Aquinas, Augustine, and the Trolley Problem

The Doctrine of Double Effect and its usefulness in secular philosophy.

Augustine of Hippo - Philippe de Champaigne - 1645-1650

Some of the most contentious political debates in western society, such as abortion, euthanasia, and military involvement, are embedded in questions of morality and how we interact with the world. Though these debates involve issues that medieval and ancient philosophers might not have been concerned with, they draw heavily on ideas that date back to these thinkers. Often, at the center are two key figures: Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. Each has been extremely important in identifying and providing a framework for views on these dilemmas. Aquinas, who developed the Doctrine of Double Effect, is credited with arguing that the intention of an action is prior to the consequences in determining the morality of an act. Augustine, however, advances that an action is morally wrong if its consequences are harmful. This tension focusing on intentions versus consequences is famously illustrated by the trolley problem, a thought experiment introduced by Phillipa Foot, which challenges us to consider whether it is morally right to divert a trolley to save five people at the expense of one. This paper will examine the strength of each argument in light of the thought experiment and argue that Aquinas provides a more compelling framework for moral decision-making and proves that an action is permissible even if there are morally wrong consequences.

Thomas Aquinas' position stems from his argument concerning Self-Defense in Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art. 7). he introduces a concept now known as the Doctrine of Double Effect. Aquinas' claims that an action that produces a good and bad effect can be morally permissible if the intention behind the act is good. The bad actions are merely foreseen, unintended side effects. Moreover, he argues that the good effect must outweigh the bad effect and that the bad effect must not be a means of achieving the good effect. He does not argue that one may preemptively take the life of another in order to achieve a desirable goal, but instead, that it must be a reaction to circumstance.

  The crux of Aquinas' argument is in the determination of intention and foresight. Intention is the quiddity, or purpose, of an act. Foresight is accidental. It may be foreseeable, but since it is not essentially part of the action, it is of secondary importance and only takes priority if the action's intentional good effect is outweighed by the badness of the accidental effect. 

In contrast, Augustine in On Free Choice of the Will, contends that all actions with morally wrong consequences are always morally wrong. All actions humans take are aimed towards achieving the highest good, which is, ultimately, happiness and preservation of moral order. Any person who does not act in a way that preserves such moral order is acting ignorantly, misidentifying good, and is not in accordance with God. Moreover, he claims that the only actions that lead to true happiness are morally right, and any action that deviates from preserving happiness is inherently wrong. Actions prioritizing temporal goods (such as wealth, power, or fame) over eternal goods (like love and virtue) disrupt moral order and lead to reasoning errors. Virtue, in this case, as it is an eternal good, will always take precedence in moral order. Any action that disrupts this order by prioritizing temporal goods is wrong and undermines true happiness. No intention can justify an action if consequences disrupt the moral order.

In applying each of these philosophers' beliefs to the trolley problem, we see that Aquinas' Doctrine is stronger. On the other hand, Augustine's framework is more challenging to defend as his beliefs are more theoretical and contingent.

When considering the trolley problem, Augustine would argue that actions done to preserve the body are temporal, and willingly diverting tracks to save the five people would be wrong. If we agree that the diverting of tracks would constitute the taking of one's life, Augustine would say that taking one's life disturbs the moral order, that is, that by ending one's life, we are failing to respect the sacredness of life, and respecting life is a virtue. As valuing the health of the body is a temporal concern, and respecting life is a virtue, by putting the former ahead of the latter, we would be doing an inherently morally wrong act. 

Aquinas argues that one action can have multiple consequences and that not all are morally equivalent. He would say that the intention of diverting the tracks would determine whether or not an action is moral. If the intention of the act is to save the five people, then the consequences of killing one are justified. Through his four principles, Aquinas' framework is airtight in determining the morality of the situation. For example, it is not moral to divert the track if the intention of the person doing so would be to kill one person, nor would it be moral if the means of achieving the end of saving five people would be to sacrifice one person by pushing them onto the tracks to save the five people. In the first scenario, the saving of the five people is foreseen but lacks priority in importance to the actor. In the second, the means of saving those five people involves actually doing something morally wrong. Pushing the person would be done intentionally to save five people, but since the action must be morally good or neutral and pushing one to death is morally wrong, it is immoral. 

Augustine's actions in this scenario derive from his theories on divine providence, the belief that God is in control of the universe and has given us free will in it. To Augustine, it is not just that one must abide by a strict framework to be moral, but that by sticking to the framework, one will live life in accordance with God, that is, morally. To divert the track would be to take matters to God into our own hands. According to Augustine, although it is a true evil that people must die from worldly things outside of any control, such as famine, or in this case, a runaway trolley, the world is inherently good, and these evils have a greater purpose that might not be easily seen. By not allowing such actions to occur, we are disrupting order and inserting ourselves in areas that chiefly concern God.

Although his argument is valid, I cannot contend that Augustine has a strong argument as it is all hitched to the soundness of his theory regarding God's place in the universe. If we were to take away the basis of Divine Providence, the entire view crumbles. Augustine's views of moral questions are contingent on circumstances beyond anyone's control or knowledge.

On the other hand, Aquinas' Doctrine of Double Effect is not contingent on any other theory. It is possible to separate morality, intention, and consequences from Aquinas' catholic bounds and is used today by many secular moral philosophers. In fact, the idea launched Philippa Foot, an atheist, to pursue the Trolley Problem to explore the intentions and ends of moral questions.