Trolley dilemma: To be or not to be?

Imagine this: You are standing right next to a lever in a train yard. If you pull down the lever, you can change the direction of the trolley to a different set of tracks. From your view, there are five hostages tied up on the main track and one innocent bystander on the side track, where escape is impossible for both parties. Right at this moment, there is a runaway trolley heading to the main track, and you are to decide whether you would do nothing and let the trolley kill the five men on the main track, or would you pull down the lever and sacrifice the bystander to save the group. We all may have our own answers now, whether to pull or not to pull the lever, but what exactly is the right thing to do?

① Ethical dilemma

More than half a century ago, philosopher Philippa Foot (1967) introduced this scenario, which later became known as the trolley dilemma or trolley problem. It is a hypothetical thought experiment in ethics, in which the answers represent two important schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontology.

In this context, utilitarianism seeks to save the most lives, whereas deontology follows the rule to not harm innocent people when they are not threatened. Throughout the years, researchers have developed different trolley dilemmas with a similar structure. However, it is very unlikely for people to always take an action (i.e., extreme utilitarianism) or not to take any action ever (i.e., extreme deontology).

Let us consider another similar example: Imagine that you are at a train station again, but this time you are standing on a higher platform. Again, the trolley is heading towards five men on the main track. You do not have the lever this time, but there is a man in front of you who is large enough to stop the trolley. Now, you are to decide whether you would do nothing and let the trolley kill the five men on the main track, or would you push the large man in front of you (the “fat man” of the original philosophy literature) onto the tracks and sacrifice one to save the group. Again, what will you do?

② Differences in the choices made between dilemma A and B

In the trolley dilemma A, it is said that a slightly higher population would have agreed to pull down the lever to save five men, when they are aware that this action will result in the death of one man. However, most of the people would refuse to push the one man off the platform when they are presented with the trolley dilemma B. Given the consequences in both cases are the same, i.e., kills one to save five or do not kill innocent other, why is there a difference in the choices we made?As mentioned above, for extreme utilitarianism, if they believe that the outcome of killing one to save five maximizes the benefits, they would have pulled down the lever and pushed the man off the platform to save five people. Whereas for extreme deontology, they would have never broken the rules and harm innocent people, therefore they would let the trolley follow its original track.Nevertheless, if you choose to pull down the lever in dilemma A, what exactly stops you from pushing someone off the platform when it comes to dilemma B? Well, the notion is called the Doctrine of Double Effect, and it basically states that it can be ethically acceptable to do something morally good, even though it comes with a morally bad side-effect, and even if this bad side-effect is foreseeable, as long as certain conditions are met (Clark, 2007; Mangan, 1949).There are some principles associated with the doctrine, and only with all four principles fulfilled, then the doctrine holds.

The nature-of-the-act condition. The act itself, apart from its consequences, has to be morally good or at least neutral. This condition is about the action, not the outcome. Pulling a lever to redirect a trolley is, in itself, a neutral act.The proportionality condition. The good effect has to be serious enough to outweigh, or at least balance, the bad effect. In both scenarios, five lives are saved at the cost of one, so on numbers alone this condition can be met.The right-intention condition. You cannot take an action out of evil intention, even if the result is good. In both the dilemmas, whether you pull down the lever or push the person off, you are taking the action in order to save five people, not because you want to kill that one person. The death of the one person may be foreseen, but it must not be what you are aiming for.The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved; it can only be a side-effect. In dilemma A, the one person’s death is a side-effect of diverting the trolley: if that person somehow escaped, the five would still be saved. In dilemma B, the person being hit by the trolley is the very thing that stops it, so the harm is used as a means to save the five. This is why many people feel that pulling the lever can be acceptable while pushing someone off the platform is wrong, even though the numbers are the same.

③ In real life

Despite all the justification and doctrine, it is also important to know that a hypothetical judgement does not necessarily predict real-life behaviours, and it is important for you to consider the legal consequences of the trolley dilemma in real life. According to Bostyn, Sevenhant and Roets (2018), an assumption made in thought experiment predicts the affective and cognitive aspects of the decision itself, rather than suggesting our real-life action when encountered with such dilemmas. In other words, what we say we would do in a thought experiment is not necessarily what we would actually do in a real emergency.As an extra question, let’s consider the following scenario. Using the trolley dilemma B again, but this time the man on the platform is the villain who put the five hostages on the track. Now, would you do nothing and let the trolley kill the five men on the main track, or would you push the not-so-innocent villain in front of you onto the tracks to save the group? What will you do this time?

④ In conclusion…

Of course, we have a lot of alternatives in real life if we are really trapped in this situation. After all, a moral dilemma is not meant to create a flawless solution, nor it is intended to reach a consensus among the public to follow just one conclusion. In fact, all the dilemmas presented above are just hypothetical thought experiments to utilize the philosophical concept in order to inspire or evoke our ideas and keep intellectual conversations going from time to time.Last but not least, this moral paradox has been used as a mechanism to discuss the ethics of self-driving or autonomous vehicle design, in order to program the vehicle to choose whom or what to strike when a collision is unavoidable. Click the link below to be directed to Moral Machine, and by clicking on the “Judging” button, you will be presented with some moral dilemmas, in which you may have a try and make your own decisions. For a quick review on the whole concept of the trolley dilemma, click the link below to be directed to a TED-Ed video. Moral Machine TED-Ed Video

References

Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men and trolleys: Hypothetical judgement versus real life behaviour in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084-1093. doi: 10.1177/0956797617752640Clark, J. (2007). How the trolley problem works. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from https://people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem1.htmFoot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 1-7. doi: 10.1093/0199252866.003.0002Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2016). What makes moral dilemma judgements “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 1-7. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1248787Mangan, J. (1949). A historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies, 10(1), 41-61. doi: 10.1177/004056394901000102

Related Reading

• Fun Facts about Perception
• Fun Facts about Human Behaviour

This article is for general education only and is not a substitute for professional assessment, diagnosis or treatment.