Thinking Critically about Killing
Ethics, Psychology and Law
John Danaher
john.danaher@nuigalway.ie
The Speluncean Explorers
Set out on an expedition...
Disaster strikes...
They establish contact...
Draw straws...
Kill and eat the loser...
Rescued...
Prosecuted...
Q
Is what they did morally
wrong?
1
Trolley
Problems
Moral
Psychology
1
2
Law of
Murder
3
1
Trolley Problems
Switch case
Image from http://tomkow.com
Suggested Principles
Better that one should die so that five live
(utilitarian principle)
Footbridge Case
What Principle Now?
Personal vs. impersonal causation?
It is not okay to harm someone as a means to a
positive end; but it is okay to harm them as a
means to an end?
Self-Defence
Principles?
It is permissible to kill another, while directly
intending this, if it is necessary in order to save
one’s life
or
The choice is morally neutral: one life for another.
or
Burns has proven himself to have bad character so
his death would be better than Homer’s
Self-Defence with Collateral Damage
Principles?
Homer would fully intend to kill Burns, but only in
self defence. Burns may be trying to save the five
or trying to kill Homer (not clear). So...
- Homer should sacrifice himself (better that one die
so that five should live)?
or
- Homer can save himself (it is still permissible to
kill in self-defence)?
Consequentialist Ethics
The moral value of an act - whether it is justified or
permissible - depends entirely on its
consequences. Would explain “better that one
should live than that five should die”.
Deontological Ethics
Certain acts are intrinsically - or categorically wrong, irrespective of the kinds of consequences
they lead to.
Conclusion
The ethics of killing is complex. While we all agree
in general that to kill another is wrong. There are
tough cases (involving tragic choices) that
challenge the wrongness of killing and threaten our
moral beliefs.
2
Moral Psychology
Joshua Greene
Doctrine of Double Effect
It is permissible to cause harm as a side effect; it is
not permissible to cause harm as a means to an
end.
Personal/Impersonal Force
It is permissible to cause harm as impersonally; it is
not permissible to cause harm personally.
Switch Case
87%
Footbridge Case 31%
(A)
The Remote Footbridge Case
63%
(B)
The Footbridge Switch Case
59%
(C)
The Footbridge Pole Case
33%
(D)
The Obstacle Collide Case
81%
(E)
The Loop Case
81%
(F)
The Collision Alarm Case
86%
Means/Side Effect
Personal/Impersonal
Side Effect
Obstacle Collide 81%
Personal
Footbridge
31%
Footbridge Pole 33%
Switch
Impersonal
Means
87%
Loop
81%
Collision Alarm 86%
Remote Switch
63%
Footbridge Switch 59%
Contamination Argument
(1) If our only basis for endorsing a normative principle
is our intuitive commitment to that principle, and if our
intuitive commitment to that principle is sensitive to the
presence of irrelevant factors (i.e. is contaminated by
irrelevant factors), we should not endorse that principle.
(2) Our sole basis for endorsing the DDE is our intuitive
commitment to it.
(3) But our intuitive commitment to the DDE is sensitive
to morally irrelevant factors (viz. personal/impersonal
force).
(4) Therefore, we should not endorse the DDE.
3
United States vs. Holmes (1842)
Structure of Murder
Actus Reus
The guilty act - causing another person to die
through one’s actions.
Mens Rea
Intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
(Reckless or Gross Negligence = lesser
charge)
Defences
Self-defence, loss of control, diminished
responsibility and, maybe, necessity.
13th March 1841
The American ship, the William Brown, set sail
from Liverpool sailing to Philadelphia
17 crew and 65 passengers
19th April 1841
The ship struck an iceberg and started to sink.
Every member of the crew and 33 passengers
escaped to the lifeboat.
250 miles from the Canadian coast.
Tragedy...
The lifeboat was too weighed down so it started
taking on water and sinking...
Orders given
The crew were ordered to start throwing
passengers overboard. They used some
principles to guide their actions:
(1) Do not separate any man and wife (and
children)
(2) Do not throw any women or children
overboard
Outcome
12 men (all passengers, no crew) were thrown
overboard. The lifeboat didn’t sink and the
remaining crew and passengers were rescued.
Prosecutions were sought by the families of
some victims, but of the crew only Holmes could
be found.
You be the jury:
(a) Murder?
(b) Manslaughter?
(c) Acquittal?
Thank You
For your attention