Around 1967, philosopher Philippa Foot wrote an essay that discussed the principle of double effect, which posits that it’s sometimes acceptable to cause unintentional harm so long as it brings a positive result. Within the essay, she included a scenario that would later be dubbed the “trolley problem”: a thought experiment meant to model ethics in regard to abortion. The trolley problem, however, would later be removed from this context and used to spark discussion on a wide range of ethical dilemmas.
It is not uncommon to see the trolley problem referenced in courses in philosophy, psychology, politics, ethics and critical thinking, from the middle school to the graduate level. Even outside of academic settings, the trolley problem seems to be unavoidable — it has even spread into online communities as a meme. The most popular version of the trolley problem sets up the following scenario: a trolley is hurtling along a set of tracks that splits in two and is controlled by a lever. On one side, five people are tied to the track, and on the other, just one person is bound. The subject who is presented with the trolley problem then must decide whether they, if they had control of the lever, would save the one person or the group of five from certain death.
While the setup of the trolley problem is simple, making the choice can be surprisingly complicated. Based solely on this information, most people opt to save the group of five, with the justification that doing so would save more lives. Because of this simplicity, other variations of the trolley problem were introduced: What if the single person was a loved one, a politician, or someone famous? What if it were just one person on each track, and what if one of them was in poor health? Presenting a class with any or all of these variables often results in one of two outcomes. Either the class falls mostly into unanimity with their decisions, or the group is harshly divided amongst several opinions.
Fortunately, the trolley problem is often a catalyst for many people’s first ethical debate, and can spark interest in subjects like philosophy. The outcomes of these debates, however, often go without any further analysis, and students therefore fail to explore the shortcomings of the trolley problem. Upon further examination, it becomes clear that the thought experiment removes the trolley problem from its intended context and places it on what can be called an “undeserved pedestal” within introductory ethics.
What Each Answer Means
Rarely will one find a universally fitting analysis of someone’s trolley problem solution, but a few generalizations can typically be made depending on the setup of the problem. For example, if someone is presented with the original version and chooses to save the group of five, they are demonstrating a belief in utilitarianism. In other words, they believe that the most ethical option is the one that benefits the greater good or the most people. Similarly, if someone opts to save a generally well-liked public or government figure over five common individuals, they are also engaging in utilitarian ethics — even if fewer lives are saved.
Individuals who genuinely feel that neither option is good exhibit deontological ethics; according to them, engaging in an act that causes someone to die is always morally wrong. Additionally, if someone chooses to save one loved one over five strangers, one might say that their ethics and morality are rather selfish in nature. Another very simple solution that favors both logic and self-preservation is to not touch the lever at all, because if you do, you’re no longer an innocent witness, and are legally responsible for murder.
Flaws of the Trolley Problem
While the trolley problem poses a multitude of options to explore, the underlying principle guiding its use in ethics is flawed. The problem situates its subjects in an emergency situation where they must either make an impulsive decision or no decision at all. A circumstance like this can hardly be used to gauge someone’s general beliefs about right and wrong. If everyone answered perfectly realistically, many subjects would likely admit to panicking and making a rash decision that would inevitably result in regret. And at the end of the day, the trolley problem serves as a rather unfair introduction to ethics since there isn’t a truly “ethical” decision; a decision between one gruesome death or a series of gruesome deaths isn’t exactly a good way to introduce someone to moral decision-making. Furthermore, the trolley problem deflects the blame for the death onto an onlooker’s decision or lack thereof.
Other thought experiments can be used in place of the trolly problem to analyze moral decision-making in a more nuanced fashion. For instance, the Heinz dilemma is a thought-provoking scenario that is more realistic and comes with far more moral possibilities. Other interesting ethical scenarios to consider include the Experience Machine and the Ship of Theseus.
Regardless of one’s opinions on the trolley problem, it should go without saying that a single scenario cannot fully determine a person’s ethical values. Considering a variety of thought experiments and moral decisions should be the norm when exploring ethics for the first time. The emphasis placed on the trolley problem is a problem in and of itself — but it can be easily rectified by examining and accounting for the various flaws the experiment presents.
