churchandstate | Are there kingdoms of emotion where logic is taboo, dare not show its face, zones where reason is too intimidated to speak?
Moral philosophers make full use of the technique of thought
experiment. In a hospital there are four dying men. Each could be saved
by a transplant of a different organ, but no donors are available. In
the hospital waiting room is a healthy man who, if we killed him, could
provide the requisite organ to each dying patient, thereby saving four
lives for the price of one. Is it morally right to kill the healthy man
and harvest his organs?
Everyone says no, but the moral philosopher wants to discuss the
question further. Why is it wrong? Is it because of Kant’s Principle:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but
always at the same time as an end.” How do we justify Kant’s principle?
Are there ever exceptions? Could we imagine a hypothetical scenario in
which . . .
What if the dying men were Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein and
Martin Luther King? Would it be then right to sacrifice a man who is
homeless and friendless, dragged in from a ditch? And so on.
Two miners are trapped underground by an explosion. They could be
saved, but it would cost a million dollars. That million could be spent
on saving the lives of thousands of starving people. Could it ever be
morally right to abandon the miners to their fate and spend the money on
saving the thousands? Most of us would say no. Would you? Or do you
think it is wrong even to raise such questions?
These dilemmas are uncomfortable. It is the business of moral
philosophers to face up to the discomfort and teach their students to do
the same. A friend, a professor of moral philosophy, told me he
received hate-mail when he raised the hypothetical case of the miners.
He also told me there are certain thought experiments that divide his
students down the middle. Some students are capable of temporarily
accepting a noxious hypothetical, to explore where it might lead. Others
are so blinded by emotion that they cannot even contemplate the
hypothetical. They simply stop up their ears and refuse to join the
discussion.
“We all agree it isn’t true that some human races are genetically
superior to others in intelligence. But let’s for a moment suspend
disbelief and consider the consequences if it were true. Would it ever
be right to discriminate in job hiring? Etcetera.” My friend sometimes
poses this very question, and he tells me that about half the students
are willing to entertain the hypothetical counterfactual and rationally
discuss the consequences. The other half respond emotionally to the
hypothetical, are too revolted to proceed and simply opt out of the
conversation.
Could eugenics ever be justified? Could torture? A clock triggering a
gigantic nuclear weapon hidden in a suitcase is ticking. A spy has been
captured who knows where it is and how to disable it, but he refuses to
speak. Is it morally right to torture him, or even his innocent
children, to make him reveal the secret? What if the weapon were a
doomsday machine that would blow up the whole world?
There are those whose love of reason allows them to enter such
disagreeable hypothetical worlds and see where the discussion might
lead. And there are those whose emotions prevent them from going
anywhere near the conversation. Some of these will vilify and hurl
vicious insults at anybody who is prepared to discuss such matters. Some
will pursue active witch-hunts against moral philosophers for daring to
consider obnoxious hypothetical thought experiments.
