The tracks toward wisdom are Occam’s razor-sharp
By Max Belyantsev
The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment that questions our common perceptions of morality. In this article, I will investigate the moral implications of pulling the lever to save five people on one track but ultimately harm one person on another track. Ouch.
One common perspective is the utilitarian one. From such a perspective, a moral decision maximizes good for most people. The most straightforward approach to this problem might be to consider each life with equivalent worth. Then, we might say that preserving five human lives is better than preserving just one because five is greater than one.
However, some issues immediately come up. If the identities of the individuals on the tracks are not known, is it fair to assume that their lives are equally valued? Do we consider their past accomplishments, their present state, or their future potential? In any case, it is difficult to quantify the value of a life, much less compare several strangers’ lives. What if the one person who we saved was a serial killer who would go on to harm more individuals’ lives?
Next, we come to the question of responsibility. It is our deliberate action that puts one person’s life in grave danger, yet it is our deliberate action that saves the lives of five others. Are we responsible for the one unlucky person’s demise? If we had not acted at all, would that absolve us of responsibility? Perhaps not. It seems like we might be responsible whether we act or not since we are present and can choose to act. However, we are also not the ones directly harming them. (In fact, we assume that the harm is inevitable—there is no stopping the train, whether on one track or another.)
This scenario almost appears to be lose-lose: act and endanger five lives or refuse to act and endanger one. Now, the question becomes: do we have a moral obligation to act in a way that harms fewer people? A utilitarian perspective would probably respond in the affirmative—we are morally obliged to harm others less whenever possible. Remember the utilitarian maxim: moral actions promote the most good to the most people. This maxim does not examine our actions themselves but focuses on the results of our actions. The end justifies the means.
Given the split-second nature of the decision we are tasked with, the most plausible and reasonable action would be to pull the lever to save more lives. With more time and information, one could attempt to discern the values of each life on the tracks, but this is a very complicated metric that is nearly impossible to quantify in a way that makes sense. In this situation, Occam’s razor prevails. The simple idea that we ought to prevent as much devastating harm or loss of life as possible presents a rather compelling argument for pulling the lever. Thus, we might reluctantly put one in harm’s way for the “greater good” of five others. At any rate, nonchalantly shrugging our shoulders and saying, “Let Jesus take the wheel,” wouldn’t get us very far as we navigate the real world of complex moral decisions in our everyday lives.
