On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat 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 -- unlike Bo -- 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 grow up to
become a tyrant who would make good, utilitarian men do bad things,
another would grow up to become John Sununu, 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 its
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 such that the brain is never sure
if it is being deceived.

-----


I thought this conference needed a *REAL TOUGH* ethics question.
This one was part of a final exam in ethics from Duke University.
Here's the beginning and end of the of the post I got it from:

From: bribri@acpub.duke.edu (Brian Rubin)

 -

                             March 16, 1993-94
                              Prof. R. McGinn

                        ESSAY QUESTION (30 points)

  INSTRUCTIONS: making abundant use of course materials, compose a
  closely reasoned essay answering the following question bearing on
  one of the course's central themes (ethics and technology).  Limit:
  6 Blue Book sides.

Consider the following case:

On Twin Earth ...
...if it is being deceived.

        QUESTION: Ethically speaking, what should the brain do?
               Justify your answer.

---

Have it at. I have a theory on this one which I'll post later. -srw

24 responses total.

(mein gott!)

(ok... now it's sunk in... and it'll take a while for me to decide...)

(and I thought *I* was asking difficult questions...)

Wel, since there isn't a *right* answer (a conclusion I leapt to
at about the second paragraph) but only a chance to strut our
ethical brainpower;
and, whereas I am not trained in ethics but only have a well-
developed if not always obeyed conscience;
therefore, be it resolved that all my moral energies, puny as
they are, need to be reserved for the true ethical dilemmas that
I will run into this day and will decline to answer this question.

Blue.

Well, I really enjoyed reading through scruples so far, but I thought
of this item immediately, so I had to get around to posting it.
I think there are two ways to look at this, the
"Ethics Question from Hell". As a question on a final exam
(undoubtedly apocryphal), and as a moral question. I do think that
from both points of view there are a lot of irrelevancies to throw
you off the course.

I think from a moral point of view there's some justification for taking
the life of the person who constructed this question.

I think (contrariwise) that as a student taking a final exam, it is wisest
not to kill one's professor before assuring oneself of a good grade.

 :-) :-) :-)   (It's a satire, folks.)

(I got it... and once I regained consciousness, I even laughed.)

but, you can't avoid killing thp prof.  he is one of the five killed either
way.  you go left, because icecubes don't have bones.

Hmmm, I think I need a scorecard. THat's not how I scored it, but I
may have erred.

I say the brain should go off the tracks and blow iup the trolley...unless the-
re are other people aboard the trolley...

This response has been erased.

it says that the same five die either way.  the person *not* killed
kills them.  one of the five is the prof...

It appears, your right, dang! Dang!, I missed that. <g>

(I've changed my mind... I'm *not* answering! I'm going to exercise my
right to remain silent, because anything I say CAN be used against me...)

<swa nods and smiles, inwardly gibbering>
But I agree with #10.  Also, if technology had advanced to the point where 
this was actually possible, it seems that the heart/kidney patients would
have a better chance.  I think you could make a perfectly good, or bad,
argument for either side, and so not only is there no right answer, neither
answer seems any better than the other.  I'm going to have to read the problem
again, though.

i still say that my reasoning (the icecube bit) was best...
if both situations are equally bad (which seems, on a superficial reading
done only once), the a random guess seems feasible.

I'm still kinda confused.

I would choose the left side.....
MY reasons are these: 1. Either way 6 people die. Regaurdless of what happens.
                       2. The 30 orphans live. The guy that was gonna kill
them gets killed each
time.                  3. The left side saves more lives. 
                       
Really the left side does. Figure it out.

The brain, being well educated and knowing the movies, will pull a Keanu Reeves
and swerve the trolley off of the track, knocking over several buildings, 
making several spectacular explosions, and not injuring anyone. 

(ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.)

I would also sy the left route is the best to keep alive.  Isn't he the one
that only kills the 6 men for the sake of saving the orphans and getting
the hearts to their transplantations?!  One of those orphans grows up to
find a cure for cancer, this in turn will save many lives.  So therefore,
it is more benefitial to save the man on the left. 

The answer to the ethics question:
If you pass me in this course, I will not tell the world that Duke University
is taking people's money and training them for the real world by asking them
surreal questions about brains in vats.  If you flunk me in this course, I
will sue you, the philosophy department, and the entire University for 
bilking me and a thousand other students just like me to ask asinine 
questions.  How about it, Prof?

(He clutches his armrest to stop his head from spinning)  Is this question
for real?

My short answer (since I skimmed the question) is: in either case, you are
immediately going to gun down someone.  All the niceties about how many this
and suches perish as ripple effects are irrelevant, since it is difficult
to quantify "worth" and "rightness" for all the various people affected
by the left/right decision.  I would prefer not to gun down anyone, but
since that option does not exist, I would refuse to make a choice, and let
random chance take over (or let the train derail at the split).

refrain from making a decision and allow the train to take the course it would
have taken if a decision had not been made to take either fork through
manipulation of its destiny.

I would lock Steve into a pit with the only opening 15 feet above him. At
different intervals I would dump various sized buckets of snails on him.

I, being the brain, would gleefully kill the man on the right.My reasons are
such.First, Jones would have killed for the sake of killing,and if he would
do it five times, why not fifty?second, killing him ensures that the person
who perpetrated this atrocity on me will die.Unethical, perhaps, but thats
honesty.Third,there is no way to save all of the organ transplant patients,
but I know hearts, and I know that without heart transplants, the patients
WILL die.Fourth, there is no real thing as a just war. just another set of
reasons for people to kill one another, and so why not pick the war with the
least cruelty? and as for the possibility of deception, when one ceases to
trust ones perceptions, all things become irrelevant anyway.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss