Schrödinger’s Child — Morality in a Situation of Uncertainty

Justice Blackmun once argued, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

But when the issue is life, do we not have a responsibility to take pause? If a hunter knows there are children in the area, should he not hesitate before shooting into a rustling bush?

How should we conduct ourselves in times of great moral uncertainty?

Suppose there is a box that cannot be opened, requiring two arms to carry. Inside of this box is an infant. If the box is lifted, it cannot be put back down for a year or the child will die. If the box is untouched, the child will be fine.

With a complete understanding of these circumstances, you decide to pick the box up. Is it morally acceptable to put it down?

Now suppose you pick up the box, but this time with an uncertainty of the initial status of the child. There is a 90% chance the child is alive, but a 10% chance it is not. Is it morally acceptable to put the box down?

What if there is a 50% chance the child is alive, and a 50% chance it is not? Carrying the box with both hands for a year places a great burden upon your personal autonomy. But placing the box down may mean the death of a child.

What if there was only a 10% chance the child was alive?
A 1% chance?

There exists two competing interests — autonomy and life. In moments of moral uncertainty, should we seek to err on the side of life? When, if ever, does it become morally acceptable to put down the box?

Lets’ examine a slightly different scenario. Suppose now there are two boxes. They cannot be opened and require two arms to carry. They are identical in every way and their contents cannot be distinguished.

Inside one box is the same infant of unknown status. There is a 50% chance the child is alive, and a 50% chance it is not. If the box is lifted, it cannot be put back down for a year or the child will die. If the box is untouched, the child will be fine.

Inside the other box is one million dollars. If this box is lifted, you are notified instantly. The money is yours to keep and the box may be lowered.

You have no obligation to lift either box. However, you decide you’d like a chance at one million dollars. With a complete understanding of these circumstances, you decide to pick a box up. You choose the box with the infant of unknown status. Is it morally acceptable to put the box down?

Suppose there are 99 boxes containing one million dollars, and only one containing the infant. You decide to lift a box at random, again choosing the one with the child. Is it morally acceptable to put the box down? Do these probabilities matter?

What if there was only a 1% chance the child is alive?

Has anything changed?

You by now have made the obvious leap — but do not let your answers here put you in a box of your own. Understand your moral baseline, bring the thought into the real world, and in the cracks, you will find yourself with a strong foundation for your personal beliefs.