5.1 Approaches: The Trolley Dilemma
What's the solution?
You may well have heard of the trolley dilemma already. The most important thing to say about this is that it is not the solution that it is the key - it is there as an exercise to test our individual moral intuitions and how complex moral decision-making is. What might seem obvious to one person as the answer is anathema to another. A great place to explore that others can think differently and they are not necessarily wrong.
Virtue ethics: What do I want? How should I be? What does my character tell me to do? What is good for me?
Deontological: What is the right action? What does reason and moral law tell me is the right thing to do? Are my motives good?
Consequentialist (utilitarian): What would be the best outcome? What would be the best for the most number of people? What would be best for the good of society?
Situation ethics: In this situation, what does my love of God and of people tell me to do? What will be the moral consequence of my action/s?
Step 1: Exploring Utilitarianism with the Trolley dilemma
a) Introduce the Trolley problem by playing just the first minute of this video. Establish explicitly how this is an ethical dilemma: the CLASH of ethical principles where there is no clear solution.
b) Ask students to write down instinctively how they would act on a piece of paper (this can be anonymous) and hand in.
c) Depending on the group size and dynamic, ask students to discuss in pairs or small groups what they would do.
d) Use the last 3 minutes in reflection of your debate and pause as appropriate to check understanding and thoughts with students.
e) Ask the students to reflect how their understanding has developed; did their decision stay the same throughout or did they change it as the problem developed? As you explore more ethical dilemmas, you can revisit this and students can reflect how their thinking has changed.
Step 2: Group work - Applying the frameworks to the scenario
Exploring understanding of key ethical frameworks
The Trolley problem
- What questions would be asked from a teleological, deontological or consequentialist perspective?
- What course of action might this lead to?
Possible responses
Virtue ethics: What do I want? How should I be? What does my character tell me to do? What is good for me?
Deontological: What is the right action? What does reason and moral law tell me is the right thing to do? Are my motives good?
Consequentialist (utilitarian): What would be the best outcome? What would be the best for the most number of people? What would be best for the good of society?
Situation ethics: In this situation, what does my love of God and of people tell me to do? What will be the moral consequence
of my action/s?
In addition to the video above, this is another video from Dr. Todd May, that explores the ethical dilemmas in the comedy 'The Good Place'; here specifically utilitarianism and the trolley dilemma which the four characters come across. As said above, one of the characteristics of being in heaven is the inability to swear and words are immediately altered to something much tamer and nonsensical. There are further sources below that explore the trolley dilemma as well.
The Guardian article: Would you kill one person to save many others
There are different versions of this story which can prompt different responses and conclusions. This article from The Guardian explores how depending on the narrative of this dilemma, it can prompt a deontological or utilitarian response.
Version 1 of the Trolley Dilemma
'A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Adam diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved'.
Version 2 of the Trolley Dilemma
A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workers. Next to him on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to push this stranger off the footbridge and onto the tracks below where his large body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die if Adam does this, but the five workers will be saved.
Why is studying this interesting?
A decades-old thought experiment reveals our inconsistent moral intuitions. What would you do?
'The trolley problem highlights a fundamental tension between two schools of moral thought. The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Meanwhile, the deontological perspective asserts that certain actions – like killing an innocent person – are just wrong, even if they have good consequences. In both versions of the trolley problem above, utilitarians say you should sacrifice one to save five, while deontologists say you should not.
Psychological research shows that in the first version of the problem, most people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to flip the switch, killing one to save five. But in the second version of the problem, people lean deontological and believe it’s not acceptable to push a stranger to his death – again killing one to save five. What can explain this discrepancy?
Scientists think that our moral intuitions evolved to make us good social partners. Because we learn from a very young age that violence towards others is typically punished, our moral intuitions tell us it’s wrong to take actions that physically harm others. So in versions of the trolley problem that involve physical contact, like the footbridge case above, harming one to save many is generally less acceptable than in versions that do not involve such contact, like the switch case.
Another crucial difference between the switch case and the footbridge case is that the latter involves using a person as a means to an end. Treating others as individuals with their own rights, wishes and needs, rather than simply objects to be used at will, is a key aspect of being a good social partner. And there is evidence that people strongly distrust those who use others as a means to an end. Our moral intuitions seem to accord with this principle.
Critics of the trolley problem say it is too unrealistic to reveal anything important about real-life morality. But the rise of drones and self-driving cars makes the dilemma perhaps more relevant than ever before. For example, should a self-driving car protect the life of its passengers, even at the expense of a greater number of pedestrians? Here too, our intuitions are inconsistent: we want other people’s cars to maximize the number of lives saved – but think our own car should protect us at all costs. As our technologies become increasingly capable of making moral decisions, understanding our own moral intuitions becomes all the more crucial'.
The Guardian article: Would you kill one person to save many others