinking about complex situations is that they are more about whether or not an offence has been incurred than "which option is better (in a kammic sense)".

Mike
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Alex123 »

Regarding OP,


If you are forced into this miserable situation and none of this is your own making, then if you flip the switch, you will be accomplice to that one person's death. If you do not flip the switch then the 5 people that die, died not because of something that you set up and did but what that magician did.

Either you do the bad kamma of choosing one person to die, or you don't make any bad kamma by not making anyone die.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Kenshou »

In my mind, inaction is a choice too, so I wouldn't be able to feel blameless in doing nothing, even if it's ok by the monastic code. Luckily these kinds of situations pretty much never happen in real life, so I don't have to decide.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The train morality problem

Post by Alex123 »

Kenshou wrote:In my mind, inaction is a choice too, so I wouldn't be able to feel blameless in doing nothing.
Inaction is inaction in making that one person die through pulling the switch and thus being involved and taking part in murder. Somewhere (in VsM ?) it talks about how breaking the barriers means that a person will not be able to make a choice which person would be killed by the robber.
Post Reply