Trolley Experiment 1 Source: Thompson, Judith J. The Trolley Problem. Yale Law J

Question

Trolley Experiment 1 Source: Thompson, Judith J. The Trolley Problem. Yale Law Journal 94 (1985): 1395-1415. 1395. Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend, and there come into view ahead five track workmen, who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the brakes, but alas they don’t work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can turn (throw a switch/push a button) the trolley onto it, and thus save the five men on the straight track ahead. Unfortunately, … there is one track workman on that spur of track. He can no more get off the truck in time than the five can, so you will kill him if turn the trolley onto him.

Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley? What would you do?

Trolley Experiment 2 Source: Thompson, Judith J. The Trolley Problem. Yale Law Journal 94 (1985): 1395-1415. 1395. In another version of Trolley Experiment dilemma, the trolley is again rolling down the track, heading for a group of five people. This time, however, there is no switch or sidetrack. Instead, you are on a footbridge above the track. You consider jumping off the bridge, in front of the trolley, thus sacrificing yourself to save the five people in danger, but you realize that you are far too light to stop the trolley. Standing next to you, however, is a very large stranger. The only way you can stop the trolley killing five people is by pushing this large stranger in front of the trolley. He will be killed, but you will save the other five.

Is it morally permissible for you to push the stranger? What would you do? How these two situations differ?

Explanation / Answer

According to the Utilitarian argument it would be the rational and logical choice to select more men over the one, and that would be applicable in both the cases.

But, life is not as simple as that. All the solutions, including the one aforementioned, that appear rosey in theory are veritably very strenuous and tough in praxis.

Moral and ethics and not legal codes of laws that are adherent on every individual, but these aspects differ from each individual. Some think it is not a big deal and is thus ethical to cheat, and some believe it is a morally void decision. This is, of course, a mundane example and an oversimplification in comparison with the one mentioned above, but it makes the point: They differ from people to people.

The two situation differ from each other, but are very similar as well. They differ in terms of making a decision regarding someone elses life, which group deserves to live according to you; and, in the second situation, whether to ask a normal individual to sacrifice their lives, or worse push them without their consent which can be considered as second or third degree manslaughter.  

Both the situation are similar as well due to the calls that you are expected to make, the sacrifices that you will make with respect to the peoples lives who have no say in the above mentioned situation; as you are practically now driving the trolley of life, trolley of their life.

Is it morally permissible? No. Do you have a choice? Does not seem like it, which brings me back to the Utilitarian Argument.  

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.