Gustaf's philosophical question number 4 (NO TROLLEYS)

[Gustaf]

So, here we go with number 4. This time there are no trolleys, so listen up folks.

Case 1: Mr. Jones has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Jones likes money. One day, as he walks into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Jones decides that this is his chance. He stands above his cousin with his hand just above his head, prepared to push down the boy's head if required and get his inheritance. But the boy never moves but simply drowns by his own accord.

Case 2: Mr. Smith has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Smith likes money. One day, as he walks into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Jones decides that this is his chance. He stands above his cousin with his hand just above his head, prepared to push down the boy's head if required and get his inheritance. The boy starts giving weak signs of life so Smith applies a little gentle pressure by his hand to keep him down and the boy consequently drowns.

So, is there a moral difference between Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith, i.e. is Smith more morally reprehensible than Jones? Vote and discuss.

[Gustaf]

I hope no one thought that the question asked about legal matters - that is irrelevant. It asks whether there is a moral difference.

It's interesting that no one thought acts and ommissions were relevant in the first trolley case but the vast majority still seems to support a deontological view in this case. Especially since this case was designed by a utilitarian to show the folly of differentiating between acts and ommisions....

[Gustaf]

Except that the difference given is not between acts and omissions.  In both cases, an omission is made, but in only one case is an opportunity to act available.  Here is a revision of your cases that provides only omission as possible in case 1 and only action as possible in case 2.

Case 1: Mr. Jones is confined to a wheelchair and has limited mobility.  Mr. Jones has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Jones likes money. One day, as he rolls into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Jones decides that this is his chance. He could reach the chain for the drain plug and let the water out, but does not.  The boy never moves but simply drowns by his own accord.

Case 2:  Mr. Smith is confined to a wheelchair and has limited mobility.  Mr. Smith has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Smith likes money. One day, as he rolls into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Smith decides that this is his chance.  He can't reach the chain for the drain plug and let the water out. However, the boy starts giving weak signs of life so Smith applies a little gentle pressure by his hand to keep him down and the boy consequently drowns.

Yes, both options are available. But the question is not about the person in one case picking either an act or an ommission. It's about two persons, one which killed by action and one which killed by ommitting in otherwise identical circumstances. Thus, it provides the basis for comparing acts and ommissions, don't it?

[Gustaf]

Overwhelming support for the acts and ommissions doctrine then it seems. Quite interesting, given the replies to the first examples.

[Gustaf]

Yes, both options are available. But the question is not about the person in one case picking either an act or an omission. It's about two persons, one which killed by action and one which killed by omitting in otherwise identical circumstances. Thus, it provides the basis for comparing acts and omissions, don't it?

No.  In your version, both persons omitted puling the person out of the water, meaning that the omission is not part of the comparison.  The comparison in your version is between:

• Mr. Jones, who prepared to commit an act, but never got the chance to.
• Mr. Smith ,who prepared to commit an act, got the chance to, and did so.

Eh. Ok, if you want to you can have Mr. Smith drag his cousin out of the water and THEN drowning him. I don't see the relevance of that though. One person kills by not acting and the other kills by acting. Both have the options of acting/not-acting open to them. Note that there is nothing hindering either to kill the cousin in some other way. That the person killing by ommitting did not have the opportunity to kill by the particular act of pressing the struggling cousin's head back under water is not vital to the overall point.