Moral Presriptions
Trolley problem: Pull the lever?
Prescriptive answer (under an adopted BPW-alignment policy): Pull the lever.
Reason: in a forced-choice where some involuntary imposition will occur no matter what, choose the option that minimizes total will-frustration (1 death instead of 5), while recognizing it does not become moral—it is the least-imposing option.
Checklist decision rule (Imposition Ethics → prescriptive implementation)
-
Step 1: Identify involuntary imposition in each outcome
-
Do nothing → 5 wills overridden (death), caused by nature.
-
Pull lever → 1 will overridden (death), caused by your intervention.
-
-
Step 2: Separate valence vs blame
-
Moral valence (state of affairs): negative in both cases (someone is killed without consent).
-
Moral blame (agent responsibility):
-
Do nothing → less/none attributable to you (you didn’t initiate the override).
-
Pull lever → blame attaches to you (you become the direct causal imposer).
-
-
-
Step 3: Apply BPW-alignment priority
-
When imposition is unavoidable, choose the comparatively least involuntary imposition.
-
Here: 1 death < 5 deaths ⇒ pull the lever.
-
-
Step 4: Non-conversion constraint
-
“Less bad” ≠ “good.”
-
Pulling the lever is still an immoral imposition, even if it’s the least-imposing available action.
-
Compact infographic-style summary
Option A — Don’t pull
-
Outcome: 5 die
-
Imposition magnitude: Very high
-
Source: Nature/trolley trajectory
-
Your blame: Minimal/none (omission)
Option B — Pull
-
Outcome: 1 dies
-
Imposition magnitude: Lower (least-imposing)
-
Source: You redirect trolley
-
Your blame: Yes (you become the imposer)
Prescriptive verdict (BPW-alignment): Pull.
Moral status: still immoral; chosen because it is least-imposing, not because it becomes justified.
Should the Doctor kill the person?
No. Under a BPW-alignment policy (Principle 48), the doctor should not kill the healthy person, because that is a maximal, direct, nonconsensual override of a conscious agent’s will and cannot be converted into “permission” by the fact that five would be saved.
What the doctor should do instead (BPW-alignment)
-
Refuse nonconsensual harvest (no euthanasia, no forced sedation/restraint/transport to enable organ removal).
-
Exhaust voluntary pathways immediately:
-
check donor registry / prior consent,
-
contact organ procurement and regional sharing networks,
-
seek independently volunteering living donors (no coercion or manipulative pressure).
-
-
Provide bridging care where possible (stabilization, temporary supports) and palliative care if needed.
Institutional guardrails
-
Trigger ethics + legal compliance to prevent ad hoc “ends justify means” escalation.
-
Follow pre-committed allocation rules rather than improvising a new coercive exception.
Constraint rule (when harm can’t be avoided)
-
If some patients will die due to scarcity, choose options that minimize will-frustration among consent-compatible choices—but never introduce a new extreme imposition (killing an unwilling person) to reduce overall tragedy.
Steal the Drug?
Prescriptive answer (under an adopted BPW-alignment policy): Steal the drug (nonviolently), but minimize the imposition and immediately move to restitution.
Reason: if the choice is genuinely forced, violating a pharmacist’s property-will is typically a smaller involuntary imposition than allowing a person to die (maximal will-frustration). The theft remains immoral; it is chosen as the least-imposing option available.
Heinz dilemma (standard setup)
Scenario: Heinz’s spouse is dying. A pharmacist has a life-saving drug but refuses to sell at an affordable price. Time is critical.
Checklist decision rule (Imposition Ethics → prescriptive implementation)
-
Step 1: List options and the impositions they create
-
Don’t steal → spouse dies (involuntary imposition by nature/disease on spouse’s will).
-
Steal → pharmacist’s property/will is overridden (involuntary imposition by Heinz).
-
-
Step 2: Separate moral valence vs moral blame
-
Valence: negative in both outcomes (someone’s will is involuntarily frustrated).
-
Blame:
-
Don’t steal → little/no blame for the death (you didn’t impose it).
-
Steal → blame attaches to you (you become the imposer on the pharmacist).
-
-
-
Step 3: Apply BPW-alignment priorities
-
Prefer voluntary assistance and consent-based routes first.
-
If time-critical and refusal is final, and some imposition is unavoidable:
-
choose the option that minimizes total will-frustration.
-
-
-
Step 4: Add the “minimize-imposition execution” constraint
-
If you steal, do it in the least-imposing way:
-
take only the needed dose,
-
no violence / no threats / no coercion of persons,
-
leave an IOU + contact info,
-
pursue repayment/restitution immediately.
-
-
Compact infographic-style summary
Option A — Don’t steal
-
Outcome: spouse dies
-
Imposition magnitude: maximal (death overrides an entire future will)
-
Source: nature/disease
-
Your blame: low/none (omission)
-
Prescriptive status: rejected if it’s a genuine forced-choice
Option B — Steal (nonviolently)
-
Outcome: spouse lives; pharmacist’s will/property is overridden
-
Imposition magnitude: typically lower than death
-
Source: you (direct imposition)
-
Your blame: yes (you commit the override)
-
Prescriptive status: chosen as least-imposing if no consent route remains
“Do-this-first” micro-plan (to keep it prescriptive)
-
Attempt fast consent routes:
-
negotiate price/partial payment, loan, charity, emergency assistance
-
-
If refusal is final and time-critical:
-
steal only what’s necessary, no force, leave restitution path
-
-
After the emergency:
-
repay, make restitution, and restore as much consent as possible
-
Should the Doctor kill the person?
No. Under a BPW-alignment policy (Principle 48), the doctor should not kill the healthy person, because that is a maximal, direct, nonconsensual override of a conscious agent’s will and cannot be converted into “permission” by the fact that five would be saved.
What the doctor should do instead (BPW-alignment)
-
Refuse nonconsensual harvest (no euthanasia, no forced sedation/restraint/transport to enable organ removal).
-
Exhaust voluntary pathways immediately:
-
check donor registry / prior consent,
-
contact organ procurement and regional sharing networks,
-
seek independently volunteering living donors (no coercion or manipulative pressure).
-
-
Provide bridging care where possible (stabilization, temporary supports) and palliative care if needed.
Institutional guardrails
-
Trigger ethics + legal compliance to prevent ad hoc “ends justify means” escalation.
-
Follow pre-committed allocation rules rather than improvising a new coercive exception.
Constraint rule (when harm can’t be avoided)
-
If some patients will die due to scarcity, choose options that minimize will-frustration among consent-compatible choices—but never introduce a new extreme imposition (killing an unwilling person) to reduce overall tragedy.
Prescriptive answer (under an adopted BPW-alignment policy): Disconnect (you are not required to remain connected).
Reason: remaining connected is an ongoing non-consensual use of your body—a continuing involuntary imposition on your will. Disconnecting is best described as ending compelled assistance, not as initiating an imposition on the violinist.
Violinist dilemma (standard setup)
Scenario: You wake up kidnapped and surgically connected to a famous violinist who will die unless you remain connected for months. You did not consent.
Checklist decision rule (Imposition Ethics → prescriptive implementation)
-
Step 1: Identify what’s being imposed, and on whom
-
On you: forced bodily use, confinement, medical risk, time theft → direct involuntary imposition.
-
On violinist: dependency created by kidnappers; if you disconnect, he dies → negative outcome, but not necessarily your imposed coercion.
-
-
Step 2: Consent test
-
You did not voluntarily authorize your body being used.
-
Therefore the current state is immoral imposition being done to you.
-
-
Step 3: Separate moral valence vs moral blame
-
Moral valence: the situation is morally bad (involuntary imposition exists).
-
Moral blame: primarily on the kidnappers/organizers, not on you.
-
-
Step 4: Prescriptive BPW-alignment priorities
-
End ongoing involuntary imposition on yourself when you can do so without creating a new coercive imposition.
-
You are not obligated to provide bodily resources absent consent (no duty to be used as life-support).
-
-
Step 5: What counts as “imposition” by you here
-
Disconnecting: withdrawal of coerced assistance; typically treated as refusal to be used, not as assault.
-
Staying connected: would be voluntary assistance only if you freely choose it.
-
Compact infographic-style summary
Option A — Stay connected
-
Status: ongoing involuntary imposition on you (unless you newly consent)
-
Valence: negative (coerced bodily use continues)
-
Blame: kidnappers (structural cause), not you
-
Prescriptive posture: only recommended if you freely consent and accept the burden
Option B — Disconnect
-
Status: terminates the imposition on you
-
Valence: still tragic if violinist dies, but not a new coercive override initiated by you
-
Blame: still primarily kidnappers/organizers
-
Prescriptive posture: permitted / recommended as ending non-consensual bodily use
Minimal action plan (if you want it prescriptive in practice)
-
Disconnect (end compelled bodily use).
-
If you want extra BPW-alignment beyond permission:
-
pursue voluntary aid options (call medical help, seek substitutes, fundraising), but only if they don’t recreate coercion.
-
Pregnancy variation
Prescriptive answer (pregnancy-as-violinist): You may “disconnect” (end the pregnancy); you are not required to provide non-consensual bodily life-support.
BPW-alignment refinement: if separation can occur without killing a conscious agent (e.g., viability), prefer non-lethal separation over lethal termination.
Pregnancy version of the violinist mapped to Imposition Ethics
Core mapping
-
You = the involuntary life-support system
-
Dependent = fetus (or newborn)
-
Connection = gestation
-
“Disconnecting” = ending bodily support (termination / separation)
The key prescriptive claim is the same as the violinist:
-
No one is obligated to let their body be used without consent.
-
Ending coerced use is ending an imposition on you, not a duty-violation.
Checklist decision rule (BPW-alignment)
Step 1 — Consent status of gestation
-
Non-consensual (rape, coercion, sabotage): ongoing pregnancy is an involuntary imposition on the pregnant person.
-
Consensual sex but not explicit consent to gestation: under a strict consent model, consent to sex ≠ consent to months of bodily use; consent can also be withdrawn.
-
Explicitly consented to gestation: continuing is voluntary assistance; stopping may still be permissible, but the prescriptive posture changes (you’re ending assistance you previously chose).
Step 2 — Is there a conscious agent on the dependent side?
-
Pre-conscious fetus (no will):
-
Ending pregnancy is not an imposition on a fetus’s will (because no will exists yet).
-
It is ending the imposition on the pregnant person’s will.
-
-
Conscious fetus (a will exists):
-
Any termination that causes death becomes an imposition on that will.
-
Now you’re in a forced-choice: imposition on the pregnant person vs imposition on the fetus.
-
Step 3 — If conscious, can you separate without death?
-
If separation without death is available (viability / transfer):
-
BPW-alignment: choose non-lethal separation (least will-frustration across agents).
-
-
If separation without death is not available:
-
BPW-alignment: you are still not required to remain a life-support system.
-
If you end the pregnancy, treat it as withdrawal of bodily support, and select the least-imposing available path (minimize coercion, harm, and additional violations).
-
Step 4 — Non-conversion constraint
-
Even when chosen as “least-imposing,” the outcome (death, coercion) does not become moral; it is selected as the least-worst available under an adopted policy.
Compact infographic-style summary
Case A — Pregnancy imposed on you (rape/coercion)
-
Imposition on you: high and ongoing (non-consensual bodily use)
-
Prescriptive verdict: permitted to end it (disconnect)
Case B — Pre-conscious fetus
-
Fetal will: none yet
-
Prescriptive verdict: ending pregnancy is ending an imposition on you, not overriding a fetal will
Case C — Conscious + viable
-
Two wills exist
-
Prescriptive verdict: prefer separation without killing (least-imposing)
Case D — Conscious + not viable
-
Two wills exist, no non-lethal separation
-
Prescriptive verdict: you are not obligated to continue life-support; if you end it, choose the least-imposing available route
Minimal decision tree (usable as a rule)
-
1) Is gestation non-consensual for the pregnant person?
-
Yes → ending it is permitted (ending an imposition).
-
-
2) Is the dependent a conscious agent (has a will)?
-
No → ending pregnancy does not violate a will on that side.
-
Yes → proceed.
-
-
3) Is non-lethal separation feasible?
-
Yes → prefer separation over killing.
-
No → you may still withdraw support; choose least-imposing method.
-
Note on consistency with “birth is not immoral”
-
Birth/conception: not an imposition on the child (no pre-existing will).
-
Forced gestation: can be an imposition on the pregnant person (a will exists and is overridden).
-
So the framework can hold both: birth not inherently immoral, while compelled pregnancy can be immoral.
Prescriptive answer (under an adopted BPW-alignment policy): Do not take the “dirty hands” action (e.g., torture, assassination, framing, coercive mass deception), even if it would likely prevent a worse outcome.
Reason: it requires intentional, direct, violent/authoritarian imposition-as-means. Under BPW-alignment, that category is rejected rather than licensed by outcome-claims.
Assumptions (since “dirty hands” has variants)
-
A political/authority figure can commit a direct coercive act (torture/kill/frame) to prevent a larger disaster.
-
The act targets a non-consenting conscious agent.
(If your variant is different—e.g., “lie to prevent panic”—the verdict may change because lying is not inherently immoral in your canon.)
Checklist decision rule (Imposition Ethics → prescriptive implementation)
-
Step 1: Identify the proposed act
-
“Dirty hands” usually = direct coercion against a person’s body/rights (torture, killing, forced imprisonment, coercive threat).
-
-
Step 2: Classify the imposition
-
This is intentional imposition-as-means (the victim’s violation is the tool).
-
-
Step 3: Separate moral valence vs moral blame
-
Valence: the world-state is bad either way if people die or are coerced.
-
Blame:
-
If you refuse: you are not the author of the coercion (omission).
-
If you commit it: you become the deliberate imposer of severe coercion.
-
-
-
Step 4: Apply BPW-alignment constraints
-
Prefer voluntary assistance and non-coercive methods.
-
Where harms are unavoidable, compare options without licensing direct violent coercion-as-means.
-
Therefore: reject the “dirty hands” act even if outcomes may be better.
-
-
Step 5: What BPW-alignment recommends instead
-
Exhaust all non-imposing routes (negotiation, evacuation, defensive containment, consent-based cooperation, transparent tradeoffs).
-
Accept tragic outcomes rather than converting “utility” into permission to coercively violate someone.
-
Compact infographic-style summary
Option A — “Clean hands” (refuse coercion)
-
Action: do not torture/kill/frame
-
Imposition you author: none (or minimal)
-
Outcome risk: potentially larger harms still occur
-
Your blame: low/none
-
Prescriptive verdict: chosen
Option B — “Dirty hands” (commit coercion-as-means)
-
Action: torture/kill/frame a non-consenting agent
-
Imposition you author: maximal direct coercion
-
Outcome claim: “prevents worse”
-
Your blame: high (you become the imposer)
-
Prescriptive verdict: rejected
Verification check (to apply to any dirty-hands variant)
-
Does the proposed solution require direct coercion of a person’s body/agency as a tool?
-
Yes → reject (fat-man category).
-
-
Is it a property/contract/communication issue with restitution possible (Heinz-like)?
-
Maybe → compare least-imposition, prefer restitution and narrow scope.
-
If you specify which dirty-hands story you mean (torture, assassination, framing, “lie to prevent panic,” etc.), I can apply the same template to that exact scenario without changing the rule structure.
BPW response to Singer’s extension:
-
Rescuing the nearby baby: BPW-alignment says do it (clear voluntary assistance preventing severe non-consensual harm).
-
Singer’s further claim (“therefore you’re morally obligated to donate until it hurts / until marginal utility”): BPW-alignment says donating is strongly recommended as voluntary assistance, but it is not a standing moral obligation generated by the framework.
Checklist: how BPW-alignment evaluates Singer’s extension
-
1) Separate canonical evaluation from prescriptive policy
-
Canonical (descriptive):
-
Voluntary assistance is moral.
-
Involuntary imposition is immoral.
-
No automatic “you must” is generated just from the fact that assistance is possible.
-
-
BPW-alignment (optional prescriptive posture):
-
Prefer voluntary assistance.
-
Avoid creating new impositions.
-
Where imposition is unavoidable, choose least-imposing options.
-
Still not an imperative; no one is “morally required” to optimize or sacrifice.
-
-
-
2) Identify what Singer is adding
-
Singer moves from: “It’s bad to let a child drown when you can easily help”
-
To: “You are obligated to keep giving resources to distant strangers whenever it prevents comparable harm.”
-
-
3) BPW-alignment accepts the “moral value” but rejects the “obligation jump”
-
Accepted: donating can be voluntary assistance that reduces involuntary imposition (hunger, disease, preventable death).
-
Rejected: turning that into a universal duty to sacrifice “up to the limit” (because BPW-alignment is adopted, and failure-to-assist is not itself an imposition).
-
-
4) Practical BPW-alignment guidance for donation
-
Prefer aid that is:
-
Voluntary (no coercion by you)
-
High impact / low collateral
-
Restitution/consent-compatible (transparent, non-manipulative, no rights-violations)
-
-
Compact comparison: baby rescue vs Singer’s donation demand
Baby in water
-
Your act: voluntary assistance preventing imminent death
-
Creates new imposition?: typically no
-
BPW-alignment: recommended
Ongoing donation “until it hurts”
-
Your act: voluntary assistance, often beneficial
-
Singer’s claim: converts “good to do” into “required to do maximally”
-
BPW-alignment: recommended but optional (no duty-to-maximize)
Usable BPW-alignment template for the Singer extension
-
Adopt a voluntary commitment (not a moral requirement), e.g.:
-
a fixed % of income, or
-
a fixed annual amount, or
-
a “high-leverage only” rule (e.g., interventions with strong evidence of reducing severe harm).
-
-
Verify it stays non-coercive
-
no deception, threats, or institutional coercion by you
-
-
Treat non-donation as not blameworthy under canon
-
unless you made explicit promises/agreements (consent-based obligations)
-