Читать книгу The Trolley Problem / Das Trolley-Problem (Englisch/Deutsch) - Judith Jarvis Thomson - Страница 9

Suppose the bystander at the switch proceeds: He throws the switch, thereby turning the trolley onto the right-hand track, thereby causing the one to be hit by the trolley, thereby killing him – but saving the five on the straight track. There are two facts about what he does which seem to me to explain the moral difference between what he does and what the agent in Transplant would be doing if he proceeded. In the first place, the bystander saves his five by making something that threatens them instead threaten one. Second, the bystander does not do that by means which themselves constitute an infringement of any right of the one’s.

As is plain, then, my hypothesis as to the source of the moral difference between the cases makes appeal to the concept of a right. My own feeling [1404] is that solving this problem requires making appeal to that concept – or to some other concept that does the same kind of work.9 Indeed, I think it is one of the many reasons why this problem is of such interest to moral theory that it does force us to appeal to that concept; and by the same token, that we learn something from it about that concept.

[42]Let us begin with an idea, held by many friends of rights, which Ronald Dworkin expressed crisply in a metaphor from bridge: Rights “trump” utilities.10 That is, if one would infringe a right in or by acting, then it is not sufficient justification for acting that one would thereby maximize utility. It seems to me that something like this must be correct.

Consideration of this idea suggests the possibility of a very simple solution to the problem. That is, it might be said (i) The reason why the surgeon may not proceed in Transplant is that if he proceeds, he maximizes utility, for he brings about a net saving of four lives, but in so doing he would infringe a right of the young man’s.

Which right? Well, we might say: The right the young man has against the surgeon that the surgeon not kill him – thus a right in the cluster of rights that the young man has in having a right to life.

Solving this problem requires being able to explain also why the bystander may proceed in Bystander at the Switch. So it might be said (ii) The reason why the bystander may proceed is that if he proceeds, he maximizes utility, for he brings about a net saving of four lives, and in so doing he does not infringe any right of the one track workman’s.

[44]But I see no way – certainly there is no easy way – of establishing that these ideas are true.

Is it clear that the bystander would infringe no right of the one track workman’s if he turned the trolley? Suppose there weren’t anybody on the straight track, and the bystander turned the trolley onto the right-hand track, thereby killing the one, but not saving anybody, since nobody was at risk, and thus nobody needed saving. Wouldn’t that infringe a right of the one workman’s, a right in the cluster of rights that he has in having a right to life?

So should we suppose that the fact that there are five track workmen on the straight track who are in need of saving makes the one lack that right – which he would have had if that had not been a fact?

But then why doesn’t the fact that the surgeon has five patients who are in need of saving make the young man also lack that right?

I think some people would say there is good (excellent, conclusive) reason for thinking that the one track workman lacks the right (given there [1405] are five on the straight track) lying in the fact that (given there are five on the straight track) it is morally permissible to turn the trolley onto him. But if your reason for thinking the one lacks the right is that it is permissible to turn the trolley onto him, then you can hardly go on to explain its being permissible to turn the trolley onto him by appeal to the fact that he [46]lacks the right. It pays to stress this point: If you want to say, as (ii) does, that the bystander may proceed because he maximizes utility and infringes no right, then you need an independent account of what makes it be the case that he infringes no right – independent, that is, of its being the case that he may proceed.

There is some room for maneuver here. Any plausible theory of rights must make room for the possibility of waiving a right, and within that category, for the possibility of failing to have a right by virtue of assumption of risk; and it might be argued that that is what is involved here, i.e., that track workmen know of the risks of the job, and consent to run them when signing on for it.

But that is not really an attractive way of dealing with this difficulty. Track workmen certainly do not explicitly consent to being run down with trolleys when doing so will save five who are on some other track – certainly they are not asked to consent to this at the time of signing on for the job. And I doubt that they consciously assume the risk of it at that or any other time. And in any case, what if the six people involved had not been track workmen? What if they had been young children? What if they had been people who had been shoved out of helicopters? Wouldn’t it all the same be permissible to turn the trolley?

So it is not clear what (independent) reason could be [48]given for thinking that the bystander will infringe no right of the one’s if he throws the switch.

I think, moreover, that there is some reason to think that the bystander will infringe a right of the one if he throws the switch, even though it is permissible for him to do so. What I have in mind issues simply from the fact that if the bystander throws the switch, then he does what will kill the one. Suppose the bystander proceeds, and that the one is now dead. The bystander’s motives were, of course, excellent – he acted with a view to saving five. But the one did not volunteer his life so that the five might live; the bystander volunteered it for him. The bystander made him pay with his life for the bystander’s saving of the five. This consideration seems to me to lend some weight to the idea that the bystander did do him a wrong – a wrong it was morally permissible to do him, since five were saved, but a wrong to him all the same.

Consider again that lingering feeling of discomfort (which, as I said, some people do feel) about what the bystander does if he turns the trolley. [1406] No doubt it is permissible to turn the trolley, but still … but still .... People who feel this discomfort also think that, although it is permissible to turn the trolley, it is not morally required to do so. My own view is that they are right to feel and think these things. We would be able to explain why this is so if [50]we supposed that if the bystander turns the trolley, then he does do the one track workman a wrong – if we supposed, in particular, that he infringes a right of the one track workman’s which is in that cluster of rights which the workman has in having a right to life.11

I do not for a moment take myself to have established that (ii) is false. I have wished only to draw attention to the difficulty that lies ahead of a person who thinks (ii) true, and also to suggest that there is some reason to think that the bystander would infringe a right of the one’s if he proceeded, and thus some reason to think that (ii) is false. It can easily be seen that if there is some reason to think the bystander would infringe a right of the one’s, then there is also some reason to think that (i) is false – since if the bystander does infringe a right of the one’s if he proceeds, and may nevertheless proceed, then it cannot be the fact that the surgeon infringes a right of the young man’s if he proceeds which makes it impermissible for him to do so.

Perhaps a friend of (i) and (ii) can establish that they are true. I propose that, just in case he can’t, we do well to see if there isn’t some other way of solving this problem than by appeal to them. In particular, I propose we grant that both [52]the bystander and the surgeon would infringe a right of their ones, a right in the cluster of rights that the ones’ have in having a right to life, and that we look for some other difference between the cases which could be appealed to explain the moral difference between them.

Notice that accepting this proposal does not commit us to rejecting the idea expressed in that crisp metaphor of Dworkin’s. We can still say that rights trump utilities – if we can find a further feature of what the bystander does if he turns the trolley (beyond the fact that he maximizes utility) which itself trumps the right, and thus makes it permissible to proceed.