17 October

Tweethics

Suppose there is a button within your convenient reach, and if you fail to press this button, Twitter will be destroyed, but if you do press it, Twitter will be preserved. You believe that no other adverse consequences will result from pressing the button. Is it morally permissible not to press it?

I say yes. I'm of the school that distinguishes between harming through action and allowing to come to harm through inaction, and assigns no moral fault to the latter.

Then, what if instead of a button there is, say, some kind of a pressure plate in the road which acts in the same way as the button - if you fail to drive over it, Twitter will be destroyed, etc. Let's also say that if you turn right on Oak St. to take the most convenient route to the farmer's market you'll cross the pressure plate, but if you turn left to take the longer route you won't. You want to go to the farmer's market, and - all else being equal - you'd like to take the most convenient route. Is it morally permissible to turn left?

I think the answer is still yes. Even though in some sense you are going out of your way to take an action that results in Twitter being destroyed, I think it's more accurate to say that you're declining to take some positive action to prevent that destruction. And in general there is no obligation to take positive actions, only to refrain from those which directly cause harm.

OK then, what if there is an additional pressure plate to your left on Oak St., and if you cross this pressure plate, a bomb will go off, killing three moon-eyed Laotian orphans? Now is it permissible to turn left?

I think now you have to turn right and save Twitter, no matter how much you'll regret it later.

But, suppose the bomb is on a timer, and no longer connected to the pressure plate. Also, there is a good Samaritan approaching to save the orphans, but if you cross the pressure plate, you'll cause an electrochemical reaction in the brain of the good Samaritan which will cause him to value his own safety more than saving the orphans, so he'll wuss out and the orphans will be blown to bits. Now may you turn left?

I still have to say no. Your action can be construed as harming the good Samaritan, since he may not wish to have his value hierarchy re-arranged in such a way. So you'd be taking a positive action which directly caused harm, which is a moral wrong.

But, what if the good Samaritan had told you in advance that he had no preference for his current value hierarchy over any other, and had no objection to his brain chemistry being altered? I'd say that then you're not causing any direct harm. Even though in some sense you are taking an action which will result in the deaths of the orphans, the good Samaritan has no positive obligation to save them, and you have no obligation to refrain from acts that cause no direct harm to either party, So you're cool to turn left.

However, suppose the pressure plate does not switch the good Samaritan's brain from "save" to "don't save", but rather if you don't cross the plate the Samaritan will save the three moon-eyed Laotian orphans from the bomb, but if you do cross the plate, the Samaritan will notice two tow-headed Swedish orphans drowning in a lake before he gets to the bomb. He'll then save the tow-heads, but be too late to save the moon-eyed tots. Furthermore, suppose that, if she lives, one of the Laotian orphans will one day come upon a runaway railroad car hurtling towards three researchers who have discovered, but not yet published, a cure for cancer. She will be able to divert the car, but if she does it will strike and kill a brilliant young neurosurgeon, who, had he lived, would eventually invent a procedure for transplanting brains in vats into cloned human bodies. Of the brains he would restore, most will go on to lead fulfilling, productive lives; one will invent a faster-than-light drive and enable humans to colonize other planets; and one will become the worst mass-murderer the world has ever known.

Now what do you do?

The answer is easy: you turn left and let Twitter die, because Twitter is just fucking stupid.