The Trolley Problem

🧠 The Classic Trolley Problem (Refresher)

Five people who are pinned to the main track are being pursued by a runaway trolley. You are standing at a switch. If you pull it, the trolley will divert to a sidetrack, where one person is tied down.

There are two options: Do nothing, letting five people die.

One person was killed when you pulled the lever, actively redirecting the trolley. ⚖️ Moral Frameworks in Play

Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)

Morality is based on outcomes.

Action: Pull the lever to maximize overall good (saving five over one).

Problem: If it benefits the majority, it justifies sacrificing individuals. Deontological Ethics (Kantian ethics)

Rather than consequences, morality is founded on duty, rights, and rules. Action: Don't get involved. Killing is wrong even if it saves more.

Problem: It could have a negative impact on society as a whole. Virtue Ethics emphasizes the moral character of the person making the decision. What would an ethical or "good" person do? Act with compassion, courage, wisdom.

Outcome may vary depending on the perceived virtues.

Doctrine of Double Effect

You may cause harm as a side effect, but not as a means to an end.

Because the death is a byproduct rather than the tool, pulling the lever is morally superior to pushing a person off a bridge. 🧩 Complex Variations

🔁 The Loop Variant

A loop of track connects back to the five people.

The trolley would be stopped by a large person on a sidetrack, saving the five. In this case, his death is not a side effect but rather the means by which others are saved. raises deeper concerns regarding intent: the choice between means and ends. 🧍 The Fat Man Variant

A trolley is heading toward five people.

You are on a bridge with a large man whose body, if pushed, would stop the trolley. There is no lever; you must push him physically. Killing is more personal and direct. Most people say pushing is worse than pulling a lever—why?

🎯 Modified Knowledge Problem

You don’t know if the five people are criminals, and the one person is a doctor.

Or maybe the one person is your child.

Should your choice be influenced by your personal relationships or social roles? 🛑 Passive Bystander Variation

What if doing nothing isn’t really neutral?

Choosing not to act may also be seen as a form of moral responsibility.

Raises the question: Is omission different from commission?

Current Applications 🚗 Autonomous Vehicles

A self-driving car must choose between hitting pedestrians or sacrificing its passengers.

Who programs the ethics? Who is liable?

Should the car prioritize passengers, pedestrians, or maximize life saved?

🏥 Medical Ethics

A surgeon can save five patients by harvesting organs from one healthy person. Do they have to? Same numbers as the trolley problem, but context makes it feel morally unacceptable.

🔍 Meta-Ethical Questions

Is there a correct answer?

Some philosophers argue these thought experiments are intuitively impossible to solve because human moral reasoning is context-sensitive and emotionally driven.

Are moral intuitions reliable?

Moral psychologists contend that our instinctive responses may be relics of evolution that are neither rational nor consistent. Can AI be moral agents?

Do AI systems require a moral theory to make decisions about life and death? Should they emulate human morality?

🧠 Summary

The trolley problem goes far beyond its simple setup. It reveals deep tensions in moral philosophy:

Consequences vs. principles

Intentions vs. outcomes

Logic versus emotion Personal vs. impersonal morality

It questions not only what we believe to be right, but also why we believe it.

🔬 Advanced Trolley Scenario: "The Triage Dilemma"

Scenario: A runaway trolley is headed toward five people tied to the main track.

You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto a different track. But this time, on that track are two people:

Person A: A 75-year-old retired professor.

Person B is a 25-year-old mother of two young children who has a history of criminal activity. In the meantime, the five people on the main track are as follows: Two elderly individuals

Two middle-aged adults

One 12-year-old child

You can kill two to save five by pulling the lever, but who those people are now is important.

🌍 Cross-Cultural Moral Reasoning

Psychological studies (e.g., by MIT's Moral Machine) show cultural variations:

Cultural/Regional Tendency in General Western (e.g. USA, Germany) Favor utilitarian solutions (more likely to pull the lever). Asian (such as Japan and China: Social harmony, duty, and elder respect are more likely to be prioritized. may be reluctant to act. Middle Eastern & South Asian Value community and family ties. Might prioritize a known individual over strangers. Latin American Emphasize emotional intuition and care ethics, often resisting abstract dilemmas.

So, depending on culture, age, gender, and even how the situation is framed, who lives and who dies can change.

🧠 Final Thoughts

The Trolley Problem is a mirror to our moral systems, not trains or levers. As soon as you add:

Age

Identity

Responsibility

Culture

Relationships

Technology

…the problem becomes not only more realistic but far more personal.