The Trolley Problem is one of the most famous thought experiments in moral philosophy, and is one of the last famous textbook thought experiments that I have yet to discuss in this blog. And for good reason- I find it particularly depressing as in my opinion, every scenario is a loss since it involves a loss of human life. However, the Trolly Problem is famous for a reason: it presents a simple yet profoundly challenging scenario that forces us to confront difficult questions about morality, ethics, and the value of human life. In this Mantra101 blog post, we will explore the Trolley Problem, its variations, and the ethical theories that attempt to resolve it.

The Classic Trolley Problem

Imagine a trolley speeding down a track. Ahead, five people are tied to the track and cannot move. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto another track, where only one person is tied down. You face a moral dilemma: do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people, or pull the lever and redirect the trolley, sacrificing one person to save the five.

This scenario raises fundamental ethical questions:

1. Is it morally permissible to sacrifice one person to save five?
2. Does actively intervening (pulling the lever) carry more moral weight than passively allowing the deaths (doing nothing)?
3. How do we measure the value of human lives in moral decisions?

Classic Responses:

Two major ethical theories often come into conflict when addressing the Trolley Problem: Utilitarianism and Deontology.

Utilitarianism: This ethical framework, championed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, suggests that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever to save five lives at the expense of one is the correct choice because it results in the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, on the other hand, argues that actions must adhere to moral rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. A deontologist might argue that pulling the lever is morally wrong because it involves actively causing harm to an innocent person, violating their inherent rights. According to this view, one should not use individuals as a means to an end, even for a noble cause.