The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five?

The trolley dilemma and its variations demonstrate that most people approve of some actions that cause harm, yet other actions with the same ... Menu Close Home Edition Africa Australia Canada Canada(français) España France Global Indonesia NewZealand UnitedKingdom UnitedStates Edition: Availableeditions Global Getnewsletter Becomeanauthor Signupasareader Signin It’soutofcontrolandheadingforfiveunsuspectingbystanders! Shutterstock LauraD'Olimpio,UniversityofNotreDameAustralia Author LauraD'Olimpio SeniorLecturerinPhilosophy,UniversityofNotreDameAustralia Disclosurestatement LauraD'Olimpiodoesnotworkfor,consult,ownsharesinorreceivefundingfromanycompanyororganisationthatwouldbenefitfromthisarticle,andhasdisclosednorelevantaffiliationsbeyondtheiracademicappointment. Partners TheUniversityofNotreDameAustraliaprovidesfundingasamemberofTheConversationAU. Viewallpartners Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn WhatsApp Messenger Imagineyouarestandingbesidesometramtracks.Inthedistance,youspotarunawaytrolleyhurtlingdownthetrackstowardsfiveworkerswhocannothearitcoming.Eveniftheydospotit,theywon’tbeabletomoveoutofthewayintime. Asthisdisasterlooms,youglancedownandseealeverconnectedtothetracks.Yourealisethatifyoupullthelever,thetramwillbediverteddownasecondsetoftracksawayfromthefiveunsuspectingworkers. However,downthissidetrackisoneloneworker,justasobliviousashiscolleagues. So,wouldyoupullthelever,leadingtoonedeathbutsavingfive? Thisisthecruxoftheclassicthoughtexperimentknownasthetrolleydilemma,developedbyphilosopherPhilippaFootin1967andadaptedbyJudithJarvisThomsonin1985. Thetrolleydilemmaallowsustothinkthroughtheconsequencesofanactionandconsiderwhetheritsmoralvalueisdeterminedsolelybyitsoutcome. Thetrolleydilemmahassinceprovenitselftobearemarkablyflexibletoolforprobingourmoralintuitions,andhasbeenadaptedtoapplytovariousotherscenarios,suchaswar,torture,drones,abortionandeuthanasia. Variations Nowconsidernowthesecondvariationofthisdilemma. Imagineyouarestandingonafootbridgeabovethetramtracks.Youcanseetherunawaytrolleyhurtlingtowardsthefiveunsuspectingworkers,butthere’snolevertodivertit. However,thereislargemanstandingnexttoyouonthefootbridge.You’reconfidentthathisbulkwouldstopthetraminitstracks. So,wouldyoupushthemanontothetracks,sacrificinghiminordertostopthetramandtherebysavingfiveothers? Theoutcomeofthisscenarioisidenticaltotheonewiththeleverdivertingthetrolleyontoanothertrack:onepersondies;fivepeoplelive.Theinterestingthingisthat,whilemostpeoplewouldthrowthelever,veryfewwouldapproveofpushingthefatmanoffthefootbridge. Thompsonandotherphilosophershavegivenusothervariationsonthetrolleydilemmathatarealsoscarilyentertaining.Somedon’tevenincludetrolleys. Imagineyouareadoctorandyouhavefivepatientswhoallneedtransplantsinordertolive.Twoeachrequireonelung,anothertwoeachrequireakidneyandthefifthneedsaheart. Inthenextwardisanotherindividualrecoveringfromabrokenleg.Butotherthantheirknittingbones,they’reperfectlyhealthy.So,wouldyoukillthehealthypatientandharvesttheirorganstosavefiveothers? Again,theconsequencesarethesameasthefirstdilemma,butmostpeoplewouldutterlyrejectthenotionofkillingthehealthypatient. Inconsistentorarethereotherfactorsthanconsequencesatplay? Actions,intentionsandconsequences Ifallthedilemmasabovehavethesameconsequence,yetmostpeoplewouldonlybewillingtothrowthelever,butnotpushthefatmanorkillthehealthypatient,doesthatmeanourmoralintuitionsarenotalwaysreliable,logicalorconsistent? Perhapsthere’sanotherfactorbeyondtheconsequencesthatinfluencesourmoralintuitions? Footarguedthatthere’sadistinctionbetweenkillingandlettingdie.Theformerisactivewhilethelatterispassive. Inthefirsttrolleydilemma,thepersonwhopullstheleverissavingthelifeofthefiveworkersandlettingtheonepersondie.Afterall,pullingtheleverdoesnotinflictdirectharmonthepersononthesidetrack. Butinthefootbridgescenario,pushingthefatmanoverthesideisinintentionalactofkilling. Thisissometimesdescribedastheprincipleofdoubleeffect,whichstatesthatit’spermissibletoindirectlycauseharm(asasideor“double”effect)iftheactionpromotesanevengreatergood.However,it’snotpermissibletodirectlycauseharm,eveninthepursuitofagreatergood. Thompsonofferedadifferentperspective.Shearguedthatmoraltheoriesthatjudgethepermissibilityofanactionbasedonitsconsequencesalone,suchasconsequentialismorutilitarianism,cannotexplainwhysomeactionsthatcausekillingsarepermissiblewhileothersarenot. Ifweconsiderthateveryonehasequalrights,thenwewouldbedoingsomethingwronginsacrificingoneevenifourintentionwastosavefive. Researchdonebyneuroscientistshasinvestigatedwhichpartsofthebrainwereactivatedwhenpeopleconsideredthefirsttwovariationsofthetrolleydilemma. Theynotedthatthefirstversionactivatesourlogical,rationalmindandthusifwedecidedtopulltheleveritwasbecauseweintendedtosavealargernumberoflives. However,whenweconsiderpushingthebystander,ouremotionalreasoningbecomesinvolvedandwethereforefeeldifferentlyaboutkillingoneinordertosavefive. Areouremotionsinthisinstanceleadingustothecorrectaction?Shouldweavoidsacrificingone,evenifitistosavefive? Realworlddilemmas Thetrolleydilemmaanditsvariationsdemonstratethatmostpeopleapproveofsomeactionsthatcauseharm,yetotheractionswiththesameoutcomearenotconsideredpermissible. Noteveryoneanswersthedilemmasinthesameway,andevenwhenpeopleagree,theymayvaryintheirjustificationoftheactiontheydefend. Thesethoughtexperimentshavebeenusedtostimulatediscussionaboutthedifferencebetweenkillingversuslettingdie,andhaveevenappeared,inoneformoranother,inpopularculture,suchasthefilmEyeInTheSky. InEyeintheSky,militaryandpoliticalleadershavetodecidewhetherit’spermissibletoharmorkilloneinnocentpersoninordertopotentiallysavemanylives. BleeckerStreetMedia Philosophy Morality Ethics moraldilemma Events Moreevents Jobs ResearchFellow-MSDIWater Professor/AssociateProfessor,SchoolofLaw TrusteeBoardMember ResearchFellow/SeniorResearchFellow Director,HumanResources Morejobs EditorialPolicies Communitystandards Republishingguidelines Analytics Ourfeeds Getnewsletter Whoweare Ourcharter Ourteam Partnersandfunders Resourceformedia Contactus ​ ​ ​