The Trolley Problem
The trolley problem refers to a thought experiment frequently cited within philosophy and psychology. While it contains many variations, its central idea is based on decision-making. It describes a situation where the reader witnesses a trolley with dysfunctional brakes toward a switch in the tracks. At the same time, the current track has five people on it, while a different track has just one. If the trolley continues on the unchanged path, it will kill five people. If the switch is used, it will only kill one. The thought experiment offers the reader the option to switch the trolley’s path, with the decisions resulting in either one or five dead people. While there is no correct answer, killing one person is most often regarded as the better choice as you can sacrifice less. As such, the real theme of the problem resides in understanding that a trade-off is likely to exist in all scenarios and the debate of whether sacrifices are ever acceptable. On a more philosophical level, the problem asks whether active and passive killing differs in any real manner. This paper will present the view which supports the lack of the reader’s intervention.
Sacrifice
The debate regarding the sacrifice of one of few for the many has no decisive conclusion, both in real crisis scenarios and within thought experiments. However, their evidence has suggested that cultural and societal upbringing can influence such decisions. A study found that individuals within Europe, Australia, and the Americas were more likely to sacrifice one individual to save five. On the other hand, East Asian countries were much less likely to pull the switch, and it was often quoted as a ‘morally questionable’ view (University of Exeter). Interestingly, this was not due to the unwillingness to save more than less but because many responders were unwilling to sacrifice the lives of others for any purpose. The trolley problem in this study revealed the approaches to sacrifice and, by extent, even the importance of belonging to groups and communities.
Passive versus Active Harm
The thought experiment also provides perspectives of active and passive harm. The creator of the original problem, Phillipa Foot, believed that the switch was a form of passive harm that resulted in death while pushing the fat man; an alternative to the switch was active killing (Andrade). However, within many modern practices such as healthcare, psychology, and even warfare, these decisions have the potential to become blurred. While the acts may have differing methods, the result and intent remain the same. In the case of the problem, both the switch and the fat man are implemented by the reader in order to cause the death of one consciously.
While Protagoras’ beliefs cannot be applied directly to the trolley problem in order to hypothesize his own reply, out of his three statements, the second can assist in understanding the discourse. The statement declares that man can make a weaker argument appear or stronger (Bonazzi). As such, it can be said that it is the reader that attributes the value to sacrifice and the nature of the passive or active killing. On the other hand, Aquinas believed that sacrifice was integral due to religion, though it can be substituted for any other belief, such as the greater good or the welfare of society (BBC). Ge Hong’s works are deeply connected with Confucianism and Taoism, which uphold social harmony and nature as the agent of change (Michael 173). As such, even Ge Hong’s approach suggests a duality, as the trolley should be left on its path as intended in order to abide by nature, while the preservation of social peace and well-being is also prioritized.
Works Cited
Andrade, Gabriel. “Medical ethics and the trolley problem.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol.12, no.3, 2019. Web.
BBC. “Aquinas and the nature of humans.” BBC, 2022. Web.
Bonazzi, Mauro. “Protagoras.” Stanford, 2020. Web.
Michael, Thomas. Philosophical Enactment and Bodily Cultivation in Early Daoism. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
University of Exeter. “Trolley dilemma: When it’s acceptable to sacrifice one person to save others is informed by culture.” Phys, Web.