Found this at Michael Huemer's website. For those non-philosophers out there, this is the kind of stuff we find hilarious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following case:
A brain in a vat on Twin Earth is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.
On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphan's bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.
If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.
Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.
QUESTION: What should the brain do?
[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]
© 1988 by the American Philosophical Association
6 comments:
which option is the one that kills the author?
I think MY BRAIN is about to turn to a pile of mush after reading that.....I think the real question is why is the brain in a vat and not in someone's skull.....and how is the brain able to work without a heart to supply it with blood and oxygen? I think it's actually a trick question.
Zach--if the brain takes the left fork, one of the people who will die will be the author of the example (refer to the third paragraph).
Mark--count yourself lucky. Sometimes I have to deal with examples not too different from this one!
I was being facetious. As in, all other possible options aside, the correct answer is the one which kills the author for writing such a mess!
Yes, yes, I couldn't agree more. One of these days I'll email you one of the actual ethical dilemmas given to us in class. It's not as mind-melting as this thing, but it might help you understand why I'm so strange!
As I diagramed and thought through this dilemma, here are some questions and thoughts that ran through my head…
1. If the brain chooses the right side, thus saving Leftie, and Leftie kills the 5 men transporting the 10 hearts to the hospital, does this mean the hearts don’t make it to the hospital?
a. Someone else could pick them up and finish the process, even Leftie himself; but because I’m not given that information I would say there is an opportunity for them not to be destroyed.(right side of tracks chosen)
b. If this is the case, though, we then don’t have the guaranteed 20 kidneys needed for the kidney recipients and even though the brain does not know there are other kidneys and dialysis options, I do and so I have to consider it.
i. And so we have the option of most likely having a cure for cancer and a Hitler (right side of tracks chosen) or we take the chance that the Hitler recipient doesn’t get the right kidney or dies at an early age and that he cancer curer gets a right match. (left side of tracks chosen)
ii. But then we could look at it as the 10 heart recipients live and the 20 kidney recipients live because of the other kidneys/dialysis options. Then we still end up with a Hitler.
2. If the right side is chosen and Jones dies, an unjust war with no war crimes ensues plus we have a good chance of a Hitler; this results in 2 unjust wars.
a. If the left side is chosen and Leftie dies a just war with war crimes ensues and we have the off chance that Hitler survives; this results in at least 1 war, but with war crimes.
b. Knowing history, though, the world has survived Hitler and unjust wars before and with corrupted courts better to have a war with no war crimes then one with war crimes.
3. If the right side of the tracks is chosen and Jones dies, the same 5 men die but this time it is by accident and we don’t have a serial killer on the loose.
4. Either side of the track saves the 30 orphans and so we still end up with a tyrant, someone who invents the pop top can and G.E.M. Anscombe.
5. If the right side of the track is chosen then the author of this dilemma is killed as well as the man that put the brain in the vat on the trolley; which if neither man is around anymore we would not be faced with such a dilemma again.
6. I believe the section about the demon is simply there to just throw a wrench into the thought process – we all have things in which deceive us and make us wonder if we are making the right decision but we have to make a decision nonetheless so I choose to ignore the idea of the demon in this mix. The brain will just have to make a decision and stick with it – no second guessing; in my experience when I second guess I’m usually wrong.
So, if I absolutely had to choose a side I would take the right side.
No explanation or reasons will be given, I just choose the right side.
Post a Comment