PHILIPPA FOOT Killing And Letting Die Foot, Philippa- The Problem Of Abortion And The Doctrine Of The Double Effect

there is an important moral difference between killing and letting die. This distinction is best captured by saying that one person mayor may not be the agent of harm that befalls another.

In Rescue we can save five and let one die, and in Rescue" we can kill one in order to save five. She thinks it would be wrong to kill one to save five, but not wrong to let one die in orderto save five. On the other hand, she admits that in some cases, as in the runaway trolley example, it is not wrong to kill one to save five.

insist that there is no other closely related difference, as for instance that which divides act from omission, whichever plays a part in determining the moral character of an action.

In each case it is true that if we acted differently-by sending good food or by not sending poisoned food-those who are going to die because we do not send the good food or do send the poisoned food would not die after all. Our agency plays a part in what happens whichever way they die.

we shall always find on further enquiry that someother difference-such as a difference of motive or cost-has crept in.

Rescue I story we are hurrying in our jeep to save some people-let there be five ofthem-who are imminently threatened by the ocean tide. We have not a moment to spare, so when we hear of a single person who also needs rescuing from some other disaster we say regretfully that we cannot rescue him, but must leave him to die. To mostof us this seems clear, and I shall take it as clear, ignoring John Taurek's interesting if surprising argument against the obligation to save the greater number when we can.

In this second story we are again hurrying to the place where the tide is coming in in order to rescue theparty of people, but this time it is relevant that the road is narrow and rocky. In this versionthe lone individual is trapped (do not ask mehow) on the path. If we are to rescue the fivewe would have to drive over him. But can we do so? If we stop he will be all right eventually: he is in no danger unless from us. But of courseaU five of the others will be drowned. As in thefirst story our choice is between a course ofaction which will leave one man dead and five alive at the end of the day and a course of action which will have the opposite result.

Wecan allow someone to die of whatever disaster threatens him if the cost of saving him is failingto save five; we cannot, however, drive over him in order to get to them. We cannot originate a fatal sequence, although we can allow one to run its course

"letting nature take its course" by withholding further treatment until the patient dies of the illness.

to refuse medical treatment in the United States and in most other countries.

, to allow to the unborn child the rights that belong to adults and children.

We have strong intuitions about certain cases; saying, for instance, that it is all right to raise the level of education in our country, though statistics allow us to predict that a rise in the suicide rate will follow, while it is not all right to kill the feeble-minded to aid cancer research. It is not easy, however, to see the principles involved, and one way of throwing light on the abortion issue will be by setting up parallels involving adults or children once born. So we will be able to isolate the "equal rights" issue and should be able to make some advance.

The view that some harms may be permissibly foreseen but not permissibly intended..T

. It is worth taking seriously, but it is mistaken..

When is it permissible to kill some people in order to save others?.

Positive vs. negative rights..

Foot does not commit herself to a view of when abortion is morally permissible..

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end.

The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?