Comments on: Causal and Moral Responsibility

By: Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

You seem to be raising two separate objections to what you call “realpolitik” and what I would call “consequentialism.” In your discussion of option one in the Jim and the Indians case you point out that it’s not really possible to know what all the consequences are. In your discussion of my post, you seem to be offering a more standard Kantian line that this kind of means-ends reasoning will conflict with first-order moral intuitions in many cases. I don’t have an answer to the first objection, I think it’s more-or-less a knockdown against the general thesis of consequentialism (note how Parfit totally fails to discuss it in Reasons and Persons which is probably the best defense of consequentialism out there). The second objection, though often made, doesn’t really sway me. So much the worst for first-order intuitions. Holding with Kant that you’re somehow “not responsible” for deaths that it was totally within your power to prevent just seems silly, even though one will want to say that Leader is, perhaps, more responsible since he caused the problem in the first place.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

You’re right that there are two issues. The consequentialism part is just whether you (I don’t mean you personally) are prepared to sacrifice 117 hostages to save the rest. The realpolitik part is whether you’re not even paying that much attention to the actual hostages, but have bumped up a level of analysis to look at the longer-term consequences—- the degree to which you think the decision “wasn’t fundamentally about saving the lives of the hostages.” The Jim and the Indians case speaks more to the former than the latter.

You say “So much for first order intuitions,” which is fair enough, but someone on the other side of the fence can make a symmetrical move. The simple Kantian response, where the 20 people end up dying, violates our intutitions as much as the simple Utilitarian response. So it’s not simply a question of bravely deciding to bite the bullet. Which bullet to bite is the problem, more like.

By: Mike Brennan

Mike Brennan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The Jim and the Indians hypothetical is new to me but it seems there’s a fourth choice which, to me, is the obvious one. When the Leader gives you the gun to shoot one Indian, you shoot the Leader. Maybe you and all 20 Indians then die, but you’ve at least killed one bad guy, you’ve fought back, and – in my mind – you haven’t done anything that’s not justifiable homicide. And perhaps most importantly, you haven’t passively accepted your fate by playing the game according to the Leader’s rules. I think that’s what the Russians opted for: fighting back and I think it worked in the near term by saving a lot of hostages and in the long run by discouraging this type of suicide hostage-taking.

By: Dan Hartung

Dan Hartung — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I think Mike’s idea clearly falls under (3), as would committing suicide once you got the gun. And there’s nothing to say there isn’t an infinite number of other choices which tweak or ignore the assumptions as they see fit (e.g. hold the gun on the leader as you free the hostages, which would undoubtedly be the most morally unassailable proposal).

Putting oneself in the position of the Russian tactical commander, you have to assume certain things about the information available. Were the troops experienced? Was the commander experienced? Was equipment & antitode medicine available? Were human experiments known and were they applicable? Were observers able to report on the progress of the gassing or did they have to guess? It’s different if you go in to such a decision with expert advice that you can expect 1% casualties (which is the rule of thumb for Western research into non-lethal weaponry), or going in with full expectation of 15-20% casualties (probably up to 150 when it’s all over).

Was there a “You told me it was safe!” scene afterward? (I suspect not, actually.) Was there a pre-raid casualty assessment, something Western agencies would routinely do? (Possibly, but even if so, probably much more cursory.) This is roughly the Russian version of the “Take the shot!” scene in The Peacemaker.

But then, that’s part of the key here—we’re dealing with Russians, who are notoriously utilitarian. This is the culture that, faced with Napoleon’s vast army drawn from most of Europe, decided to burn its own capital and lay barren most of the farmland along the route there and back.

By: Carol Herman

Carol Herman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Freon gas may have been involved, too. Since it was pumped through the ducts of the A/C system, what if the refrigerant was pushed out, too? Freon is heavy and deadly. It EATS oxygen. Just a thought. Since the Russians are naming the agent they used … but have engineers actually looked at how it was delivered? It wasn’t brought in by the pizza delivery guy. Fer shur.

By: Carol Herman

Carol Herman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

By: Carol Herman

Carol Herman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

By: Kieran Healy's Weblog

Kieran Healy's Weblog — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Unanticipated Solution

Option (4): Canine out.

By: Educated Guesswork

Educated Guesswork — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

How should the brain-dead die?

I’ve been tracking The Terri Schiavo case [*] and I think it presents some interesting ethical issues. The background here is that Terri Schiavo had a stroke about 13 years ago and has been persistently vegetative ever since. Her husband…