7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

ISSUES CATEGORIES TAGS SHOP DIGITAL PODCASTS FORUM EVE

Sign In

Search

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 1/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of
philosophy articles on this site, please

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Articles

Ethics & Uncertainty

Michael Jordan asks how knowledge of circumstances affects our morality.
Sometimes we have to make moral decisions without having any certainty about the consequences of the
different courses of action that are open to us. Would knowing the probabilities of the results of our actions change
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 2/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

our moral decisions? To consider this question we’ll start with the classic thought experiment about the runaway
trolley, and then give it a twist by introducing uncertainty.

Cosmic Dice © Amy Baker 2019. Please visit instagram.com/amy_louisebaker

Off Our Trolleys

The thought experiment known as the Trolley Problem was introduced to ethics by the late Philippa Foot. I first
heard of it when my lecturer asked our Actuarial Science honours class about it. The thought experiment goes as
follows: You see that a runaway trolley car (or tram, if you are British) is about to kill five people walking along a
track. But you are standing by the lever that switches the points, and if you pull it the trolley will divert onto another
track where only one person is stuck, whom the trolley will then kill instead. Time is running out. Do you pull the
lever?

To my horror, I was the only student who didn’t want to pull the lever. Everyone else had a simple reason for
pulling it: five lives are worth more than one.

On the surface this sounds rational, and I was cruelly mocked for not pulling the lever. I’ve spoken to other friends
about this, and some have even suggested I’m a psychopath! For this reason, I think I should defend my position.

For one thing, I reject the statement that five lives are necessarily worth more than one life. To me life is non-
fungible – meaning that each life is so unique and multidimensional that we cannot compare lives, nor say that
one group of lives is worth more than another group of lives just because the first group consists of a larger
quantity of lives than the other. To illustrate this point, let us flavour the thought experiment a little: What if the five
people were notorious serial killers, and the one person on the other side was your mother. Would you still pull the
lever?

The vast majority of people I posed this new version of the thought experiment to changed their decision and
decided not to pull the lever. They would rather let five serial killers die than kill their own mothers. They were not
pleased when I pointed out the inconsistency in their morality. No longer are they being utilitarian – the greatest
good for the greatest number. Instead they are being biased and judgmental.

We can also break the utilitarian view by framing the thought experiment in another setting. You’re a doctor at a
hospital and your ward round contains five people dying from various organ failures. A healthy person walks in,
delivering a pizza maybe, and you know that if you could harvest that person’s organs you could save the other
five people. Would you give the order to kill him?

Not many of my friends want to now sacrifice the one life for the other five. The reasons they give me for this are
interesting in their variety; but the point stands that their position again changes away from utilitarianism. Here
they mostly seemed to change to Kant’s deontology, or duty-based ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 3/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

Immanuel Kant argued that every human being is an ‘end in themselves’: a basic moral unit who is due basic
moral consideration, and should never be used merely as a means to other ends. Kant also said that you should
act only in such a way that you would be willing to make the principle of your action a universal principle for all
moral beings. (Jesus said it more eloquently: “Do unto others as you have them do unto you.”) You don’t want to
make the utilitarian principle ‘Sacrifice others for the greater good’ a Kantian universal principle, as someone
might want to sacrifice you for some greater good. So this is why people wouldn’t usually want to harvest
someone’s organs.

Deontologists versus Utilitarians: Infinity War

The 2018 movie Avengers: Infinity War contrasts these two philosophies. Captain America, the heroes’ leader,
takes up the Kantian position, and Thanos, the villain, takes up the utilitarian position.

To those few of you reading this who haven’t seen the movie, Thanos wants to kill half the population of the
universe to save the other half from the effects of overpopulation. To kill half the universe, he needs all the infinity
stones. One stone is inside the head of a character called Vision. There’s a discussion around whether the heroes
should quickly destroy that stone, even if it means killing Vision, so that Thanos can’t carry out his plan. Captain
America says, “We don’t trade lives” and refuses to kill one person even to save half the universe. Thanos (spoiler
alert!) gets the stone anyway and kills half the universe, including Vision.

Did Captain America make the right decision? If you were Captain America, what would you have done?

To those who say Captain America should have allowed Vision to have been killed to stop Thanos, I point out that
if we accept Thanos’s assumption that the only way to save the universe is by halving its population, then your
utilitarian motives for killing Vision to stop Thanos are paradoxically thwarting Thanos’s greater utilitarian plan.

Let me burden you with another question. Suppose you are directing, from Earth, a mission returning from Mars.
On board the ship are two astronauts. But because you were so busy trying to build driverless electric cars on
Earth, you didn’t pack enough food for both astronauts to survive the return trip, only enough for one. Oops. Do
you allocate all the food to one astronaut and starve the other; or do you let them share the food, in which case,
according to your calculations, they will both die of starvation before reaching Earth?

Most of my friends choose to save one astronaut. After all, one survivor is better than two dead. Well, this is the
thinking of Thanos. You can’t starve the one astronaut and also say Thanos is wrong. And if you’re morally
inconsistent, it means you aren’t thinking correctly.

It might be worth pointing out that Thanos’ plan has a strong foundation. He has all the infinity stones, so he
knows everything, and that this is the only way to save the universe.

In Search of Another Way

Nevertheless, the statement ‘There must be another way’ comes to mind, as it’s how I would respond to the
runaway trolley. I would not do nothing. Instead, I’d look for a brake or some other way to save the people. But my
Kantian position would never let me consider the trading lives option.

Captain America probably had the same mindset – there must be another way. In fact, most superheroes in most
movies take this approach, and down to sheer luck they are usually able to save the day without having to
sacrifice anybody.

Maybe this is what’s happening with the other thought experiment, in the hospital. Do you kill the healthy person
to save the other five? People say no. And I’ve realised it’s not the same as the runaway trolley. With the trolley
thought experiment, people usually assume a determined outcome. With the hospital thought experiment, people
don’t make this assumption. Instead, they’re thinking, “There must be another way. Maybe we can give the sick
people medication, or perhaps we can harvest organs from someone who’s already dead.” Could this tacit
assumption be the key to our moral responses?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 4/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

I decided to test this on a new group of friends. Once again I presented them with the classic trolley thought
experiment; and once again they all wanted to pull the lever to save the five at the expense of the one. This time,
however, I then took a different approach to show them that their utilitarianism is on shaky grounds: I provided
them with ‘another way’. What if there actually is a brake on the trolley – but it only has a 50% chance of stopping
the trolley before it kills the one or the five? And unfortunately, there isn’t enough time to pull both the brake and
the lever. What would you do? Would you pull the brake, or would you pull the lever?

Most of them pull the brake. They say they do this because there is a chance of the best case scenario where no
one dies. I challenge them, pointing out that 50% of five is 2.5: therefore there is an expected 2.5 people dying by
pulling the brake, and only an expected one person dying by pulling the lever – so based on utilitarian principles,
you should pull the lever and not the brake. They still insist on choosing to pull the brake.

I think what we’re seeing here is that in a deterministic scenario people tend to a utilitarian position, yet as soon as
we add uncertainty, people’s ethical reasoning changes. Why? Is it because uncertainty introduces hope and
we’re naturally optimistic? Or is it because the very uncertainty removes a degree of responsibility: “It’s the brake’s
fault. Those people were unlucky. I’m not to blame”?

Captain America believed he had a chance to save everyone, and so chose not to sacrifice Vision. Thanos
believed that there was no other way, and therefore he acted in a utilitarian way.

Further Uncertainty Principles

How much uncertainty is needed to change from utilitarianism to Kantianism or something else? If the brake only
has a 10% chance of saving the five lives, would you still pull it? What if the chance of the brake working is
unknown?

In life we usually don’t know the probabilities associated with our actions; we can only guess them, and there’s a
lot of room for error. Sometimes we pretend probabilities don’t exist. In other words, we round them off: if
something is likely to occur, we might round the probability up and say it’s certain to occur; if something is unlikely
to occur, we might round down the probability, and say it will never occur. Yet Actuarial Science has taught me that
nothing is certain to occur. The Actuarial profession is built around dealing with uncertainty. This view is in direct
contrast to determinism, which says you can predict the future with certainty if you have sufficient knowledge of
the past.

However, could it be that ethical differences are down to different views on the nature of reality? Determinism
results in utilitarianism, whereas indeterminism results in something else.

Why is this important? Well, maybe a lot of ethical debates could be resolved if people took a step back and
stated their assumptions around the chances of outcomes. So maybe ethical debates should be started by asking
everyone to state the potential outcomes they foresee as a result of the actions being considered, and the rough
probability they assign to each occurring.

Understanding peoples’ different views on uncertainty and the assumptions on which they base their arguments
could go a long way to reducing conflict.

© Michael Jordan 2019

Michael Jordan recently became a Fellow of the Actuarial Society of South Africa.

Article tools
Print
Email
Discuss (2)
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 5/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

Share

More articles from this issue

Related articles
Sports and Drugs (and rock and roll?)
Irrefutable Ethics
Encyclopedia of Ethics
Empathy & Imagination
Luck and Punishment
Ethics in Society
Soft Pornography: What’s the Problem?
Lying by Sam Harris
Nietzsche and Morality
Hitting Bedrock, Practicing Ethics

Tags
ethics

Advertisement

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 6/7
7/2/2019 Ethics & Uncertainty | Issue 132 | Philosophy Now

ABOUT CONTACT FOR AUTHORS TERMS & CONDITIONS

© Philosophy Now 2019. All rights reserved.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Ethics_and_Uncertainty 7/7