When I tell people I have a minor in philosophy, they often ask me if it has any practical purpose. Since I mainly study in the field of ethics, I’d like to think that determining what is right and wrong has at least some relevance in the real world. But whenever I try to explain this, I inevitably end up referencing at least one ethical dilemma. One of the most popular ethical dilemmas that I often reference is known as “The Trolley Problem.”
The Trolley Problem is an ethical dilemma created by a 20th century philosopher named Philippa Foot. It goes like this: You’re standing alongside some railway tracks, and you see a runaway trolley coming from one direction. You realize that if the runaway trolley continues on its present course, it will hit and kill five people who are working on the tracks up ahead. Next to you is a lever, which if pulled, will divert the runaway trolley onto another set of railway tracks. This will save the five people on the original set of railway tracks, but it will inadvertently kill one person standing on the tracks that the lever redirects the trolley onto. Knowing this, do you pull the lever and save the lives of five people for the cost of one other person’s life?
Most people claim that they would pull the lever, even if it means ending the life of someone who’s not initially at risk. But there’s a second part to The Trolley Problem. For the second part, there is only one set of tracks and no lever in sight. You are instead standing next to a large man, and both of you are on a bridge over the tracks. On one side of the bridge, there are five people working on the tracks (again). And on the other side, there is a runaway trolley heading towards them. You realize that if you push the large man over the bridge, his massive size will stop the trolley from hitting and killing the five people on the tracks, but he will die instead. Do you push the large man over the bridge to save those five people?
Unlike in the first part of The Trolley Problem, most people refuse to save five lives for the cost of one in the second part. The main difference, of course, is that in the second part, you have a much more active role in that one particular death. Instead of pulling a lever and possibly not even seeing that one person die, you have to push the large man over the bridge, completely by surprise and against his will. In other words, you essentially murder him. But should we call it murder if you kill him to save five people?
Now philosophers don’t argue about ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem because they believe they will encounter such absurd situations in real life. The Trolley Problem is merely a way to consider the value of human life, as well as a way to decide whether or not ending a life for the sake of saving several other lives is justified. Such considerations and decisions can be found in issues of law, war, and even medicine, so they certainly deserve our attention.
