So, recently I have been watching this show called a show called ‘The Good Place’ on Netflix. Around the beginning on season 2 ( Episode 5 to be exact ), we are told about an ethical dilemma ; the trolley problem.
So what exactly is this trolley problem?
This is a thought experiment, modelling an ethical dilemma. Here is what the problem actually is:
You are on a runaway trolley barrelling down a railway track. Ahead there are five workers, unable to move from your way. There is a lever which can allow you to divert the train to another track. But there too there is a man working ( unable to move again ). What will you do?
What are my options?
You have two options here, either you can save one person and take the lives of the others, or save five lives and end one. Hence, there are two responses:
- The Utilitarian Response
Our duty is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Five lives saved is better than one life saved. Therefore, the right thing to do is to pull the lever.
2. The Deontological Response
This response 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, utilitarian’s say you should sacrifice one to save five, while deontologists say you should not.
Is there any solution for this?
Much to our annoyance, there isn’t any solution for this. Which means there is no right answer!
Once you know your answer, look at another version of the same problem.
Version 2:
The problem goes like this.
‘ You are on a runaway trolley barrelling down a railway track. Ahead there are five workers, unable to move from your way. Next to you there is a man who can stop the trolley, but in doing so his life will be lost. You can push him onto the track and save 5 men. What will you do?’
So, did your response change?
Like many other you might have too found yourself not pushing the man.
Why did this happen?
In the first version, you agreed with the utilitarian’s, but in the second one it just didn’t seem right to take away the life of an innocent bystander to save the men on the tracks. In version 2, you agreed with the Deontological Response.
More Versions
This problem has many other versions too. What if you knew someone on either of the tracks, will that affect your decision?
Let’s change the problem altogether, what if you are a doctor who can cure five people, but have to take the life of one in the process?
What if there is a child too?
Is this situation possible?
It is quite un-probable that you will find yourself in such a situation, since there are many other things you can do. You can pull the breaks, ask the men to move away, etc.
However that is not the point of this problem. This ethical dilemma nearly tries to examine how you and your brain decides how life-and-death situations could work out.
Planet Ayushi 16 