THE TROLLEY PROBLEM: A MORAL DILEMMA OF INTROSPECT UNVEILED

The Moral Framework

You’re walking with your partner alongside a road parallel to railway tracks, it's your daily commute and you think nothing of it. You’re so used to it in fact that this is the first time you notice a small room right up against the tracks, it has none but a singular button; you point it out to your partner. Strange, you wonder.

Little did you know that pressing that button would throw you into a moral dilemma of epic proportions.

All of a sudden there's a loud crashing sound, you look to your left and see that a part of the station façade has fallen onto the tracks. Your immediate cause of concern is the possibility of a train derailment. This fear is short-lived when you notice the painful screams of workers pinned underneath the debris as they lie helpless on the tracks. Suddenly their unison shrieks fall silent, and there is a vibrational hum in the distance

that replaces them, then the horn of an oncoming train. The yells are now caused due to the pain of terror and fright…

You and your partner are dumbstruck when suddenly you hear one of the workers yell at you, “Switch the Tracks! Change the path!”. You realize it's that little room, that has the power to save those lives. You run immediately into the room, and just as you're about to push the button, you notice something. There’s another worker on the other track. You watch as the train gets closer and closer. You have a decision to make, switch the tracks and have the train kill one person, or do nothing and let the train kill a total of 5. You have about 5 seconds to decide, 5…4…3…2…1…

The Origin

The Trolley Problem emerged from British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, serving as a means to explore moral intuitions within the context of the doctrine of double effect, Kantian principles, and utilitarianism. This thought experiment has since become a focal point for numerous philosophers and psychologists who have devised alternative scenarios. These scenarios aim to further scrutinize intuitions and the applicability of established moral doctrines, expanding the discourse that Foot initially introduced.

The Philosophical Framework

Before you make your decision let's put things into perspective. For that let's imagine you are the loco pilot. The change from the onlooker making the decision to the driver making it is of significant importance, as it presents the onlooker with a unique moral dilemma. In Philippa Foot's analysis, the driver has to choose between causing the death of either five people or just one, which appears to morally justify diverting the trolley. On the other hand, the onlooker is not accountable for the initial path the trolley is on. If the trolley were to continue on its original course and result in the deaths of five people, the onlooker wouldn't bear any responsibility. However, if the onlooker decides to change the trolley's course, leading to the death of one person, the responsibility would then shift to the onlooker. Therefore, the dilemma facing the onlooker isn't a simple decision of causing the death of one versus five, but rather, a choice between actively causing one death and passively allowing the deaths of five.

Utilitarian vs. Deontological Ethics

For most people the choice is relatively straightforward, 90% of people on average would indeed push the button, after all, one person dying is better than 5 people dying, this follows the utilitarianism form of philosophy. This theory asserts that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility.

In the context of the Trolley Problem, a utilitarian might argue that pulling the lever is the right choice because it minimizes the overall number of deaths.

Some however wouldn’t, these people follow the deontology form of thinking. It emphasizes the importance of following moral rules and duties. Some proponents of this theory might argue against pulling the lever, as they believe it's wrong to intentionally cause harm, even if the intention is to prevent greater harm. One question that naturally arises is how different is it to kill a person from allowing the death of a person. Is or is not inaction an equally blameworthy doing as action?

Isn’t choosing not to be involved a decision already involved?

Utilitarianism is a state function whereas Deontology is a path function

The Complexity of Numbers

Let's change the hypotheticals a little bit, what if there were 2 people on the other track? 3? 4? Would you still be equally certain that you would change the track as if there was 1? Through the eyes of pure utilitarianism, 4 is still better than 5, so switching the tracks seems like the right choice. But there comes a point where the difference between the number of people on the tracks becomes more negligible than the level of your involvement in the situation. Is deciding to live with the guilt of not saving that one extra person better than living with the reality that those 4 people would have been completely safe had it not been for your intervention?

A bit overwhelming? Let’s step back...

We so surely believe we have our moral compasses pointing in the right direction, and that we’d always make the right decision based on facts.

Emotions vs. Logic

Consider yourself back in the room, before making the decision you turn back to look at your partner for reassurance, but they’re not present, you turn back only to realize the one person on the other track is replaced with your partner. What would your decision be then? Your impulse would tell you not to push the button, understandably so; but is it the right thing to do?

If you pressed the button the first time, the only thing that has changed this time is your emotional connection. The morality and logic of the situation remain the same. Even if you didn’t press the button, put your partner in the group of 5 and consider the same dilemma. You’d rather choose to not make a decision, saving the life of your loved one rather than actively sacrificing them for the lives of 5 others. This small difference shows us how malleable our moralities are based on our emotions and not solely based on sound logic.

The Fat Man Dilemma

Imagine this time around, there’s no little room, no switch, no lever, only one track. Once again, a trolley is rapidly approaching, headed towards a group of five individuals. You are positioned on a bridge beneath which the trolley will pass. By placing a substantial weight on the tracks, you can halt its progress. Coincidentally, there is an overweight man beside you.

The sole method available to prevent the trolley from reaching the five people is to push the man off the bridge onto the track, resulting in his demise but saving the lives of the five others. Is it appropriate to proceed with this course of action?

Where initially only 10% of the population chose not to save that one person, the same surveys now say less than 10% would push the man off the bridge to save the others. But why? The outcome of both events is the same. Both, the man on the tracks and the fat man are innocent, neither of them chose to be in that position, and both of them would be equally safe if it weren’t for your interception. Why then is it that we now choose to let the train pass over those 5 people? Is our level of involvement in the fat man dilemma greater than the delta of 4 people’s lives?

The End and The Human Predicament

This finally brings out the realization that we as humans more often than not, if ever, choose the options best for self-preservation rather than the best outcome overall. We so selfishly choose our safety, even when we are standing on a bridge 10 feet above the tracks on which lie people whose safety we sacrifice

In the complex moral landscape of the trolley problem, the weight of ethical dilemmas becomes palpable. The scenario, though a thought experiment, reveals the uncomfortable reality that life often presents us with decisions that don't have clear or morally satisfying solutions. In a pessimistic reflection, this exercise underscores the heart-wrenching nature of choices where every option seems to carry a burden of pain and loss.

The trolley problem encapsulates the tension between utilitarian calculations and the intrinsic value of human life. It hints at the inherent difficulty of quantifying lives and comparing them on a scale. Pessimistically, this thought experiment suggests that even when we strive to make morally justifiable choices, the cost to our conscience and the emotional toll of such decisions may linger as a reminder of the complexity and imperfection of the human condition.

At the end of the day, It's just a thought experiment ;)

Thank you for reading, leave a like if you’d press the button, follow if you wouldn’t