Have you ever heard of the Trolley Problem? This famous moral dilemma was proposed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and later explored in depth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson in the 1970s. The scenario is simple but striking: a runaway trolley is speeding down a track toward five people who are tied up and cannot move. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto a side track, where one person is tied. The dilemma is this: Do you pull the lever, sacrificing one person to save five?
Before you hesitate between the two options, here are explanations of the two different choices you might make, based on two major philosophical themes.
You may believe that pulling the lever is the right choice, since it saves a greater number of people. John Stuart Mill, a noted proponent of utilitarianism, would likely agree with you. According to utilitarianism, an action is morally justified if it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. In this scenario, by saving five people instead of one, you are promoting the greatest overall happiness, making pulling the lever the morally correct choice.
On the other hand, you might feel that not pulling the lever is the morally correct choice. By remaining a bystander, you are not committing a wrongful act, whereas pulling the lever would mean actively causing the death of one person. This perspective comes from deontology, or duty-based ethics, a theory promoted by Immanuel Kant. Deontology focuses on the morality of an action itself rather than its consequences, meaning any action that is inherently unjust is unacceptable, regardless of the benefits it may bring. In this case, pulling the lever would make you directly responsible for killing someone who would otherwise live — an action that is morally wrong..
Your decision in this dilemma could also depend on personal factors, like your relationships with the people involved or your sense of responsibility. Interestingly, research shows that cultural background can influence choices as well. For example, people from collectivist cultures are more likely to make the utilitarian choice, while those from individualistic cultures may lean toward the deontological option. Personally, I have shifted from a utilitarian perspective to a deontological one. I would also argue that age is another factor affecting the decisions made. The utilitarian decision is consequence-focused, which makes it easier for children to understand why this is morally justified. The deontological decision requires a lot of critical thinking and understanding of “justice,” which is a very abstract and complex concept for an average child to fully understand and embody when making decisions.
A student in CA expressed a firm utilitarian opinion regarding this dilemma. They emphasized how benefiting the largest number of people is more important than anything else, and highly doubted the existence of an absolute red line in morality.
Though it is in its late 50s in age, the Trolley Problem still plays an important role in modern society. This dilemma has been used to frame AI ethics that are programmed into self-driving cars when they encounter unavoidable accident scenarios; the allocation of scarce resources in an emergency; and in legal theories when involving culpability and intent.