Could There Be A Solution To The Trolley Problem? | Issue 116

The Trolley Problem sets up a moral dilemma in which one is to decide whether to steer the trolley in the first scenario, and whether to push the fat man off ... Yourcomplimentaryarticles You’vereadoneofyourfourcomplimentaryarticlesforthismonth. Youcanreadfourarticlesfreepermonth.Tohavecompleteaccesstothethousandsofphilosophyarticlesonthissite,please SUBSCRIBENOW Articles CouldThereBeASolutionToTheTrolleyProblem? OmidPanahifindsthatfindingasolutionisnottheproblem. TheTrolleyProblemisathoughtexperimentfirstdevisedbytheOxfordmoralphilosopherPhilippaFootin1967.Inherpapertitled‘TheProblemofAbortionandtheDoctrineoftheDoubleEffect’,Footwrote“itmayratherbesupposedthatheisthedriverofarunawaytram[trolley]whichhecanonlysteerfromonenarrowtrackontoanother;fivemenareworkingononetrackandonemanontheother;anyoneonthetrackthetramentersisboundtobekilled.”AndsotheTrolleyProblemwasborn.(WeshouldnotethatFootpresentedthisthoughtexperimentasoneamongmanyothers,andthereisnoevidentreasonwhythisonehasreceivedsomuchattentionfromthephilosophicalandscientificcommunities.) In1976,nineyearsafterFootpublishedheroriginalpaperontheTrolleyProblem,theAmericanphilosopherJudithJ.Thomsonwroteapapercalled‘Killing,LettingDie,andtheTrolleyProblem’,inwhichsheintroducedasecondversionoftheTrolleyProblem,makingitallthemoreinteresting: “Georgeisonafootbridgeoverthetrolleytracks.Heknowstrolleys,andcanseethattheoneapproachingthebridgeisoutofcontrol.Onthetrackbackofthebridgetherearefivepeople;thebanksaresosteepthattheywillnotbeabletogetoffthetrackintime.Georgeknowsthattheonlywaytostopanout-of-controltrolleyistodropaveryheavyweightintoitspath.Buttheonlyavailable,sufficientlyheavyweight,isafatman,alsowatchingthetrolleyfromthefootbridge.Georgecanshovethefatmanontothetrackinthepathofthetrolley,killingthefatman;orhecanrefrainfromdoingthis,lettingthefivedie.” Incontemporaryethics,Thomson’ssecondscenario,involvingthefatmanandthefootbridge,isviewedasanindispensablepartoftheTrolleyProblem,andisincludedinalmostallpresentationsofthethoughtexperiment.Afterall,thesecondscenariomakestheprobleminteresting–andincrediblypuzzling. TrolleyProblems©SteveLillie2016.Pleasevisitwww.stevelillie.biz VariousSolutions IhavenoticedthatwhenfirstpresentedwiththeTrolleyProblem,manypeopletendtothinkofthedifferentwaysinwhichtheobvioustragedies,namelythedeathofoneoroffiveindividuals,dependingonone’schoice,couldbeavoidedaltogether.Forinstance,inarealworldscenario,onemightbeabletoloudlywarntheworkmenonthetracksoftheapproachingtrolley,inanticipationthattheywillmoveandsavetheirlivesthemselves.Butthatwouldbetomissthepointofthethoughtexperiment.TheTrolleyProblemsetsupamoraldilemmainwhichoneistodecidewhethertosteerthetrolleyinthefirstscenario,andwhethertopushthefatmanoffthefootbridgeinthesecond,sothatonepersondiesasopposedtofive.Thosearetheonlyoptionsavailable.So,whatisonetodo? Foot’sownresponsetotheTrolleyProblemwasthatthemorallyjustifiedactionwouldbetosteerthetrolleytokilltheoneworkman,thussavinganetfourlives.Inordertodemonstratethemoralityofthis,shemadeadistinctionbetweenwhatshecalled‘negativeduties’and‘positiveduties’.Inthebroadsense,shedefinednegativedutiesastheobligationtorefrainfromharmingothersandpositivedutiesastheobligationtoactivelydogood–inthiscase,tosavelives.Shearguedthat,asamatterofprinciple,ournegativedutiestorefrainfromharmarealwaysmoreurgentandweighmorethanourpositiveduties,sothatoneisnotjustifiedinviolatinganegativedutytonotharmothersinordertofulfillapositivedutyofhelpingsomeone.Usingthislineofreasoning,Foot’sversionoftheTrolleyProblemcanbesaidtopresentaconflictbetweentwonegativeduties.Inotherwords,thedriverofthetrolleycanaskthefollowing:“Isitmydutytonotharmoneindividual,ortonotharmfiveindividuals?”Andtheanswer,accordingtoFoot,isobviouslythelatter,sinceitleadstolessharm. Inthefootbridgescenario,however,onefacesaconflictbetweenanegativedutyandapositiveduty,namelythenegativedutyofnotharmingthefatmanonthefootbridge,andthepositivedutyofsavingthelivesofthefiveworkmenonthetrack.Inthiscase,Footwouldarguethat,sincesavingthelivesofthefiveworkmenrequiresdoingsignificantharmto(indeed,killing)thefatmanonthefootbridge,oneisnotmorallyjustifiedindoingit. Thomsonhadadifferentpointofview.AlthoughsheagreedwithFootonjustwhatthemorallysuperioractionis,shedisagreedastowhyoneshouldactthatway.InThomson’sview,therealdistinctionliesbetween“deflectingathreatfromalargergroupontoasmallergroup,”and“bringingadifferentthreattobearonthesmallergroup.”Usingthispremise,shearguedthatitismorallyjustifiedtosteerthetrolleyontothetrackwherethereisoneworkman,sincethatwouldbetodeflectthethreatfromthefiveworkmen(largergroup)totheoneworkman(smallergroup);andthatitismorallyunjustifiedtopushthefatmanoffthefootbridge,sincethatwouldbetocreateanentirelynewthreatforhim.InresponsetotheProblem,philosophersinfluencedbyKanthavearguedthatoneoughtnottousehumanbeingsasameanstosaveothers,soitwouldbemorallyrighttosteerthetrolleyawayfromthefive,butmorallywrongtopushthefatman.Andsomehavequestionedtheveryassumptionthatoneismorallyobligedtominimizeharm,ortobringaboutthedeathofasfewpeopleaspossible.Butthequestionremains:whatisthesolutiontotheTrolleyProblem? NoSolution,NoProblem Theanswer,inmyview,isthatthereisnodefinitivesolution.Likemostphilosophicalproblems,theTrolleyProblemisnotdesignedtohaveasolution.Itis,rather,intendedtoprovokethought,andcreateanintellectualdiscourseinwhichthedifficultyofresolvingmoraldilemmasisappreciated,andourlimitationsasmoralagentsarerecognized.TheongoingdiscourseovertheTrolleyProblemisnotadiscourseaboutsolutionsperse–afterall,inbothscenariosoftheproblem,thereareonlytwowaysinwhichonecouldact–butonethatplacessignificanceonreasons.Thisisnottosay,however,thateveryopinionontheTrolleyProblemisperfectlylegitimate.WeshouldacknowledgethattherearemoreorlessjustifiableresolutionstotheProblem–oranymoraldilemma,forthatmatter–andthatitisonlythroughreasonandrationalargumentationthatwecanconvergeuponthem.AswesawintheagreementovertherightresponsebetweenFootandThomson,mostofusdifferonlyinthereasonsforwhichwepreferonesolutiontotheTrolleyProblemovertheother:mostpeopleagreeonthesolution.ThatiswhathaskepttheTrolleyProblemaliveamongphilosophersfornearlyfivedecades. IdonotbelievetherewilleverbeaperfectsolutiontotheTrolleyProblem,noraconsensusastothebestpossiblesolution.Allwecanhopefor–andshouldhopefor,asIhaveargued–istoutilizethetoolsofphilosophyaswellasthescientificmethodtocontinuethisdiscourse.TheTrolleyProblemdoesnothavetoberesolved;itmerelyneedstobecontemplated,andtobethetopicofourconversationsfromtimetotime. ©OmidPanahi2016 OmidPanahiisafreelancescienceandphilosophywriter.FollowhimonTwitter(@OmidPPanahi)andMedium(@OmidPPanahi). Articletools Print Email Discuss(10) Share Morearticlesfromthisissue RelatedarticlesW(h)itherMorality? DesignerBabies:WhereShouldWeDrawtheLine? TheGoldenRuleRedux AWayofThinkingAboutEthics OneWilltoRuleThemAll What’sTheWorstThatCouldHappen? Simon&Finn TheAuto-Icon TheLastSupper News:August/September2016 Tagsethics Advertisement Thissiteusescookiestorecognizeusersandallowustoanalysesiteusage.Bycontinuingtobrowsethesitewithcookiesenabledinyourbrowser,youconsenttotheuseofcookiesinaccordancewithourprivacypolicy.X