An Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 07: Applied Ethics James Mooney Open Studies The University of Edinburgh j.mooney@ed.ac.uk www.filmandphilosophy.com @film_philosophy

1. Applied Ethics
An Introduction to Philosophy: 07
© James Mooney 2012

2. Euthanasia
• Euthanasia is the killing of a person for the sake of
that person.
• Euthanasia may be voluntary, non-voluntary, or
involuntary.
– Voluntary euthanasia is the killing of a person for the
sake of the person at the request of the person whose
life is taken.
– Non-voluntary euthanasia is the killing of a person for
the sake of that person where the person is not in a
position to to make the request.
– Involuntary euthanasia is the killing of a person for the
sake of that person where the person is either not
consulted or expresses the desire to live.

3. Acts and Omissions Doctrine (AOD)
• It is often held that there is a crucial distinction
between killing and letting die; the former is an
act, while the latter is an omission (Acts and
Omissions Doctrine).
• In line with the AOD there is then a further
distinction to be made in cases of euthanasia.
– Active euthanasia is when some deliberate action brings
about the death (e.g. lethal injection).
– Passive euthanasia is when the death is the result of an
omission (e.g. not resuscitating).
• This distinction informs clinical practice in
Scotland and is also apparently endorsed by law,
but it is not itself uncontroversial.

4. Killing and Letting Die
Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should
happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the
child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom
and drown the child, and then arranges things so that it will
look like an accident.
Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his
six-year-old cousin. Like Smith, Jones is planning to
drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the
bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall
face down in the water. Jones is delighted, he stands by,
ready to push the child’s head back under if it is necessary,
but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about,
the child drowns all by himself ‘accidentally’, as Jones
watches and does nothing.
(James Rachels, ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’)

5. The Trolley Car Problem (Philippa Foot)
• A tram is running out of control down a track. In
its path are 5 people who have been tied to the
track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which
will lead the trolley down a different track to
safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied
to that track.
Should you flip the switch?"

6. The Trolley Car Revisited
(Judith Jarvis Thomson)
–
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards
five people. You are on a bridge under which it will
pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy
weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat
man next to you - your only way to stop
the trolley is to push him
over the bridge and onto
the track, killing him to
save five. Should you
proceed?

7. A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients,
each in need of a different organ, each of whom
will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there
are no organs available to perform any of these
five transplant operations. A healthy young
traveller, just passing through the city the doctor
works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the
course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers
that his organs are compatible with all five of his
dying patients. Suppose further that if the young
man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the
doctor. (Philippa Foot)
• How if at all, does the first trolley scenario differ
from the fat-man on the bridge/ organ transplant
variant?

8. Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas (c.
Double Effect
1224 -1273)
“One and the same act can have two
effects, only one of which is
intended, while the other is outside
the intention. Now moral acts are
categorized in accordance with what
is intended, not what happens
outside the intention, since this is
incidental . . . The act of defending
oneself may have two effects –
saving one’s life and killing the
aggressor. This kind of act, since
the intention is to save one’s own
life, is not impermissible, since it is
natural for everything to maintain
itself in existence, as far as it can.”

9. The Doctrine of Double Effect
• What the DDE states is that it may be permissible
to act to bring about some morally good outcome,
even if your action will also bring about some
morally bad outcome, as long as: the good
outweighs the bad; the bad was merely foreseen
and not intended, and; the bad consequences were
not a direct means to achieving the good.
– Here then we can see a difference between the first
trolley case and the fat man-bridge/ transplant cases. In
the first instance the death of the person on the track
was a merely foreseen side-effect of saving five,
whereas in the latter cases it was the means by which
the end of saving five was achieved.
– The trolley loop variation

10. DDE and Euthanasia/ Abortion
• It seems the DDE could be put to good use in
cases of euthanasia.
– E.g. when the patient is in great pain and requests that
his life be ended a physician could administer a large
dose of a pain relieving drug which may also cause the
patient’s death.
• In addition, the DDE could also be used in
particular cases of abortion.
– E.g. where a life-saving operation is required in order to
save the mother with the (merely foreseen)
consequence of the termination of the foetus.
• There are, however, some problems with the
DDE.

11. Doctrine of Double Effect
“Consider the story, well known to philosophers, of the fat
man stuck in the mouth of the cave. A party of potholers
has imprudently allowed the fat man to lead them as they
make their way out of the cave, and he gets stuck, trapping
the others behind him. Obviously the right thing to do is to
sit down and wait until the fat man grows thin; but
philosophers have arranged that flood waters should be
rising within the cave. Luckily (luckily?) the trapped party
have with them a stick of dynamite with which they can
blast the fat man out of the mouth of the cave. Either they
use the dynamite or they drown. In one version the fat
man, whose head is in the cave, will drown with them; in
the other he will be rescued in due course. Problem: may
they use the dynamite or not?”
Philippa Foot,
‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect’, 1967

12. Consider each of the above (bombing of
Dresden, Twin Towers attack, Hiroshima) with
reference to the doctrine of double effect.
Which, if any, of these actions can be defended
by application of the principle?

13. Abortion
• What makes abortion a very difficult issue is that
there are two key considerations:
– The status of the foetus
– Women’s rights
• If we ignore the status of the foetus (as do some
supporters of abortion), or ignore the question of
women’s rights (as do some opponents of
abortion) then the abortion issue is simple to
resolve.

14. The status of the foetus
• Moral status determines the amount of moral
consideration to which an ‘individual’ is entitled.
• If we grant moral consideration then we act (or
refrain) from acting so as to advance that
individual’s interests - perhaps at the expense of
the interests of some other individual.
• In order to establish the moral status of the foetus
we would have to establish which morally
relevant properties are present and at what stage.
A property is morally relevant if:
– Its presence will necessitate the granting of moral
consideration
– Its absence will justify the withholding of moral
consideration.

15. Morally relevant properties
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may
acquire those rights which never could have been withholden
from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already
discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a
human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice
of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the
number of legs [etc.] are reasons equally insufficient for
abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that
should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason? Or
perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is
beyond comparison a more rational, as well a a more conversable
animal, than an infant of a day or a week, or even a month, old.
But suppose it were otherwise, what would it avail? The question
is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”
Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

16. Women’s Rights
Judith Jarvis Thomson, ‘A Defence of Abortion’ (1971)
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an
unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a
fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available
medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have
therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged
into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well
as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, Look, we're sorry the
Society of Music Lovers did this to you - we would
never have permitted it if we had known.
But still, they did it, and the violinist is now
plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill
him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then
he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely
be unplugged from you. Is it morally incumbent on you
to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very
nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have
to accede to it?”

17. Details
James Mooney
Open Studies
The University of Edinburgh
j.mooney@ed.ac.uk
www.filmandphilosophy.com
@film_philosophy