Sacrificing One to Save Five: The Trolley Problem

Imagine yourself standing beside some tracks, witnessing a trolley hurtling towards five unaware workers, unable to stop. You turn and find a lever that will divert the trolley down a second path. However, this path has one lone worker, equally unaware of his/her surroundings. What will you do? Pull the lever, or do nothing?

This dilemma was created in 1967 by a philosopher named Philippa Foot and was later called the “trolley problem” in a paper published by Judith Jarvis Thomson. The most basic scenario was just illustrated above, but as researchers look into this, more versions of this problem appeared.

One of the most famous versions is based on the same idea, but instead of you standing next to a lever, you’re standing on a bridge right above the track. You see the same five workers and the runaway trolley in the distance. The workers are again unaware of the trolley coming at them. You’re standing next to a large man, and you are sure that his size will be able to stop the trolley, saving the five workers. What will you do? Push the man down to save five people, or do nothing?

The whole trolley problem is based on one question: is moral value solely based on the outcome? There are two trains of thought (pun intended): the utilitarian perspective and the deontological perspective. The utilitarian approach says that the best action is the one that does the most good, while the deontological approach says that certain actions are just wrong no matter the outcome. In this case, utilitarians would say the most ethical action would be to sacrifice one life to save five, but deontologists would argue the opposite.

When people were given the first version of the trolley problem, a large majority stuck with utilitarians and said they would flip the switch. However, when given the second version, people switched to the deontological perspective and chose not to push the man. Why is that? How come we reach two different decisions even when it leads to the same outcome?

This kind of scenario is sometimes called the principle of double effect. It states that it is acceptable to indirectly cause harm if it leads to a better outcome, but it is not acceptable to directly cause harm, even if it’s for the greater good. In this case, people would pull the lever because it doesn’t directly cause a worker’s death. However, people won’t push the stranger because they have directly killed them.

This problem definitely seems like an interesting question you might ask your friends for fun, but so what? It’s unlikely that any of us will run into these situations. Critics have also called this problem too unrealistic to model human thinking. However, especially in the 21st century, this predicament is shown to be rather abstract and flexible, allowing researchers to analyze other scenarios and issues more. Some have used this model for questions on war and abortion. Others have used this problem on new technological advancements, such as self-driving cars. Should self-driving cars protect the passenger but risk the lives of people nearby? The answer seems simple at first, but who wants a car that doesn’t have the passengers as their first priority? As we slowly enter a world where technology can make its own decisions, it is becoming more and more important to understand our moral compasses. With simple yet abstract questions like these, we can better interpret the complicated mechanisms that shape our thinking and actions.

Works Cited

Cassani Davis, Lauren. “Would You Pull the Trolley Switch? Does it Matter?” The Atlantic, 9 Oct. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/trolley-problem-historypsychology-morality-driverless-cars/409732/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

Crockett, Molly. “The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others?” The Guardian, 12 Dec. 2016, www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/dec/12/thetrolley-problem-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-many-others. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

D’Olimpio, Laura. “The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five?” The Conversation, 2 June 2019, theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-killone-person-to-save-five-57111. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

“Next Stop: ‘Trolley Problem.’” Merriam Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/words-atplay/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.