Natural Law Theory's Take On The Trolley Problem

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics, psychology, and artificial intelligence, involving a series of ethical dilemmas. The most common iteration of the problem involves a runaway vehicle on course to kill a group of people, but a bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person. The trolley problem was first introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, and has since been used to explore various ethical theories, including natural law theory. Natural law theory, as championed by Thomas Aquinas, states that moral behaviours are those that promote and do not detract from a basic good. A basic good is injected into human nature by God, and can be determined by observing nature. For example, life and reproduction are considered basic goods because humans naturally prioritize survival and reproductive success. In the context of the trolley problem, natural law theory would dictate that the moral action is the one that promotes the most good, or minimizes harm. Therefore, diverting the trolley to save more lives would be considered the moral action.

Natural law theory and the doctrine of double effect

The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics, psychology, and artificial intelligence involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram, trolley, or train is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track.

The doctrine of double effect is a concept in moral philosophy that distinguishes between what a person directly intends as the end and the means of a contemplated action and what a person “obliquely” (indirectly) intends as a foreseen consequence of the action but not as an end or a means. The doctrine of double effect was first introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967 as a way to test moral intuitions regarding the doctrine of double effect, Kantian principles, and utilitarianism.

Foot's version of the thought experiment, now known as "Trolley Driver", ran as follows:

> Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible, it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram, which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots, the mob has five hostages, so that in both examples, the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.

Foot's answer to the problem is that there is a strict negative duty not to kill the girl and there is a positive duty to save lives, and the negative duty outweighs the number of people.

Natural law theory, specifically those of John Finnis, would explain that law is human law, i.e. the translated natural law or moral truths into legislative promulgations and backed up by sanctions. Finnis would say that the driver should not do anything and ought to allow the tram to kill the five men because they do not uphold the central case of law, which is to obey the law, which in turn advances the common good of all as its moral content is realized.

In conclusion, natural law theory and the doctrine of double effect are both attempts to resolve the trolley problem by appealing to moral intuitions and duties. Natural law theory holds that law is a reflection of moral truths, while the doctrine of double effect distinguishes between direct and indirect intentions in assessing the moral permissibility of an action.

Natural law theory and the problem of abortion

Natural law theory, which is deontological, is based on the teleological worldview of the Greeks. It combines faith and reason, taking its 'reason' from Aristotle and its sanctity of life view from Aquinas. Aristotle argued that each object has four causes: material, formal, efficient and final (its telos or purpose). Natural law theory, when applied to reproduction, dictates that the 'telos' of the human body is reproduction, and therefore, abortion is contrary to this purpose and a wrong action.

According to Aquinas, life in the womb is as valuable as life outside it. Thus, for a follower of natural law theory, abortion is tantamount to murder. Abortion breaks two of the five primary precepts: the preservation of life and reproduction.

However, there is one circumstance in which a follower of natural law theory could justify abortion. The Doctrine of Double Effect states that an action with an immoral outcome can be done if that outcome is an unintended, unwanted secondary effect, rather than the primary objective. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the primary objective is to save the mother's life, and the death of the foetus is an unwanted side-effect.

Modern natural law ethics, following the principles of St Thomas Aquinas, prohibits direct abortion at any stage as it is the taking of innocent human life. This is consistent with the philosophical doctrine of hylemorphism, which teaches that physical substances are composed of matter and form. The human substantial form, or soul, determines the presence of human life.

Natural law ethics defines murder as the immoral act of taking innocent human life. Abortion is such an act, as it directly attacks the most fundamental human right. No utilitarian purpose can justify it.

However, critics of this view argue that Aristotle's reasoning is flawed. For example, Aristotle also argued that women and the mentally ill did not have the power to reason. Some conservative Protestants believe that, due to 'the Fall', human reason is now insufficient when thinking about God.

In conclusion, if one followed the natural law ethic, one would reject abortion on the grounds that it goes against the fundamentals of the theory.

Natural law theory and the problem of consequentialism

Natural law theory, as defined by Thomas Aquinas, states that moral behaviours are those that promote and do not detract from a basic good. A basic good is injected into human nature by God. For example, life and reproduction are considered basic goods because humans naturally prioritise survival and reproductive success.

In the context of the trolley problem, a natural law theorist might argue that the most moral course of action is the one that promotes the most basic goods or causes the least harm. In the classic formulation of the trolley problem, a trolley is headed towards five people and can be redirected to a different track where it will kill only one person. A natural law theorist might argue that it is more moral to redirect the trolley, as this action will result in fewer deaths and thus cause less harm.

However, the trolley problem also raises the issue of consequentialism, which is the idea that the moral value of an action is determined by its consequences. In the trolley problem, consequentialism would suggest that it is more moral to redirect the trolley to the track with one person, as this action will result in fewer deaths overall. This view is often associated with utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes happiness for the agent and for everyone affected.

Natural law theory and consequentialism can come into conflict when applied to the trolley problem. For example, what if the one person on the alternate track is a doctor who can save many lives, while the five people on the main track are convicted murderers? In this case, a natural law theorist might argue that it is more moral to prioritize the life of the doctor, as their survival would promote a greater basic good. On the other hand, a consequentialist might argue that redirecting the trolley is still more moral, as it would result in fewer deaths overall.

Another complication arises when considering the intentions behind the action. In the original formulation of the trolley problem, the person making the decision is the driver of the trolley. However, in some variations, a bystander or passenger has the opportunity to intervene and redirect the trolley. A natural law theorist might argue that the driver has a responsibility to minimize harm, as their initial action of driving the trolley put people at risk. On the other hand, a bystander or passenger who intervenes would be taking voluntary action and thus assuming responsibility for the consequences. This distinction between action and inaction can further complicate the application of natural law theory to the trolley problem.

Overall, while natural law theory can provide a framework for analyzing the trolley problem, it does not always give a clear answer. The problem highlights the complexities and challenges of moral decision-making and the potential conflicts between different ethical theories.

Natural law theory and the problem of deontological ethics

Natural law theory, championed by Thomas Aquinas, is one of the oldest ethical theories. It states that moral truths are grounded in behaviours that promote and do not detract from basic goods. These basic goods are injected into human nature by God. For example, life and reproduction are considered basic goods because humans naturally prioritise survival and reproductive success.

The trolley problem, a thought experiment in ethics, psychology, and artificial intelligence, can be used to critique utilitarianism. It involves a runaway vehicle on course to kill a number of people, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track.

The utilitarian view, a consequentialist theory, asserts that it is obligatory to divert the vehicle to the track with one person, as this decision is morally better than doing nothing. However, an alternative viewpoint is that moving the vehicle constitutes participation in a moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death.

The trolley problem has been used to explore the validity and range of application of the doctrine of double effect, which distinguishes between doing harm and allowing harm. It has also clarified the limitations of both deontological and consequentialist approaches in applied ethics.

Deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics, is exemplified in the work of Immanuel Kant. He proposed the categorical imperative, a procedure for discovering the rigid contents of the moral universe. One of his principles instructs us to act in such a way that we treat humanity, both ourselves and others, as an end and never simply as a means.

In the context of the trolley problem, Kant would argue that diverting the vehicle is simply murder. While regrettable, the death of the five people does not incriminate the person, whereas diverting the vehicle and causing the death of one person does.

The problem of deontological ethics lies in the inflexibility of such theories, which can produce counterintuitive judgments. For example, in the case of shielding a Jewish family from the Nazis, most people would consider it morally acceptable to lie to a soldier asking about the residents. However, Kant claims that lying is wrong in all situations.

Natural law theory, on the other hand, allows for a more flexible interpretation of moral duties. It recognises that moral truths are grounded in behaviours that promote basic goods, and these goods can vary depending on the specific character of the divine.

In the trolley problem, natural law theory can be applied by considering the promotion of basic goods. For instance, diverting the vehicle to save five lives can be seen as promoting the greater good of saving more people. Additionally, the negative duty not to kill, as proposed by Philippa Foot, would be given more weight than the positive duty to save lives.

However, it is important to note that natural law theory faces the challenge of deriving basic goods from nature. This is known as Hume's Law or the is-ought gap, which questions the logical procedure for inferring normative statements ("ought") from descriptive facts ("is").

In conclusion, while natural law theory provides a flexible framework for ethical decision-making, it faces challenges in deriving basic goods and justifying moral duties. The trolley problem highlights the complexities of ethical theories and the need to consider multiple factors, such as consequences, duties, and the promotion of basic goods.

Natural law theory and the problem of utilitarianism

Natural law theory, championed by Thomas Aquinas, is the view that moral truths are grounded in the idea that moral behaviours are those which promote, and do not detract from, a basic good. A basic good is injected into human nature by God.

In the context of the trolley problem, a question first posed by the contemporary British philosopher Philippa Foot, natural law theory can be applied in the following way. The runaway trolley is on course to kill five people. However, a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. According to natural law theory, the basic good is human life. Therefore, the driver or bystander has a moral obligation to preserve as much human life as possible. This would mean that the trolley should be diverted, as this would result in fewer deaths overall.

However, the trolley problem also raises questions about the role of intention in moral decision-making. In the original version of the problem, the driver of the trolley has the option to divert the trolley and kill one person, or do nothing and allow the trolley to kill five people. If the driver intervenes and diverts the trolley, they have intentionally killed one person. On the other hand, if the driver does nothing, they have not directly caused the deaths of the five people, even though their inaction has led to those deaths. This version of the trolley problem suggests that negative duties (duties not to perform a certain action) are more important than positive duties (duties to perform a certain action).

The trolley problem has been used to critique utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes happiness for the agent and for everyone affected. In the context of the trolley problem, a utilitarian approach would say that it is right to divert the trolley and kill one person, as this would maximize happiness for a greater number of people. However, most people's intuitions are that it would be wrong to intentionally kill one person, even if it results in a lower number of deaths overall. This critique of utilitarianism suggests that it is unable to reconcile moral intuitions about the role of intention in moral decision-making.

Frequently asked questions