The Rubinshteinic Solution to the Trolley Problem

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis

The trolley problem explores the moral choice of diverting the runaway trolley to a side track, resulting in killing one person and saving five. The other choice, inaction, means letting five people die.

The experiment has a few practical limitations when applied to reality. It allows only these two choices; however, more options are possible, such as finding a way to halt the trolley. Real-life ethical dilemmas often involve causing "lesser" suffering to prevent a greater one. However, can we distinguish between "justified" and unnecessary harm?

An interesting aspect is the higher value placed on a leader's life than others, which is morally incorrect. Also, the trolley experiment ignores the legal implications and societal factors like a duty to act or punishment.

There is a third alternative to the trolley problem: don't intervene and don't sacrifice people for a greater cause. Instead, try to save them, get others to assist you, and become a courageous hero. Otherwise, if you are not strong enough, run away. The author lives life in a way that, for all costs, refuses to cause unnecessary suffering.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems)

(Background music)

A Flawed Framework for Real-World Dilemmas?

The trolley problem is a cornerstone of ethical thought experiments. It presents a grim scenario: a runaway trolley unintentionally towards a group of people, capable of running them over. You a mere bystander, have the chance to intervene and divert the trolley to a side track, killing only one person instead of five. Do you pull the lever, and why?

The problem's purpose is to explore the boundaries of morality, in situations where sacrifice is not to be assumed, but necessarily recognized. It forces us to consider the value of a single life versus multiple lives, and whether inaction is morally equivalent to causing harm.

However, the trolley problem presents a limited framework for real-world ethical dilemmas. Here's why:

• False Dichotomy of Action vs. Inaction: The scenario assumes you either act (pull the lever) and become a "murderer" or do nothing and be complicit in multiple deaths. In reality, ethical dilemmas often involve exploring options to reduce harm altogether. Perhaps alerting authorities, applying the emergency brake, or finding another way to stop the trolley exists. Why must we resort to the intentional murder of people? Must we choose the path of suffering in all cases? Can't a path with no unnecessary suffering, be found? And not only in such extreme cases... but in relationships, too. Must flowers bloom at the inevitable decline of others?

• Focus On Killing Vs. Saving: On the other hand... real-world dilemmas may involve causing harm to prevent a greater one. Think of self-defense or administering a painful medical procedure to save a life. Some adversity is, indeed, necessary, for a stronger mentality... As sad as it sounds. But can we really distinguish, between this "altruistic" suffering, and between one which is unnecessary from the start? Must we always start wars for a more peaceful future?

• Legal and Social Consequences: The thought experiment ignores the legal implications of the action. In most societies, the act of diverting the trolley wouldn't be considered murder, but rather an attempt to save lives. Social factors like duty to act or potential for punishment are also absent from the scenario. In a morally-depraved society, diverting the trolley will less likely to bring you the justice you may deserve.

• The "Leader Position: The argument that a single life, especially that of a leader, outweighs the lives of many is an interesting take. However, it simplifies leadership and societal structures. A leader's death wouldn't necessarily equate to societal collapse. Furthermore, the moral point of leadership is to help others, and not be above them in priority.

The Moral Maze

This reminds me of a joke I once heard: "Why did you kill him?" the judge asked. "I didn't do it, the gun did!" If a large-scale cannon is being recharged, why take the handle when you can't even abort its fire?

The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment that forces us to confront a terrible choice. And you will kill, if there are only two options. You will cause grief. And, you can even cause people, such as your victims' friends and family, be vengeful towards you, and plan your downfall. You cannot have a clear conscience, by partaking in this dilemma in its traditional form.

There is a third option. Must you intervene and cause death? Do nothing, and someone will perish. Someone however will perish even if you intervene. Avoid causing harm, and you can have a clearer conscience. Learn to let go of what will cause suffering either way, and you won't cause suffering in any direct way.

Do not take responsibility on a noble cause that is done on the exploitation of others. Do not make people victims for a greater cause. It's not worth the world you'll be creating in your actions... A world where wars, and the traumas that follow, deserve to be justified in the eyes of society. A world where people become but pawns for greater schemes, worthy to be discarded when they outlive their use in your plans.

Can you really look in the eyes of people, whose dear ones you've killed?

Can you take responsibility when you cause grief to others?

Why should we accept such a world where sacrificial suffering and trauma are justified? Where one is killed, so another would live?

Change the trajectory of the trolley, and you will kill. Run as fast as you can to the railways and scream in distress, and you might save them.

If they are tied, and you are not physically alone, then rally up the people around you quickly, and engulf the flame of life in their hearts, so as many of the trolley's victims will be saved!

Must we act alone? Why can't we employ others to assist us, in saving the lives of the distressed? Why must sacrifice of life be the only choice? Why shouldn't we work towards their rescue, even if it will risk us?

You need to get risks to get what you want! You want to save as many of them, then muster the strength within you, the courage, and do what it takes to increase the chance of people not dying overall! Do not work for death! Work for overall life!

Otherwise, stay out of this! If you are not strong enough to help others, run away! Heroism requires strength.

I prefer keep on saving people from the trolley that isself-sacrifice. I will NOT make another fall victim to self-sacrifice, just so others would not.

I prefer risking my own mentality, over causing pain, and even death, to another.

I prefer to distress myself than choosing who is to be distressed.

I don't want to cause unnecessary suffering....

I refuse.

Bonus Comment From "St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missle"

As a young person, I heard a variant of the trolly car problem.

A trolly car engineer had a child. The child liked to play upon the tracks. One morning, the engineer advised his child, "do not play on the tracks today. I will need to change the lanes, and the gears will crush you." Tragically, his child did not listen. The trolly car approached, and the child was playing carelessly amid the gears. The engineer faced a dilemma... let a train full of people derail and die, or kill his child.

As it was one of those paternalist sorts of messages, the engineer killed his child and the moral of the story was that children should listen to their parents (it wasn't a very good story).

Noticeably, this problem is nearly identical to the standard trolly car problem, and the act of taking his child's life is not justifiable. The confusion added to the problem of this child being the engineer's changes nothing about the moral impact of the dilemma.

When we see and bond with people, our instincts make us protective, accepting, and more ready to defend these people than others. This is a very natural survival instinct. Our same instinct causes us to dismiss outgroup positions within a fraction of a second.

This too is a survival instinct; to trust those who have built trust, and distrust those who have not built it (and such is also a morally defensible. Nobody is entitled to trust upon demand. Respect is owed. Trust is earned).

It becomes problematic when twisted by propaganda, that some people are "our people" and "other people" aren't. Indeed this is how all blood libel begins.

I think the truth is we are all each other's children. Imagine a modified version of the dilemma... Instead of careless play, what if the person's child comes under extreme stress of some kind, perhaps even duress, and the child intends to destroy the track and intentionally kill those on board? Is it justifiable then to take action to defend people against your own? Might it even be obligatory, as the original dilemma attempted to assert? Perhaps.... Every war is brother and sister against brother and sister. All conflict is friendly fire.

George Orwell said: "War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil." I disagree with him only to the extent that defending against a war is not a lesser evil. Defense becomes justifiable, perhaps even obligatory, by the circumstance of the unjust harm presented by the aggressor. It is the nature of the aggression, however, that justifies defense, never whether we are close to one side or another. We are all family.