Moral Frameworks: Ends and Means

Imagine a terrorist came up to you while you were riding a bus and told you to kill the stranger sitting next to you or he would set off a bomb killing everyone on the bus--including you, the stranger beside you, the bus driver, all the other passengers and the terrorist himself. What would you do? This isn't a riddle--there's no trick. The terrorist really has a bomb, he'll actually let you go if you kill the stranger and you can't make a run for it or kill the terrorist. The options are kill the stranger or do nothing and risk the terrorist blowing up the bus.

Mean Morality - do nothing
This standard is a philosophy grounded in the principle of not harming others and keeping one's hands clean of blood. Killing the stranger may be permissible but it is not right. Intuitively, killing innocents is never right. Means morality reminds us that the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Means morality is the mark of saints, who are said to have done no wrong in their lifetimes. It was the philosophy of Rev. Martin Luther King who once said, "it is more important that we do justice then get justice." Mathematically, it is expressed as the Pareto efficency.

Legally, you are almost always immune from liability for non-action. America is famous for it's 'no duty to rescue' rule, meaning you could watch someone slowly drown in a three inch pool of water when all you would have to do is flip them over. However, many European countries impose such a duty when the risks of injury are slight. If you let the terrorist blow up the bus and miraculously survived no court could convict you.

End Morality - kill the stranger
By contrast, 'end morality' looks not to what is right but what is justified. Because the stranger will die either way, it is pointless not to kill him to save the lives of others. End morality is grounded in the principles of utilitarianism and the 'greater good.'

End morality is the mark of knights, avenging angels and Jack Bauer of 24. Practically, it is the philosophy of governments and provides the philosophical basis for a 'just war' a la WWII (end the holocaust) and the Civil War (end slavery). Mathematically, it finds its analog in the Kaldor-Hicks efficency.

Legally, people are immune from liability when acting under 'duress' or 'necessity.' In the terrorist on a bus hypothetical, you would have an airtight duress defense if you killed the stranger. Even if there was no terrorist 'putting a gun to your head', you could avoid liability under 'necessity' if you could show you were forced to choose between one life and a busload. Curiously, you may still be liable in civil suits when you invoke the 'necessity' doctrine for personal benefit (under the theory that people should internalize all the costs and benefits of their actions when making their decisions) but the government pays the costs when 'public necessity' is invoked (like the bus hypothetical).

These two theories provide a logical and simple framework to determine what is moral, free from the coercive influence of history, government or religion. In practice, most people practice a combination of both ends and means morality but an individual's balance may explain their choice in a moral dilemma.