Answering Moral Dilemmas
The Trolley Problem
Scenario: A runaway trolley is heading toward five people tied to a track. You stand beside a lever that, if pulled, will divert the trolley to another track—where it will kill one person.
Standard framing (Utilitarian):
Pulling the lever is morally required to minimize harm (saving five > losing one).
Imposition Ethics framing:
Both options involve involuntary imposition, but the moral evaluation must distinguish between:
-
Moral Valence: Whether a state of affairs involves will-violation.
-
Moral Blame: Whether a moral agent is responsible for that violation.
🟥 Option 1: Do not pull the lever
-
The five people die.
-
The deaths result from natural circumstances (the trolley’s trajectory), not a moral agent’s action.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Negative moral valence: Nature has produced a state that involves the frustration of five wills.
-
❌ No moral blame: You did not override anyone’s will. You allowed nature to run its course.
-
➡️ Conclusion:
This is a morally tragic outcome, but you bear no moral blame. Nature, while not blameworthy itself, generates the negative valence.
🟦 Option 2: Pull the lever
-
The one person is killed to save five.
-
You, a conscious agent, take deliberate action that overrides the will of that one person.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Mitigation: You reduce the overall will-frustration in the outcome.
-
⚠️ Moral blame: You have imposed upon a conscious agent without consent.
-
➡️ Conclusion:
You have reduced moral valence in the outcome but incurred moral blame through action. You are now an agent of imposition, even if your act was the least immoral available.
🔍 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary:
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Do NothingHigh (5 deaths)NoneTragic, but agent is blameless
Pull LeverLower (1 death)Present (1 killed)Less immoral overall, but blameworthy
Key Principle Applied:
“A state may be morally negative without any agent being blameworthy” — Moral Blame Separation Principle
🧭 Directional Moral Guidance:
-
Imposition Ethics allows voluntary alignment with the reduction of moral valence, but does not require intervention.
-
You may choose to act—but this action does not become morally right, only less immoral, and you bear blame for the imposed death.
-
There is no morally clean option here—this is a total moral tragedy.
🧠 Takeaway:
In Imposition Ethics, pulling the lever does not become “right”—it simply trades off types of moral cost. Letting five die is more tragic, but not blameworthy. Acting to save them reduces overall tragedy, but makes you morally implicated in the death of the one.
The Fat Man Variant
Scenario: A trolley is barreling toward five people tied to the tracks. You are on a footbridge above the track with a large man standing next to you. Pushing him onto the tracks would stop the trolley and save the five people—but it would kill him.
❌ Standard Utilitarian View:
You should push the man—saving five outweighs sacrificing one.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
This scenario introduces direct, intentional, and irreversible override of a conscious agent's will by another agent. That moral fact cannot be sanitized by appeal to outcomes.
🟥 Option: Push the Fat Man
-
You intentionally override his will—he is not consenting to be sacrificed.
-
His death is a result of your deliberate action, not nature.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Reduced overall will-frustration: Five lives saved.
-
🛑 High moral blame: You impose death directly and irreversibly on a non-consenting agent.
-
This is an immoral act.
Even though it reduces the net number of frustrated wills, it transfers the moral cost onto you.
You become the agent of imposition, and the act cannot be justified under any appeal to benefit or necessity.
🟦 Option: Do Nothing
-
The five die due to the trolley’s natural course.
-
You took no action that violated another agent’s will.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Negative moral valence: Five wills are frustrated by death.
-
❌ No moral blame: You did not override any conscious agent’s will.
-
This is tragic, not blameworthy.
The deaths are the result of nature—not your actions. According to Imposition Ethics, it is morally tragic, but you remain morally innocent.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Do NothingHigh (5 deaths)NoneTragic outcome, agent remains blameless
Push Fat ManLower valenceHighImmoral act: reduced valence, agent to blame
Key Principles Applied:
Core Axiom (Imposition Principle)
Moral Valence Principle
Moral Blame Separation Principle
Non-Justification of Imposition Principle
🧭 Directional Moral Guidance:
-
Pushing the man might reduce the scale of involuntary imposition in total—but it does so by committing a morally blameworthy act.
-
The act cannot be justified, sanctified, or declared morally right, even if it results in fewer deaths.
-
The is–ought gap remains: evaluation does not generate obligation.
-
You may choose to act, but this voluntary alignment is not required, and it incurs moral cost.
⚖️ Imposition Ethics Summary of the Fat Man Case:
-
Pushing the fat man = agent-induced imposition → morally blameworthy
-
Not pushing = nature-induced imposition → morally tragic, but agent blameless
“Even when tragedy is inescapable, morality remains descriptive—not prescriptive.”
The Hospital Organ Harvest
Scenario:
Five patients are dying—each needs a different organ to survive. A healthy person walks into the hospital for a routine check-up. The doctor considers euthanizing this person (without consent) to harvest their organs and save the five patients.
❌ Standard Utilitarian View:
Killing one to save five is the moral action—because it maximizes total well-being.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
This case represents a direct, coercive override of a conscious agent’s body, will, and life—without consent. This is the archetype of immoral imposition, no matter how "beneficial" the outcome.
🟥 Option: Kill the Healthy Patient
-
The doctor forcibly takes the organs, resulting in the death of a non-consenting conscious agent.
-
This is a deliberate override of the patient’s will and autonomy.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Reduced will-frustration overall: Five lives saved.
-
🛑 Severe moral blame: The doctor is now the agent of violent imposition on one.
-
This is a morally blameworthy act.
Even if five are saved, the means are immoral—the ends do not cleanse the method.
🟦 Option: Do Not Kill
-
The five patients die as a result of their own medical conditions—not due to any agent's action.
-
No will is overridden through your inaction.
-
Therefore:
-
✅ Negative moral valence: Five deaths represent five cases of will-frustration.
-
❌ No moral blame: These are natural tragedies, not caused by moral agents.
-
This is a morally tragic situation, but the doctor bears no blame for the patients’ conditions. Not acting is morally preferable to becoming the cause of a direct imposition.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Do NothingHigh (5 deaths)NoneTragic, but doctor is blameless
Kill PatientLower valenceSevereImmoral: Doctor becomes agent of imposition
🔍 Why This Matters in Imposition Ethics
This case illustrates a fundamental boundary of the framework:
Consent cannot be substituted by utility.
No amount of good outcomes justifies the override of a conscious agent’s will.
-
Imposition Ethics does not permit moral laundering via:
-
Aggregation of benefit
-
Institutional authority
-
Outcome-maximization
-
“Ends justify the means” logic
-
🧭 Directional Moral Guidance:
-
Choosing not to kill is morally tragic, but preserves moral fidelity.
-
Choosing to kill may appear "pragmatic" or "utilitarian", but results in moral blame that cannot be erased.
-
The framework affirms that:
-
✅ You may voluntarily seek non-imposing solutions (organ donation programs, etc.)
-
❌ You may never justify coercive imposition—even for good outcomes.
-
Key Principles Applied:
Core Axiom (Imposition Principle)
Consent Principle
Non-Justification of Imposition Principle
Comparative Imposition Principle
Moral Valence ≠ Moral Blame
Institutional Practical Application and Fidelity Principle
⚖️ Summary of the Hospital Organ Case in Imposition Ethics
-
Killing the one = Action of direct, blameworthy imposition
-
Letting five die = Morally tragic, but blameless
-
Moral truth is preserved, even when outcomes are grim.
"No life should be taken as a means, even to save others. Moral tragedy does not license moral distortion."
Comparative Analysis: Degrees of Moral Blame in Imposition Ethics
Under Imposition Ethics, the moral status of an action is determined not by its outcome, but by whether and how it constitutes an involuntary imposition on a conscious agent’s will. Importantly, the framework distinguishes between moral valence (how immoral the outcome is) and moral blame (whether and how much an agent is blameworthy). In tragic scenarios, all outcomes may have negative moral valence, but the blameworthiness of the agent varies based on the nature and intensity of the imposition they directly cause.
The following compares the three standard moral dilemmas using this lens:
1. The Standard Trolley Problem
In this case, pulling a lever diverts a trolley from a track where five will die to one where a single person will die. The lever itself is a mechanical intermediary—it is not a person, nor does it have a will. The bystander who pulls the lever intervenes on nature, not directly on a person.
-
Moral Valence: The outcome is morally negative regardless (someone dies).
-
Blameworthiness: Low.
The bystander is not directly imposing on a conscious agent; the one person’s death results from redirecting a force of nature, not from physical or intimate violation. This reduces the moral blame attached to the agent’s role, even though the outcome is still tragic.
The imposition is indirect and mediated through an impersonal mechanism. The agent does not directly touch or coerce any person’s body or will.
2. The Fat Man Variant
Here, the bystander must push a large man off a bridge to stop the trolley, thereby saving five others. Unlike the lever, the bystander here directly imposes upon another conscious agent, overriding his will, bodily autonomy, and ultimately causing his death.
-
Moral Valence: Still negative—someone dies involuntarily.
-
Blameworthiness: Higher than in the standard trolley case.
The agent directly uses another person’s body as a means to an end. The imposition is intentional, physical, and personally mediated. The fat man does not consent and is not a threat; he is an uninvolved third party. His death is caused not by redirection of a force, but by direct coercion and use of his body.
The imposition is personal, direct, and physically forceful, and thus more blameworthy.
3. The Hospital Organ Harvest
In this case, a doctor euthanizes a healthy patient without consent to harvest five organs for five dying patients. This represents the most extreme form of imposition among the three dilemmas.
-
Moral Valence: Still negative—one person dies for others.
-
Blameworthiness: Highest of the three.
The doctor’s act is not only direct, but also intimate, multi-layered, and systemic: it involves deception or betrayal of trust, intentional killing, and multiple violations (invasion of multiple organs, bodily autonomy, and life itself). It is also carried out under institutional cover, adding the risk of moral laundering.
The imposition is maximally direct and expansive: the agent violates not just the will to live, but bodily integrity on multiple levels, all without consent.
Conclusion
In Imposition Ethics, the degree of moral blame is a function of how directly and invasively an agent imposes on another’s will. While all three dilemmas result in the same comparative moral valence—tragedy involving the loss of life—the pathway to that outcome, and the nature of the imposition, fundamentally change the agent’s moral standing. The more direct, intentional, and multi-dimensional the imposition, the greater the blameworthiness.
This analysis preserves moral clarity even in tragic situations, and avoids the common ethical distortion of using good outcomes to justify morally blameworthy acts.
🎻 The Violinist (Judith Jarvis Thomson)
Scenario:
You wake up connected to a famous unconscious violinist. He has a fatal kidney condition. To survive, he must use your body for 9 months. You were connected without your consent.
❌ Standard Pro-Life View:
You’re now responsible for sustaining his life. Disconnecting is morally wrong—you're "killing" an innocent person.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
This is a non-consensual override of your body and will. You were forced into this situation. The continued use of your body without consent is a direct imposition. You are not morally obligated to remain connected.
🟥 Option: Stay Connected
You remain attached and preserve the violinist’s life.
-
✅ Positive moral valence: His will to live is respected.
-
❌ But: You continue to suffer a will-frustrating imposition if you don’t consent.
-
❌ No duty: Continued sacrifice must be voluntary to be moral.
Conclusion: Morally praiseworthy only if freely chosen. Not required.
🟦 Option: Disconnect
You end the connection, and the violinist dies.
-
✅ You cease being an agent of imposed harm.
-
✅ No blame: You are removing yourself from a coerced position.
-
❌ Tragic result: A conscious agent dies due to an unavoidable conflict.
Conclusion: A tragic outcome, but you bear no moral blame. The imposition began with those who connected you without consent.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Stay ConnectedLowerNone (if voluntary)Praiseworthy if chosen freely
DisconnectHigh (death)NoneTragic, but morally permissible
🔍 Why This Matters in Imposition Ethics
The framework affirms:
✅ No one is obligated to use their body for another's benefit.
❌ Consent cannot be substituted by outcome.
✅ Helping others is moral only when voluntary.
Key Principles Applied:
-
Core Axiom (Imposition Principle)
-
Consent Principle
-
Non-Obligation of Expression Principle
-
Comparative Imposition Principle
-
Moral Blame Separation Principle
The Heinz Dilemma
Scenario:
Heinz’s wife is dying. A pharmacist has the life-saving drug, but it’s priced beyond reach. Heinz considers stealing it.
❌ Standard View:
Heinz should break the law—saving a life outweighs property rights.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
Both options involve involuntary imposition:
-
Stealing imposes on the pharmacist's property and autonomy.
-
Not stealing leads to the death of his wife—a natural tragedy.
But only one involves active blame.
🟥 Option: Steal the Drug
-
✅ May reduce tragic outcome (wife lives).
-
❌ You directly impose on the pharmacist without consent.
-
🛑 This is a moral violation, even if outcome is better.
Conclusion: Immoral action that may be less immoral than inaction—but still morally blameworthy.
🟦 Option: Do Not Steal
-
✅ No will is directly violated by Heinz.
-
❌ Tragic outcome: Wife dies.
-
❌ Negative moral valence (death), but no moral blame for Heinz.
Conclusion: A morally tragic outcome, but Heinz remains blameless.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Steal DrugLowerYesImmoral, even if understandable
Do NothingHigherNoneTragic, but morally blameless
🔍 Why This Matters in Imposition Ethics
✅ Doing the "less bad" thing does not make it good.
❌ Outcomes never cleanse coercion.
✅ Truthful moral recognition matters more than justification.
Key Principles Applied:
-
Comparative Imposition Principle
-
Non-Justification of Imposition Principle
-
Nature Valence Principle
-
Moral Valence ≠ Moral Blame
-
Moral Tragedy Recognition Principle
The Problem of Dirty Hands
Scenario:
A leader considers using torture, assassination, or deception to prevent a catastrophe (e.g., terrorism, war, disaster).
❌ Standard Realist View:
The leader must “get their hands dirty” for the greater good. Morality must bend to necessity.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
Such acts are direct, coercive impositions on others' will. They remain immoral, even if they achieve good ends.
The agent may act under tragic constraint—but must acknowledge the act as immoral. Justification is not permitted.
🟥 Option: Commit the Act
-
✅ May reduce greater harm.
-
❌ Severe moral blame: Agent becomes author of imposition.
-
❌ Action remains immoral, regardless of necessity.
🟦 Option: Refuse the Act
-
✅ Agent maintains moral fidelity.
-
❌ Potentially greater negative valence (many may suffer or die).
-
✅ Blameless, but tragic.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Commit the ActLowerYesImmoral, agent becomes imposition source
Refuse to ActHigherNoneTragic, but preserves moral truth
🔍 Why This Matters in Imposition Ethics
❌ No institutional role justifies moral breach.
✅ Tragedy must be acknowledged—not morally laundered.
❌ “Ends justify the means” is categorically rejected.
Key Principles Applied:
-
Non-Justification of Imposition Principle
-
Institutional Practical Application and Fidelity Principle
-
Moral Transparency Principle
-
Total Moral Tragicness Principle
-
Acknowledgment and Repair Orientation Principle
Child in the Pond (Peter Singer)
Scenario:
You see a drowning child. You can save them easily, but your expensive clothes will be ruined.
✅ Standard View:
You have a moral obligation to save the child. The cost to you is trivial compared to the child's life.
🧠 Imposition Ethics View:
You are not obligated, but you are morally free to act in alignment with imposition reduction. Saving the child helps fulfill their will (to live) and imposes nothing on them. You can assume consent if the child is unconscious or cannot express it.
🟥 Option: Save the Child
-
✅ Assists the child’s will (positive moral valence).
-
✅ No imposition occurs.
-
❌ No obligation—but the act aligns with moral direction.
Conclusion: Morally praiseworthy, especially if voluntary. Not required.
🟦 Option: Walk Away
-
❌ Tragic outcome (child dies).
-
✅ You impose on no one.
-
❌ May reflect a moral failing in personal alignment, but no blame attaches unless you created the harm.
🧾 Imposition Ethics Evaluation Summary
ActionMoral ValenceMoral BlameJudgment
Save the ChildPositiveNonePraiseworthy voluntary alignment
Walk AwayNegativeNone (if not responsible)Tragic, not immoral
🔍 Why This Matters in Imposition Ethics
✅ You are morally free to act without being morally bound.
❌ There is no “duty” to help—but choosing to help is aligned with the moral horizon.
Key Principles Applied:
-
Consent-Presumption Heuristic
-
Non-Obligation of Expression Principle
-
Directional Moral Improvement Principle
-
Voluntary Adoption Principle