Trolley Problems - Revisited

Trolley problems – revisited  This is a problem, an impossible problem,  purported to conflict with our moral system, which is only a part of one’s belief system. It is a part of how we solve problems.  See,http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/02/problem-solving-your-marvelous-brain.html and recent writings on impossible problems in this blog.

The original problem is due to Philippa Foot who devised the Trolley Problem in her article "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" (1967). You are at a railway switch high above the tracks, with the ability to route the oncoming train to one route or exactly one other.  You cannot stop the oncoming train.  On, say route A, there are five people basically tied to the tracks, meaning they cannot move from their current position.  On, say route B, there is but one person in a similar situation.  Whichever route the train follows, either five people or one person will die.  However, you can select which path the train should follow.  What will you do?  In studies, subjects were deeply conflicted by the decision, substantially on moral grounds.   Now, suppose you are standing alongside the “fat” man, who, if you will only will plunge him off the precipice fall in the path of the train, stopping it and saving all the other lives.  The only problem is that the fat man dies.  What do you do?  Similar studies indicate a stronger moral aversion to tossing the fat man into the path of the train. 

So, the main issue, the main impossible problem, seems to be one of morality, but morality is a component of our belief systems – in this case of what is right or wrong.   Or is it?  

One could assume the utilitarian viewpoint, which is to save the largest number of lives.  This is of course a valid reason for a this sort of selection.  If only it was not so fateful. 

Variations.   In this case you are at the switch, you are broke, your family is starving, and you are homeless and (1) there will be a newspaper article about your decision, or (2) you can fleece the dead victim(s) for money after the trolley renders them dead.  Grisly this may seem, it alters the conflict, in the first case possibly heightening it, and in the second case reducing it –or at least altering the utilitarian values.

A person with so such moral strain would not be in the slighted perplexed by this problem, and would encounter no dilemma or conflict.  This person may do nothing and just move away.  In the absence of such a situation, this becomes an impossible problem because one is asked to do (1) something well beyond experience, (2) possibly taking a life, and (3) making a decision where there is no apparent benefit, or good feeling for the participant.  Let's look at some other situations.

·         In times of dire stress such as war or pestilence, some parents have had to make a decision on which of their children to save.  Hopefully, we are never asked to so make this decision. 

·         Yet, doctors in a time of war do this all the time,  The doctor makes a rapid assessment (triage) of which of possibly several of the wounded either can survive with quick attention, will probably not survive with any attention, and who can wait more time before treatment. The doctor is in the almost same trolley situation – with slight adjustment owing to knowledge about patients.

·         Similarly, the executive must make decisions on who should be fired or laid of and do it quickly. Of course, this is not life and death.  With some experience, the executive will do this without conflicts.  We can enhance the impossibility by the added assumption that the reason for the lay-off is not the dire condition of the company but for the sheer motive of more profit.  For most of this, an impossible problem, is on hand, but not so for the trained executive. Such people will calculate quickly and either make the excisions or resign.  

·         The advertising manager must develop programs to promote products that are clearly unhealthy or dangerous.  They are taught to override the conflict by focusing on a single  issue, the product.  

·         The attorney, prosecution or defense, often makes certain choices on behalf of the defendant or state when there is reasonable certainty that malfeasance is in play, or that the client will surely commit other heinous crimes.  Again, in most cases, the moral, ethical, or conflict is trained out, extirpated, of the attorney while still in law school.  In other cases, harmful decisions would be made perhaps in the interest of ambition.

Other professions facing impossible problems due to client-privilege relations: psychologists, priests (in confession).  In these cases the ethics of morality is fully covered in courses of study.  The newly minted professional enters his/her profession fully equipped for such problems.
 

Variations on the trolley problem include (A) Offering up oneself in giving your own life to save the others. (Thompson, Ricci) (B) There is a second person some distance away but who can  see everything, to whom you shout.  “How do I set the switch?”  Does this make the moral choice easier, or otherwise said.  Does this affect the impossibility of the problem for either? The one becomes for the one an impossible ethical problem, while for the other an imposible moral problem. 

Conclusion. The trolley problems are basically toy problems, because they are problems of morality to which the vast majority of people have no familiarity, much less experience. We should offer a course on impossible problems, which could include a full section on morality type versions. There can be no training for all possibilities, though there can be an awareness of the dilemmas generated by the trolley problem.Nonetheless, a satisfactory solution is not available without serious impact on the decision-maker.