PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post

kerry · #3 01-15-2008, 11:35 AM

Yes, these are interesting. In the first three examples I was never inclined to think any of them were wrong. I can imagine that some people would be disturbed if they learned about this, but I didn't 'feel' they were wrong. If he had been less politically aware, he might have described a homosexual sex act and added it to the list.

I think the trolley example is most interesting. I think it has something to do with how we construct our own sense of 'agency'. If we can tell ourselves that we are not the agents of harm, we can do it. Apparently, diverting the train is not 'initiated' by us but picking someone up and throwing them on the track is.
I think this is the exact issue behind the Catholic acceptance of 'natural' birth control and rejection of 'artificial' birth control.

I can think of clear examples where I believe killing another person would be the right thing to do (a quadraplegic suffering and willing suicide but unable to end his or her own life) but I don't think I could actually overcome that 'agency' problem and end the person's life.

James Rachels came up with a interesting example back in the 70's to try to elucidate the differences between passive and active euthanasia. He imagined a relative sneaking into a bathroom to drown a child and gain the child's inheritance. In one instance he does exactly that, and kills the child. In the second instance, just as he enters the bathroom, the child slips in the tub, hits his or her head and slides under water unconscious. The relative does nothing to stop the drowning. Rachels thinks the relative is equally morally guilty in both instances. One is active murder, the other is passive murder. Both were wrong. Rachels thought the distinction the example showed that if passive euthanasia was ok, the active euthanasia should be also.