Are you familiar with the trolley problem? According to one source, “The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics, psychology and artificial intelligence involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number.”
I find value in exploring one’s morals and ethics through use of this thought experiment. By “morals,” I’m referring to what a person considers good, bad, right, wrong, appropriate, inappropriate, etc.
Based on morals, “ethics” are essentially the rules one pledges to live by. As an example, I consider it a bad act to murder another person (moral) so I have a personal rule not to engage in such behavior (ethic). Given this framework, I present to you one version of the trolley problem:
Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise [sic] that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?
This scenario establishes a false dichotomy, giving the bystander an either-or option. Either you pull the lever and save five people or you do nothing and save one individual. As one source explains:
[T]he bystander has a third option: he can flip the switch to the left, diverting the trolley onto a left-hand spur of track on which he himself is trapped, thereby saving the five but killing himself.
All things being equal – presuming one cannot yell to the sole person in harm’s way or commit suicide – would you actively kill a person in order to save five people? Regarding this complex quandary, one source states:
The trolley dilemmas vividly distilled the distinction between two different concepts of morality: that we should choose the action with the best overall consequences (in philosophy-speak, utilitarianism is the most well-known example of this), like only one person dying instead of five, and the idea that we should always adhere to strict duties, like “never kill a human being.” The subtle differences between the scenarios provided helped to articulate influential concepts, like the distinction between actively killing someone versus passively letting them die, that continue to inform contemporary debates in law and public policy.
One of the reasons I appreciate the trolley problem is because it serves as an adequate distinction between unhelpful demandingness – generally present with should, must, or ought-type statements – and helpful forms of similar narratives. Absolutistic should narratives are largely unhelpful.
For instance, if I unreasonably demand, “Everyone should respect me,” I’m essentially stating that under no circumstances is it acceptable for people not to respect me. This is an unhelpful form of demandingness, because not everyone else believes they should respect me.
Therefore, when they violate my rigid dictate, I’ll likely disturb myself into an unpleasant condition such as anger. Given this understanding, I now turn to how one source describes helpful should statements:
[T]here are three valid uses of the word, “should”—the legal should, the laws of the universe should, and the moral / ethical should.
· Legal should: You should not drive at 100 miles per hour because you’ll get a ticket.
· Laws of universe should: If I drop this pen, it should fall to the floor due to the law of gravity.
· Moral / ethical should: “Thou shalt not kill,” which is straight from the Ten Commandments.
Concerning the trolley problem, a person’s subjective moral and ethical framework will determine whether or not one should or shouldn’t take action. Noteworthy, there is no verifiably objective moral code according to which all people are bound.
For instance, a person who believes that people shouldn’t directly take actions which would result in the death of another person may choose not to interfere by pulling a level to divert the trolley. Another individual may disagree by believing the ethical thing to do is save five lives versus one.
Regarding the trolley problem, one source adds that the experiment is “often used more loosely with regard to any choice that seemingly has a trade-off between what is good and what sacrifices are ‘acceptable,’ if at all.” The “if at all” caveat infers subjectivity.
Although people sometimes believe that as a psychotherapist I should favor their moral and ethical principles – or that I should somehow have all the answers to life’s dilemmas – I invite people to consider that I’m a fallible human being who uses subjectivity to guide me. As such, I maintain differing opinions and I can’t possibly know everything.
To suggest otherwise would be as senseless as some of the scenarios presented in the online absurd trolley problems animated adventure. Therefore, the answers you conclude in regards to the trolley problem may differ from mine.
And if so, that’s fine. There’s nothing objectively wrong if you would decide to kill the one person on the tracks, allow five people to die, or flip a coin to decide the fate of people who are – for some reason or another – located on trolley tracks.
The ultimate point I wish to covey herein is that in life there are many complex dilemmas for which there are seemingly no good or bad answers. Moreover, you have no actual control and very little influence over most matters in this lifetime.
Learning to tolerate and accept this truthful conclusion may better serve your interests and goals. If you would like to know more about how to practice Stoicism concluded herein, I’m available to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Burns, D. (2017, January 5). Should statements: Is there a moral / ethical dimension? Feeling Good. Retrieved from https://feelinggood.com/2017/01/05/should-statements-is-there-a-moral-ethical-dimension/
D’Olimpio, L. (2016, June 2). The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five? The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111
Davis, L. C. (2015, October 9). Would you pull the trolley switch? Does it matter? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/trolley-problem-history-psychology-morality-driverless-cars/409732/
Graham, P. A. (2017). Thompson’s trolley problem. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/227/188
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, March 13). Objective morality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Shoulding at the supermarket. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shoulding-at-the-supermarket
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoicism
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Merriam-Webster Incorporated. (n.d.). Next stop: ‘Trolley problem.’ Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics
Neal.Fun. (n.d.). Absurd trolley problems. Retrieved from https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
Odal. (2024, April 23). What’s the next episode? Oh, hypomanic [Image]. Playground. Retrieved from https://playground.com/post/whats-the-next-episode-oh-hypomanic-clvb909wj02a0s601usk72978
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Trolley problem. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem