PEA Soup Puzzles
PEA Soup is pleased to announce a new set of threads designed to encourage discussion of philosophical puzzles. The aim is to introduce puzzling issues, questions, and cases that have not received a great deal of attention, and to encourage informal discussion of them. All sorts of contributions are welcome, whether long or short.
We are happy to receive suggestions for puzzles. If you would like to propose one, please write to ignacio.pena-caroca@warwick.ac.uk.
To kick us off, here is a puzzle developed by Victor Tadros about the problem of harmfully using people. Many people think it wrong to use others to achieve a greater good, and think it permissible for us to ensure that we are not harmed for a greater good based where this is so only because we are useful. Here are some cases that raise some puzzles for those with these views.
First, consider:
Jump: A trolley is heading towards Archie. If it hits him, he will be killed. If he jumps out of the way, it will head on down the track and run over Bella. Those are his only sensible options.
Although Archie acts, and his action results in Bella being killed, it seems permissible for Archie to jump out of the way. One explanation is that if Archie jumps out of the way, he does not kill Bella, but merely allows her to be killed, so the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing is not engaged. Another explanation is that Archie is permitted to jump because the only reason for him to stay is that his staying will be useful to Bella, but we are not required to ensure that we are useful to others in a way that significantly harms us.
In contrast it seems clearly wrong for Archie to act in:
Pull: A trolley is heading towards Archie. If it hits him, he will be killed. Bella is on the side of the tracks, and Archie can save his life only by pulling Bella in front of him.
Now consider:
Jump Behind: As Jump, except that Archie is only able to jump behind Bella. Doing this will save his life only because the trolley will hit Bella. Had she not been there he would have been unable to save himself.
The puzzle is to work out whether Archie is permitted to jump in Jump Behind, assuming that Archie is permitted to jump in Jump. Some might think Archie is permitted to jump to avoid his being harmfully used for Bella’s survival. Some might think it wrong for him to jump because the only reason for him to jump is that Bella will then be used for his survival. Some might think that he ought to flip a coin to determine whether he may jump.
Is Jump Behind different from:
Pull Infront: As Jump, except that Archie can protect himself from the trolley only by pulling Bella in front of him rather than jumping behind her.
In this case, Archie would also prevent himself from being used, but this is worth doing only because Bella will then be useful in protecting him. In these respects, Jump Behind and Pull Infront are similar. However, some might find it harder to justify Archie moving Bella in front of him when compared with his moving himself behind her.
Finally, consider:
Jumpers: As Jump Behind, except that Bella will then be able to jump behind Archie. They can both continue jumping until one of them is killed.
Are Archie and Bella permitted to continue jumping over each other until one is killed? Does it make a difference that one has better timing than the other, so their prospects of survival are better if they are both permitted to jump than, for example, if they are required to flip a coin? Is worth noting that this case is somewhat similar to this well-known case:
Bear: Archie and Bella are running away from a bear. Eventually, the bear would catch either of them if the other was not there. Although Archie cannot outrun the bear, he can outrun Bella, but that is all he needs to do to survive, because if the bear eats Bella it will not eat him (perhaps because eating Bella takes time, or because the bear will then be full).
A common view is that Archie and Bella are permitted to try to outrun each other, even though the one who gets eaten will be usefully harmed resulting in the survival of the other (in this case, Archie). However, some might wish to revise that view in the light of the Jump cases.
Thanks for the puzzles Victor! Here’s my start at some answers:
Jump Behind is permissible. Even if one adopts a causal view of the means principle, one can think that there is a difference between creating the causal structure that allows one to use another as a means and exploiting a pre-existing structure. (I call the latter a “beneficial opportunity” in my review of Quong’s book.) We see this distinction in other cases, including Ketan Ramakrishnan’s Room case (where the one person’s body enables access to the five) and Alec Walen’s On the Button case where the one person on the sidetrack is stuck on a button that enables the trolley to be switched onto the one. In all cases, the actor just exploits the pre-existing causal structure. Still, in Jump Behind, Bella is permitted to move herself out of the way if she can (as can the people whose presence is exploited in the other hypos). Pull In Front is impermissible because one treats another person as a tool in one’s toolkit to be deployed for one’s use (or the greater good).
I find Jumpers more perplexing because it is a competition case with the means principle added in. I am not convinced I’d resolve it any differently than other competition cases (like running towards alcoves)… but I can be convinced.