Lee asked:

My lecturer asked the question "What does Sam do if he is told by Matthew that if Sam doesn't kill
Sarah then Matthew will kill 20 people?"

I have an essay to write and I think that I shall argue along these lines: Sam has no responsibility for
the actions of Matthew. Sam has a responsibility to Sarah because he has direct control over that
situation. Sam does have a moral responsibility to the other 20 but as Matthew is the one who is
making the decision over the 20 Matthew has ultimate liability for his own action. I do not believe that
Sam should be held responsible for the choices of Matthew. Sam should carry out his choice over
Sarah independently of Matthew's choice over the 20.

I would also argue that this is because: Sarah should not be treated as a means to Sam's end (i.e. as
a way of saving the lives of the 20). Sam should not be treated as a means to Matthew's ends (as a
way of Matthew getting his desired result). Sam can only be responsible for his own action and thus if
he killed Sarah he would be immoral. If Sam refuses to act then he is being moral; he would have
made his made his moral decision not to kill Sarah and should let Matthew take responsibility for his
moral decision.

Is this okay? Does it make sense? I will describe utilitarianism as well but this problem still worries
me. I cant help feeling that Sam's omission to act means that Sam is neglecting hisresponsibility to
the 20. However I think that Sam's main priority is to Sarah and Matthew's decision must be made
about the 20 on its own. AAarrgghhh!!!! However this still bugs me! Is this an acceptable position?
Does Sam's oblique responsibility to the 20 over ride his responsibility to Sarah simply because there
are more of them? I can't decide. I think I have a good solution but I don't know if that is really what I'd
do. I know that is what I would like to do. Would I be merely making a false justification to myself if
that was the case?

============

Firstly, we should be clearer on responsibility. Although Sam will not have caused the deaths of the
20, because it will ultimately come about by Matthew's decision, he is responsible in the sense that he
could have stopped their deaths. Bernard Williams calls this 'negative responsibility', a notion implicit
in utilitarian theory which holds that moral responsibility is for consequences.

However, to think in terms of "responsibility" and whether one duty "overrides" another can be seen
as morally shallow. If you really cannot kill a human being, the thought that it is an overriding duty isn't
going to make it easier. It seems even more shallow to say, "Sarah should not be treated as a means
to Sam's end." You need to distinguish killing from murder. In certain circumstances, killing can be a
means to an end, for example in wartime. Killing is not morally assessable in the same way as
murder.

You should say that you know the solution, but don't know whether this is what you would do. It is a
question of moral virtue. If Sam makes his own personal decision not to act, he is neglecting a social
duty. This can be viewed as a lack of courage. Yet it could also be seen as moral fortitude, in that
there are some things he will not do under any circumstances.

Rachel Browne