I understand that many of you might be tired of discussing it, but I feel compelled to revisit the “trolley problem” and look at it from a different point-of-view. The original situation we investigated involved five people tied to a trolley track facing impending death, and we had the option to throw a switch and send the train onto an alternate track which would result in the death of one person. I asked myself, what if, instead being in the precarious position of choosing to “not save” one person or five, I was one of the six people whose lives hung in the balance in this unfortunate hypothetical scenario? How would I want the person at the switch to act in the context of justice?
First, what would our current three philosophers say? Hume says justice is based on the sentiment of moral sympathy, which is a principle of human nature and that, when making moral judgments we assess the usefulness and agreeableness of an action for the good of the whole. However, we do not have a natural inclination to always be just because sometimes it is against our own interests. Mill’s Utilitarianism is in concordance with the first part, i.e. we should act in a way that produces the greatest amount of pleasure for most and the least amount of pain. Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that we should act only in such a way that we can will the maxim of an action as a universal law.
So, as a victim of a train-track-tying terrorist, what would I want my possible savior to do? If I were included in the group of five, which our class agreed should be saved based on the utilitarian principle, I of course would want the person at the switch to save my group. This action seems to be just according to Mill, Hume, and Kant—the greatest amount of people are saved (implying that it creates a greater amount of happiness for more people and that it is more useful and agreeable for everyone involved), and it seems reasonable to will as a universal law saving five lives instead of one when given the choice. And, naturally, I would be happy because I would still be alive.
The real question is, what if I were the lone person tied to the alternate track? Like Hume says, my natural inclination toward justice would be obstructed because it is clearly in my self-interest to want my own life to be spared. But this, assuming that the other five people are intrinsically no better or worse than me and our families and friends would experience comparable amounts of suffering, is clearly unjust according to the principles of our philosophers. Would I, as the only victim out of six who actually dies, be able to recognize and accept my fate as a sacrifice in the name of justice? Would you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This example, is a good way of making the trolly problem even more personal. The question of, what if i were a person on the tracks, is an interesting one, and well thought out by yourself.But, i would conclude with Kant that this is solved by the principle of the law of necessity. That no matter which track you were on, your own life would take precedence, and you would feel the need to save yourself.
ReplyDeleteI agree--as the victim of an unjust act, the lone person tied to the tracks wouldn't really be dealing with acting "justly" or "unjustly" because the only action they can take is to try and save his or herself, or to not try. This follows the law of necessity in which justice would not apply or even exist because there could be no decision more compelling than saving one's self.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a more applicable to justness is the question: if you were tied to the tracks with the switch within your reach, would you knowingly pull the switch to save those five, knowing that you had no chance of escape?
Dying to save others is tough, but not unthinkable. Firefighter, bomb-defusers, cops, swat, all knowingly put themselves on that track every day for "the greater good" or happiness. Thinking about those situations in the first person is a good idea, because it becomes that much more real, and the emotions and consequences that much more realizable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Walter in that we should put ourselves directly in the line of death in the example. I believe one's answer lies directly in there life-view. If one takes an egoistic approach, considering their own happiness and pleasure the constant goal of their life, then most likely they would rather the others be killed. Having studies religions in India, Hindus would have a much easier time accepting death because of their belief in rebirth and the continuance of life.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't know if there really is a correct or just answer, considering you cannot expect someone who believes in an afterlife to have the same rational process as an atheist who believes there is nothing after death.
is this another instance of Kant's anti-suicide stance, that a rational human being would have to will that they be saved in the trolley problem? If you are the lone person on one track, with 5 people tied to the other, would Kant say that you must wish for no one to flip the switch even though it would mean that 5 people would die instead of one?
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts, it does change the problem a lot to make it personal.
I'm not entirely convinced that Kant's sense of ethics so easily interacts with the more utilitarian conceptions of Hume and Mill, since this situation implies that one must choose to kill either the six or the one with complete certainty of outcome, a situations hardly ever replicated in reality. One is tempted to suggest that Kantian ethics require that the subject of this dilemma not interfere, but this contention depends on whether inaction is considered equally morally cupable as a positive action. Furthermore, from the point of view of those on the track, the question may be ethical but is not really one of justice, since their own instincts of self-preservation are paramount over any conception of justice, according to Kant. I may will that I be killed instead of the other, but such is charity rather than justice.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you willing yourself to die in order to save the five would really be in the name of justice. As Patrick mentioned, it doesn't seem that justice applies to this situation, since it would fall under the right of necessity. And as mentioned in the blog, self-interest and your natural desire to live would cloud your judgment in Hume's view. And as Kant says, we cannot say that your action is right, since we don't know what consequences will really occur. I think imaging yourself tied to the tracks just makes it more personal and harder to choose, especially when Mathilde brings up the example of being within reach of the switch.
ReplyDelete