Omission bias and the doctrine of double effect

Omission Bias: The Belief That Inaction Does Not Carry Responsibility

One of the reasons some people choose to do nothing in both scenarios is omission bias.

It is the tendency to believe that we are less responsible for harm caused by our inaction than for harm caused by our action.

However, from an ethical standpoint, the decision not to act is also a decision with consequences for which we are responsible.

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intended vs. Unintended Consequences unintended (collateral damage)

One philosophical explanation for the difference in responses is the "doctrine of double effect."

This doctrine distinguishes between the intended consequences of an action and the unintended consequences (or collateral damage).

It holds that it is morally more acceptable to perform a good action that has an unintended bad consequence than to perform an evil action in order to achieve a good end.

Application to Scenario A: The Worker's Death as an Unintended Consequence

In Scenario A, the primary intention in pulling the lever is to save the five workers.

The death of the other worker is an intended negative consequence, but it is not the direct intention. It is collateral damage from the action of saving the others.

Application to Scenario B: The Man's Death as a Direct and Necessary Cause

In Scenario B, the situation is different. To save the five workers, the death of the heavyset man is not collateral damage.

It is the necessary means to an end. The intention is to use his body to stop the train, which involves directly causing his death.

According to the doctrine of double effect, this is morally much more problematic.

Summary

Omission bias c