The trolley problem: is there a right choice in situations where one option is worse than another
Miscellaneous / / June 05, 2023
The devil is in the details.
More than two years ago, at the height of the pandemic, I came to the vaccination center in Moscow. It was scary: vaccines were only allowed for lactating women, and my son was only 5 months old. But it was impossible not to go. As a doctor, I knew about newborns with total lung damage.
Of course, I understood that the vaccine had side effects, but I believed (and still believe) that they were not comparable with the risk of pneumonia at that age. When I came for an examination, the doctor tried to dissuade me, because no one had done this before and complications could arise. I still got vaccinated, everything went well, there were no side effects, and none of us got sick.
I think I know why she did it. Not because she antivaxer, a bad doctor or knows some terrible truth. She just saw me and decided not to risk one person even for observations that could help many in the long run. It is natural for a doctor to choose duty over public good, but this is not the only point of view.
Thus, the interests of individuals were sacrificed in Soviet Union in the 1920s and 40s for a massive electrification project. Then, in a short time, a huge territory was connected to the power grid. Hydroelectric power plants were used as the main source of electricity. To run them, reservoirs, dams and other structures were needed that disrupted the natural course of rivers.
As a result, Mologa, Kalyazin, Stavropol-on-Volga and many other settlements were flooded. The story of Valentin Rasputin "Farewell to Matyora" is dedicated to these events.
What is the trolley problem and what does it have to do with it
At the heart of these stories is the trolley problem. This is a thought experiment that in 1967 suggested Philosopher Philip Foote. In it, a fundamental ethical dilemma must be resolved: is it possible to sacrifice one person for the benefit of the majority.
The classic trolley problem
to the subject offer imagine that he is standing at the switch of arrows on the road along which the trolley is traveling. It moves straight at five people, but you can pull the lever and send it to another path where one person is.
From a mathematical point of view, everything is elementary - five lives are more valuable than one, but in reality it is not so simple. Even if these people are not familiar to you and you are a disinterested person.
When the task is transferred from the head to at least a simulation, take responsibility becomes more difficult. Nevertheless, many choose to save five people, so the experiment becomes more complicated further.
Model with fat man or judge
The subject needs introducethat he is standing on a flyover and sees that a car or the same trolley is flying for five people below. He can push a fat man standing next to him (no fatphobia, just a condition of the experiment) to deflect the blow.
The second option: the test subject is a judge and can give an innocent person to an angry mob in order to avoid deaths in riots.
What do you you are taking?
As expected, not all of the people who shifted the lever in the example above were able to choose the majority in these situations. Because in one case it was necessary to indirectly cause the death of a person, and in these - to kill with their own hands. Do this was the easier, the more psychopathological and antisocial traits were expressed in the subject.
Why is it so hard to make a choice
In the trolley problem two collide philosophical approach utilitarianism and deontology.
Utilitarianism is a direction in ethics in which the moral value of an act determined its usefulness. That is, the main task of morality is to increase happiness and reduce the amount of pain.
For example, a hackneyed trick: if you went back in time, could you kill Hitler while he was a baby? From the point of view of utilitarianism, this is the only possible option.
Utilitarians reject rigid morality and allow such concepts as, for example, white lies. At the same time, they understand that people cannot be impartial and, if it comes to them or their loved ones, they will most likely deviate from the principles. Moreover, the human mind cannot comprehend everything, and therefore cannot predict all the consequences of a choice.
In deontological ethics, the emphasis do on the duty and morality of the act, in isolation from the result to which it will lead. This is the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, that is, the unconditional moral code of man. This means that everyone must follow the rules that can never be broken: don't kill, don't steal, and so on.
So, Leonid Roshal provided medical assistance to terrorists in the captured theater on Dubrovka, because it is the duty of a doctor, otherwise it is impossible to do.
But such reinforced concrete principles can harm. For example, if the killer tries to find out the location of the victim from you, and you tell the truth because you cannot lie.
Is there a correct answer to the trolley problem
No. The experiment does not even show the level of human morality. It is worth at least in the conditions of the model to change one person for a close relative - and many will save him without hesitation. But that doesn't make them bad people.
In real life, there are many more inputs and circumstances, so no one will ever be able to accurately assess whether the right choice was made.
Why you need to know about the trolley problem
Every day we decide which way to put the trolley on. We can lie to a woman about treason husband to save her family, or say, but ruin everything for a few people. We can use triage and choose who we help in order to reach as many people as possible, or we can fight for everyone, knowing that because of this we can do less. We make these choices all the time, even if we don't realize it.
If you know that there is no right answer, then it will be easier to choose. You can live with "the starry sky above your head and the moral law within you" and always act correctly - or evaluate each situation individually to choose the best option for the majority. Whatever you do, in the moment it will be the only possible option for you.
At the same time, try to understand your neighbor. You will never know what was in his "trolley" and what choice he faced. What seems obvious to you could become a serious test for him because of a nuance that you do not know about. Try to accept that this person also chose the only possible option for himself in a particular situation.
Read also👥
- How the bystander effect explains murder in front of eyewitnesses
- The Milgram Experiment: How the Habit of Obedience Can Lead to Terrible Things
- The gatekeeper model: why it's so hard to get out of the information bubble
- Stanford prison experiment: can circumstances make a monster out of a person
- How tolerance for uncertainty changes our character and attitude towards people