TL;DR
This thought experiment responds to the common denial of altruism as an "obligation." It highlights the absence of a meaningful difference between acts and omissions, suggesting that both involve prioritizing personal interests over the well-being of others. By exploring this, I hope to clarify why I view altruism as a moral obligation rather than just a kind choice.
Thought Experiment: The Invisible Button and the Value of a Child's Life
Imagine you find yourself alone in a room, standing before a button. No one knows it exists, and no one ever will. If you press it, your bank account increases by $6,000. But there's a catch: somewhere in the developing world, a random child will contract malaria and die. You know this with certainty. The decision is entirely yours, untraceable and beyond judgment from anyone else.
Now, consider a different scenario: you are $6,000 richer and have the option to press a different button, this one preventing a child from contracting malaria and dying. You’re essentially faced with the same decision—whether to prioritize your own interests or save a child's life—but framed in a radically different context. The former situation involves taking an active step that results in a child's death, while the latter involves the choice to prevent it. It's worth noting that with cost-effective charities like the Against Malaria Foundation in which marginal contributions save a life at $6,000, we effectively find ourselves in this situation every day.
Some would argue that there's a profound moral distinction between pressing a button to kill and simply declining to press a button to save. But in both cases, aren't you privileging your own $6,000 of interests (for example, the difference between an income of $65,000 or $71,000 in a given year) over the life of another human being? Whether through action or inaction, the result is the same: a child's life is weighed against a sum of money, and the money is chosen.
Altruism as an Obligation
This thought experiment is offered in response to the common framing of helping others as an "obligation." Many in the Effective Altruism community reject this framing, finding it unhelpful. Instead, they prefer to think of altruism as a kind and commendable action, but not something that is morally required of us.
To those who reject the "obligation" framing, I would ask: How would you feel about the decision to affirmatively press the button that results in a child's death, or in animals being tortured, for the sake of personal gain? For me, the reason I view altruism as an obligation is because I see no principled difference between the person who presses the button to harm and the one who declines to press the button to help in a scenarios where there is no possibility of discovery. Both decisions privilege personal interests over the well-being of others, and both, I believe, carry moral weight.
The Role of Detection and Consequences
The distinction between acts and omissions often hinges on whether harm can be traced back to the action of an agent, as affirmative actions can have broader, traceable effects on the entire ecosystem, leading us to view them as more morally egregious than omissions. For instance, the societal impact of a murder is often far greater than that of an accidental death because the act of murder disrupts social trust, incites fear, and demands justice in a way that an accident does not. This potential traceability is why it's crucial that the thought experiment stipulates the undetectability of the action, ensuring that the moral decision is not influenced by the possibility of detection or broader consequences.
Implications for Effective Altruism
This thought experiment challenges us to reconsider how we frame our moral decisions, particularly in the context of Effective Altruism. If we acknowledge that there’s little difference between choosing not to help and choosing to harm, then perhaps we should rethink the idea that altruism is merely a "kind" act rather than a moral imperative. For those of us committed to doing the most good, this perspective urges us to consider the true implications of our choices and the responsibility we bear.
Conclusion
In the end, whether you view altruism as an obligation or a gratuitous kindness may depend on how you interpret the ethical landscape of these decisions. This thought experiment extends beyond just the decision to help or harm a child; it also applies to choices like allowing animals to be tortured through factory farming or making decisions that impact future generations of beings. The denial of altruistic obligations implies that it is not wrong to privilege your own interests orders of magnitude higher than those you could help with your choices. Whether that choice arises in an affirmative or negative context, to me, does not change the fundamental wrongfulness of privileging one's interests over the well-being of others to such an obscene degree.
Thank you for this interesting post, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions.
I believe one key difference between killing someone and letting someone die is its effect on one’s conscience.
If I kill someone, I violate their rights. Even if no one would directly know what I did with the invisible button, I’d know what I did, and that would eat at my conscience, and affect how I’d interact with everyone after that. Suddenly, I’d have less trust in myself to do the right thing (to not do what my conscience strongly tells me not to do), and the world would seem like a less safe place because I’d suspect that others would’ve made the same decision I did, and now might be effectively willing to kill me for a mere $6,000 if they could get away with it.
If I let someone die, I don’t violate their rights, and, especially if I don’t directly experience them dying, there’s just less of a pull on my conscience.
One could argue that our consciences don’t make sense and they should be more inline with classic utilitarianism, but I’d argue that we should be extremely careful about making big changes to human consciences in general without thoroughly thinking through and understanding the full range of the effects of these.
Also, I don’t think use of the term “moral obligation” is optimal, since to me it implies a form of emotional bullying/blackmail: you’re not a good person unless you satisfy your moral obligations. Instead, I’d focus on people being true to their own consciences. In my mind, it’s a question of trying to use someone’s self-hate to “beat goodness into them” versus trying to inspire their inner goodness to guide them because that’s what’s ultimately best for them.
By “self-hate,” I mean hate of the parts of ourselves that we think are “bad person” parts, but are really just “human nature” parts that we can accept about ourselves without that meaning we have to indulge them.
Yeah I think in the case of both choosing not to act to save the kid and acting to kill the kid (in this narrow hypothetical) you're violating the kid's rights just as much (privileging your financial interests over his life).
And regarding your point regarding conscience... You're appealing to our moral intuitions which we can question the validity of, particularly with such thought experiments as these.
I suppose I would agree that acting as a moral person requires a significant consideration of other conscious beings with regard to our choices. And I think the vast majority of people fail to take adequate consideration thereof. I suppose that's how I consider my own "conscience": am I making choices with sufficient regard for the interests of other beings across space and time? I think attempting to act accordingly is part of my "inner goodness".